_Question_. What will be the main issues in the next presidential
campaign?
_Answer_. I think that the principal issues will be civil rights
and protection for American industries. The Democratic party is
not a unit on the tariff question--neither is the Republican; but
I think that a majority of the Democrats are in favor of free trade
and a majority of Republicans in favor of a protective tariff.
The Democratic Congressmen will talk just enough about free trade
to frighten the manufacturing interests of the country, and probably
not quite enough to satisfy the free traders. The result will be
that the Democrats will talk about reforming the tariff, but will
do nothing but talk. I think the tariff ought to be reformed in
many particulars; but as long as we need to raise a great revenue
my idea is that it ought to be so arranged as to protect to the
utmost, without producing monopoly in American manufacturers. I
am in favor of protection because it multiplies industries; and I
am in favor of a great number of industries because they develop
the brain, because they give employment to all and allow us to
utilize all the muscle and all the sense we have. If we were all
farmers we would grow stupid. If we all worked at one kind of
mechanic art we would grow dull. But with a variety of industries,
with a constant premium upon ingenuity, with the promise of wealth
as the reward of success in any direction, the people become
intelligent, and while we are protecting our industries we develop
our brains. So I am in favor of the protection of civil rights by
the Federal Government, and that, in my judgment, will be one of
the great issues in the next campaign.
_Question_. I see that you say that one of the great issues in
the coming campaign will be civil rights; what do you mean by that?
_Answer_. Well, I mean this. The Supreme Court has recently
decided that a colored man whose rights are trampled upon, in a
State, cannot appeal to the Federal Government for protection.
The decision amounts to this: That Congress has no right until a
State has acted, and has acted contrary to the Constitution. Now,
if a State refuses to do anything upon the subject, what is the
citizen to do? My opinion is that the Government is bound to
protect its citizens, and as a consideration for this protection,
the citizen is bound to stand by the Government. When the nation
calls for troops, the citizen of each State is bound to respond,
no matter what his State may think. This doctrine must be maintained,
or the United States ceases to be a nation. If a man looks to his
State for protection, then he must go with his State. My doctrine
is, that there should be patriotism upon the one hand, and protection
upon the other. If a State endeavors to secede from the Union, a
citizen of that State should be in a position to defy the State
and appeal to the Nation for protection. The doctrine now is, that
the General Government turns the citizen over to the State for
protection, and if the State does not protect him, that is his
misfortune; and the consequence of this doctrine will be to build
up the old heresy of State Sovereignty--a doctrine that was never
appealed to except in the interest of thieving or robbery. That
doctrine was first appealed to when the Constitution was formed,
because they were afraid the National Government would interfere
with the slave trade. It was next appealed to, to uphold the
Fugitive Slave Law. It was next appealed to, to give the territories
of the United States to slavery. Then it was appealed to, to
support rebellion, and now out of this doctrine they attempt to
build a breastwork, behind which they can trample upon the rights
of free colored men.
I believe in the sovereignty of the Nation. A nation that cannot
protect its citizens ought to stop playing nation. In the old
times the Supreme Court found no difficulty in supporting slavery
by "inference," by "intendment," but now that liberty has become
national, the Court is driven to less than a literal interpretation.
If the Constitution does not support liberty, it is of no use. To
maintain liberty is the only legitimate object of human government.
I hope the time will come when the judges of the Supreme Court will
be elected, say for a period of ten years. I do not believe in
the legal monk system. I believe in judges still maintaining an
interest in human affairs.
_Question_. What do you think of the Mormon question?
_Answer_. I do not believe in the bayonet plan. Mormonism must
be done away with by the thousand influences of civilization, by
education, by the elevation of the people. Of course, a gentleman
would rather have one noble woman than a hundred females. I hate
the system of polygamy. Nothing is more infamous. I admit that
the Old Testament upholds it. I admit that the patriarchs were
mostly polygamists. I admit that Solomon was mistaken on that
subject. But notwithstanding the fact that polygamy is upheld by
the Jewish Scriptures, I believe it to be a great wrong. At the
same time if you undertake to get the idea out of the Mormons by
force you will not succeed. I think a good way to do away with
that institution would be for all the churches to unite, bear the
expense, and send missionaries to Utah; let these ministers call
the people together and read to them the lives of David, Solomon,
Abraham and other patriarchs. Let all the missionaries be called
home from foreign fields and teach these people that they should
not imitate the only men with whom God ever condescended to hold
intercourse. Let these frightful examples be held up to these
people, and if it is done earnestly, it seems to me that the result
would be good.
Polygamy exists. All laws upon the subject should take that fact
into consideration, and punishment should be provided for offences
thereafter committed. The children of Mormons should be legitimized.
In other words, in attempting to settle this question, we should
accomplish all the good possible, with the least possible harm.
I agree mostly with Mr. Beecher, and I utterly disagree with the
Rev. Mr. Newman. Mr. Newman wants to kill and slay. He does not
rely upon Christianity, but upon brute force. He has lost his
confidence in example, and appeals to the bayonet. Mr. Newman had
a discussion with one of the Mormon elders, and was put to ignominious
flight; no wonder that he appeals to force. Having failed in
argument, he calls for artillery; having been worsted in the appeal
to Scripture, he asks for the sword. He says, failing to convert,
let us kill; and he takes this position in the name of the religion
of kindness and forgiveness.
Strange that a minister now should throw away the Bible and yell
for a bayonet; that he should desert the Scriptures and call for
soldiers; that he should lose confidence in the power of the Spirit
and trust in a sword. I recommend that Mormonism be done away with
by distributing the Old Testament throughout Utah.
_Question_. What do you think of the investigation of the Department
of Justice now going on?
_Answer_. The result, in my judgment, will depend on its thoroughness.
If Mr. Springer succeeds in proving exactly what the Department of
Justice did, the methods pursued, if he finds out what their spies
and detectives and agents were instructed to do, then I think the
result will be as disastrous to the Department as beneficial to
the country. The people seem to have forgotten that a little while
after the first Star Route trial three of the agents of the Department
of Justice were indicted for endeavoring to bribe the jury. They
forget that Mr. Bowen, an agent of the Department of Justice, is
a fugitive, because he endeavored to bribe the foreman of the jury.
They seem to forget that the Department of Justice, in order to
cover its own tracks, had the foreman of the jury indicted because
one of its agents endeavored to bribe him. Probably this investigation
will nudge the ribs of the public enough to make people remember
these things. Personally, I have no feelings on the subject. It
was enough for me that we succeeded in thwarting its methods, in
spite of the detectives, spies, and informers.
The Department is already beginning to dissolve. Brewster Cameron
has left it, and as a reward has been exiled to Arizona. Mr.
Brewster will probably be the next to pack his official valise.
A few men endeavored to win popularity by pursuing a few others,
and thus far they have been conspicuous failures. MacVeagh and
James are to-day enjoying the oblivion earned by misdirected energy,
and Mr. Brewster will soon keep them company. The history of the
world does not furnish an instance of more flagrant abuse of power.
There never was a trial as shamelessly conducted by a government.
But, as I said before, I have no feeling now except that of pity.
_Question_. I see that Mr. Beecher is coming round to your views
on theology?
_Answer_. I would not have the egotism to say that he was coming
round to my views, but evidently Mr. Beecher has been growing.
His head has been instructed by his heart; and if a man will allow
even the poor plant of pity to grow in his heart he will hold in
infinite execration all orthodox religion. The moment he will
allow himself to think that eternal consequences depend upon human
life; that the few short years we live in the world determine for
an eternity the question of infinite joy or infinite pain; the
moment he thinks of that he will see that it is an infinite absurdity.
For instance, a man is born in Arkansas and lives there to be
seventeen or eighteen years of age, is it possible that he can be
truthfully told at the day of judgment that he had a fair chance?
Just imagine a man being held eternally responsible for his conduct
in Delaware! Mr. Beecher is a man of great genius--full of poetry
and pathos. Every now and then he is driven back by the orthodox
members of his congregation toward the old religion, and for the
benefit of those weak disciples he will preach what is called "a
doctrinal sermon;" but before he gets through with it, seeing that
it is infinitely cruel, he utters a cry of horror, and protests
with all the strength of his nature against the cruelty of the
creed. I imagine that he has always thought that he was under
great obligation to Plymouth Church, but the truth is that the
church depends upon him; that church gets its character from Mr.
Beecher. He has done a vast deal to ameliorate the condition of
the average orthodox mind. He excites the envy of the mediocre
minister, and he excites the hatred of the really orthodox, but he
receives the approbation of good and generous men everywhere. For
my part, I have no quarrel with any religion that does not threaten
eternal punishment to very good people, and that does not promise
eternal reward to very bad people. If orthodox Christianity is
true, some of the best people I know are going to hell, and some
of the meanest I have ever known are either in heaven or on the
road. Of course, I admit that there are thousands and millions of
good Christians--honest and noble people, but in my judgment, Mr.
Beecher is the greatest man in the world who now occupies a pulpit.
* * * * *
Speaking of a man's living in Delaware, a young man, some time ago,
came up to me on the street, in an Eastern city and asked for money.
"What is your business," I asked. "I am a waiter by profession."
"Where do you come from?" "Delaware." "Well, what was the matter
--did you drink, or cheat your employer, or were you idle?" "No."
"What was the trouble?" "Well, the truth is, the State is so small
they don't need any waiters; they all reach for what they want."
_Question_. Do you not think there are some dangerous tendencies
in Liberalism?
_Answer_. I will first state this proposition: The credit system
in morals, as in business, breeds extravagance. The cash system
in morals, as well as in business, breeds economy. We will suppose
a community in which everybody is bound to sell on credit, and in
which every creditor can take the benefit of the bankrupt law every
Saturday night, and the constable pays the costs. In my judgment
that community would be extravagant as long as the merchants lasted.
We will take another community in which everybody has to pay cash,
and in my judgment that community will be a very economical one.
Now, then, let us apply this to morals. Christianity allows
everybody to sin on a credit, and allows a man who has lived, we
will say sixty-nine years, what Christians are pleased to call a
worldly life, an immoral life. They allow him on his death-bed,
between the last dose of medicine and the last breath, to be
converted, and that man who has done nothing except evil, becomes
an angel. Here is another man who has lived the same length of
time, doing all the good he possibly could do, but not meeting with
what they are pleased to call "a change of heart;" he goes to a
world of pain. Now, my doctrine is that everybody must reap exactly
what he sows, other things being equal. If he acts badly he will
not be very happy; if he acts well he will not be very sad. I
believe in the doctrine of consequences, and that every man must
stand the consequences of his own acts. It seems to me that that
fact will have a greater restraining influence than the idea that
you can, just before you leave this world, shift your burden on to
somebody else. I am a believer in the restraining influences of
liberty, because responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom.
I do not believe that the gallows is the last step between earth
and heaven. I do not believe in the conversion and salvation of
murderers while their innocent victims are in hell. The church
has taught so long that he who acts virtuously carries a cross,
and that only sinners enjoy themselves, that it may be that for a
little while after men leave the church they may go to extremes
until they demonstrate for themselves that the path of vice is the
path of thorns, and that only along the wayside of virtue grow the
flowers of joy. The church has depicted virtue as a sour, wrinkled
termagant; an old woman with nothing but skin and bones, and a
temper beyond description; and at the same time vice has been
painted in all the voluptuous outlines of a Greek statue. The
truth is exactly the other way. A thing is right because it pays;
a thing is wrong because it does not; and when I use the word
"pays," I mean in the highest and noblest sense.
--_The Daily News_, Denver, Colorado, January 17, 1884.