[* Our "Royal Bob" was found by _The Gazette_, in the gloaming of
a delicious evening, during the past week, within the open portals
of his friendly residence, dedicated by the gracious presence within
to a simple and cordial hospitality, to the charms of friendship and
the freedom of an abounding comradeship. With intellectual and
untrammeled life, a generous, wise and genial host, whoever enters
finds a welcome, seasoned with kindly wit and Attic humor, a poetic
insight and a delicious frankness which renders an evening there a
veritable symposium. The wayfarer who passes is charmed, and he who
comes frequently, goes always away with delighted memories.
What matters it that we differ? such as he and his make our common
life the sweeter. An hour or two spent in the attractive parlors
of the Ingersoll homestead, amid that rare group, lends a newer
meaning to the idea of home and a more secure beauty to the fact
of family life. During the past exciting three weeks Colonel
Ingersoll has been a busy man. He holds no office. No position
could lend him an additional crown and even recognition is no longer
necessary. But it has been well that amid the first fierce fury
of anger and excitement, and the subsequent more bitter if not as
noble outpouring of faction's suspicions and innuendoes, that so
manly a man, so sagacious a counsellor, has been enabled to hold
so positive a balance. Cabinet officers, legal functionaries,
detectives, citizens--all have felt the wise, humane instincts,
and the capacious brain of this marked man affecting and influencing
for this fair equipoise and calmer judgment.
Conversing freely on the evening of this visit, Colonel Ingersoll,
in the abundance of his pleasure at the White House news, submitted
to be interviewed, and with the following result.]
_Question_. By-the-way, Colonel, you knew Guiteau slightly, we
believe. Are you aware that it has been attempted to show that
some money loaned or given him by yourself was really what he
purchased the pistol with?
_Answer_. I knew Guiteau slightly; I saw him for the first time
a few days after the inauguration. He wanted a consulate, and
asked me to give him a letter to Secretary Blaine. I refused, on
the ground that I didn't know him. Afterwards he wanted me to lend
him twenty-five dollars, and I declined. I never loaned him a
dollar in the world. If I had, I should not feel that I was guilty
of trying to kill the President. On the principle that one would
hold the man guilty who had innocently loaned the money with which
he bought the pistol, you might convict the tailor who made his
clothes. If he had had no clothes he would not have gone to the
depot naked, and the crime would not have been committed. It is
hard enough for the man who did lend him the money to lose that,
without losing his reputation besides. Nothing can exceed the
utter absurdity of what has been said upon this subject.
_Question_. How did Guiteau impress you and what have you remembered,
Colonel, of his efforts to reply to your lectures?
_Answer_. I do not know that Guiteau impressed me in any way. He
appeared like most other folks in search of a place or employment.
I suppose he was in need. He talked about the same as other people,
and claimed that I ought to help him because he was from Chicago.
The second time he came to see me he said that he hoped I had no
prejudice against him on account of what he had said about me. I
told him that I never knew he had said anything against me. I
suppose now that he referred to what he had said in his lectures.
He went about the country replying to me. I have seen one or two
of his lectures. He used about the same arguments that Mr. Black
uses in his reply to my article in the _North American Review_,
and denounced me in about the same terms. He is undoubtedly a man
who firmly believes in the Old Testament, and has no doubt concerning
the New. I understand that he puts in most of his time now reading
the Bible and rebuking people who use profane language in his
presence.
_Question_. You most certainly do not see any foundation for the
accusations of preachers like Sunderland, Newman and Power, _et
al_, that the teaching of a secular liberalism has had anything to
do with the shaping of Guiteau's character or the actions of his
vagabond life or the inciting to his murderous deeds?
_Answer_. I do not think that the sermon of Mr. Power was in good
taste. It is utterly foolish to charge the "Stalwarts" with
committing or inciting the crime against the life of the President.
Ministers, though, as a rule, know but little of public affairs,
and they always account for the actions of people they do not like
or agree with, by attributing to them the lowest and basest motives.
This is the fault of the pulpit--always has been, and probably
always will be. The Rev. Dr. Newman of New York, tells us that
the crime of Guiteau shows three things: First, that ignorant men
should not be allowed to vote; second, that foreigners should not
be allowed to vote; and third, that there should not be so much
religious liberty.
It turns out, first, the Guiteau is not an ignorant man; second,
that he is not a foreigner; and third, that he is a Christian.
Now, because an intelligent American Christian tries to murder the
President, this person says we ought to do something with ignorant
foreigners and Infidels. This is about the average pulpit logic.
Of course, all the ministers hate to admit the Guiteau was a
Christian; that he belonged to the Young Men's Christian Association,
or at least was generally found in their rooms; that he was a
follower of Moody and Sankey, and probably instrumental in the
salvation of a great many souls. I do not blame them for wishing
to get rid of this record. What I blame them for is that they are
impudent enough to charge the crime of Guiteau upon Infidelity.
Infidels and Atheists have often killed tyrants. They have often
committed crimes to increase the liberty of mankind; but the history
of the world will not show an instance where an Infidel or an
Atheist has assassinated any man in the interest of human slavery.
Of course, I am exceedingly glad that Guiteau is not an Infidel.
I am glad that he believes the Bible, glad that he has delivered
lectures against what he calls Infidelity, and glad that he has
been working for years with the missionaries and evangelists of
the United States. He is a man of small brain, badly balanced.
He believes the Bible to be the word of God. He believes in the
reality of heaven and hell. He believes in the miraculous. He is
surrounded by the supernatural, and when a man throws away his
reason, of course no one can tell what he will do. He is liable
to become a devotee or an assassin, a saint or a murderer; he may
die in a monastery or in a penitentiary.
_Question_. According to your view, then, the species of fanaticism
taught in sectarian Christianity, by which Guiteau was led to assert
that Garfield dead would be better off then living--being in Paradise
--is more responsible than office seeking or political factionalism
for his deed?
_Answer_. Guiteau seemed to think that the killing of the President
would only open the gates of Paradise to him, and that, after all,
under such circumstances, murder was hardly a crime. This same
kind of reasoning is resorted to in the pulpit to account for death.
If Guiteau had succeeded in killing the President, hundreds of
ministers would have said, "After all, it may be that the President
has lost nothing; it may be that our loss is his eternal gain; and
although it seems cruel that Providence should allow a man like
him to be murdered, still, it may have been the very kindest thing
that could have been done for him." Guiteau reasoned in this way,
and probably convinced himself, judging from his own life, that
this world was, after all, of very little worth. We are apt to
measure others by ourselves. Of course, I do not think Christianity
is responsible for this crime. Superstition may have been, in part
--probably was. But no man believes in Christianity because he
thinks it sanctions murder. At the same time, an absolute belief
in the Bible sometimes produces the worst form of murder. Take
that of Mr. Freeman, of Poeasset, who stabbed his little daughter
to the heart in accordance with what he believed to be the command
of God. This poor man imitated Abraham; and, for that matter,
Jehovah himself. There have been in the history of Christianity
thousands and thousands of such instances, and there will probably
be many thousands more that have been and will be produced by
throwing away our own reason and taking the word of some one else
--often a word that we do not understand.
_Question_. What is your opinion as to the effect of praying for
the recovery of the President, and have you any confidence that
prayers are answered?
_Answer_. My opinion as to the value of prayer is well known. I
take it that every one who prays for the President shows at least
his sympathy and good will. Personally, I have no objection to
anybody's praying. Those who think their prayers are answered
should pray. For all who honestly believe this, and who honestly
implore their Deity to watch over, protect, and save the life of
the President, I have only the kindliest feelings.
It may be that a few will pray to be seen of men; but I suppose
that most people on a subject like this are honest. Personally,
I have not the slightest idea of the existence of the supernatural.
Prayer may affect the person who prays. It may put him in such a
frame of mind that he can better bear disappointment than if he
had not prayed; but I cannot believe that there is any being who
hears and answers prayer.
When we remember the earthquakes that have devoured, the pestilences
that have covered the earth with corpses, and all the crimes and
agonies that have been inflicted upon the good and weak by the bad
and strong, it does not seem possible that anything can be accomplished
by prayer. I do not wish to hurt the feelings of anyone, but I
imagine that I have a right to my own opinion. If the President
gets well it will be because the bullet did not strike an absolutely
vital part; it will be because he has been well cared for; because
he has had about him intelligent and skillful physicians, men who
understood their profession. No doubt he has received great support
from the universal expression of sympathy and kindness. The
knowledge that fifty millions of people are his friends has given
him nerve and hope. Some of the ministers, I see, think that God
was actually present and deflected the ball. Another minister
tells us that the President would have been assassinated in a
church, but that God determined not to allow so frightful a crime
to be committed in so sacred an edifice. All this sounds to me
like perfect absurdity--simple noise. Yet, I presume that those
who talk in this way are good people and believe what they say.
Of course, they can give no reason why God did not deflect the ball
when Lincoln was assassinated. The truth is, the pulpit first
endeavors to find out the facts, and then to make a theory to fit
them. Whoever believes in a special providence must, of necessity,
by illogical and absurd; because it is impossible to make any
theological theory that some facts will not contradict.
_Question_. Won't you give us, then, Colonel, your analysis of
this act, and the motives leading to it?
_Answer_. I think Guiteau wanted an office and was refused. He
became importunate. He was, substantially, put out of the White
House. He became malicious. He made up his mind to be revenged.
This, in my judgment, is the diagnosis of his case. Since he has
been in jail he has never said one word about having been put out
of the White House; he is lawyer enough to know he must not furnish
any ground for malice. He is a miserable, malicious and worthless
wretch, infinitely egotistical, imagines that he did a great deal
toward the election of Garfield, and upon being refused the house
a serpent of malice coiled in his heart, and he determined to be
revenged. That is all!
_Question_. Do you, in any way, see any reason or foundation for
the severe and bitter criticisms made against the Stalwart leaders
in connection with this crime? As you are well known to be a friend
of the administration, while not unfriendly to Mr. Conkling and
those acting with him, would you mind giving the public your opinion
on this point?
_Answer_. Of course, I do not hold Arthur, Conkling and Platt
responsible for Guiteau's action. In the first excitement a thousand
unreasonable things were said; and when passion has possession of
the brain, suspicion is a welcome visitor.
I do not think that any friend of the administration really believes
Conkling, Platt and Arthur responsible in the slightest degree.
Conkling wished to prevent the appointment of Robertson. The
President stood by his friend. One thing brought on another, Mr.
Conkling petulantly resigned, and made the mistake of his life.
There was a good deal of feeling, but, of course, no one dreamed
that the wretch, Guiteau, was lying in wait for the President's
life. In the first place, Guiteau was on the President's side,
and was bitterly opposed to Conkling. Guiteau did what he did from
malice and personal spite. I think the sermon preached last Sunday
in the Campbellite Church was unwise, ill advised, and calculated
to make enemies instead of friends. Mr. Conkling has been beaten.
He has paid for the mistake he made. If he can stand it, I can;
and why should there be any malice on the subject? Exceedingly
good men have made mistakes, and afterward corrected them.
_Question_. Is it not true, Colonel Ingersoll, that the lesson of
this deed is to point the real and overwhelming need of re-knitting
and harmonizing the factions?
_Answer_. There is hardly enough faction left for "knitting."
The party is in harmony now. All that is necessary is to stop
talking. The people of this country care very little as to who
holds any particular office. They wish to have the Government
administered in accordance with certain great principles, and they
leave the fields, the shops, and the stores once in four years,
for the purpose of attending to that business. In the meantime,
politicians quarrel about offices. The people go on. They plow
fields, they build homes, they open mines, they enrich the world,
they cover our country with prosperity, and enjoy the aforesaid
quarrels. But when the time comes, these gentlemen are forgotten.
Principles take the place of politicians, and the people settle
these questions for themselves.
--_Sunday Gazette_, Washington, D. C., July 24, 1881.