_Question_. What is your opinion of Brewster's administration?
_Answer_. I hardly think I ought to say much about the administration
of Mr. Brewster. Of course many things have been done that I
thought, and still think, extremely bad; but whether Mr. Brewster
was responsible for the things done, or not, I do not pretend to
say. When he was appointed to his present position, there was
great excitement in the country about the Star Route cases, and
Mr. Brewster was expected to prosecute everybody and everything to
the extent of the law; in fact, I believe he was appointed by reason
of having made such a promise. At that time there were hundreds
of people interested in exaggerating all the facts connected with
the Star Route cases, and when there were no facts to be exaggerated,
they made some, and exaggerated them afterward. It may be that
the Attorney-General was misled, and he really supposed that all
he heard was true. My objection to the administration of the
Department of Justice is, that a resort was had to spies and
detectives. The battle was not fought in the open field. Influences
were brought to bear. Nearly all departments of the Government
were enlisted. Everything was done to create a public opinion in
favor of the prosecution. Everything was done that the cases might
be decided on prejudice instead of upon facts.
Everything was done to demoralize, frighten and overawe judges,
witnesses and jurors. I do not pretend to say who was responsible,
possibly I am not an impartial judge. I was deeply interested at
the time, and felt all of these things, rather than reasoned about
them.
Possibly I cannot give a perfectly unbiased opinion. Personally,
I have no feeling now upon the subject.
The Department of Justice, in spite of its methods, did not succeed.
That was enough for me. I think, however, when the country knows
the facts, that the people will not approve of what was done. I
do not believe in trying cases in the newspapers before they are
submitted to jurors. That is a little too early. Neither do I
believe in trying them in the newspapers after the verdicts have
been rendered. That is a little too late.
_Question_. What are Mr. Blaine's chances for the presidency?
_Answer_. My understanding is that Mr. Blaine is not a candidate
for the nomination; that he does not wish his name to be used in
that connection. He ought to have been nominated in 1876, and if
he were a candidate, he would probably have the largest following;
but my understanding is, that he does not, in any event, wish to
be a candidate. He is a man perfectly familiar with the politics
of this country, knows its history by heart, and is in every respect
probably as well qualified to act as its Chief Magistrate as any
man in the nation. He is a man of ideas, of action, and has positive
qualities. He would not wait for something to turn up, and things
would not have to wait long for him to turn them up.
_Question_. Who do you think will be nominated at Chicago?
_Answer_. Of course I have not the slightest idea who will be
nominated. I may have an opinion as to who ought to be nominated,
and yet I may be greatly mistaken in that opinion. There are
hundreds of men in the Republican party, any one of whom, if elected,
would make a good, substantial President, and there are many
thousands of men about whom I know nothing, any one of whom would
in all probability make a good President. We do not want any man
to govern this country. This country governs itself. We want a
President who will honestly and faithfully execute the laws, who
will appoint postmasters and do the requisite amount of handshaking
on public occasions, and we have thousands of men who can discharge
the duties of that position. Washington is probably the worst
place to find out anything definite upon the subject of presidential
booms. I have thought for a long time that one of the most valuable
men in the country was General Sherman. Everybody knows who and
what he is. He has one great advantage--he is a frank and outspoken
man. He has opinions and he never hesitates about letting them be
known. There is considerable talk about Judge Harlan. His dissenting
opinion in the Civil Rights case has made every colored man his
friend, and I think it will take considerable public patronage to
prevent a good many delegates from the Southern States voting for
him.
_Question_. What are your present views on theology?
_Answer_. Well, I think my views have not undergone any change
that I know of. I still insist that observation, reason and
experience are the things to be depended upon in this world. I
still deny the existence of the supernatural. I still insist that
nobody can be good for you, or bad for you; that you cannot be
punished for the crimes of others, nor rewarded for their virtues.
I still insist that the consequences of good actions are always
good, and those of bad actions always bad. I insist that nobody
can plant thistles and gather figs; neither can they plant figs
and gather thistles. I still deny that a finite being can commit
an infinite sin; but I continue to insist that a God who would
punish a man forever is an infinite tyrant. My views have undergone
no change, except that the evidence of that truth constantly
increases, and the dogmas of the church look, if possible, a little
absurder every day. Theology, you know, is not a science. It
stops at the grave; and faith is the end of theology. Ministers
have not even the advantage of the doctors; the doctors sometimes
can tell by a post-mortem examination whether they killed the man
or not; but by cutting a man open after he is dead, the wisest
theologians cannot tell what has become of his soul, and whether
it was injured or helped by a belief in the inspiration of the
Scriptures. Theology depends on assertion for evidence, and on
faith for disciples.
--_The Tribune_, Denver, Colorado, January 17, 1886.