{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-12:circulation-of-obscene-literature",
  "slug": "circulation-of-obscene-literature",
  "title": "The Circulation of Obscene Literature",
  "subtitle": "Defense in the Bennett-Comstock prosecution.",
  "excerpt": "Ingersoll's involvement in the Bennett-Comstock obscenity prosecution — the most famous test of the federal obscenity statute of the 1870s.",
  "year": 1879,
  "volume": 12,
  "category": "Address",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/circulation-of-obscene-literature/",
  "wordCount": 5709,
  "body": "• From \"Ingersoll As He Is,\" by E. M. Macdonald.\n\n\"ONE of the charges most persistently made against Colonel Ingersoll is\nthat during and after the trial of D. M. Bennett, persecuted by Anthony\nComstock, the Colonel endeavored to have the law against sending obscene\nliterature through the mail repealed. That the charge is maliciously\nfalse is fully shown by the following brief history of events connected\nwith the prosecution of D. M. Bennett, and Mr. Ingersoll's efforts in\nhis behalf....\n\n\"After Mr. Bennett's arrest in 1877, he printed a petition to Congress,\nwritten by T. B. Wakeman, asking for the repeal or modification of\nComstock's law by which he expected to stamp out the publications of\nFreethinkers....\n\n\"The connection of Mr. Ingersoll with this petition is soon explained.\nMr. Ingersoll knew of Comstock's attempts to suppress heresy by means of\nthis law, and when called upon by the Washington committee in charge\nof the petition, he allowed his name to go on the petition for\nmodification, but he told them distinctly and plainly that he was not\nin favor of the repeal of the law, as he was willing and anxious that\nobscenity should be suppressed by all legal means. His sentiments are\nbest expressed by himself in a letter to the Boston Journal. He says:\n\n\"'Washington, March 18, 1878.\n\n\"'To the Editor of the Boston Journal:\n\n\"'My attention has been called to the following article that recently\nappeared in your paper:\n\n\"'Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, and others, feel aggrieved because Congress,\nin 1873, enacted a law for the suppression of obscene literature, and,\nbelieving it an infringement of the rights of certain citizens, and an\neffort to muzzle the press and conscience, petition for its repeal. When\na man's conscience permits him to spread broadcast obscene literature,\nit is time that conscience was muzzled. The law is a terror only to\nevil-doers.\"\n\n\"'No one wishes the repeal of any law for the suppression of obscene\nliterature. For my part, I wish all such laws rigidly enforced. The only\nobjection I have to the law of 1873 is, that it has been construed to\ninclude books and pamphlets written against the religion of the day,\nalthough containing nothing that can be called obscene or impure.\nCertain religious fanatics, taking advantage of the word \"immoral\" in\nthe law, have claimed that all writings against what they are pleased to\ncall orthodox religion are immoral, and such books have been seized and\ntheir authors arrested. To this, and this only, I object.\n\n\"'Your article does me great injustice, and I ask that you will have the\nkindness to publish this note.\n\n\"'From the bottom of my heart I despise the publishers of obscene\nliterature. Below them there is no depth of filth. And I also despise\nthose, who, under the pretence of suppressing obscene literature,\nendeavor to prevent honest and pure men from writing and publishing\nhonest and pure thoughts. Yours truly.\n\n\"'R. G. Ingersoll.'\n\n\"This is sufficiently easy of comprehension even for ministers, but of\ncourse they misrepresented and lied about the writer. From that day\nto this he has been accused of favoring the dissemination of obscene\nliterature. That the friends of Colonel Ingersoll may know just\nhow infamous this is, we will give a brief history of the repeal or\nmodification movement....\n\n\"On October 26, the National Liberal League held its Congress in\nSyracuse. At this Congress the League left the matter of repeal or\nmodification of the laws open, taking no action as an organization,\neither way, but elected officers known to be in favor of repeal. On\nDecember 10, Mr. Bennett was again arrested. He was tried, and found\nguilty; he appealed, the conviction was affirmed, and he was sentenced\nto thirteen months' imprisonment at hard labor.\n\n\"After the trial Colonel Ingersoll interposed, and endeavored to get\na pardon for Mr. Bennett, who was held in Ludlow street jail pending\nPresident Hayes's reply. The man who occupied the President's office\npromised to pardon the Infidel editor; then he went back on his word,\nand Mr. Bennett served his term of imprisonment.\n\n\"Then preachers opened the sluiceways of vituperation and billingsgate\nupon Colonel Ingersoll for having interceded for a man convicted of\nmailing obscene literature. The charges were as infamously false then\nas they are now, and to show it, it is only necessary to quote\nColonel Ingersoll's words during the year or two succeeding, when\nthe Freethinkers and the Christians were not only opposing each\nother vigorously, but the Freethinkers themselves were divided on the\nquestion. In 1879, while Mr. Bennett was in prison, a correspondent of\nthe Nashville, Tenn., Banner said that the National Liberal League and\nColonel Ingersoll were in favor of disseminating obscene literature. To\nthis Colonel Ingersoll replied in a letter to a friend:\n\n\"1417 G St., Washington, Aug. 21, 1879.\n\n\"'My Dear Sir: The article in the Nashville Banner by \"J. L.\" is\nutterly and maliciously false.\n\n\"'A petition was sent to Congress praying for the repeal or modification\nof certain postal laws, to the end that the freedom of conscience and of\nthe press should not be abridged.\n\n\"'Nobody holds in greater contempt than I the writers, publishers, or\ndealers in obscene literature. One of my objections to the Bible is that\nit contains hundreds of grossly obscene passages not fit to be read by\nany decent man, thousands of passages, in my judgment, calculated to\ncorrupt the minds of youth. I hope the time will soon come when the\ngood sense of the American people will demand a Bible with all obscene\npassages left out.\n\n\"'The only reason a modification of the postal laws is necessary is that\nat present, under color of those laws, books and pamphlets are excluded\nfrom the mails simply because they are considered heterodox and\nblasphemous. In other words, every man should be allowed to write,\npublish, and send through the mails his thoughts upon any subject,\nexpressed in a decent and becoming manner. As to the propriety of giving\nanybody authority to overhaul mails, break seals, and read private\ncorrespondence, that is another question.\n\n\"'Every minister and every layman who charges me with directly or\nindirectly favoring the dissemination of anything that is impure,\nretails what he knows to be a wilful and malicious lie. I remain, Yours\ntruly,\n\n\"'R. G. Ingersoll.'\n\n\"Three weeks after this letter was written the National Liberal League\nheld its third annual Congress at Cincinnati. Colonel Ingersoll was\nchairman of the committee on resolutions and platform and unfinished\nbusiness of the League. One of the subjects to be dealt with was these\nComstock laws. The following are Colonel Ingersoll's remarks and the\nresolutions he presented:\n\n\"'It may be proper, before presenting the resolutions of the committee,\nto say a word in explanation. The committee were charged with the\nconsideration of the unfinished business of the League. It seems that\nat Syracuse there was a division as to what course should be taken in\nregard to the postal laws of the United States. These laws were used\nas an engine of oppression against the free circulation of what we\nunderstand to be scientific literature. Every honest man in this country\nis in favor of allowing every other human being every right that he\nclaims for himself. The majority at Syracuse were at that time simply\nin favor of the absolute repeal of those laws, believing them to be\nunconstitutional—not because they were in favor of anything obscene,\nbut because they were opposed to the mails of the United States being\nunder the espionage and bigotry of the church. They therefore demanded\nan absolute repeal of the law. Others, feeling that they might be\nmisunderstood, and knowing that theology can coin the meanest words\nto act as the vehicle of the lowest lies, were afraid of being\nmisunderstood, and therefore they said, Let us amend these laws so that\nour literature shall be upon an equality with that of theology. I know\nthat there is not a Liberal here, or in the United States, that is in\nfavor of the dissemination of obscene literature. One of the objections\nwhich we have to the book said to be written by God is that it is\nobscene.\n\n\"'The Liberals of this country believe in purity, and they believe that\nevery fact in nature and in science is as pure as a star. We do not need\nto ask for any more than we want. We simply want the laws of our country\nso framed that we are not discriminated against. So, taking that view of\nthe vexed question, we want to put the boot upon the other foot. We want\nto put the charge of obscenity where it belongs, and the committee, of\nwhich I have the honor to be one of the members, have endeavored to do\njust that thing. Men have no right to talk to me about obscenity who\nregard the story of Lot and his daughters as a fit thing for men, women,\nand children to read, and who worship a God in whom the violation of\n[_Cheers drowned the conclusion of this sentence so the reporters could\nnot hear it._] Such a God I hold in infinite contempt.\n\n\"'Now I will read you the resolutions recommended by the committee.\n\n\"'RESOLUTIONS.\n\n\"'Your committee have the honor to submit the following report: \"'First,\nAs to the unfinished business of the League, your committee submits the\nfollowing resolutions:\n\n\"'Resolved., That we are in favor of such postal laws as will allow the\nfree transportation through the mails of the United States of all books,\npamphlets, and papers, irrespective of the religious, irreligious,\npolitical, and scientific views they may contain, so that the literature\nof science may be placed upon an equality with that of superstition.\n\n\"'Resolved, That we are utterly opposed to the dissemination, through\nthe mails, or by any other means, of obscene literature, whether\n\"inspired\" or uninspired, and hold in measureless contempt its authors\nand disseminators.\n\n\"'Resolved, That we call upon the Christian world to expunge from the\nso-called \"sacred\" Bible every passage that cannot be read without\ncovering the cheek of modesty with the blush of shame; and until such\npassages are expunged, we demand that the laws against the dissemination\nof obscene literature be impartially enforced. '...\n\n\"We believe that lotteries and obscenity should be dealt with by State\nand municipal legislation, and offenders punished in the county in which\nthey commit their offence. So in those days we argued for the repeal of\nthe Comstock laws, as did dozens of others—James Parton, Elizur Wright,\nO. B. Frothingham, T. C. Leland, Courtlandt Palmer, and many more whose\nnames we do not recall. But Colonel Ingersoll did not, and when the\nNational Liberal League met the next year at Chicago (September 17,\n1880), he was opposed to the League's making a pledge to defend every\ncase under the Comstock laws, and he was opposed to a resolution\ndemanding a repeal of those laws. The following is what Colonel\nIngersoll said upon the subject:\n\n\"'Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer the following resolution in place and\ninstead of resolutions numbered 5 and 6:\n\n\"'Resolved, That the committee of defence, whenever a person has been\nindicted for what he claims to have been an honest exercise of the\nfreedom of thought and expression, shall investigate the case, and if it\nappears that such person has been guilty of no offence, then it shall\nbe the duty of said committee to defend such person if he is unable to\ndefend himself.'\n\n\"'Now, allow me one moment to state my reasons. I do not, I have not, I\nnever shall, accuse or suspect a solitary member of the Liberal League\nof the United States of being in favor of doing any act under heaven\nthat he is not thoroughly convinced is right. We all claim freedom of\nspeech, and it is the gem of the human soul. We all claim a right to\nexpress our honest thoughts. Did it ever occur to any Liberal that\nhe wished to express any thought honestly, truly, and legally that he\nconsidered immoral? How does it happen that we have any interest in\nwhat is known as immoral literature? I deny that the League has any\ninterest in that kind of literature. Whenever we mention it, whenever we\nspeak of it, we put ourselves in a false position. What do we want? We\nwant to see to it that the church party shall not smother the literature\nof Liberalism. We want to see to it that the viper of intellectual\nslavery shall not sting our cause. We want it so that every honest man,\nso that every honest woman, can express his or her honest thought upon\nany subject in the world. And the question, and the only question, as to\nwhether they are amenable to the law, in my mind, is, Were they honest?\nWas their effort to benefit mankind? Was that their intention? And no\nman, no woman, should be convicted of any offence that that man or woman\ndid not intend to commit. Now, then, suppose some person is arrested,\nand it is claimed that a work written by him is immoral, is illegal.\nThen, I say, let our committee of defence examine that case, and if\nour enemies are seeking to trample out Freethought under the name of\nimmorality, and under the cover and shield of our criminal law, then let\nus defend that man to the last dollar we have. But we do not wish to put\nourselves in the position of general defenders of all the slush that may\nbe written in this or any other country. You cannot afford to do it.\nYou cannot afford to put into the mouth of theology a perpetual and\ncontinual slur. You cannot afford to do it. And this meeting is not the\ntime to go into the question of what authority the United States may\nhave over the mails. It is a very wide question. It embraces many\nothers. Has the Government a right to say what shall go into the mails?\nWhy, in one sense, assuredly. Certainly they have a right to say you\nshall not send a horse and wagon by mail. They have a right to fix some\nlimit; and the only thing we want is that the literature of liberty, the\nliterature of real Freethought, shall not be discriminated against.\nAnd we know now as well as if it had been perfectly and absolutely\ndemonstrated, that the literature of Freethought will be absolutely\npure. We know it, We call upon the Christian world to expunge obscenity\nfrom their book, and until that is expunged we demand that the laws\nagainst obscene literature shall be executed. And how can we, in the\nnext resolution, say those laws ought all to be repealed? We cannot do\nthat. I have always been in favor of such an amendment of the law that\nby no trick, by no device, by no judicial discretion, an honest, high,\npure-minded man should be subjected to punishment simply for giving his\nbest and his honest thought. What more do we need? What more can we ask?\nI am as much opposed as my friend Mr. Wakeman can be to the assumption\nof the church that it is the guardian of morality. If our morality is\nto be guarded by that sentiment alone, then is the end come. The natural\ninstinct of self-defence in mankind and in all organized society is the\nfortress of the morality in mankind. The church itself was at one time\nthe outgrowth of that same feeling, but now the feeling has outgrown the\nchurch. Now, then, we will have a Committee of Defence. That committee\nwill examine every case. Suppose some man has been indicted, and suppose\nhe is guilty. Suppose he has endeavored to soil the human mind. Suppose\nhe has been willing to make money by pandering to the lowest passions\nin the human breast. What will that committee do with him then? We will\nsay, \"Go on; let the law take its course.\" But if, upon reading his\nbook, we find that he is all wrong, horribly wrong, idiotically wrong,\nbut make up our minds that he was honest in his error, I will give\nas much as any other living man of my means to defend that man. And I\nbelieve you will all bear me witness when I say that I have the cause of\nintellectual liberty at heart as much as I am capable of having anything\nat heart. And I know hundreds of others here just the same. I understand\nthat. I understand their motive. I believe it to be perfectly good, but\nI truly and honestly think they are mistaken.\n\nIf we have an interest in the business, I would fight for it. If our\ncause were assailed by law, then I say fight; and our cause is assailed,\nand I say fight. They will not allow me, in many States of this Union,\nto testify. I say fight until every one of those laws is repealed. They\ndiscriminate against a man simply because he is honest. Repeal such\nlaws. The church, if it had the power to-day, would trample out every\nparticle of free literature in this land. And when they endeavor to\ndo that, I say fight. But there is a distinction wide as the\nMississippi—yes, wider than the Atlantic, wider than all the\noceans—between the literature of immorality and the literature of\nFreethought. One is a crawling, slimy lizard, and the other an\nangel with wings of light. Now, let us draw this distinction, let us\nunderstand ourselves, and do not give to the common enemy a word covered\nwith mire, a word stained with cloaca, to throw at us. We thought we had\nsettled that question a year ago. We buried it then, and I say let it\nrot.\n\n\"'This question is of great importance. It is the most important one we\nhave here. I have fought this question; I am ever going to do so, and\nI will not allow anybody to put a stain upon me. This question must be\nunderstood if it takes all summer. Here is a case in point. Some lady\nhas written a work which, I am informed, is a good work, and that has\nnothing wrong about it. Her opinions may be foolish or wise. Let this\ncommittee examine that case. If they find that she is a good woman, that\nshe had good intentions, no matter how terrible the work may be, if\nher intentions are good, she has committed no crime. I want the honest\nthought. I think I have always been in favor of it. But we haven't the\ntime to go into all these questions.\n\n\"'Then comes the question for this house to decide in a moment whether\nthese cases should have been tried in the State or Federal court. I\nwant it understood that I have confidence in the Federal courts of the\nnation. There may be some bad judges, there may be some idiotic jurors.\nI think there was in that case [of Mr. Bennett]. But the Committee of\nDefence, if I understand it, supplied means, for the defence of that\nman. They did, but are we ready now to decide in a moment what courts\nshall have jurisdiction? Are we ready to say that the Federal courts\nshall be denied jurisdiction in any case arising about the mails?\nSuppose somebody robs the mails? Before whom shall we try the robber?\nTry him before a Federal judge. Why? Because he has violated a Federal\nlaw. We have not any time for such an investigation as this. What we\nwant to do is to defend free speech everywhere. What we want to do is to\ndefend the expression of thought in papers, in pamphlets, in books. What\nwe want to do is to see to it that these books, papers, and pamphlets\nare on an equality with all other books, papers, and pamphlets in the\nUnited States mails. And then the next step we want to take, if any man\nis indicted under the pretence that he is publishing immoral books,\nis to have our Committee of Defence well examine the case; and if we\nbelieve the man to be innocent we will help defend him if he is\nunable to defend himself; and if we find that the law is wrong in that\nparticular, we will go for the amendment of that law. I beg of you to\nhave some sense in this matter. We must have it. If we don't, upon that\nrock we shall split—upon that rock we shall again divide. Let us not do\nit. The cause of intellectual liberty is the highest to the human mind.\nLet us stand by it, and we can help all these people by this resolution.\nWe can do justice everywhere with it, while if we agree to the fifth and\nsixth resolutions that have been offered I say we lay ourselves open to\nthe charge, and it will be hurled against us, no matter how unjustly,\nthat we are in favor of widespread immorality.\n\n\"'Mr. Clarke: We are not afraid of it.\n\n\"'Colonel Ingersoll: You may say we are not afraid. I am not afraid. He\nonly is a fool who rushes into unnecessary danger.\n\n\"'Mr. Clarke: What are you talking about, anyway?\n\n\"'Colonel Ingersoll: I am talking with endeavor to put a little sense\ninto such men as you. Your very question shows that it was necessary\nthat I should talk. And now I move that my resolution be adopted.\n\n\"'Mr. Wakeman moved that it be added to that portion of the sixth\nresolution which recommended the constitution of the Committee of\nDefence.\n\n\"'Col. Ingersoll: I cannot agree to the sixth resolution. I think nearly\nevery word of it is wrong in principle. I think it binds us to a course\nof action that we shall not be willing to follow; and my resolution\ncovers every possible case. My resolution binds us to defend every\nhonest man in the exercise of his right. I can't be bound to say that\nthe Government hasn't control of its morals—that we cannot trust the\nFederal courts—that, under any circumstances, at any time, I am bound\nto defend, either by word or money, any man who violates the laws of\nthis country.\n\n\"'Mr. Wakeman: We do not say that.\n\n\"'Colonel Ingersoll: I beg of you, I beseech you, not to pass the sixth\nresolution. If you do, I wouldn't give that [snapping his fingers] for\nthe platform. A part of the Comstock law authorizes the vilest possible\ntrick. We are all opposed to that.\n\n\"'Mr. Leland: What is the question?\n\n\"'Colonel Ingersoll: Don't let us be silly. Don't let us say we are\nopposed to what we are not opposed to. If any man here is opposed to\nputting down the vilest of all possible trash he ought to go home.\nWe are opposed to only a part of the law—opposed to it whenever they\nendeavor to trample Freethought under foot in the name of immorality.\n\nAfterward, at the same session of the Congress, the following colloquy\ntook place between Colonel Ingersoll and T. B. Wakeman:\n\n\"'Colonel Ingersoll: You know as well as I that there are certain\nbooks not fit to go through the mails—books and pictures not fit to be\ndelivered.\n\n\"'Mr. Wakeman: That is so.\n\n\"'Colonel Ingersoll: There is not a man here who is not in favor, when\nthese books and pictures come into the control of the United States,\nof burning them up when they are manifestly obscene. You don't want any\ngrand jury there.\n\n\"'Mr. Wakeman: Yes, we do.\n\n\"'Colonel Ingersoll: No, we don't. When they are manifestly obscene,\nburn them up.\n\n\"'A delegate: Who is to be judge of that?\n\n\"'Colonel Ingersoll: There are books that nobody differs about. There\nare certain things about which we can use discretion. If that discretion\nis abused, a man has his remedy. We stand for the free thought of this\ncountry. We stand for the progressive spirit of the United States. We\ncan't afford to say that all these laws should be repealed. If we had\ntime to investigate them we could say in what they should be amended.\nDon't tie us to this nonsense—to the idea that we have an interest in\nimmoral literature. Let us remember that Mr. Wakeman is sore. He had a\ncase before the Federal courts, and he imagines, having lost that case,\nyou cannot depend on them. I have lost hundreds of cases. I have as much\nconfidence in the Federal courts as in the State courts. I am not to be\na party to throwing a slur upon the Federal judiciary. All we want is\nfair play. We want the same chance for our doctrines that others have\nfor theirs. And how this infernal question of obscenity ever got into\nthe Liberal League I could never understand. If an innocent man is\nconvicted of larceny, should we repeal all the laws on the subject? I\ndon't pretend to be better than other people.\n\nIt is easy to talk right—so easy to be right that I never care to have\nthe luxury of being wrong. I am advocating something that we can stand\nupon. I do not misunderstand Mr. Wakeman's motives. I believe they are\nperfectly good—that he is thoroughly honest. Why not just say we will\nstand by freedom of thought and its expression? Why not say that we\nare in favor of amending any law that is wrong? But do not make the\nwholesale statement that all these laws ought to be repealed. They ought\nnot to be repealed. Some of them are good.\" The law against sending\ninstruments of vice in the mails is good, as is the law against sending\nobscene books and pictures, and the law against letting ignorant hyenas\nprey upon sick people, and the law which prevents the getters up of\nbogus lotteries sending their letters through the mail.'\n\n\"At the evening session of the Congress, on the same day, Mr. Ingersoll\nmade this speech in opposition to the resolution demanding the repeal of\nthe Comstock laws:\n\n\"'I am not in favor of the repeal of those laws. I have never been, and\nI never expect to be. But I do wish that every law providing for the\npunishment of a criminal offence should distinctly define the offence.\nThat is the objection to this law, that it does not define the offence,\nso that an American citizen can readily know when he is about to violate\nit and consequently the law ought in all probability to be modified\nin that regard. I am in favor of every law defining with perfect\ndistinctness the offence to be punished, but I cannot say by wholesale\nthese laws should be repealed. I have the cause of Freethought too much\nat heart. Neither will I consent to the repeal simply because the church\nis in favor of those laws. In so far as the church agrees with me, I\ncongratulate the church. In so far as superstition is willing to help\nme, good! I am willing to accept it. I believe, also, that this League\nis upon a secular basis, and there should be nothing in our platform\nthat would prevent any Christian from acting with us. What is our\nplatform?—and we ought to leave it as it is. It needs no amendment.\nOur platform is for a secular government. Is it improper in a secular\ngovernment to endeavor to prevent the spread of obscene literature? It\nis the business of a secular government to do it, but if that government\nattempts to stamp out Freethought in the name of obscenity, it is then\nfor the friends of Freethought to call for a definition of the word, and\nsuch a definition as will allow Freethought to go everywhere through all\nthe mails of the United States. We are also in favor of secular schools.\nGood! We are in favor of doing away with every law that discriminates\nagainst a man on account of his belief. Good! We are in favor of\nuniversal education. Good! We are in favor of the taxation of church\nproperty. Good!—because the experience of the world shows that where\nyou allow superstition to own property without taxing it, it will absorb\nthe net profits. Is it time now that we should throw into the scale,\nagainst all these splendid purposes, an effort to repeal some postal\nlaws against obscenity? As well might we turn the League into an engine\nto do away with all laws against the sale of stale eggs.\n\n\"'What have we to do with those things? Is it possible that Freethought\ncan be charged with being obscene? Is it possible that, if the charge\nis made, it can be substantiated? Can you not attack any superstition\nin the world in perfectly pure language? Can you not attack anything you\nplease in perfectly pure language? And where a man intends right, no law\nshould find him guilty; and if the law is weak in that respect, let it\nbe modified. But I say to you that I cannot go with any body of men who\ndemand the unconditional repeal of these laws. I believe in liberty\nas much as any man that breathes. I will do as much, according to my\nability, as any other man to make this an absolutely free and secular\ngovernment I will do as much as any other man of my strength and of my\nintellectual power to give every human being every right that I claim\nfor myself. But this obscene law business is a stumbling block. Had it\nnot been for this, instead of the few people voting here—less than one\nhundred—we would have had a Congress numbered by thousands. Had it not\nbeen for this business, the Liberal League of the United States would\nto-night hold in its hand the political destiny of the United States.\nInstead of that, we have thrown away our power upon a question in which\nwe are not interested. Instead of that, we have wasted our resources\nand our brain for the repeal of a law that we don't want repealed. If\nwe want anything, we simply want a modification. Now, then, don't stain\nthis cause by such a course. And don't understand that I am pretending,\nor am insinuating, that anyone here is in favor of obscene literature.\nIt is a question, not of principle, but of means, and I beg pardon\nof this Convention if I have done anything so horrible as has been\ndescribed by Mr. Pillsbury. I regret it if I have ever endeavored to\ntrample upon the rights of this Convention.\n\n\"'There is one thing I have not done—I have not endeavored to cast\nfive votes when I didn't have a solitary vote. Let us be fair; let us be\nfair. I have simply given my vote. I wish to trample upon the rights\nof no one; and when Mr. Pillsbury gave those votes he supposed he had\na right to give them; and if he had a right, the votes would have been\ncounted. I attribute nothing wrong to him, but I say this: I have the\nright to make a motion in this Congress, I have the right to argue that\nmotion, but I have no more rights than any other member, and I claim\nnone. But I want to say to you—and I want you to know and feel it—that\nI want to act with every Liberal man and woman in this world. I want you\nto know and feel it that I want to do everything I can to get every one\nof these statutes off our books that discriminates against a man because\nof his religious belief—that I am in favor of a secular government,\nand of all these rights. But I cannot, and I will not, operate with any\norganization that asks for the unconditional repeal of those laws. I\nwill stand alone, and I have stood alone. I can tell my thoughts to my\ncountrymen, and I will do it, and whatever position you take, whether\nI am with you or not, you will find me battling everywhere for the\nabsolute freedom of the human mind. You will find me battling everywhere\nto make this world better and grander; and whatever my personal conduct\nmay be, I shall endeavor to keep my theories right. I beg of you,\nI implore you, do not pass the resolution No. 6. It is not for our\ninterest; it will do us no good. It will lose us hosts of honest,\nsplendid friends. Do not do it; it will be a mistake; and the only\nreason I offered the motion was to give the members time to think this\nover. I am not pretending to know more than other people. I am perfectly\nwilling to say that in many things I know less. But upon this subject I\nwant you to think. No matter whether you are afraid of your sons, your\ndaughters, your wives, or your husbands, that isn't it—I don't want the\nsplendid prospects of this League put in jeopardy upon such an issue\nas this. I have no more to say. But if that resolution is passed, all I\nhave to say is that, while I shall be for liberty everywhere, I cannot\nact with this organization, and I will not.'\n\n\"The resolution was finally adopted, and Colonel Ingersoll resigned his\noffice of vice-president in the League, and never acted with it again\nuntil the League dropped all side issues, and came back to first\nprinciples—the enforcement of the Nine Demands of Liberalism.\"\n\nIn 1892, writing upon this subject in answer to a minister who had\nrepeated these absurd charges, Colonel Ingersoll made this offer:\n\n\"I will pay a premium of one thousand dollars a word for each and every\nword I ever said or wrote in favor of sending obscene publications\nthrough the mails.\"\n"
}