{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-7:interview-on-chief-justice-comegys",
  "slug": "interview-on-chief-justice-comegys",
  "title": "Interview on Chief Justice Comegys",
  "subtitle": "On the Delaware blasphemy indictment.",
  "excerpt": "Two interviews — one in the Brooklyn Eagle, one in the Chicago Times — on the Delaware Chief Justice who, in a charge to the grand jury, all but commanded Ingersoll's indictment for blasphemy.",
  "year": 1881,
  "volume": 7,
  "category": "Reply",
  "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/interview-on-chief-justice-comegys/",
  "wordCount": 5499,
  "body": "• Brooklyn Eagle, 1881.\n\nQuestion. I understand, Colonel Ingersoll, that you have been indicted\nin the State of Delaware for the crime of blasphemy?\n\nAnswer. Well, not exactly indicted. The Judge, who, I believe, is the\nChief Justice of the State, dedicated the new court-house at Wilmington\nto the service of the Lord, by a charge to the grand jury, in which he\nalmost commanded them to bring in a bill of indictment against me, for\nwhat he was pleased to call the crime of blasphemy. Now, as a matter\nof fact, there can be no crime committed by man against God, provided\nalways that a correct definition of the Deity has been given by\nthe orthodox churches. They say that he is infinite. If so, he is\nconditionless. I can injure a man by changing his conditions. Take\nfrom a man water, and he perishes of thirst; take from him air, and\nhe suffocates; he may die from too much, or too little heat. That is\nbecause he is a conditioned being. But if God is conditionless,\nhe cannot in any way be affected by what anybody else may do; and,\nconsequently, a sin against God is as impossible as a sin against the\nprinciple of the lever or inclined plane. This crime called blasphemy\nwas invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able\nto take care of themselves. Blasphemy is a kind of breastwork behind\nwhich hypocrisy has crouched for thousands of years. Injustice is the\nonly blasphemy that can be committed, and justice is the only true\nworship. Man can sin against man, but not against God. But even if man\ncould sin against God, it has always struck me that an infinite being\nwould be entirely able to take care of himself without the assistance of\na Chief Justice. Men have always been violating the rights of men, under\nthe plea of defending the rights of God, and nothing, for ages, was so\nperfectly delightful to the average Christian as to gratify his revenge,\nand get God in his debt at the same time. Chief Justice Comegys has\ntaken this occasion to lay up for himself what he calls treasures in\nheaven, and on the last great day he will probably rely on a certified\ncopy of this charge. The fact that he thinks the Lord needs help\nsatisfies me that in that particular neighborhood I am a little ahead.\n\nThe fact is, I never delivered but one lecture in Delaware. That\nlecture, however, had been preceded by a Republican stump speech; and,\nto tell you the truth, I imagine that the stump speech is what a Yankee\nwould call the heft of the offence. It is really hard for me to tell\nwhether I have blasphemed the Deity or the Democracy. Of course I have\nno personal feeling whatever against the Judge. In fact he has done me\na favor. He has called the attention of the civilized world to certain\nbarbarian laws that disfigure and disgrace the statute books of most\nof the States. These laws were passed when our honest ancestors were\nburning witches, trading Quaker children to the Barbadoes for rum and\nmolasses, branding people upon the forehead, boring their tongues with\nhot irons, putting one another in the pillory, and, generally, in the\nname of God, making their neighbors as uncomfortable as possible. We\nhave outgrown these laws without repealing them. They are, as a matter\nof fact, in most communities actually dead; but in some of the States,\nlike Delaware, I suppose they could be enforced, though there might be\ntrouble in selecting twelve men, even in Delaware, without getting one\nman broad enough, sensible enough, and honest enough, to do justice. I\nhardly think it would be possible in any State to select a jury in the\nordinary way that would convict any person charged with what is commonly\nknown as blasphemy.\n\nAll the so-called Christian churches have accused each other of being\nblasphemers, in turn. The Catholics denounced the Presbyterians as\nblasphemers, the Presbyterians denounced the Baptists; the Baptists, the\nPresbyterians, and the Catholics all united in denouncing the Quakers,\nand they all together denounced the Unitarians—called them blasphemers\nbecause they did not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ—the\nUnitarians only insisting that three infinite beings were not necessary,\nthat one infinite being could do all the business, and that the other\ntwo were absolutely useless. This was called blasphemy.\n\nThen all the churches united to call the Universalists blasphemers.\nI can remember when a Uni-versalist was regarded with a thousand times\nmore horror than an infidel is to-day. There is this strange thing about\nthe history of theology—nobody has ever been charged with blasphemy\nwho thought God bad. For instance, it never would have excited any\ntheological hatred if a man had insisted that God would finally damn\neverybody. Nearly all heresy has consisted in making God better than the\nmajority in the churches thought him to be. The orthodox Christian never\nwill forgive the Univer-salist for saying that God is too good to damn\nanybody eternally. Now, all these sects have charged each other with\nblasphemy, without anyone of them knowing really what blasphemy is. I\nsuppose they have occasionally been honest, because they have mostly\nbeen ignorant. It is said that Torquemada used to shed tears over the\nagonies of his victims and that he recommended slow burning, not because\nhe wished to inflict pain, but because he really desired to give the\ngentleman or lady he was burning a chance to repent of his or her sins,\nand make his or her peace with God previous to becoming a cinder.\n\nThe root, foundation, germ and cause of nearly all religious persecution\nis the idea that some certain belief is necessary to salvation. If\northodox Christians are right in this idea, then persecution of all\nheretics and infidels is a duty. If I have the right to defend my body\nfrom attack, surely I should have a like right to defend my soul. Under\nour laws I could kill any man who was endeavoring, for example, to take\nthe life of my child. How much more would I be justified in killing\nany wretch who was endeavoring to convince my child of the truth of a\ndoctrine which, if believed, would result in the eternal damnation of\nthat child's soul?\n\nIf the Christian religion, as it is commonly understood, is true, no\ninfidel should be allowed to live; every heretic should be hunted\nfrom the wide world as you would hunt a wild beast. They should not\nbe allowed to speak, they should not be allowed to poison the minds of\nwomen and children; in other words, they should not be allowed to empty\nheaven and fill hell. The reason I have liberty in this country is\nbecause the Christians of this country do not believe their doctrine.\nThe passage from the Bible, \"Go ye into all the world and preach the\nGospel to every creature,\" coupled with the assurance that, \"Whosoever\nbelieveth and is baptized shall be saved, and whoso believeth not shall\nbe damned,\" is the foundation of most religious persecution. Every\nword in that passage has been fire and fagot, whip and sword, chain\nand dungeon. That one passage has probably caused more agony among men,\nwomen and children, than all the passages of all other books that\nwere ever printed. Now, this passage was not in the book of Mark when\noriginally written, but was put there many years after the gentleman who\nevolved the book of Mark from his inner consciousness, had passed\naway. It was put there by the church—that is to say, by hypocrisy and\npriestly craft, to bind the consciences of men and force them to come\nunder ecclesiastical and spiritual power; and that passage has been\nreceived and believed, and been made binding by law in most countries\never since.\n\nWhat would you think of a law compelling a man to admire Shakespeare, or\ncalling it blasphemy to laugh at Hamlet? Why is not a statute necessary\nto uphold the reputation of Raphael or of Michael Angelo? Is it possible\nthat God cannot write a book good enough and great enough and grand\nenough not to excite the laughter of his children? Is it possible that\nhe is compelled to have his literary reputation supported by the State\nof Delaware?\n\nThere is another very strange thing about this business. Admitting that\nthe Bible is the work of God, it is not any more his work than are the\nsun, the moon and the stars or the earth, and if for disbelieving this\nBible we are to be damned forever, we ought to be equally damned for\na mistake in geology or astronomy. The idea of allowing a man to go\nto heaven who swears that the earth is flat, and damning a fellow who\nthinks it is round, but who-has his honest doubts about Joshua, seems to\nme to be perfectly absurd. It seems to me that in this view of it, it\nis just as necessary to be right on the subject of the equator as on the\ndoctrine of infant baptism.\n\nQuestion. What was in your judgment the motive of Judge Comegys? Is he\na personal enemy of yours? Have you ever met him? Have you any idea what\nreason he had for attacking you?\n\nAnswer. I do not know the gentleman, personally. Outside of the\npolitical reason I have intimated, I do not know why he attacked me. I\nonce delivered a lecture entitled \"What must we do to be Saved?\" in the\ncity of Wilmington, and in that lecture I proceeded to show, or at\nleast tried to show, that Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing about\nChristianity, as it is understood in Delaware; and I also endeavored to\nshow that all men have an equal right to think, and that a man is only\nunder obligations to be honest with himself, and with all men, and that\nhe is not accountable for the amount of mind that he has been endowed\nwith—otherwise it might be Judge Comegys himself would be damned—but\nthat he is only accountable for the use he makes of what little mind\nhe has received. I held that the safest thing for every man was to be\nabsolutely honest, and to express his honest thought. After the delivery\nof this lecture various ministers in Wilmington began replying, and\nafter the preaching of twenty or thirty sermons, not one of which,\nconsidered as a reply, was a success, I presume it occurred to these\nministers that the shortest and easiest way would be to have me indicted\nand imprisoned.\n\nIn this I entirely agree with them. It is the old and time-honored way.\nI believe it is, as it always has been, easier to kill two infidels than\nto answer one; and if Christianity expects to stem the tide that is\nnow slowly rising over the intellectual world, it must be done by brute\nforce, and by brute force alone. And it must be done pretty soon,\nor they will not have the brute force. It is doubtful if they have a\nmajority of the civilized world on their side to-day. No heretic ever\nwould have been burned if he could have been answered. No theologian\never called for the help of the law until his logic gave out.\n\nI suppose Judge Comegys to be a Presbyterian. Where did he get his right\nto be a Presbyterian? Where did he get his right to decide which creed\nis the correct one? How did he dare to pit his little brain against the\nword of God? He may say that his father was a Presbyterian. But what\nwas his grandfather? If he will only go back far enough he will, in all\nprobability, find that his ancestors were Catholics, and if he will go\nback a little farther still, that they were barbarians; that at one time\nthey were naked, and had snakes tattooed on their bodies. What right\nhad they to change? Does he not perceive that had the savages passed the\nsame kind of laws that now exist in Delaware, they could have prevented\nany change in belief? They would have had a whipping-post, too, and they\nwould have said: \"Any gentleman found without snakes tattooed upon his\nbody shall be held guilty of blasphemy;\" and all the ancestors of this\nJudge, and of these ministers, would have said, Amen!\n\nWhat right had the first Presbyterian to be a Presbyterian? He must have\nbeen a blasphemer first. A small dose of pillory might have changed\nhis religion. Does this Judge think that Delaware is incapable of\nany improvement in a religious point of view? Does he think that the\nPresbyterians of Delaware are not only the best now, but that they will\nforever be the best that God can make? Is there to be no advancement?\nHas there been no advancement? Are the pillory and the whipping-post to\nbe used to prevent an excess of thought in the county of New Castle? Has\nthe county ever been troubled that way? Has this Judge ever had symptoms\nof any such disease? Now, I want it understood that I like this Judge,\nand my principal reason for liking him is that he is the last of his\nrace. He will be so inundated with the ridicule of mankind that no\nother Chief Justice in Delaware, or anywhere else, will ever follow his\nillustrious example. The next Judge will say: \"So far as I am concerned,\nthe Lord may attend to his own business, and deal with infidels as he\nmay see proper.\" Thus great good has been accomplished by this Judge,\nwhich shows, as Burns puts it, \"that a pot can be boiled, even if the\ndevil tries to prevent it.\"\n\nQuestion. How will this action of Delaware, in your opinion, affect\nthe other States?\n\nAnswer. Probably a few other States needed an example exactly of this\nkind. New Jersey, in all probability, will say: \"Delaware is perfectly\nridiculous,\" and yet, had Delaware waited awhile, New Jersey might have\ndone the same thing. Maryland will exclaim: \"Did you ever see such a\nfool!\" And yet I was threatened in that State. The average American\ncitizen, taking into consideration the fact that we are blest, or\ncursed, with about one hundred thousand preachers, and that these\npreachers preach on the average one hundred thousand sermons a\nweek—some of which are heard clear through—will unquestionably hold\nthat a man who happens to differ with all these parsons, ought to have\nand shall have the privilege of expressing his mind; and that the one\nhundred thousand clergymen ought to be able to put down the one man who\nhappens to disagree with them, without calling on the army or navy to do\nit, especially when it is taken into consideration that an infinite\nGod is already on their side. Under these circumstances, the average\nAmerican will say: \"Let him talk, and let the hundred thousand preachers\nanswer him to their hearts' content.\" So that in my judgment the result\nof the action of Delaware will be: First, to liberalize all other\nStates, and second, finally to liberalize Delaware itself. In many of\nthe States they have the same idiotic kind of laws as those found in\nDelaware—with the exception of those blessed institutions for the\nspread of the Gospel, known as the pillory and the whipping-post. There\nis a law in Maine by which a man can be put into the penitentiary\nfor denying the providence of God, and the day of judgment. There are\nsimilar laws in most of the New England States. One can be imprisoned in\nMaryland for a like offence.\n\nIn North Carolina no man can hold office that has not a certain\nreligious belief; and so in several other of the Southern States.\nIn half the States of this Union, if my wife and children should be\nmurdered before my eyes, I would not be allowed in a court of justice\nto tell who the murderer was. You see that, for hundreds of years,\nChristianity has endeavored to put the brand of infamy on every\nintellectual brow.\n\nQuestion. I see that one objection to your lectures urged by Judge\nComegys on the grand jury is, that they tend to a breach of the\npeace—to riot and bloodshed.\n\nAnswer. Yes; Judge Comegys seems to be afraid that people who love\ntheir enemies will mob their friends. He is afraid that those disciples\nwho, when smitten on one cheek turn the other to be smitten also, will\nget up a riot. He seems to imagine that good Christians feel called upon\nto violate the commands of the Lord in defence of the Lord's reputation.\nIf Christianity produces people who cannot hear their doctrines\ndiscussed without raising mobs, and shedding blood, the sooner it is\nstopped being preached the better.\n\nThere is not the slightest danger of any infidel attacking a Christian\nfor His belief, and there never will be an infidel mob for such a\npurpose. Christians can teach and preach their views to their hearts'\ncontent. They can send all unbelievers to an eternal hell, if it gives\nthem the least pleasure, and they may bang their Bibles as long as their\nfists last, but no infidel will be in danger of raising a riot to stop\nthem, or put them down by brute force, or even by an appeal to the\nlaw, and I would advise Judge Comegys, if he wishes to compliment\nChristianity, to change his language and say that he feared a breach of\nthe peace might be committed by the infidels—not by the Christians. He\nmay possibly have thought that it was my intention to attack his State.\nBut I can assure him, that if ever I start a warfare of that kind,\nI shall take some State of my size. There is no glory to be won in\nwringing the neck of a \"Blue Hen!\"\n\nQuestion. I should judge, Colonel, that you are prejudiced against the\nState of Delaware?\n\nAnswer. Not by any means. Oh, no! I know a great many splendid people\nin Delaware, and since I have known more of their surroundings, my\nadmiration for them has increased. They are, on the whole, a very good\npeople in that State. I heard a story the other day: An old fellow in\nDelaware has been for the last twenty or thirty years gathering peaches\nthere in their season—a kind of peach tramp. One day last fall, just as\nthe season closed, he was leaning sadly against a tree, \"Boys!\" said he,\n\"I'd like to come back to Delaware a hundred years from now.\" The boys\nasked, \"What for?\" The old fellow replied: \"Just to see how damned\nlittle they'd get the baskets by that time.\" And it occurred to me that\npeople who insist that twenty-two quarts make a bushel, should be as\nquiet as possible on the subject of blasphemy.\n\nAn Interview on Chief Justice Comegys\n  • Chicago Times, Feb. 14, 1881.\n\nQuestion. Have you read Chief Justice Comegys' compliments to you\nbefore the Delaware grand jury?\n\nAnswer. Yes, I have read his charge, in which he relies upon the law\npassed in 1740. After reading his charge it seemed to me as though he\nhad died about the date of the law, had risen from the dead, and had\ngone right on where he had left off. I presume he is a good man, but\ncompared with other men, is something like his State when compared with\nother States.\n\nA great many people will probably regard the charge of Judge Comegys\nas unchristian, but I do not. I consider that the law of Delaware is in\nexact accord with the Bible, and that the pillory, the whip-ping-post,\nand the suppression of free speech are the natural fruit of the Old and\nNew Testament.\n\nDelaware is right. Christianity can not succeed, can not exist, without\nthe protection of law. Take from orthodox Christianity the protection\nof law, and all church property would be taxed like other property. The\nSabbath would be no longer a day devoted to superstition. Everyone\ncould express his honest thought upon every possible subject. Everyone,\nnotwithstanding his belief, could testify in a court of justice. In\nother words, honesty would be on an equality with hypocrisy.\nScience would stand on a level, so far as the law is concerned, with\nsuperstition. Whenever this happens the end of orthodox Christianity\nwill be near.\n\nBy Christianity I do not mean charity, mercy, kindness, forgiveness. I\nmean no natural virtue, because all the natural virtues existed and had\nbeen practiced by hundreds and thousands of millions before Christ was\nborn. There certainly were some good men even in the days of Christ in\nJerusalem, before his death.\n\nBy Christianity I mean the ideas of redemption, atonement, a good man\ndying for a bad man, and the bad man getting a receipt in full. By\nChristianity I mean that system that insists that in the next world a\nfew will be forever happy, while the many will be eternally miserable.\nChristianity, as I have explained it, must be protected, guarded, and\nsustained by law. It was founded by the sword that is to say, by physical\nforce,—and must be preserved by like means.\n\nIn many of the States of the Union an infidel is not allowed to testify.\nIn the State of Delaware, if Alexander von Humboldt were living, he\ncould not be a witness, although he had more brains than the State of\nDelaware has ever produced, or is likely to produce as long as the laws\nof 1740 remain in force. Such men as Huxley, Tyndall and Haeckel could\nbe fined and imprisoned in the State of Delaware, and, in fact, in many\nStates of this Union.\n\nChristianity, in order to defend itself, puts the brand of infamy on\nthe brow of honesty. Christianity marks with a letter \"C,\" standing for\n\"convict\" every brain that is great enough to discover the frauds. I\nhave no doubt that Judge Comegys is a good and sincere Christian. I\nbelieve that he, in his charge, gives an exact reflection of the Jewish\nJehovah. I believe that every word he said was in exact accord with\nthe spirit of orthodox Christianity. Against this man personally I have\nnothing to say. I know nothing of his character except as I gather it\nfrom this charge, and after reading the charge I am forced simply to\nsay, Judge Comegys is a Christian.\n\nIt seems, however, that the grand jury dared to take no action,\nnotwithstanding they had been counseled to do so by the Judge. Although\nthe Judge had quoted to them the words of George I. of blessed memory;\nalthough he had quoted to them the words of Lord Mansfield, who became\na Judge simply because of his hatred of the English colonists, simply\nbecause he despised liberty in the new world; notwithstanding the fact\nthat I could have been punished with insult, with imprisonment, and with\nstripes, and with every form of degradation; notwithstanding that only a\nfew years ago I could have been branded upon the forehead, bored through\nthe tongue, maimed and disfigured, still, such has been the advance even\nin the State of Delaware, owing, it may be, in great part to the one\nlecture delivered by me, that the grand jury absolutely refused to\nindict me.\n\nThe grand jury satisfied themselves and their consciences simply by\nmaking a report in which they declared that my lecture had \"no parallel\nin the habits of respectable vagabondism\" that I was \"an arch-blasphemer\nand reviler of God and religion,\" and recommended that should I ever\nattempt to lecture again I should be taught that in Delaware blasphemy\nis a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment. I have no doubt that\nevery member of the grand jury signing this report was entirely honest;\nthat he acted in exact accord with what he understood to be the demand\nof the Christian religion. I must admit that for Christians, the report\nis exceedingly mild and gentle.\n\nI have now in the house, letters that passed between certain bishops in\nthe fifteenth century, in which they discussed the propriety of cutting\nout the tongues of heretics before they were burned. Some of the bishops\nwere in favor of and some against it. One argument for cutting out their\ntongues which seemed to have settled the question was, that unless the\ntongues of heretics were cut out they might scandalize the gentlemen\nwho were burning them, by blasphemous remarks during the fire. I would\ncommend these letters to Judge Comegys and the members of the grand\njury.\n\nI want it distinctly understood that I have nothing against Judge\nComegys or the grand jury. They act as 'most anybody would, raised in\nDelaware, in the shadow of the whipping-post and the pillory. We\nmust remember that Delaware was a slave State; that the Bible\nbecame extremely dear to the people because it upheld that peculiar\ninstitution. We must remember that the Bible was the block on which\nmother and child stood for sale when they were separated by the\nChristians of Delaware. The Bible was regarded as the title-pages to\nslavery, and as the book of all books that gave the right to masters to\nwhip mothers and to sell children.\n\nThere are many offences now for which the punishment is whipping and\nstanding in the pillory; where persons are convicted of certain crimes\nand sent to the penitentiary, and upon being discharged from the\npenitentiary are furnished by the State with a dark jacket plainly\nmarked on the back with a large Roman \"C,\" the letter to be of a light\ncolor. This they are to wear for six months after being discharged,\nand if they are found at any time without the dark jacket and the\nilluminated \"C\" they are to be punished with twenty lashes upon the bare\nback. The object, I presume, of this law, is to drive from the State all\nthe discharged convicts for the benefit of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and\nMaryland—that is to say, other Christian communities. A cruel people\nmake cruel laws.\n\nThe objection I have to the whipping-post is that it is a punishment\nwhich cannot be inflicted by a gentleman. The person who administers the\npunishment must, of necessity, be fully as degraded as the person who\nreceives it. I am opposed to any kind of punishment that cannot be\nadministered by a gentleman. I am opposed to corporal punishment\neverywhere. It should be taken from the asylums and penitentiaries, and\nany man who would apply the lash to the naked back of another is beneath\nthe contempt of honest people.\n\nQuestion. Have you seen that Henry Bergh has introduced in the New\nYork Legislature a bill providing for whipping as a punishment for\nwife-beating?\n\nAnswer. The objection I have mentioned is fatal to Mr. Bergh's bill.\nHe will be able to get persons to beat wife-beaters, who, under the\nsame circumstances, would be wife-beaters themselves. If they are not\nwife-beaters when they commence the business of beating others, they\nsoon will be. I think that wife-beating in great cities could be stopped\nby putting all the wife-beaters at work at some government employment,\nthe value of the work, however, to go to the wives and children. The\ntrouble now is that most of the wife-beating is among the extremely\npoor, so that the wife by informing against her husband, takes the last\ncrust out of her own mouth. If you substitute whipping or flogging for\nthe prison here, you will in the first place prevent thousands of wives\nfrom informing, and in many cases, where the wife would inform, she\nwould afterward be murdered by the flogged brute. This brute would\nnaturally resort to the same means to reform his wife that the State\nhad resorted to for the purpose of reforming him. Flogging would beget\nflogging. Mr. Bergh is a man of great kindness of heart. When he reads\nthat a wife has been beaten, he says the husband deserves to be beaten\nhimself. But if Mr. Bergh was to be the executioner, I imagine you could\nnot prove by the back of the man that the punishment had been inflicted.\n\nAnother good remedy for wife-beating is the abolition of the Catholic\nChurch. We should also do away with the idea that a marriage is a\nsacrament, and that there is any God who is rendered happy by seeing a\nhusband and wife live together, although the husband gets most of his\nearthly enjoyment from whipping his wife. No woman should live with\na man a moment after he has struck her. Just as the idea of liberty\nenlarges, confidence in the whip and fist, in the kick and blow, will\ndiminish. Delaware occupies toward freethinkers precisely the same\nposition that a wife-beater does toward the wife. Delaware knows that\nthere are no reasons sufficient to uphold Christianity, consequently\nthese reasons are supplemented with the pillory and the whipping-post.\nThe whipping-post is considered one of God's arguments, and the pillory\nis a kind of moral suasion, the use of which fills heaven with a kind\nof holy and serene delight. I am opposed to the religion of brute force,\nbut all these frightful things have grown principally out of a belief in\neternal punishment and out of the further idea that a certain belief is\nnecessary to avoid eternal pain.\n\nIf Christianity is right, Delaware is right. If God will damn every body\nforever simply for being intellectually honest, surely he ought to\nallow the good people of Delaware to imprison the same gentleman for two\nmonths. Of course there are thousands and thousands of good people in\nDelaware, people who have been in other States, people who have listened\nto Republican speeches, people who have read the works of scientists,\nwho hold the laws of 1740 in utter abhorrence; people who pity Judge\nComegys and who have a kind of sympathy for the grand jury.\n\nYou will see that at the last election Delaware lacked only six or seven\nhundred of being a civilized State, and probably in 1884 will stand\nredeemed and regenerated, with the laws of 1740 expunged from the\nstatute book. Delaware has not had the best of opportunities. You must\nremember that it is next to New Jersey, which is quite an obstacle\nin the path of progress. It is just beyond Maryland, which is another\nobstacle. I heard the other day that God originally made oysters with\nlegs, and afterward took them off, knowing that the people of Delaware\nwould starve to death before they would run to catch anything. Judge\nComegys is the last judge who will make such a charge in the United\nStates. He has immortalized himself as the last mile-stone on that road.\nHe is the last of his race. No more can be born. Outside of this he\nprobably was a very clever man, and it may be, he does not believe\na word he utters. The probability is that he has underestimated the\nintelligence of the people of Delaware. I am afraid to think that he is\nentirely honest, for fear that I may underestimate him intellectually,\nand overestimate him morally. Nothing could tempt me to do this man\ninjustice, though I could hardly add to the injury he has done himself.\nHe has called attention to laws that ought to be repealed, and to\nlectures that ought to be repeated. I feel in my heart that he has done\nme a great service, second only to that for which I am indebted to the\ngrand jury. Had the Judge known me personally he probably would have\nsaid nothing. Should I have the misfortune to be arrested in his State\nand sentenced to two months of solitary confinement, the Judge having\nbecome acquainted with me during the trial, would probably insist on\nspending most of his time in my cell. At the end of the two months he\nwould, I think, lay himself liable to the charge of blasphemy, providing\nhe had honor enough to express his honest thought. After all, it is\nall a question of honesty. Every man is right. I cannot convince myself\nthere is any God who will ever damn a man for having been honest. This\ngives me a certain hope for the Judge and the grand jury.\n\nFor two or three days I have been thinking what joy there must have been\nin heaven when Jehovah heard that Delaware was on his side, and remarked\nto the angels in the language of the late Adjt. Gen. Thomas: \"The eyes\nof all Delaware are upon you.\"\n"
}