He laments that he has no letter from an editor to read (like the last
speaker), and tells a story of a Methodist, on request, praying for rain;
and when a terrible storm came, the man who asked, was heard to murmur:
"How these Methodists do exaggerate." This was to show the excellence of
the dinner. Two other stories were used by the speaker, about the length
and discursiveness of his talk. The people need and will read deep,
accurate, and scholarly productions. There ought to be a general paper for
such. Something has been done in that direction by two religious papers.
The speaker treated his topic by giving a semi-humorous review of the
preceding speeches. He showed how denominational traits affected each
item in the work of the paper. He did not make just the kind of a paper
_he_ liked best, for some people were of the same taste as Artemus
Ward, who always ordered _hash_ at a restaurant, because he then knew
what he was getting! The speaker also referred ironically to the mistaken
idea that church papers could not pay, and gave striking instances to the
contrary. He concluded that denominational papers may be as successful in
their line as those purely undenominational and independent.