"_He would destroy them all were it not that he feared the wrath of the
enemy_."
That is in the Bible--word for word. Then the defendant in astonishment
says:
"_The Almighty God afraid of his enemies!_"
That is what the Bible says. What does it mean? If the Bible is true,
God was afraid.
"_Can the mind conceive of more horrid blasphemy?_"
Is not that true? If God be infinitely good and wise and powerful, is
it possible he is afraid of anything? If the defendant had said that God
was afraid of his enemies, that might have been blasphemy--but this man
says the Bible says that, and you are asked to say that it is blasphemy.
Now, up to this point there is no blasphemy, even if you were to enforce
this infamous statute--this savage law.
"_The Old Testament records for our instruction in morals, the most foul
and bestial instances of fornication, incest, and polygamy, perpetrated
by God's own saints, and the New Testament indorses these lecherous
wretches as examples for all good Christians to follow_.".
Now, is it not a fact that the Old Testament does uphold polygamy?
Abraham would have gotten into trouble in New Jersey--no doubt of that.
Sarah could have obtained a divorce in this State--no doubt of that.
What is the use of telling a falsehood about it? Let us tell the truth
about the patriarchs.
Everybody knows that the same is true of Moses. We have all heard of
Solomon--a gentleman with five or six hundred wives, and three or four
hundred other ladies with whom he was acquainted. This is simply what
the defendant says. Is there any blasphemy about that? It is only the
truth. If Solomon were living in the United States to-day, we would put
him in the penitentiary. You know that under the Edmunds Mormon law
he would be locked up. If you should present a petition signed by his
eleven hundred wives, you could not get him out.
So it was with David. There are some splendid things about David, of
course. I admit that, and pay my tribute of respect to his courage--but
he happened to have ten or twelve wives too many, so he shut them up,
put them in a kind of penitentiary and kept them there till they died.
That would not be considered good conduct even in Morristown. You know
that. Is it any harm to speak of it? There are plenty of ministers here
to set it right--thousands of them all over the country, every one with
his chance to talk all day Sunday and nobody to say a word back. The pew
cannot reply to the pulpit, you know; it has just to sit there and
take it. If there is any harm in this, if it is not true, they ought to
answer it. But it is here, and the only answer is an indictment.
I say that Lot was a bad man. So I say of Abraham, and of Jacob. Did you
ever know of a more despicable fraud practiced by one brother on another
than Jacob practiced on Esau? My sympathies have always been with Esau.
He seemed to be a manly man. Is it blasphemy to say that you do not like
a hypocrite, a murderer, or a thief, because his name is in the Bible?
How do you know what such men are mentioned for? May be they are
mentioned as examples, and you certainly ought not to be led away and
induced to imagine that a man with seven hundred wives is a pattern
of domestic propriety, one to be followed by yourself and your sons. I
might go on and mention the names of hundreds of others who committed
every conceivable crime, in the name of religion--who declared war, and
on the field of battle killed men, women and babes, even children yet
unborn, in the name of the most merciful God. The Bible is filled with
the names and crimes of these sacred savages, these inspired beasts. Any
man who says that a God of love commanded the commission of these crimes
is, to say the least of it, mistaken. If there be a God, then it is
blasphemous to charge him with the commission of crime.
But let us read further from this indictment:
"The aforesaid printed document contains other scandalous, infamous and
blasphemous matters and things, to the tenor and effect following, that
is to say--"
Then comes this particularly blasphemous line:
"_Now, reader, take time and calmly think it over _."
Gentlemen, there are many things I have read that I should not have
expressed in exactly the same language used by the defendant, and many
things that I am going to read I might not have said at all, but the
defendant had the right to say every word with which he is charged in
this indictment. He had the right to give his honest thought, no matter
whether any human being agreed with what he said or not, and no matter
whether any other man approved of the manner in which he said these
things. I defend his right to speak, whether I believe in what he spoke
or not, or in the propriety of saying what he did. I should defend a man
just as cheerfully who had spoken against my doctrine, as one who had
spoken against the popular superstitions of my time. It would make
no difference to me how unjust the attack was upon my belief--how
maliciously ingenious; and no matter how sacred the conviction that
was attacked, I would defend the freedom of speech. And why? Because no
attack can be answered by force, no argument can be refuted by a blow,
or by imprisonment, or by fine. You may imprison the man, but the
argument is free; you may fell the man to the earth, but the statement
stands.
The defendant in this case has attacked certain beliefs, thought by the
Christian world to be sacred. Yet, after all, nothing is sacred but the
truth, and by truth I mean what a man sincerely and honestly believes.
The defendant says:
"_Take time to calmly think it over: Was a Jewish girl the mother of
God, the mother of your God?_"
The defendant probably asked this question, supposing that it must
be answered by all sensible people in the negative. If the Christian
religion is true, then a Jewish girl was the mother of Almighty God.
Personally, if the doctrine is true, I have no fault to find with the
statement that a Jewish maiden was the mother of God.--Millions believe,
that this is true--I do not believe,--but who knows? If a God came from
the throne of the universe, came to this world and became the child of
a pure and loving woman, it would not lessen, in my eyes, the dignity or
the greatness of that God.
There is no more perfect picture on the earth, or within the imagination
of man, than a mother holding in her thrilled and happy arms a child,
the fruit of love.
No matter how the statement is made, the fact remains the same. A Jewish
girl became the mother of God. If the Bible is true, that is true, and
to repeat it, even according to your law, is not blasphemous, and to
doubt it, or to express the doubt, or to deny it, is not contrary to
your constitution.
To this defendant it seemed improbable that God was ever born of woman,
was ever held in the lap of a mother; and because he cannot believe
this, he is charged with blasphemy. Could you pour contempt on
Shakespeare by saying that his mother was a woman,--by saying that he
was once a poor, crying, little, helpless child? Of course he was; and
he afterwards became the greatest human being that ever touched the
earth,--the only man whose intellectual wings have reached from sky to
sky; and he was once a crying babe. What of it? Does that cast any scorn
or contempt upon him? Does this take any of the music from "Midsummer
Night's Dream"?--any of the passionate wealth from "Antony and
Cleopatra," any philosophy from "Macbeth," any intellectual grandeur
from "King Lear"? On the contrary, these great productions of the brain
show the growth of the dimpled babe, give every mother a splendid
dream and hope for her child, and cover every cradle with a sublime
possibility.
The defendant is also charged with having said that: "_God cried and
screamed_."
Why not? If he was absolutely a child, he was like other children,--like
yours, like mine. I have seen the time, when absent from home, that I
would have given more to have heard my children cry, than to have heard
the finest orchestra that ever made the air burst into flower. What if
God did cry? It simply shows that his humanity was real and not assumed,
that it was a tragedy, real, and not a poor pretence. And the defendant
also says that if the orthodox religion be true, that the
"_God of the Universe kicked, and flung about his little arms, and made
aimless dashes into space with his little fists_."
Is there anything in this that is blasphemous? One of the best pictures
I ever saw of the Virgin and Child was painted by the Spaniard, Murillo.
Christ appears to be a truly natural, chubby, happy babe. Such a
picture takes nothing from the majesty, the beauty, or the glory of the
incarnation.
I think it is the best thing about the Catholic Church that it lifts
up for adoration and admiration, a mother,--that it pays what it calls
"Divine honors" to a woman. There is certainly goodness in that, and
where a church has so few practices that are good, I am willing to point
this one out. It is the one redeeming feature about Catholicism, that it
teaches the worship of a woman.
The defendant says more about the childhood of Christ. He goes so far as
to say, that:
"_He was found staring foolishly at his own little toes._"
And why not? The Bible says, that "he increased in wisdom and stature."
The defendant might have referred to something far more improbable. In
the same verse in which St. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom and
stature, will be found the assertion that he increased in favor with God
and man. The defendant might have asked how it was that the love of God
for God increased.
But the defendant has simply stated that the child Jesus grew, as other
children grow; that he acted like other children, and if he did, it is
more than probable that he did stare at his own toes. I have laughed
many a time to see little children astonished with the sight of their
feet. They seem to wonder what on earth puts the little toes in motion.
Certainly there is nothing blasphemous in supposing that the feet of
Christ amused him, precisely as the feet of other children have amused
them. There is nothing blasphemous about this; on the contrary, it is
beautiful. If I believed in the existence of God, the Creator of this
world, the Being who, with the hand of infinity, sowed the fields of
space with stars, as a farmer sows his grain, I should like to think of
him as a little, dimpled babe, overflowing with joy, sitting upon the
knees of a loving mother. The ministers themselves might take a lesson
even from the man who is charged with blasphemy, and make an effort to
bring an infinite God a little nearer to the human heart.
The defendant also says, speaking of the infant Christ, "_He was nursed
at Mary's breast._"
Yes, and if the story be true, that is the tenderest fact in it. Nursed
at the breast of woman. No painting, no statue, no words can make a
deeper and a tenderer impression upon the heart of man than this: The
infinite God, a babe, nursed at the holy breast of woman.
You see these things do not strike all people the same. To a man
that has been raised on the orthodox desert, these things are
incomprehensible. He has been robbed of his humanity. He has no humor,
nothing but the stupid and the solemn. His fancy sits with folded wings.
Imagination, like the atmosphere of spring, woos every seed of earth
to seek the blue of heaven, and whispers of bud and flower and fruit.
Imagination gathers from every field of thought and pours the wealth
of many lives into the lap of one. To the contracted, to the cast-iron
people who believe in heartless and inhuman creeds, the words of the
defendant seem blasphemous, and to them the thought that God was a
little child is monstrous.
They cannot bear to hear it said that he nursed at the breast of a
maiden, that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes, that he had the joys
and sorrows of other babes. I hope, gentlemen, that not only you,
but the attorneys for the prosecution, have read what is known as the
"Apocryphal New Testament," books that were once considered inspired,
once admitted to be genuine, and that once formed a part of our New
Testament. I hope you have read the books of Joseph and Mary, of the
Shepherd of Hermes, of the Infancy and of Mary, in which many of the
things done by the youthful Christ are described--books that were once
the delight of the Christian world; books that gave joy to children,
because in them they read that Christ made little birds of clay, that
would at his command stretch out their wings and fly with joy above his
head. If the defendant in this case had said anything like that, here
in the State of New Jersey, he would have been indicted; the orthodox
ministers would have shouted "blasphemy," and yet, these little stories
made the name of Christ dearer to children.
The church of to-day lacks sympathy; the theologians are without
affection. After all, sympathy is genius. A man who really sympathizes
with another understands him. A man who sympathizes with a religion,
instantly sees the good that is in it, and the man who sympathizes with
the right, sees the evil that a creed contains.
But the defendant, still speaking of the infant Christ, is charged with
having said:
"_God smiled when he was comfortable. He lay in a cradle and was rocked
to sleep._"
Yes, and there is no more beautiful picture than that. Let some great
religious genius paint a picture of this kind--of a babe smiling with
content, rocked in the cradle by the mother who bends tenderly and
proudly above him. There could be no more beautiful, no more touching,
picture than this. What would I not give for a picture of Shakespeare as
a babe,--a picture that was a likeness,--rocked by his mother? I would
give more for this than for any painting that now enriches the walls of
the world.
The defendant also says, that:
"_God was sick when cutting his teeth._"
And what of that? We are told that he was tempted in all points, as we
are. That is to say, he was afflicted, he was hungry, he was thirsty,
he suffered the pains and miseries common to man. Otherwise, he was not
flesh, he was not human.
"_He caught the measles, the mumps, the scarlet fever and the whooping
cough_."
Certainly he was liable to have these diseases, for he was, in fact,
a child. Other children have them. Other children, loved as dearly by
their mothers as Christ could have been by his, and yet they are taken
from the little family by fever; taken, it may be, and buried in the
snow, while the poor mother goes sadly home, wishing that she was lying
by its side. All that can be said of every word in this address, about
Christ and about his childhood, amounts to this; that he lived the
life of a child; that he acted like other children. I have read you
substantially what he has said, and this is considered blasphemous.
He has said, that:
"_According to the Old Testament, the God of the Christian world
commanded people to destroy each other._"
If the Bible is true, then the statement of the defendant is true. Is it
calculated to bring God into contempt to deny that he upheld polygamy,
that he ever commanded one of his generals to rip open with the sword
of war, the woman with child? Is it blasphemy to deny that a God of
infinite love gave such commandments? Is such a denial calculated to
pour contempt and scorn upon the God of the orthodox?
Is it blasphemous to deny that God commanded his children to murder each
other? Is it blasphemous to say that he was benevolent, merciful and
just?
It is impossible to say that the Bible is true and that God is good.
I do not believe that a God made this world, filled it with people and
then drowned them. I do not believe that infinite wisdom ever made a
mistake. If there be any God he was too good to commit such an infinite
crime, too wise, to make such a mistake. Is this blasphemy? Is it
blasphemy to say that Solomon was not a virtuous man, or that David was
an adulterer?
Must we say when this ancient King had one of his best generals placed
in the front of the battle--deserted him and had him murdered for the
purpose of stealing his wife, that he was "a man after God's own heart"?
Suppose the defendant in this case were guilty of something like that?
Uriah was fighting for his country, fighting the battles of David, the
King. David wanted to take from him his wife. He sent for Joab, his
commander-in-chief, and said to him:
"Make a feint to attack a town. Put Uriah at the front of the attacking
force, and when the people sally forth from the town to defend its gate,
fall back so that this gallant, noble, patriotic man may be slain."
This was done and the widow was stolen by the King. Is it blasphemy to
tell the truth and to say exactly what David was? Let us be honest with
each other; let us be honest with this defendant.
For thousands of years men have taught that the ancient patriarchs were
sacred, that they were far better than the men of modern times, that
what was in them a virtue, is in us a crime. Children are taught in
Sunday schools to admire and respect these criminals of the ancient
days. The time has come to tell the truth about these men, to call
things by their proper names, and above all, to stand by the right, by
the truth, by mercy and by justice. If what the defendant has said is
blasphemy under this statute then the question arises, is the statute in
accordance with the constitution? If this statute is constitutional, why
has it been allowed to sleep for all these years? I take this position:
Any law made for the preservation of a human right, made to guard a
human being, cannot sleep long enough to die; but any law that deprives
a human being of a natural right--if that law goes to sleep, it never
wakes, it sleeps the sleep of death.
I call the attention of the Court to that remarkable case in England
where, only a few years ago, a man appealed to trial by battle. The law
allowing trial by battle had been asleep in the statute book of England
for more than two hundred years, and yet the court held that, in spite
of the fact that the law had been asleep--it being a law in favor of a
defendant--he was entitled to trial by battle. And why? Because it was
a statute at the time made in defence of a human right, and that statute
could not sleep long enough or soundly enough to die. In consequence
of this decision, the Parliament of England passed a special act, doing
away forever with the trial by battle.
When a statute attacks an individual right, the State must never let it
sleep. When it attacks the right of the public at large and is allowed
to pass into a state of slumber, it cannot be raised for the purpose of
punishing an individual.
Now, gentlemen, a few words more. I take an almost infinite interest
in this trial, and before you decide, I am exceedingly anxious that you
should understand with clearness the thoughts I have expressed upon this
subject I want you to know how the civilized feel, and the position now
taken by the leaders of the world.
A few years ago almost everything spoken against the grossest possible
superstition was considered blasphemous. The altar hedged itself about
with the sword; the Priest went in partnership with the King. In those
days statutes were leveled against all human speech. Men were convicted
of blasphemy because they believed in an actual personal God; because
they insisted that God had body and parts. Men were convicted of
blasphemy because they denied that God had form. They have been
imprisoned for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation, and they
have been torn in pieces for defending that doctrine. There are but few
dogmas now believed by any Christian church that have not at some time
been denounced as blasphemous.
When Henry VIII. put himself at the head of the Episcopal Church a
creed was made, and in that creed there were five dogmas that must,
of necessity, be believed. Anybody who denied any one, was to be
punished--for the first offence, with fine, with imprisonment, or
branding, and for the second offence, with death. Not one of these five
dogmas is now a part of the creed of the Church of England.
So I could go on for days and weeks and months, showing that hundreds
and hundreds of religious dogmas, to deny which was death, have been
either changed or abandoned for others nearly as absurd as the old ones
were. It may be, however, sufficient to say, that wherever the church
has had power it has been a crime for any man to speak his honest
thought. No church has ever been willing that any opponent should give
a transcript of his mind. Every church in power has appealed to brute
force, to the sword, for the purpose of sustaining its creed. Not one
has had the courage to occupy the open field. The church has not been
satisfied with calling Infidels and unbelievers blasphemers. Each church
has accused nearly every other church of being a blasphemer. Every
pioneer has been branded as a criminal. The Catholics called Martin
Luther a blasphemer, and Martin Luther called Copernicus a blasphemer.
Pious ignorance always regards intelligence as a kind of blasphemy. Some
of the greatest men of the world, some of the best, have been put to
death for the crime of blasphemy, that is to say, for the crime of
endeavoring to benefit their fellow-men.
As long as the church has the power to close the lips of men, so long
and no longer will superstition rule this world.
"Blasphemy is the word that the majority hisses into the ear of the
few."
After every argument of the church has been answered, has been refuted,
then the church cries, "blasphemy!"
Blasphemy is what an old mistake says of a newly discovered truth.
Blasphemy is what a withered last year's leaf says to a this year's bud.
Blasphemy is the bulwark of religious prejudice.
Blasphemy is the breastplate of the heartless.
And let me say now, that the crime of blasphemy, as set out in this
statute, is impossible. No man can blaspheme a book. No man can commit
blasphemy by telling his honest thought. No man can blaspheme a God, or
a Holy Ghost, or a Son of God. The Infinite cannot be blasphemed.
In the olden time, in the days of savagery and superstition, when some
poor man was struck by lightning, or when a blackened mark was left on
the breast of a wife and mother, the poor savage supposed that some god,
angered by something he had done, had taken his revenge. What else did
the savage suppose? He believed that this god had the same feelings,
with regard to the loyalty of his subjects, that an earthly chief had,
or an earthly king had, with regard to the loyalty or treachery of
members of his tribe, or citizens of his kingdom. So the savage said,
when his country was visited by a calamity, when the flood swept the
people away, or the storm scattered their poor houses in fragments:
"We have allowed some Freethinker to live; some one is in our town or
village who has not brought his gift to the priest, his incense to the
altar; some man of our tribe or of our country does not respect our
god." Then, for the purpose of appeasing the supposed god, for the
purpose of again winning a smile from heaven, for the purpose of
securing a little sunlight for their fields and homes, they drag the
accused man from his home, from his wife and children, and with all
the ceremonies of pious brutality, shed his blood. They did it in
self-defence; they believed that they were saving their own lives and
the lives of their children; they did it to appease their god. Most
people are now beyond that point. Now when disease visits a community,
the intelligent do not say the disease came because the people were
wicked; when the cholera comes, it is not because of the Methodists, of
the Catholics, of the Presbyterians, or of the Infidels. When the wind
destroys a town in the far West, it is not because somebody there had
spoken his honest thoughts. We are beginning to see that the wind
blows and destroys without the slightest reference to man, without the
slightest care whether it destroys the good or the bad, the irreligious
or the religious. When the lightning leaps from the clouds it is just as
likely to strike a good man as a bad man, and when the great serpents of
flame climb around the houses of men, they burn just as gladly and just
as joyously, the home of virtue, as they do the den and lair of vice.
Then the reason for all these laws has failed. The laws were made on
account of a superstition. That superstition has faded from the minds
of intelligent men, and, as a consequence, the laws based on the
superstition ought to fail.
There is one splendid thing in nature, and that is that men and nations
must reap the consequences of their acts--reap them in this world, if
they live, and in another if there be one. The man who leaves this
world a bad man, a malicious man, will probably be the same man when
he reaches another realm, and the man who leaves this shore good,
charitable and honest, will be good, charitable and honest, no matter
on what star he lives again. The world is growing sensible upon these
subjects, and as we grow sensible, we grow charitable.
Another reason has been given for these laws against blasphemy, the most
absurd reason that can by any possibility be given. It is this: There
should be laws against blasphemy, because the man who utters blasphemy
endangers the public peace.
Is it possible that Christians will break the peace? Is it possible
that they will violate the law? Is it probable that Christians will
congregate together and make a mob, simply because a man has given an
opinion against their religion? What is their religion? They say, "If
a man smites you on one cheek, turn the other also." They say, "We must
love our neighbors as we love ourselves." Is it possible then, that you
can make a mob out of Christians,--that these men, who love even their
enemies, will attack others, and will destroy life, in the name of
universal love? And yet, Christians themselves say that there ought to
be laws against blasphemy, for fear that Christians, who are controlled
by universal love, will become so outraged, when they hear an honest man
express an honest thought, that they will leap upon him and tear him in
pieces.
What is blasphemy? I will give you a definition; I will give you my
thought upon this subject. What is real blasphemy?
To live on the unpaid labor of other men--that is blasphemy.
To enslave your fellow-man, to put chains upon his body--that is
blasphemy.
To enslave the minds of men, to put manacles upon the brain, padlocks
upon the lips--that is blasphemy.
To deny what you believe to be true, to admit to be true what you
believe to be a lie--that is blasphemy.
To strike the weak and unprotected, in order that you may gain the
applause of the ignorant and superstitious mob--that is blasphemy.
To persecute the intelligent few, at the command of the ignorant
many--that is blasphemy.
To forge chains, to build dungeons, for your honest fellow-men--that is
blasphemy.
To pollute the souls of children with the dogma of eternal pain--that is
blasphemy.
To violate your conscience--that is blasphemy.
The jury that gives an unjust verdict, and the judge who pronounces an
unjust sentence, are blasphemers.
The man who bows to public opinion against his better judgment and
against his honest conviction, is a blasphemer.
Why should we fear our fellow-men? Why should not each human being have
the right, so far as thought and its expression are concerned, of all
the world? What harm can come from an honest interchange of thought?
I have been giving you my real ideas. I have spoken freely, and yet
the sun rose this morning, just the same as it always has. There is no
particular change visible in the world, and I do not see but that we are
all as happy to-day as though we had spent yesterday in making somebody
else miserable. I denounced on yesterday the superstitions of the
Christian world, and yet, last night I slept the sleep of peace. You
will pardon me for saying again that I feel the greatest possible
interest in the result of this trial, in the principle at stake. This is
my only apology, my only excuse, for taking your time. For years I
have felt that the great battle for human liberty, the battle that has
covered thousands of fields with heroic dead, had finally been won. When
I read the history of this world, of what has been endured, of what has
been suffered, of the heroism and infinite courage of the intellectual
and honest few, battling with the countless serfs and slaves of kings
and priests, of tyranny, of hypocrisy, of ignorance and prejudice, of
faith and fear, there was in my heart the hope that the great battle had
been fought, and that the human race, in its march towards the dawn, had
passed midnight, and that the "great balance weighed up morning." This
hope, this feeling, gave me the greatest possible joy. When I thought
of the many who had been burnt, of how often the sons of liberty had
perished in ashes, of how many o! the noblest and greatest had stood
upon scaffolds, and of the countless hearts, the grandest that ever
throbbed in human breasts, that had been broken by the tyranny of church
and state, of how many of the noble and loving had sighed themselves
away in dungeons, the only consolation was that the last bastile had
fallen, that the dungeons of the Inquisition had been torn down and that
the scaffolds of the world could no longer be wet with heroic blood.
You know that sometimes, after a great battle has been fought, and one
of the armies has been broken, and its fortifications carried, there
are occasional stragglers beyond the great field, stragglers who know
nothing of the fate of their army, know nothing of the victory, and for
that reason, fight on. There are a few such stragglers in the State of
New Jersey. They have never heard of the great victory. They do not know
that in all civilized countries the hosts of superstition have been put
to flight. They do not know that Freethinkers, Infidels, are to-day the
leaders of the intellectual armies of the world.
One of the last trials of this character, tried in Great Britain,--and
that is the country that our ancestors fought in the sacred name of
liberty,--one of the last trials in that country, a country ruled by a
state church, ruled by a woman who was born a queen, ruled by dukes and
nobles and lords, children of ancient robbers--was in the year 1843.
George Jacob Holyoake, one of the best of the human race, was imprisoned
on a charge of Atheism, charged with having written a pamphlet and
having made a speech in which he had denied the existence of the British
God. The judge who tried him, who passed sentence upon him, went down
to his grave with a stain upon his intellect and upon his honor. All the
real intelligence of Great Britain rebelled against the outrage. There
was a trial after that to which I will call your attention. Judge
Coleridge, father of the present Chief Justice of England, presided at
this trial. A poor man by the name of Thomas Pooley, a man who dug wells
for a living, wrote on the gate of a priest, that, if people would burn
their Bibles and scatter the ashes on the lands, the crops would be
better, and that they would also save a good deal of money in tithes. He
wrote several sentences of a kindred character. He was a curious man. He
had an idea that the world was a living, breathing animal. He would not
dig a well beyond a certain depth for fear he might inflict pain upon
this animal, the earth. He was tried before Judge Coleridge, on that
charge. An infinite God was about to be dethroned, because an honest
well-digger had written his sentiments on the fence of a parson. He
was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison. Afterward, many
intelligent people asked for his pardon, on the ground that he was in
danger of becoming insane. The judge refused to sign the petition. The
pardon was refused. Long before his sentence expired, he became a raving
maniac. He was removed to an asylum and there died. Some of the greatest
men in England attacked that judge, among these, Mr. Buckle, author of
"The History of Civilization in England," one of the greatest books in
this world. Mr. Buckle denounced Judge Coleridge. He brought him before
the bar of English opinion, and there was not a man in England, whose
opinion was worth anything, who did not agree with Mr. Buckle, and did
not with him, declare the conviction of Thomas Pooley to be an infamous
outrage. What were the reasons given? This, among others: The law was
dead; it had been asleep for many years; it was a law passed during the
ignorance of the Middle Ages, and a law that came out of the dungeon
of religious persecution; a law that was appealed to by bigots and by
hypocrites, to punish, to imprison an honest man.
In many parts of this country, people have entertained the idea that New
England was still filled with the spirit of Puritanism, filled with
the descendants of those who killed Quakers in the name of universal
benevolence, and traded Quaker children in the Barbadoes for rum, for
the purpose of establishing the fact that God is an infinite father.
Yet, the last trial in Massachusetts on a charge like this, was when
Abner Kneeland was indicted on a charge of Atheism. He was tried for
having written this sentence: "The Universalists believe in a God which
I do not." He was convicted and imprisoned. Chief Justice Shaw upheld
the decision, and upheld it because he was afraid of public opinion;
upheld it, although he must have known that the statute under which
Kneeland was indicted was clearly and plainly in violation of the
Constitution. No man can read the decision of Justice Shaw without
being convinced that he was absolutely dominated, either by bigotry,
or hypocrisy. One of the judges of that court, a noble man, wrote a
dissenting opinion, and in that dissenting opinion is the argument of
a civilized, of an enlightened jurist. No man can answer the dissenting
opinion of Justice Morton. The case against Kneeland was tried more
than fifty years ago, and there has been none since in the New England
States; and this case, that we are now trying, is the first ever
tried in New Jersey. The fact that it is the first, certifies to my
interpretation of this statute, and it also certifies to the toleration
and to the civilization of the people of this State. The statute is
upon your books. You inherited it from your ignorant ancestors, and they
inherited it from their savage ancestors. The people of New Jersey were
heirs of the mistakes and of the atrocities of ancient England.
It is too late to enforce a law like this. Why has it been allowed to
slumber? Who obtained this indictment? Were they actuated by good and
noble motives? Had they the public weal at heart, or were they simply
endeavoring to be revenged upon this defendant? Were they willing to
disgrace the State, in order that they might punish him?
I have given you my definition of blasphemy, and now the question
arises, what is worship? Who is a worshiper? What is prayer? What is
real religion? Let me answer these questions.
Good, honest, faithful work, is worship. The man who ploughs the fields
and fells the forests; the man who works in mines, the man who battles
with the winds and waves out on the wide sea, controlling the commerce
of the world; these men are worshipers. The man who goes into the
forest, leading his wife by the hand, who builds him a cabin, who makes
a home in the wilderness, who helps to people and civilize and cultivate
a continent, is a worshiper.
Labor is the only prayer that Nature answers; it is the only prayer that
deserves an answer,--good, honest, noble work.
A woman whose husband has gone down to the gutter, gone down to
degradation and filth; the woman who follows him and lifts him out of
the mire and presses him to her noble heart, until he becomes a man once
more, this woman is a worshiper. Her act is worship.
The poor man and the poor woman who work night and day, in order that
they may give education to their children, so that they may have a
better life than their father and mother had; the parents who deny
themselves the comforts of life, that they may lay up something to help
their children to a higher place--they are worshipers; and the children
who, after they reap the benefit of this worship, become ashamed of
their parents, are blasphemers.
The man who sits by the bed of his invalid wife,--a wife prematurely old
and gray,--the husband who sits by her bed and holds, her thin, wan hand
in his as lovingly, and kisses it as rapturously, as passionately, as
when it was dimpled,--that is worship; that man is a worshiper; that is
real religion.
Whoever increases the sum of human joy, is a worshiper. He who adds to
the sum of human misery, is a blasphemer.
Gentlemen, you can never make me believe--no statute can ever convince
me, that there is any infinite Being in this universe who hates an
honest man. It is impossible to satisfy me that there is any God, or
can be any God, who holds in abhorrence a soul that has the courage to
express his thought. Neither can the whole world convince me that any
man should be punished, either in this world or in the next, for being
candid with his fellow-men. If you send men to the penitentiary for
speaking their thoughts, for endeavoring to enlighten their fellows,
then the penitentiary will become a place of honor, and the victim will
step from it--not stained, not disgraced, but clad in robes of glory.
Let us take one more step.
What is holy, what is sacred? I reply that human happiness is holy,
human rights are holy. The body and soul of man--these are sacred. The
liberty of man is of far more importance than any book; the rights of
man more sacred than any religion--than any Scriptures, whether inspired
or not.
What we want is the truth, and does any one suppose that all of the
truth is confined in one book--that the mysteries of the whole world are
explained by one volume?
All that is--all that conveys information to man--all that has been
produced by the past--all that now exists--should be considered by an
intelligent man. All the known truths of this world--all the philosophy,
all the poems, all the pictures, all the statues, all the entrancing
music--the prattle of babes, the lullaby of mothers, the words of honest
men, the trumpet calls to duty--all these make up the bible of the
world--everything that is noble and true and free, you will find in this
great book.
If we wish to be true to ourselves,--if we wish to benefit our
fellow-men--if we wish to live honorable lives--we will give to every
other human being every right that we claim for ourselves.
There is another thing that should be remembered by you. You are the
judges of the law, as well as the judges of the facts. In a case like
this, you are the final judges as to what the law is; and if you acquit,
no court can reverse your verdict. To prevent the least misconception,
let me state to you again what I claim:
First. I claim that the constitution of New Jersey declares that:
"_The liberty of speech shall not be abridged_." Second. That this
statute, under which this indictment is found, is unconstitutional,
because it does abridge the liberty of speech; it does exactly that
which the constitution emphatically says shall not be done.
Third. I claim, also, that under this law--even if it be
constitutional--the words charged in this indictment do not amount to
blasphemy, read even in the light, or rather in the darkness, of this
statute.
Do not, I pray you, forget this point. Do not forget, that, no matter
what the Court may tell you about the law--how good it is, or how bad
it is--no matter what the Court may instruct you on that subject--do not
forget one thing, and that is: That the words charged in the indictment
are the only words that you can take into consideration in this case.
Remember that no matter what else may be in the pamphlet--no matter what
pictures or cartoons there may be of the gentlemen in Boonton who mobbed
this man in the name of universal liberty and love--do not forget that
you have no right to take one word into account except the exact words
set out in this indictment--that is to say, the words that I have
read to you. Upon this point the Court will instruct you that you have
nothing to do with any other line in that pamphlet; and I now claim,
that should the Court instruct you that the statute is constitutional,
still I insist that the words set out in this indictment do not amount
to blasphemy.
There is still another point. This statute says: "Whoever shall
_willfully_ speak against." Now, in this case, you must find that the
defendant "willfully" did so and so--that is to say, that he made the
statements attributed to him knowing that they were not true. If you
believe that he was honest in what he said, then this statute does not
touch him. Even under this statute, a man may give his honest opinion.
Certainly, there is no law that charges a man with "willfully" being
honest--"willfully" telling his real opinion--"willfully" giving to his
fellow-men his thought.
Where a man is charged with larceny, the indictment must set out that
he took the goods or the property with the intention to steal--with
what the law calls the _animus furandi_. If he took the goods with
the intention to steal, then he is a thief; but if he took the goods
believing them to be his own, then he is guilty of no offence. So in
this case, whatever was said by the defendant must have been "willfully"
said. And I claim that if you believe that what the man said was
honestly said, you cannot find him guilty under this statute.
One more point: This statute has been allowed to slumber so long, that
no man had the right to awaken it. For more than one hundred years it
has slept; and so far as New Jersey is concerned, it has been sound
asleep since 1664. For the first time it is dug out of its grave. The
breath of life is sought to be breathed into it, to the end that some
people may wreak their vengeance on an honest man.
Is there any evidence--has there been any--to show that the defendant
was not absolutely candid in the expression of his opinions? Is there
one particle of evidence tending, to show that he is not a perfectly
honest and sincere man? Did the prosecution have the courage to
attack his reputation? No. The State has simply proved to you that he
circulated that pamphlet--that is all.
It was claimed, among other things, that the defendant circulated this
pamphlet among children. There was no such evidence--not the slightest.
The only evidence about schools, or school-children was, that when the
defendant talked with the bill-poster,--whose business the defendant was
interfering with,--he asked him something about the population of the
town, and about the schools. But according to the evidence, and as a
matter of fact, not a solitary pamphlet was ever given to any child, or
to any youth. According to the testimony, the defendant went into two or
three stores,--laid the pamphlets on a show case, or threw them upon a
desk--put them upon a stand where papers were sold, and in one instance
handed a pamphlet to a man. That is all.
In my judgment, however, there would have been no harm in giving this
pamphlet to every citizen of your place.
Again I say, that a law that has been allowed to sleep for all these
years--allowed to sleep by reason of the good sense and by reason of
the tolerant spirit of the State of New Jersey, should not be allowed
to leap into life because a few are intolerant, or because a few lacked
good sense and judgment. This snake should not be warmed into vicious
life by the blood of anger.
Probably not a man on this jury agrees with me about the subject of
religion. Probably not a member of this jury thinks that I am right in
the opinions that I have entertained and have so often expressed. Most
of you belong to some church, and I presume that those who do, have the
good of what they call Christianity at heart. There maybe among you some
Methodists. If so, they have read the history of their church, and they
know that when it was in the minority, it was persecuted, and they know
that they can not read the history of that persecution without becoming
indignant. They know that the early Methodists were denounced as
heretics, as ranters, as ignorant pretenders.
There are also on this jury, Catholics, and they know that there is a
tendency in many parts of this country to persecute a man now because he
is a Catholic. They also know that their church has persecuted in
times past, whenever and wherever it had the power; and they know that
Protestants, when in power, have always persecuted Catholics; and they
know, in their hearts, that all persecution, whether in the name of law,
or religion, is monstrous, savage, and fiendish.
I presume that each one of you has the good of what you call
Christianity at heart. If you have, I beg of you to acquit this man. If
you believe Christianity to be a good, it never can do any church any
good to put a man in jail for the expression of opinion. Any church that
imprisons a man because he has used an argument against its creed, will
simply convince the world that it cannot answer the argument.
Christianity will never reap any honor, will never reap any profit,
from persecution. It is a poor, cowardly, dastardly way of answering
arguments. No gentleman will do it--no civilized man ever did do it--no
decent human being ever did, or ever will.
I take it for granted that you have a certain regard, a certain
affection, for the State in which you live--that you take a pride in the
Commonwealth of New Jersey. If you do, I beg of you to keep the record
of your State clean. Allow no verdict to be recorded against the freedom
of speech. At present there is not to be found on the records of any
inferior court, or on those of the Supreme tribunal--any case in which a
man has been punished for speaking his sentiments. The records have not
been stained--have not been polluted--with such a verdict.
Keep such a verdict from the Reports of your State--from the Records of
your courts. No jury has yet, in the State of New Jersey, decided that
the lips of honest men are not free--that there is a manacle upon the
brain.
For the sake of your State--for the sake of her reputation throughout
the world--for your own sakes--and those of your children, and their
children yet to be--say to the world that New Jersey shares in the
spirit of this age,--that New Jersey is not a survival of the Dark
Ages,--that New Jersey does not still regard the thumbscrew as an
instrument of progress,--that New Jersey needs no dungeon to answer the
arguments of a free man, and does not send to the penitentiary, men who
think, and men who speak. Say to the world, that where arguments are
without foundation, New Jersey has confidence enough in the brains of
her people to feel that such arguments can be refuted by reason.
For the sake of your State, acquit this man. For the sake of something
of far more value to this world than New Jersey--for the sake of
something of more importance to mankind than this continent--for the
sake of Human Liberty, for the sake of Free Speech, acquit this man.
What light is to the eyes, what love is to the heart, Liberty is to the
soul of man. Without it, there come suffocation, degradation and death.
In the name of Liberty, I implore--and not only so, but I insist--that
you shall find a verdict in favor of this defendant. Do not do the
slightest thing to stay the march of human progress. Do not carry us
back, even for a moment, to the darkness of that cruel night that good
men hoped had passed away forever.
Liberty is the condition of progress. Without Liberty, there remains
only barbarism. Without Liberty, there can be no civilization.
If another man has not the right to think, you have not even the right
to think that he thinks wrong. If every man has not the right to think,
the people of New Jersey had no right to make a statute, or to adopt a
constitution--no jury has the right to render a verdict, and no court to
pass its sentence.
In other words, without liberty of thought, no human being has the right
to form a judgment. It is impossible that there should be such a thing
as real religion without liberty. Without liberty there can be no such
thing as conscience, no such word as justice. All human actions--all
good, all bad--have for a foundation the idea of human liberty, and
without Liberty there can be no vice, and there can be no virtue.
Without Liberty there can be no worship, no blasphemy--no love, no
hatred, no justice, no progress.
Take the word Liberty from human speech and all the other words become
poor, withered, meaningless sounds--but with that word realized--with
that word understood, the world becomes a paradise.
Understand me. I am not blaming the people. I am not blaming the
prosecution, or the prosecuting attorney. The officers of the court
are simply doing what they feel to be their duty. They did not find the
indictment. That was found by the grand jury. The grand jury did not
find the indictment of its own motion. Certain people came before the
grand jury and made their complaint--gave their testimony, and upon that
testimony, under this statute, the indictment was found.
While I do not blame these people--they not being on trial--I do ask you
to stand on the side of right.
I cannot conceive of much greater happiness than to discharge a public
duty, than to be absolutely true to conscience, true to judgment, no
matter what authority may say, no matter what public opinion may demand.
A man who stands by the right, against the world, cannot help applauding
himself, and saying: "I am an honest man."
I want your verdict--a verdict born of manhood, of courage; and I want
to send a dispatch to-day to a woman who is lying sick. I wish you to
furnish the words of this dispatch--only two words--and these two words
will fill an anxious heart with joy. They will fill a soul with light.
It is a very short message--only two words--and I ask you to furnish
them: "Not guilty."
You are expected to do this, because I believe you will be true to your
consciences, true to your best judgment, true to the best interests of
the people of New Jersey, true to the great cause of Liberty.
I sincerely hope that it will never be necessary again, under the flag
of the United States--that flag for which has been shed the bravest and
best blood of the world--under that flag maintained by Washington, by
Jefferson, by Franklin and by Lincoln--under that flag in defence of
which New Jersey poured out her best and bravest blood--I hope it will
never be necessary again for a man to stand before a jury and plead for
the Liberty of Speech.
Note: The jury in this case brought in a verdict of guilty.
The Judge imposed a fine of twenty-five dollars and costs
amounting in all to seventy-five dollars, which Colonel
Ingersoll paid, giving his services free.--C. P. Farrell.