diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:09:31 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:09:31 -0700 |
| commit | 2c5d2095b1b67f75a697c0cd929d06110eb9bade (patch) | |
| tree | 306a2f1ce26f484d9eb13426ae8d0cd0a2216e71 /38103-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '38103-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 38103-h/38103-h.htm | 2787 |
1 files changed, 2787 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/38103-h/38103-h.htm b/38103-h/38103-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..32be35e --- /dev/null +++ b/38103-h/38103-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2787 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?> + +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" > + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en"> + <head> + <title> + Trial of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy, by Robert Ingersoll + </title> + <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve"> + + body { margin:5%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify} + P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 20%;} + div.fig { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; } + div.middle { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; } + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;} + .pagenum {display:inline; font-size: 70%; font-style:normal; + margin: 0; padding: 0; position: absolute; right: 1%; + text-align: right;} + pre { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;} + +</style> + </head> + <body> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of C. B. Reynolds For Blasphemy, by +Robert G. Ingersoll + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Trial of C. B. Reynolds For Blasphemy + Defence by Robert G. Ingersoll, at Morristown, N. J., May 1887 + +Author: Robert G. Ingersoll + +Release Date: November 22, 2011 [EBook #38103] +Last Updated: January 25, 2013 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF REYNOLDS *** + + + + +Produced by David Widger + + + + + +</pre> + <div style="height: 8em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h1> + TRIAL OF C. B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY, + </h1> + <h2> + At Morristown, N. J., May 1887. + </h2> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h2> + Defence by Robert G. Ingersoll. + </h2> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h3> + Stenographically Reported by I. N. Baker, and Revised by the Author. + </h3> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h4> + 1888. + </h4> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <h3> + Contents + </h3> + <table summary="" style="margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto"> + <tr> + <td> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0001"> PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0002"> MR. INGERSOLL'S ARGUMENT </a> + </p> + </td> + </tr> + </table> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0001" id="link2H_4_0001"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. + </h2> + <p> + MR. C. B. REYNOLDS, the accused, is an accredited missionary of + freethought and speech who, under the guarantees of the Constitution, went + from town to town in New Jersey, lecturing and preaching to those—had + invited him and to all who chose to come. His methods of invitation were + the ordinary ones of circulars, newspaper notices, bill posters, and + personal address. His meetings were attended by the best people of the + place, and were orderly and quiet except as disturbed by Christian mobs, + unrestrained by local officials. + </p> + <p> + At one of these meetings, in Boonton, he was attacked with missiles of + every kind, while speaking—his tent destroyed, and he compelled to + seek safety in flight. An action for damages against the town resulted in + a counter action for disturbing the peace. Through the cowardice and + inaction of the authorities the issue was never joined. + </p> + <p> + Not daunted by persecution he continued his labors, making Morristown his + next field of operations. Here he circulated a pamphlet giving his views + of theology, and appended a satirical cartoon of his Boonton experience. + This cartoon was the gravamen of his offence. For this he was indicted on + a charge of "Blasphemy," and brought before a Morristown jury. The + religious farce ended in a fine of $25.00. + </p> + <p> + C. P. Farrell. + </p> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> <a name="link2H_4_0002" id="link2H_4_0002"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + MR. INGERSOLL'S ARGUMENT + </h2> + <p> + Gentlemen of the Jury: I regard this as one of the most important cases + that can be submitted to a jury. It is not a case that involves a little + property, neither is it one that involves simply the liberty of one man. + It involves the freedom of speech, the intellectual liberty of every + citizen of New Jersey. + </p> + <p> + The question to be tried by you is whether a man has the right to express + his honest thought; and for that reason there can be no case of greater + importance submitted to a jury. And it may be well enough for me, at the + outset, to admit that there could be no case in which I could take a + greater—a deeper interest For my part, I would not wish to live in a + world where I could not express my honest opinions. Men who deny to others + the right of speech are not fit to live with honest men. + </p> + <p> + I deny the right of any man, of any number of men, of any church, of any + State, to put a padlock on the lips—to make the tongue a convict. I + passionately deny the right of the Herod of authority to kill the children + of the brain. + </p> + <p> + A man has a right to work with his hands, to plow the earth, to sow the + seed, and that man has a right to reap the harvest. If we have not that + right, then all are slaves except those who take these rights from their + fellow-men. If you have the right to work with your hands and to gather + the harvest for yourself and your children, have you not a right to + cultivate your brain? Have you not the right to read, to observe, to + investigate—and when you have so read and so investigated, have you + not the right to reap that field? And what is it to reap that field? It is + simply to express what you have ascertained—simply to give your + thoughts to your fellow-men. + </p> + <p> + If there is one subject in this world worthy of being discussed, worthy of + being understood, it is the question of intellectual liberty. Without + that, we are simply painted clay; without that, we are poor miserable + serfs and slaves. If you have not the right to express your opinions, if + the defendant has not this right, then no man ever walked beneath the blue + of heaven that had the right to express his thought. If others claim the + right, where did they get it? How did they happen to have it, and how did + you happen to be deprived of it? Where did a church or a nation get that + right? + </p> + <p> + Are we not all children of the same Mother? Are we not all compelled to + think, whether we wish to or not? Can you help thinking as you do? When + you look out upon the woods, the fields,—when you look at the solemn + splendors of the night—these things produce certain thoughts in your + mind, and they produce them necessarily. No man can think as he desires No + man controls the action of his brain, any more than he controls the action + of his heart. The blood pursues its old accustomed ways in spite of you. + The eyes see, if you open them, in spite of you. The ears hear, if they + are unstopped, without asking your permission. And the brain thinks, in + spite of you. Should you express that thought? Certainly you should, if + others express theirs. You have exactly the same right. He who takes it + from you is a robber. For thousands of years people have been trying to + force other people to think their way. Did they succeed? No. Will they + succeed? No. Why? Because brute force is not an argument. You can stand + with the lash over a man, or you can stand by the prison door, or beneath + the gallows, or by the stake, and say to this man: "Recant, or the lash + descends, the prison door is locked upon you, the rope is put about your + neck, or the torch is given to the fagot." And so the man recants. Is he + convinced? Not at all. Have you produced a new argument? Not the + slightest. And yet the ignorant bigots of this world have been trying for + thousands of years to rule the minds of men by brute force. They have + endeavored to improve the mind by torturing the flesh—to spread + religion with the sword and torch. They have tried to convince their + brothers by putting their feet in iron boots, by putting fathers, mothers, + patriots, philosophers and philanthropists in dungeons. And what has been + the result? Are we any nearer thinking alike to-day than we were then? + </p> + <p> + No orthodox church ever had power that it did not endeavor to make people + think its way by force and flame. And yet every church that ever was + established commenced in the minority, and while it was in the minority + advocated free speech—every one. John Calvin, the founder of the + Presbyterian Church, while he lived in France, wrote a book on religious + toleration in order to show that all men had an equal right to think; and + yet that man afterwards, clothed in a little authority, forgot all his + sentiments about religious liberty, and had poor Servetus burned at the + stake, for differing with him on a question that neither of them knew + anything about. In the minority, Calvin advocated toleration—in the + majority, he practised murder. + </p> + <p> + I want you to understand what has been done in the world to force men to + think alike. It seems to me that if there is some infinite being who wants + us to think alike, he would have made us alike. Why did he not do so? Why + did he make your brain so that you could not by any possibility be a + Methodist? Why did he make yours so that you could not be a Catholic? And + why did he make the brain of another so that he is an unbeliever—why + the brain of another so that he became a Mohammedan—if he wanted us + all to believe alike? + </p> + <p> + After all, may be Nature is good enough, and grand enough, and broad + enough to give us the diversity born of liberty. May be, after all, it + would not be best for us all to be just the same. What a stupid world, if + everybody said yes to everything that everybody else might say. + </p> + <p> + The most important thing in this world is liberty. More important than + food or clothes—more important than gold or houses or lands—more + important than art or science—more important than all religions, is + the liberty of man. + </p> + <p> + If civilization tends to do away with liberty, then I agree with Mr. + Buckle that civilization is a curse. Gladly would I give up the splendors + of the nineteenth century—gladly would I forget every invention that + has leaped from the brain of man—gladly would I see all books ashes, + all works of art destroyed, all statues broken, and all the triumphs of + the world lost—gladly, joyously would I go back to the abodes and + dens of savagery, if that is necessary to preserve the inestimable gem of + human liberty. So would every man who has a heart and brain. + </p> + <p> + How has the church in every age, when in authority, defended itself? + Always by a statute against blasphemy, against argument, against free + speech. And there never was such a statute that did not stain the book + that it was in, and that did not certify to the savagery of the men who + passed it. Never. By making a statute and by defining blasphemy, the + Church sought to prevent discussion—sought to prevent argument—sought + to prevent a man giving his honest opinion. Certainly a tenet, a dogma, a + doctrine is safe when hedged about by a statute that prevents your + speaking against it. In the silence of slavery it exists. It lives because + lips are locked. It lives because men are slaves. + </p> + <p> + If I understand myself, I advocate only the doctrines that in my judgment + will make this world happier and better. If I know myself, I advocate only + those things that will make a man a better citizen, a better father, a + kinder husband—that will make a woman a better wife, a better mother—doctrines + that will fill every home with sunshine and with joy. And if I believed + that anything I should say to-day would have any other possible tendency, + I would stop. I am a believer in liberty. That is my religion—to + give to every other human being every right that I claim for myself, and I + grant to every other human being, not the right—because it is his + right—but instead of granting I declare that it is his right, to + attack every doctrine that I maintain, to answer every argument that I may + urge—in other words, he must have absolute freedom of speech. + </p> + <p> + I am a believer in what I call "intellectual hospitality." A man comes to + your door. If you are a gentleman and he appears to be a good man, you + receive him with a smile. You ask after his health. You say: "Take a + chair; are you thirsty, are you hungry, will you not break bread with me?" + That is what a hospitable, good man does—he does not set the dog on + him. Now how should we treat a new thought? I say that the brain should be + hospitable and say to the new thought: "Come in; sit down; I want to + cross-examine you; I want to find whether you are good or bad; if good, + stay; if bad, I don't want to hurt you—probably you think you are + all right,—but your room is better than your company, and I will + take another idea in your place." Why not? Can any man have the egotism to + say that he has found it all out? No. Every man who has thought, knows not + only how little he knows, but how little every other human being knows, + and how ignorant after all the world must be. + </p> + <p> + There was a time in Europe when the Catholic church had power. And I want + it distinctly understood with this jury, that while I am opposed to + Catholicism I am not opposed to Catholics—while I am opposed to + Presbyterianism I am not opposed to Presbyterians. I do not fight people,—I + fight ideas, I fight principles, and I never go into personalities. As I + said, I do not hate Presbyterians, but Presbyterianism—that is I am + opposed to their doctrine. I do not hate a man that has the rheumatism—I + hate the rheumatism when it has a man. So I attack certain principles + because I think they are wrong, but I always want it understood that I + have nothing against persons—nothing against victims. + </p> + <p> + There was a time when the Catholic church was in power in the Old World. + All at once there arose a man called Martin Luther, and what did the dear + old Catholics think? "Oh," they said, "that man and all his followers are + going to Hell." But they did not go. They were very good people. They may + have been mistaken—I do not know. I think they were right in their + opposition to Catholicism—but I have just as much objection to the + religion they founded as I have to the Church they left. But they thought + they were right, and they made very good citizens, and it turned out that + their differing from the Mother Church did not hurt them. And then after + awhile they began to divide, and there arose Baptists, and the other + gentlemen, who believed in this law that is now in New Jersey, began + cutting off their ears so that they could hear better; they began putting + them in prison so that they would have a chance to think. But the Baptists + turned out to be good folks—first rate—good husbands, good + fathers, good citizens. And in a little while, in England, the people + turned to be Episcopalians, on account of a little war that Henry the + Eighth had with the Pope,—and I always sided with the Pope in that + war—but it made no difference; and in a little while the + Episcopalians turned out to be just about like other folks—no worse—not + as I know of, any better. + </p> + <p> + After awhile arose the Puritan, and the Episcopalian said, "We don't want + anything of him—he is a bad man;" and they finally drove some of + them away and they settled in New England, and there were among them + Quakers, than whom there never were better people on the earth—industrious, + frugal, gentle, kind and loving—and yet these Puritans began hanging + them. They said: "They are corrupting our children; if this thing goes on, + everybody will believe in being kind and gentle and good, and what will + become of us?" They were honest about it. So they went to cutting off + ears. But the Quakers were good people and none of the prophecies were + fulfilled. + </p> + <p> + In a little while there came some Unitarians and they said, "The world is + going to ruin, sure;"—but the world went on as usual, and the + Unitarians produced men like Channing—one of the tenderest spirits + that ever lived—they produced men like Theodore Parker—one of + the greatest brained and greatest hearted men produced upon this continent—a + good man—and yet they thought he was a blasphemer—they even + prayed for his death—on their bended knees they asked their God to + take time to kill him. Well, they were mistaken. Honest, probably. + </p> + <p> + After awhile came the Universalists, who said: "God is good. He will not + damn anybody always, just for a little mistake he made here. This is a + very short life; the path we travel is very dim, and a great many shadows + fall in the way, and if a man happens to stub his toe, God will not burn + him forever." And then all the rest of the sects cried out, "Why, if you + do away with hell, everybody will murder just for pastime—everybody + will go to stealing just to enjoy themselves." But they did not. The + Universalists were good people—just as good as any others. Most of + them much better. None of the prophecies were fulfilled, and yet the + differences existed. + </p> + <p> + And so we go on until we find people who do not believe the bible at all, + and when they say they do not, they come within this statute. + </p> + <p> + Now gentlemen, I am going to try to show you, first, that this statute + under which Mr. Reynolds is being tried is unconstitutional—that it + is not in harmony with the Constitution of New Jersey; and I am going to + try to show you in addition to that, that it was passed hundreds of years + ago, by men who believed it was right to burn heretics and tie Quakers at + the end of a cart, men and even modest women—stripped naked—and + lash them from town to town. They were the men who originally passed that + statute, and I want to show you that it has slept all this time, and I am + informed—I do not know how it is—that there never has been a + prosecution in this state for blasphemy. + </p> + <p> + Now gentlemen, what is blasphemy? Of course nobody knows what it is, + unless he takes into consideration where he is. What is blasphemy in one + country would be a religious exhortation in another. It is owing to where + you are and who is in authority. And let me call your attention to the + impudence and bigotry of the American christians. We send missionaries to + other countries. What for? To tell them that their religion is false, that + their Gods are myths and monsters, that their Saviours and apostles were + imposters, and that our religion is true. You send a man from Morris-town—a + Presbyterian, over to Turkey. He goes there, and he tells the Mohammedans—and + he has it in a pamphlet and he distributes it—that the Koran is a + lie, that Mohammet was not a prophet of God, that the angel Gabriel is not + so large that it is four hundred leagues between his eyes—that it is + all a mistake—that there never was an angel as large as that. Then + what would the Turks do? Suppose the Turks had a law like this statute in + New Jersey. They would put the Morristown missionary in jail, and he would + send home word, and then what would the people of Morris-town say? + Honestly—what do you think they would say? They would say, "Why look + at those poor, heathen wretches. We sent a man over there armed with the + truth, and yet they were so blinded by their idolatrous religion, so + steeped in superstition, that they actually put that man in prison." + Gentlemen, does not that show the need of more missionaries? I would say, + yes. + </p> + <p> + Now let us turn the tables. A gentleman comes from Turkey to Morristown. + He has got a pamphlet. He says, "The Koran is the inspired book, Mohammed + is the real prophet, your bible is false and your Saviour simply a myth." + Thereupon the Morristown people put him in jail. Then what would the Turks + say? They would say, "Morristown needs more missionaries," and I would + agree with them. + </p> + <p> + In other words, what we want is intellectual hospitality. Let the world + talk. And see how foolish this trial is: I have no doubt but the + prosecuting attorney agrees with me to-day, that whether this law is good + or bad, this trial should not have taken place. And let me tell you why. + Here comes a man into your town and circulates a pamphlet. Now if they had + just kept still, very few would ever have heard of it. That would have + been the end. The diameter of the echo would have been a few thousand + feet. But in order to stop the discussion of that question, they indicted + this man, and that question has been more discussed in this country since + this indictment than all the discussions put together since New Jersey was + first granted to Charles the Second's dearest brother James, the Duke of + York. And what else? A trial here that is to be reported and published all + over the United States, a trial that will give Mr. Reynolds a congregation + of fifty millions of people. And yet this was done for the purpose of + stopping a discussion of this subject. I want to show you that the thing + is in itself almost idiotic—that it defeats itself, and that you + cannot crush out these things by force. Not only so, but Mr. Reynolds has + the right to be defended, and his counsel has the right to give his + opinions on this subject. + </p> + <p> + Suppose that we put Mr. Reynolds in jail. The argument has not been sent + to jail. That is still going the rounds, free as the winds. Suppose you + keep him at hard labor a year—all the time he is there hundreds and + thousands of people will be reading some account, or some fragment, of + this trial. There is the trouble. If you could only imprison a thought, + then intellectual tyranny might succeed. If you could only take an + argument and put a striped suit of clothes on it—if you could only + take a good, splendid, shining fact and lock it up in some dungeon of + ignorance, so that its light would never again enter the mind of man, then + you might succeed in stopping human progress. Otherwise, no. + </p> + <p> + Let us see about this particular statute. In the first place, the State + has a Constitution. That Constitution is a rule, a limitation to the power + of the legislature, and a certain breast-work for the protection of + private rights, and the Constitution says to this sea of passions and + prejudices: "Thus far and no farther." The Constitution says to each + individual: "This shall panoply you; this is your complete coat of mail; + this shall defend your rights." And it is usual in this country to make as + a part of each Constitution several general declarations—called the + Bill of Rights. So I find that in the old Constitution of New Jersey, + which was adopted in the year of grace 1776, although the people at that + time were not educated as they are now—the spirit of the Revolution + at that time not having permeated all classes of society—a + declaration in favor of religious freedom. The people were on the eve of a + Revolution. This Constitution was adopted on the third day of July, 1776, + one day before the immortal Declaration of Independence. Now what do we + find in this—and we have got to go by this light, by this torch, + when we examine the statute. + </p> + <p> + I find in that Constitution, in its Eighteenth Section, this: "No person + shall ever in this State be deprived of the inestimable privilege of + worshipping God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own + conscience; nor under any pretence whatever be compelled to attend any + place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall he be + obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates for the purpose of + building or repairing any church or churches, contrary to what he believes + to be true." That was a very great and splendid step. It was the divorce + of Church and State. It no longer allowed the State to levy taxes for the + support of a particular religion, and it said to every citizen of New + Jersey: All that you give for that purpose must be voluntarily given, and + the State will not compel you to pay for the maintenance of a Church in + which you do not believe. So far so good. + </p> + <p> + The next paragraph was not so good. "There shall be no establishment of + any one religious sect in this State in preference to another, and no + Protestant inhabitants of this State shall be denied the enjoyment of any + civil right merely on account of his religious principles; but all persons + professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean + themselves peaceably, shall be capable of being elected to any office of + profit or trust, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and + immunity enjoyed by other citizens." + </p> + <p> + What became of the Catholics under that clause, I do not know—whether + they had any right to be elected to office or not under this Act. But in + 1844, the State having grown civilized in the meantime, another + Constitution was adopted. The word Protestant was then left out. There was + to be no establishment of one religion over another. But Protestantism did + not render a man capable of being elected to office any more than + Catholicism, and nothing is said about any religious belief whatever. So + far, so good. + </p> + <p> + "No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of + public trust. No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right + on account of his religious principles." + </p> + <p> + That is a very broad and splendid provision. "No person shall be denied + any civil right on account of his religious principles." That was copied + from the Virginia Constitution, and that clause in the Virginia + Constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson, and under that clause men + were entitled to give their testimony in the courts of Virginia whether + they believed in any religion or not, in any bible or not, or in any God + or not. + </p> + <p> + That same clause was afterwards adopted by the State of Illinois, also by + many other States, and wherever that clause is, no citizen can be denied + any civil right on account of his religious principles. It is a broad and + generous clause. This statute under which this indictment is drawn, is not + in accordance with the spirit of that splendid sentiment. Under that + clause, no man can be deprived of any civil right on account of his + religious principles, or on account of his belief. And yet, on account of + this miserable, this antiquated, this barbarous and savage statute, the + same man who cannot be denied any political or civil right, can be sent to + the penitentiary as a common felon for simply expressing his honest + thought. And before I get through I hope to convince you that this statute + is unconstitutional. + </p> + <p> + But we will go another step: "Every person may freely speak, write, or + publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of + that right." + </p> + <p> + That is in the Constitution of nearly every State in the Union, and the + intention of that is to cover slanderous words—to cover a case where + a man under pretence of enjoying the freedom of speech falsely assails or + accuses his neighbor. Of course he should be held responsible for that + abuse. + </p> + <p> + Then follows the great clause in the Constitution of 1844—more + important than any other clause in that instrument—a clause that + shines in that Constitution like a star at night.— + </p> + <p> + "No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of + the press." + </p> + <p> + Can anything be plainer—anything more forcibly stated? + </p> + <p> + "No law shall be passed to abridge the liberty of speech." + </p> + <p> + Now while you are considering this statute, I want you to keep in mind + this other statement: + </p> + <p> + "No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of + the press." + </p> + <p> + And right here there is another thing I want to call your attention to. + There is a Constitution higher than any statute. There is a law higher + than any Constitution. It is the law of the human conscience, and no man + who is a man will defile and pollute his conscience at the bidding of any + legislature. Above all things one should maintain his self-respect, and + there is but one way to do that, and that is to live in accordance with + your highest ideal. + </p> + <p> + There is a law higher than men can make. The facts as they exist in this + poor world—the absolute consequences of certain acts—they are + above all. And this higher law is the breath of progress, the very + outstretched wings of civilization, under which we enjoy the freedom we + have. Keep that in your minds. There never was a legislature great enough—there + never was a Constitution sacred enough, to compel a civilized man to stand + between a black man and his liberty. There never was a Constitution great + enough to make me stand between any human being and his right to express + his honest thoughts. Such a Constitution is an insult to the human soul, + and I would care no more for it than I would for the growl of a wild + beast. But we are not driven to that necessity here. This Constitution is + in accord with the highest and noblest aspirations of the heart—"No + law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech." + </p> + <p> + Now let us come to this old law—this law that was asleep for a + hundred years before this Constitution was adopted—this law coiled + like a snake beneath the foundations of the government—this law, + cowardly, dastardly—this law passed by wretches who were afraid to + discuss—this law passed by men who could not, and who knew they + could not, defend their creed—and so they said: "Give us the sword + of the State and we will cleave the heretic down." And this law was made + to control the minority. When the Catholics were in power they visited + that law upon their opponents. When the Episcopalians were in power, they + tortured and burned the poor Catholic who had scoffed and who had denied + the truth of their religion. Whoever was in power used that, and whoever + was out of power cursed that—and yet, the moment he got in power he + used it. The people became civilized—but that law was on the statute + book. It simply remained. There it was, sound asleep—its lips drawn + over its long and cruel teeth. Nobody savage enough to waken it. And it + slept on, and New Jersey has flourished. Men have done well. You have had + average health in this country. Nobody roused the statute until the + defendant in this case went to Boonton, and there made a speech in which + he gave his honest thought, and the people not having an argument handy, + threw stones. Thereupon Mr. Reynolds, the defendant, published a pamphlet + on Blasphemy and in it gave a photograph of the Boonton christians. That + is his offence. Now let us read this infamous statute: + </p> + <p> + "<i>If any person shall wilfully blaspheme the holy name of God by + denying, cursing, or contumeliously reproaching his being</i>."— + </p> + <p> + I want to say right here—many a man has cursed the God of another + man. The Catholics have cursed the God of the Protestant. The + Presbyterians have cursed the God of the Catholics—charged them with + idolatry—cursed their images, laughed at their ceremonies. + </p> + <p> + And these compliments have been interchanged between all the religions of + the world. But I say here to-day that no man, unless a raving maniac, ever + cursed the God in whom he believed. No man, no human being, has ever lived + who cursed his own idea of God. He always curses the idea that somebody + else entertains. No human being ever yet cursed what he believed to be + infinite wisdom and infinite goodness—and you know it. Every man on + this jury knows that. He feels that that must be an absolute certainty. + Then what have they cursed? Some God they did not believe in—that is + all. And has a man that right? I say yes. He has a right to give his + opinion of Jupiter, and there is nobody in Morristown who will deny him + that right. But several thousand years ago it would have been very + dangerous for him to have cursed Jupiter, and yet Jupiter is just as + powerful now as he was then, but the Roman people are not powerful, and + that is all there was to Jupiter—the Roman people. + </p> + <p> + So there was a time when you could have cursed Zeus, the god of the + Greeks, and like Socrates, they would have compelled you to drink hemlock. + Yet now everybody can curse this god. Why? Is the god dead? No. He is just + as alive as he ever was. Then what has happened? The Greeks have passed + away. That is all. So in all of our Churches here. Whenever a Church is in + the minority it clamors for free speech. When it gets in the majority, no. + I do not believe the history of the world will show that any orthodox + Church when in the majority ever had the courage to face the free lips of + the world. It sends for a constable. And is it not wonderful that they + should do this when they preach the gospel of universal forgiveness—when + they say, "if a man strike you on one cheek turn to him the other also"—but + if he laughs at your religion, put him in the penitentiary? Is that the + doctrine? Is that the law? + </p> + <p> + Now read this law. Do you know as I read this law I can almost hear John + Calvin laugh in his grave. That would have been a delight to him. It is + written exactly as he would have written it. There never was an inquisitor + who would not have read that law with a malicious smile. The Christians + who brought the fagots and ran with all their might to be at the burning, + would have enjoyed that law. You know that when they used to burn people + for having said something against religion, they used to cut their tongues + out before they burned them. Why? For fear that if they did not, the poor + burning victims might say something that would scandalize the Christian + gentlemen who were building the fire. All these persons would have been + delighted with this law. + </p> + <p> + Let us read a little further: + </p> + <p> + "<i>Or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ</i>." + </p> + <p> + Why, whoever did, since the poor man, or the poor God, was crucified? How + did they come to crucify him? Because they did not believe in free speech + in Jerusalem. How else? Because there was a law against blasphemy in + Jerusalem—a law exactly like this. Just think of it. O, I tell you + we have passed too many milestones on the shining road of human progress + to turn back and wallow in that blood, in that mire. + </p> + <p> + No. Some men have said that he was simply a man. Some believed that he was + actually a God. Others believed that he was not only a man, but that he + stood as the representative of infinite love and wisdom. No man ever said + one word against that being for saying "Do unto others as ye would that + others should do unto you." No man ever raised his voice against him + because he said "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." + And are they the "merciful" who when some man endeavors to answer their + argument, put him in the penitentiary? No. The trouble is, the priests—the + trouble is, the ministers—the trouble is, the people whose business + it was to tell the meaning of these things, quarreled with each other and + they put meanings upon human expressions by malice, meanings that the + words will not bear. And let me be just to them. I believe that nearly all + that has been done in this world has been honestly done. I believe that + the poor savage who kneels down and prays to a stuffed snake—prays + that his little children may recover from the fever—is honest, and + it seems to me that a good God would answer his prayer if he could, if it + was in accordance with wisdom, because the poor savage was doing the best + he could, and no one can do any better than that. + </p> + <p> + So I believe that the Presbyterians who used to think that nearly + everybody was going to hell, said exactly what they believed. They were + honest about it, and I would not send one of them to jail—would + never think of such a thing—even if he called the unbelievers of the + world "wretches," "dogs," and "devils." What would I do? I would simply + answer him—that is all; answer him kindly. I might laugh at him a + little, but I would answer him in kindness. + </p> + <p> + So these divisions of the human mind are natural. They are a necessity. Do + you know that all the mechanics that ever lived—take the best ones—cannot + make two clocks that will run exactly alike one hour, one minute? They + cannot make two pendulums that will beat in exactly the same time, one + beat. If you cannot do that, how are you going to make hundreds, + thousands, billions of people, each with a different quality and quantity + of brain, each clad in a robe of living, quivering flesh, and each driven + by passion's storm over the wild sea of life—how are you going to + make them all think alike? This is the impossible thing that Christian + ignorance and bigotry and malice have been trying to do. This was the + object of the Inquisition and of the foolish legislature that passed this + statute. + </p> + <p> + Let me read you another line from this ignorant statute:— + </p> + <p> + "<i>Or the Christian religion</i>." + </p> + <p> + Well, what is the Christian religion? "If you scoff at the Christian + religion—if you curse the Christian religion." Well what is it? + Gentlemen, you hear Presbyterians every day attack the Catholic Church. Is + that the Christian religion? The Catholic believes it is the Christian + religion, and you have to admit that it is the oldest one, and then the + Catholics turn round and scoff at the Protestants. Is that the Christian + religion? If so, every Christian religion has been cursed by every other + Christian religion. Is not that an absurd and foolish statute? + </p> + <p> + I say that the Catholic has the right to attack the Presbyterian and tell + him, "Your doctrine is all wrong." I think he has the right to say to him, + "You are leading thousands to hell." If he believes it, he not only has + the right to say it, but it is his duty to say it; and if the Presbyterian + really believes the Catholics are all going to the devil, it is his duty + to say so. Why not? I will never have any religion that I cannot defend—that + is, that I do not believe I can defend. I may be mistaken, because no man + is absolutely certain that he knows. We all understand that. Every one is + liable to be mistaken. The horizon of each individual is very narrow, and + in his poor sky the stars are few and very small. + </p> + <p> + "<i>Or the word of God,—</i>" + </p> + <p> + What is that? + </p> + <p> + "<i>The canonical Scriptures contained in the books of the Old and New + Testaments</i>." + </p> + <p> + Now what has a man the right to say about that? Has he the right to show + that the book of Revelation got into the canon by one vote, and one only? + Has he the right to show that they passed in convention upon what books + they would put in and what they would not? Has he the right to show that + there were twenty-eight books called "The Books of the Hebrews?" Has he + the right to show that? Has he the right to show that Martin Luther said + he did not believe there was one solitary word of gospel in the Epistle to + the Romans? Has he the right to show that some of these books were not + written till nearly two hundred years afterwards? Has he the right to say + it, if he believes it? I do not say whether this is true or not, but has a + man the right to say it if he believes it? + </p> + <p> + Now suppose I should read the bible all through right here in Morristown, + and after I got through I should make up my mind that it is not a true + book—what ought I to say? Ought I to clap my hand over my mouth and + start for another State, and the minute I got over the line say, "It is + not true, It is not true?" Or, ought I to have the right and privilege of + saying right here in New Jersey, "My fellow citizens, I have read the book—I + do not believe that it is the word of God?" + </p> + <p> + Suppose I read it and think it is true, then I am bound to say so. If I + should go to Turkey and read the Koran and make up my mind that it is + false, you would all say that I was a miserable poltroon if I did not say + so. + </p> + <p> + By force you can make hypocrites—men who will agree with you from + the teeth out, and in their hearts hate you. We want no more hypocrites. + We have enough in every community. And how are you going to keep from + having more? By having the air free,—by wiping from your statute + books such miserable and infamous laws as this. + </p> + <p> + "<i>The Holy Scriptures</i>." + </p> + <p> + Are they holy? Must a man be honest? Has he the right to be sincere? There + are thousands of things in the Scriptures that everybody believes. + Everybody believes the Scriptures are right when they say, "Thou shalt not + steal"—everybody. And when they say "Give good measure, heaped up + and running over," everybody says, "Good!" So when they say "Love your + neighbor," everybody applauds that. Suppose a man believes that, and + practices it, does it make any difference whether he believes in the flood + or not? Is that of any importance? Whether a man built an ark or not—does + that make the slightest difference? A man might deny it and yet be a very + good man. Another might believe it and be a very mean man. Could it now, + by any possibility, make a man a good father, a good husband, a good + citizen? Does it make any difference whether you believe it or not? Does + it make any difference whether or not you believe that a man was going + through town and his hair was a little short, like mine, and some little + children laughed at him, and thereupon two bears from the woods came down + and tore to pieces about forty of these children? Is it necessary to + believe that? Suppose a man should say, "I guess that is a mistake. They + did not copy that right. I guess the man that reported that was a little + dull of hearing and did not get the story exactly right." Any harm in + saying that? Is a man to be sent to the penitentiary for that? Can you + imagine an infinitely good God sending a man to hell because he did not + believe the bear story? + </p> + <p> + So I say if you believe the bible, say so; if you do not believe it, say + so. And here is the vital mistake, I might almost say, in Protestantism + itself. The Protestants when they fought the Catholics said: "Read the + bible for yourselves—stop taking it from your priests—read the + sacred volume with your own eyes. It is a revelation from God to his + children, and you are the children." And then they said: "If after you + read it you do not believe it, and you say anything against it, we will + put you in jail, and God will put you in hell." That is a fine position to + get a man in. It is like a man who invited his neighbor to come and look + at his pictures, saying: "They are the finest in the place, and I want + your candid opinion. A man who looked at them the other day said they were + daubs, and I kicked him down stairs—now I want your candid + judgment." So the Protestant Church says to a man, "This bible is a + message from your Father,—your Father in heaven. Read it. Judge for + yourself. But if after you have read it you say it is not true, I will put + you in the penitentiary for one year." The Catholic Church has a little + more sense about that—at least more logic. It says: "This bible is + not given to everybody. It is given to the world, to be sure, but it must + be interpreted by the Church. God would not give a bible to the world + unless he also appointed some one, some organization, to tell the world + what it means." They said: "We do not want the world filled with + interpretations, and all the interpreters fighting each other." And the + Protestant has gone to the infinite absurdity of saying: "Judge for + yourself, but if you judge wrong you will go to the penitentiary here and + to hell hereafter." + </p> + <p> + Now let us see further: + </p> + <p> + "<i>Or by profane scoffing expose them to ridicule</i>." Think of such a + law as that, passed under a Constitution that says, "No law shall abridge + the liberty of speech." But you must not ridicule the Scriptures. Did + anybody ever dream of passing a law to protect Shakespeare from being + laughed at? Did anybody ever think of such a thing? Did anybody ever want + any legislative enactment to keep people from holding Robert Burns in + contempt? The songs of Burns will be sung as long as there is love in the + human heart Do we need to protect him from ridicule by a statute? Does he + need assistance from New Jersey? Is any statute needed to keep Euclid from + being laughed at in this neighborhood? And is it possible that a work + written by an infinite being has to be protected by a legislature? Is it + possible that a book cannot be written by a God so that it will not excite + the laughter of the human race? + </p> + <p> + Why gentlemen, humor is one of the most valuable things in the human + brain. It is the torch of the mind—it sheds light. Humor is the + readiest test of truth—of the natural, of the sensible—and + when you take from a man all sense of humor, there will only be enough + left to make a bigot. Teach this man who has no humor—no sense of + the absurd—the Presbyterian creed, fill his darkened brain with + superstition and his heart with hatred—then frighten him with the + threat of hell, and he will be ready to vote for that statute. Such men + made that law. + </p> + <p> + Let us read another clause:— + </p> + <p> + "<i>And every person so offending shall, on conviction, be fined not + exceeding two hundred dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding + twelve months, or both:</i>" + </p> + <p> + I want you to remember that this statute was passed in England hundreds of + years ago—just in that language. The punishment, however, has been + somewhat changed. In the good old days when the king sat on the throne—in + the good old days when the altar was the right-bower of the throne—then, + instead of saying: "fined two hundred dollars and imprisoned one year," it + was: "All his goods shall be confiscated; his tongue shall be bored with a + hot iron, and upon his forehead he shall be branded with the letter B; and + for the second offence he shall suffer death by burning." Those were the + good old days when people maintained the orthodox religion in all its + purity and in all its ferocity. + </p> + <p> + The first question for you, gentlemen, to decide in this case is: Is this + statute constitutional? Is this statute in harmony with that part of the + Constitution of 1844 which says: "The liberty of speech shall not be + abridged?" That is for you to say. Is this law constitutional, or is it + simply an old statute that fell asleep, that was forgotten, that people + simply failed to repeal? I believe I can convince you, if you will think a + moment, that our fathers never intended to establish a government like + that. When they fought for what they believed to be religious liberty—when + they fought for what they believed to be liberty of speech, they believed + that all such statutes would be wiped from the statute books of all the + States. + </p> + <p> + Let me tell you another reason why I believe this. We have in this country + naturalization laws. Persons may come here irrespective of their religion. + They must simply swear allegiance to this country—they must forswear + allegiance to every other potentate, prince and power—but they do + not have to change their religion. A Hindoo may become a citizen of the + United States, and the Constitution of the United States, like the + Constitution of New Jersey, guarantees religious liberty. That Hindoo + believes in a God—in a God that no Christian does believe in. He + believes in a sacred book that every Christian looks upon as a collection + of falsehoods. He believes, too, in a Saviour—in Buddha. Now I ask + you,—when that man comes here and becomes a citizen—when the + Constitution is about him, above him—has he the right to give his + ideas about his religion? Has he the right to say in New Jersey: "There is + no God except the Supreme Brahm—there is no Saviour except Buddha + the Illuminated, Buddha the Blest?" I say that he has that right—and + you have no right, because in addition to that he says, "You are mistaken; + your God is not God; your bible is not true, and your religion is a + mistake," to abridge his liberty of speech. He has the right to say it, + and if he has the right to say it, I insist before this Court and before + this jury, that he has the right to give his reasons for saying it; and in + giving those reasons, in maintaining his side, he has the right, not + simply to appeal to history, not simply to the masonry of logic, but he + has the right to shoot the arrows of wit, and to use the smile of + ridicule. Anything that can be laughed out of this world ought not to stay + in it. + </p> + <p> + So the Persian—the believer in Zoroaster, in the spirits of Good and + Evil, and that the spirit of Evil will finally triumph forever—if + that is his religion—has the right to state it, and the right to + give his reasons for his belief. How infinitely preposterous for you, one + of the States of this Union, to invite a Persian or a Hindoo to come to + your shores. You do not ask him to renounce his God. You ask him to + renounce the Shah. Then when he becomes a citizen, having the rights of + every other citizen, he has the right to defend his religion and to + denounce yours. + </p> + <p> + There is another thing. What was the spirit of our government at that + time? You must look at the leading men. Who were they? What were their + opinions? Were most of them as guilty of blasphemy as is the defendant in + this case? Thomas Jefferson—and there is in my judgment only one + name on the page of American history greater than his—only one name + for which I have a greater and a tenderer reverence—and that is + Abraham Lincoln, because of all men who ever lived and had power, he was + the most merciful. And that is the way to test a man. How does he use + power? Does he want to crush his fellow citizens? Does he like to lock + somebody up in the penitentiary because he has the power of the moment? + Does he wish to use it as a despot, or as a philanthropist—like a + devil, or like a man? + </p> + <p> + Thomas Jefferson entertained about the same views entertained by the + defendant in this case, and he was made President of the United States. He + was the author of the Declaration of Independence, founder of the + University of Virginia, writer of that clause in the Constitution of that + State that made all the citizens equal before the law. And when I come to + the very sentences here charged as blasphemy, I will show you that these + were the common sentiments of thousands of very great, of very + intellectual and admirable men. + </p> + <p> + I have no time, and it may be this is not the place and the occasion, to + call your attention to the infinite harm that has been done in almost + every religious nation by statutes such as this. Where that statute is, + liberty can not be; and if this statute is enforced by this jury and by + this Court, and if it is afterwards carried out, and if it could be + carried out in the States of this Union, there would be an end of all + intellectual progress. We would go back to the dark ages. Every man's + mind, upon these subjects at least, would become a stagnant pool, covered + with the scum of prejudice and meanness. + </p> + <p> + And wherever such laws have been enforced, have the people been friends? + Here we are to-day in this blessed air—here amid these happy fields. + Can we imagine, with these surroundings, that a man for having been found + with a crucifix in his poor little home had been taken from his wife and + children and burned—burned by Protestants? You cannot conceive of + such a thing now. Neither can you conceive that there was a time when + Catholics found some poor Protestant contradicting one of the dogmas of + the Church, and took that poor honest wretch—while his wife wept—while + his children clung to his hands—to the public square, drove a stake + in the ground, put a chain or two about him, lighted the fagots, and let + the wife whom he loved and his little children see the flames climb around + his limbs—you cannot imagine that any such infamy was ever + practiced. And yet I tell you that the same spirit made this detestable, + infamous, devilish statute. + </p> + <p> + You can hardly imagine that there was a time when the same kind of men + that made this law said to another man: "You say this world is round?" + "Yes, sir; I think it is, because I have seen its shadow on the moon." + "You have?"—Now can you imagine a society outside of hyenas and boa + constrictors that would take that man, put him in the penitentiary, in a + dungeon, turn the key upon him, and let his name be blotted from the book + of human life? Years afterward some explorer amid ruins finds a few bones. + The same spirit that did that, made this statute—the same spirit + that did that, went before the grand jury in this case—exactly. Give + the men that had this man indicted the power, and I would not want to live + in that particular part of the country. I would not willingly live with + such men. I would go somewhere else, where the air is free, where I could + speak my sentiments to my wife, to my children, and to my neighbors. + </p> + <p> + Now this persecution differs only in degree from the infamies of the olden + time. What does it mean? It means that the State of New Jersey has all the + light it wants. And what does that mean? It means that the State of New + Jersey is absolutely infallible—that it has got its growth, and does + not propose to grow any more. New Jersey knows enough, and it will send + teachers to the penitentiary. + </p> + <p> + It is hardly possible that this State has accomplished all that it is ever + going to accomplish. Religions are for a day. They are the clouds. + Humanity is the eternal blue. Religions are the waves of the sea. These + waves depend upon the force and direction of the wind—that is to + say, of passion; but Humanity is the great sea. And so our religions + change from day to day, and it is a blessed thing that they do. Why? + Because we grow, and we are getting a little more civilized every day,—and + any man that is not willing to let another man express his opinion, is not + a civilized man, and you know it. Any man that does not give to everybody + else the rights he claims for himself, is not an honest man. + </p> + <p> + Here is a man who says, "I am going to join the Methodist Church." What + right has he? Just the same right to join it that I have not to join it—no + more, no less. But if you are a Methodist and I am not, it simply proves + that you do not agree with me, and that I do not agree with you—that + is all. Another man is a Catholic. He was born a Catholic, or is convinced + that Catholicism is right. That is his business, and any man that would + persecute him on that account, is a poor barbarian—a savage; any man + that would abuse him on that account, is a barbarian—a savage. + </p> + <p> + Then I take the next step. A man does not wish to belong to any church. + How are you going to judge him? Judge him by the way he treats his wife, + his children, his neighbors. Does he pay his debts? Does he tell the + truth? Does he help the poor? Has he got a heart that melts when he hears + grief's story? That is the way to judge him. I do not care what he thinks + about the bears, or the flood, about bibles or gods. When some poor mother + is found wandering in the street with a babe at her breast, does he quote + Scripture, or hunt for his pocket-book? That is the way to judge. And + suppose he does not believe in any bible whatever? If Christianity is + true, that is his misfortune, and everybody should pity the poor wretch + that is going down the hill. Why kick him? You will get your revenge on + him through all eternity—is not that enough? + </p> + <p> + So I say, let us judge each other by our actions, not by theories, not by + what we happen to believe—because that depends very much on where we + were born. + </p> + <p> + If you had been born in Turkey, you probably would have been a Mohammedan. + If I had been born among the Hindoos, I might have been a Buddhist—I + can't tell. If I had been raised in Scotland, on oat meal, I might have + been a Covenanter—nobody knows. If I had lived in Ireland, and seen + my poor wife and children driven into the street, I think I might have + been a Home Ruler—no doubt of it. You see it depends on where you + were born—much depends on our surroundings. + </p> + <p> + Of course, there are men born in Turkey who are not Mohammedans, and there + are men born in this country who are not Christians—Methodists, + Unitarians, or Catholics, plenty of them, who are unbelievers—plenty + of them who deny the truth of the Scriptures—plenty of them who say: + "I know not whether there be a God or not." Well, it is a thousand times + better to say that honestly than to say dishonestly that you believe in + God. + </p> + <p> + If you want to know the opinion of your neighbor, you want his honest + opinion. You do not want to be deceived. You do not want to talk with a + hypocrite. You want to get straight at his honest mind—and then you + are going to judge him, not by what he says but by what he does. It is + very easy to sail along with the majority—easy to sail the way the + boats are going—easy to float with the stream; but when you come to + swim against the tide, with the men on the shore throwing rocks at you, + you will get a good deal of exercise in this world. + </p> + <p> + And do you know that we ought to feel under the greatest obligation to men + who have fought the prevailing notions of their day? There is not a + Presbyterian in Morristown that does not hold up for admiration the man + that carried the flag of the Presbyterians when they were in the minority—not + one. There is not a Methodist in this state who does not admire John and + Charles Wesley and Whitefield, who carried the banner of that new and + despised sect when it was in the minority. They glory in them because they + braved public opinion, because they dared to oppose idiotic, barbarous and + savage statutes like this. And there is not a Universalist that does not + worship dear old Hosea Ballon—I love him myself—because he + said to the Presbyterian minister: "You are going around trying to keep + people out of hell, and I am going around trying to keep hell out of the + people." Every Universalist admires him and loves him because when + despised and railed at and spit upon, he stood firm, a patient witness for + the eternal mercy of God. And there is not a solitary Protestant who does + not honor Martin Luther—who does not honor the Covenanters in poor + Scotland, and that poor girl who was tied out on the sand of the sea by + Episcopalians, and kept there till the rising tide drowned her, and all + she had to do to save her life was to say, "God save the king;" but she + would not say it without the addition of the words, "If it be God's will." + No one, who is not a miserable, contemptible wretch, can fail to stand in + admiration before such courage, such self-denial—such heroism. No + matter what the attitude of your body may be, your soul falls on its knees + before such men and such women. + </p> + <p> + Let us take another step. Where would we have been if authority had always + triumphed? Where would we have been if such statutes had always been + carried out? We have now a science called Astronomy. That science has done + more to enlarge the horizon of human thought than all things else. We now + live in an infinite universe. We know that the sun is a million times + larger than our earth, and we know that there are other great luminaries + millions of times larger than our sun. We know that there are planets so + far away that light, traveling at the rate of one hundred and eighty-five + thousand miles a second, requires fifteen thousand years to reach this + grain of sand, this tear, we call the earth—and we now know that all + the fields of space are sown thick with constellations. If that statute + had been enforced, that Science would not now be the property of the human + mind. That Science is contrary to the bible, and for asserting the truth + you become a criminal. For what sum of money, for what amount of wealth, + would the world have the science of Astronomy expunged from the brain of + man? We learned the story of the stars in spite of that statute. + </p> + <p> + The first men who said the world was round were scourged for scoffing at + the Scriptures. And even Martin Luther, speaking of one of the greatest + men that ever lived, said: "Does he think with his little lever to + overturn the Universe of God?" Martin Luther insisted that such men ought + to be trampled under foot. If that statute had been carried into effect, + Galileo would have been impossible. Kepler, the discoverer of the three + laws, would have died with the great secret locked in his brain, and + mankind would have been left ignorant, superstitious, and besotted. And + what else? If that statute had been carried out, the world would have been + deprived of the philosophy of Spinoza; of the philosophy, of the + literature, of the wit and wisdom, the justice and mercy of Voltaire, the + greatest Frenchman that ever drew the breath of life—the man who by + his mighty pen abolished torture in a nation, and helped to civilize a + world. + </p> + <p> + If that statute had been enforced, nearly all the books that enrich the + libraries of the world could not have been written. If that statute had + been enforced, Humboldt could not have delivered the lectures now known as + "The Cosmos." If that statute had been enforced, Charles Darwin would not + have been allowed to give to the world his discoveries that have been of + more benefit to mankind than all the sermons ever uttered. In England they + have placed his sacred dust in the great Abbey. If he had lived in New + Jersey, and this statute could have been enforced, he would have lived one + year at least in your penitentiary. Why? That man went so far as not + simply to deny the truth of your bible, but absolutely to deny the + existence of your God. Was he a good man? Yes, one of the noblest and + greatest of men. Humboldt, the greatest German who ever lived, was of the + same opinion. + </p> + <p> + And so I might go on with the great men of to-day. Who are the men who are + leading the race upward and shedding light in the intellectual world? They + are the men declared by that statute to be criminals. Mr. Spencer could + not publish his books in the State of New Jersey. He would be arrested, + tried, and imprisoned; and yet that man has added to the intellectual + wealth of the world. + </p> + <p> + So with Huxley, so with Tyndal, so with Helmholz—so with the + greatest thinkers and greatest writers of modern times. + </p> + <p> + You may not agree with these men—and what does that prove? It simply + proves that they do not agree with you—that is all. Who is to blame? + I do not know. They may be wrong, and you may be right; but if they had + the power, and put you in the penitentiary simply because you differed + with them, they would be savages; and if you have the power and imprison + men because they differ from you, why then, of course, you are savages. + </p> + <p> + No; I believe in intellectual hospitality. I love men that have a little + horizon to their minds—a little sky, a little scope. I hate anything + that is narrow and pinched and withered and mean and crawling, and that is + willing to live on dust. I believe in creating such an atmosphere that + things will burst into blossom. I believe in good will, good health, good + fellowship, good feeling—and if there is any God on the earth, or in + heaven, let us hope that he will be generous and grand. Do you not see + what the effect will be? I am not cursing you because you are a Methodist, + and not damning you because you are a Catholic, or because you are an + Infidel—a good man is more; than all of these. The grandest of all + things is to be in the highest and noblest sense a man. + </p> + <p> + Now let us see the frightful things that this man, the defendant in this + case, has done. Let me read the charges against him as set out in this + indictment. + </p> + <p> + I shall insist that this statute does not cover any publication—that + it covers simply speech—not in writing, not in book or pamphlet. Let + us see: + </p> + <p> + "This bible describes God as so loving that he drowned the whole world in + his mad fury." + </p> + <p> + Well, the great question about that is, is it true? Does the bible + describe God as having drowned the whole world with the exception of eight + people? Does it, or does it not? I do not know whether there is anybody in + this county who has really read the bible, but I believe the story of the + flood is there. It does say that God destroyed all flesh, and that he did + so because he was angry. He says so himself, if the bible be true. + </p> + <p> + The defendant has simply repeated what is in the bible. The bible says + that God is loving, and says that he drowned the world, and that he was + angry. Is it blasphemy to quote from the "Sacred Scriptures?" + </p> + <p> + "<i>Because it was so much worse than he, knowing all things, ever + supposed it could be.</i>"— + </p> + <p> + Well, the bible does say that he repented having made man. Now is there + any blasphemy in saying that the bible is true? That is the only question. + It is a fact that God, according to the bible, did drown nearly everybody. + If God knows all things, he must have known at the time he made them that + he was going to drown them. Is it likely that a being of infinite wisdom + would deliberately do what he knew he must undo? Is it blasphemy to ask + that question? Have you a right to think about it at all? If you have, you + have the right to tell somebody what you think—if not, you have no + right to discuss it, no right to think about it. All you have to do is to + read it and believe it—to open your mouth like a young robin, and + swallow—worms or shingle nails—no matter which. + </p> + <p> + The defendant further blasphemed and said that:— + </p> + <p> + "<i>An all-wise, unchangeable God, who got out of patience with a world + which was just what his own stupid blundering had made it, knew no better + way out of the muddle than to destroy it by drowning!</i>" + </p> + <p> + Is that true? Was not the world exactly as God made it? Certainly. Did he + not, if the bible is true, drown the people? He did. Did he know he would + drown them when he made them? He did. Did he know they ought to be drowned + when they were made? He did. Where, then, is the blasphemy in saying so? + There is not a minister in this world who could explain it—who would + be permitted to explain it—under this statute. And yet you would + arrest this man and put him in the penitentiary. But after you lock him in + the cell, there remains the question still. Is it possible that a good and + wise God, knowing that he was going to drown them, made millions of + people? What did he make them for? I do not know. I do not pretend to be + wise enough to answer that question. Of course, you cannot answer the + question. Is there anything blasphemous in that? Would it be blasphemy in + me to say I do not believe that any God ever made men, women and children—mothers, + with babes clasped to their breasts, and then sent a flood to fill the + world with death? + </p> + <p> + A rain lasting for forty days—the water rising hour by hour, and the + poor wretched children of God climbing to the tops of their houses—then + to the tops of the hills. The water still rising—no mercy. The + people climbing higher and higher, looking to the mountains for salvation—the + merciless rain still falling, the inexorable flood still rising. Children + falling from the arms of mothers—no pity. The highest hills covered—infancy + and old age mingling in death—the cries of women, the sobs and sighs + lost in the roar of waves—the heavens still relentless. The + mountains are covered—a shoreless sea rolls round the world, and on + its billows are billions of corpses. + </p> + <p> + This is the greatest crime that man has imagined, and this crime is called + a deed of infinite mercy. + </p> + <p> + Do you believe that? I do not believe one word of it, and I have the right + to say to all the world that this is false. + </p> + <p> + If there be a good God, the story is not true. If there be a wise God, the + story is not true. Ought an honest man to be sent to the penitentiary for + simply telling the truth? + </p> + <p> + Suppose we had a statute that whoever scoffed at Science—whoever by + profane language should bring the Rule of Three into contempt, or whoever + should attack the proposition that two parallel lines will never include a + space, should be sent to the penitentiary—what would you think of + it? It would be just as wise and just as idiotic as this. + </p> + <p> + And what else says the defendant? + </p> + <p> + "<i>The bible-God says that his people made him jealous" "Provoked him to + anger.</i>" + </p> + <p> + Is that true? It is. If it is true, is it blasphemous? + </p> + <p> + Let us read another line— + </p> + <p> + "<i>And now he will raise the mischief with them; that his anger burns + like hell</i>." + </p> + <p> + That is true. The bible says of God—"My anger burns to the lowest + hell." And that is all that the defendant says. Every word of it is in the + bible. He simply does not believe it—and for that reason is a + "blasphemer." + </p> + <p> + I say to you now, gentlemen,—and I shall argue to the Court,—that + there is not in what I have read a solitary blasphemous word—not a + word that has not been said in hundreds of pulpits in the Christian world. + Theodore Parker, a Unitarian, speaking of this bible-God, said: "Vishnu + with a necklace of skulls, Vishnu with bracelets of living, hissing + serpents, is a figure of Love and Mercy compared to the God of the Old + Testament." That, we might call "blasphemy," but not what I have read. + </p> + <p> + Let us read on:— + </p> + <p> + "<i>He would destroy them all were it not that he feared the wrath of the + enemy</i>." + </p> + <p> + That is in the bible—word for word. Then the defendant in + astonishment says: + </p> + <p> + "<i>The Almighty God afraid of his enemies!</i>" + </p> + <p> + That is what the bible says. What does it mean? If the bible is true, God + was afraid. + </p> + <p> + "<i>Can the mind conceive of more horrid blasphemy?</i>" + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + "<i>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</i>." + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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: "<i>Now, + reader, take time and calmly think it over</i>." 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. + </p> + <p> + 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: + </p> + <p> + "<i>Take time to calmly think it over: Was a Jewish girl the mother of + God, the mother of your God?</i>" + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + The defendant is also charged with having said that "<i>God cried and + screamed.</i>" + </p> + <p> + 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 pretense. And the defendant also + says that if the orthodox religion be true, that the "<i>God of the + Universe kicked, and flung about his little arms, and made aimless dashes + into space with his little fists</i>." + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + The defendant says more about the childhood of Christ. He goes so far as + to say, that + </p> + <p> + "<i>He was found staring foolishly at his own little toes.</i>" + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + The defendant also says, speaking of the infant Christ, "He was nursed at + Mary's breast." + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + Imagination, like the atmosphere of Spring, woes 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + But the defendant, still speaking of the infant Christ, is charged with + having said, + </p> + <p> + "<i>God smiled when he was comfortable. He lay in a cradle and was rocked + to sleep</i>." + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + The defendant also says, that + </p> + <p> + "<i>God was sick when cutting his teeth</i>." + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + "<i>He caught the measles, the mumps, the scarlet fever and the whooping + cough</i>." + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + He has said, that— + </p> + <p> + "<i>According to the Old Testament, the God of the Christian world + commanded people to destroy each other.</i>" + </p> + <p> + 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? + </p> + <p> + 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? + </p> + <p> + 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: + </p> + <p> + "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." + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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 tran-substantiation, 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. + </p> + <p> + When Henry the 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. + </p> + <p> + 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 where-ever 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. + </p> + <p> + As long as the Church has the power to close the lips of men, so long and + no longer will superstition rule this world. + </p> + <p> + Blasphemy is the word that the majority hisses into the ear of the few. + </p> + <p> + After every argument of the Church has been answered, has been refuted, + then the Church cries, "blasphemy!" + </p> + <p> + Blasphemy is what an old mistake says of a newly discovered truth. + </p> + <p> + Blasphemy is what a withered last year's leaf says of this year's bud. + </p> + <p> + Blasphemy is the bulwark of religious prejudice. + </p> + <p> + Blasphemy is the breastplate of the heartless. And let me say now, that + the crime of blasphemy set out in this statute, is impossible. No man can + blaspheme a book. No man can commit blasphemy telling his honest thought. + No man can blaspheme God, or a Holy Ghost, or a Son of God. The Infinite + cannot be blasphemed. + </p> + <p> + In the olden time, in the days of savagery and superstition, when some + poor man was struck by lightning, when a blackened mark was left on the + breast of and mother, the poor savage supposed that son angered by + something he had done, had taken revenge. What else did the savage + suppose? He believed that this God had the same feelings, with to the + loyalty of his subjects, that an earthly chief or an earthly king with + regard to the loyalty or tread of members of his tribe, or citizens of his + kingdom 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 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-defense; 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. That 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + What is blasphemy? I will give you a definition; I will give you my + thought upon this subject. What is real blasphemy? + </p> + <p> + To live on the unpaid labor of other men—that is blasphemy. + </p> + <p> + To enslave your fellow-man, to put chains upon his body—that is + blasphemy. + </p> + <p> + To enslave the minds of men, to put manacles upon the brain, padlocks upon + the lips—that is blasphemy. + </p> + <p> + To deny what you believe to be true, to admit to be true what you believe + to be a lie—that is blasphemy. + </p> + <p> + To strike the weak and unprotected, in order that you may gain the + applause of the ignorant and superstitious mob—that is blasphemy. + </p> + <p> + To persecute the intelligent few, at the command of the ignorant many—that + is blasphemy. + </p> + <p> + To forge chains, to build dungeons, for your honest fellow-men—that + is blasphemy. + </p> + <p> + To pollute the souls of children with the dogma of eternal pain—that + is blasphemy. + </p> + <p> + To violate your conscience—that is blasphemy. + </p> + <p> + The jury that gives an unjust verdict, and the Judge who pronounces an + unjust sentence, are blasphemers. + </p> + <p> + The man who bows to public opinion against his better judgment and against + his honest conviction, is a blasphemer. + </p> + <p> + 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? + </p> + <p> + 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 of 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. Afterwards, 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 aw that + came out of the dungeons of religious persecution; a law that was appealed + to by bigots and by hypocrites, to punish, to imprison an honest man. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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? + </p> + <p> + 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? + </p> + <p> + I have given you my definition of blasphemy, and now the question arises, + what is worship? Who is a worshipper? What is prayer? What is real + religion? Let me answer these questions. + </p> + <p> + 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 worshippers. 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 worshipper. + </p> + <p> + Labor is the only prayer that Nature answers; it is the only prayer that + deserves an answer,—good, honest, noble work. + </p> + <p> + 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 worshipper. Her act is worship. + </p> + <p> + 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 worshippers; and the children who, after + they reap the benefit of this worship, become ashamed of their parents, + are blasphemers. + </p> + <p> + 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 + worshipper; that is real religion. + </p> + <p> + Whoever increases the sum of human joy, is a worshipper. + </p> + <p> + He who adds to the sum of human misery, is a blasphemer. + </p> + <p> + 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 its thought. Neither can the whole world convince me that any man + should be punished, either in this world or 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. + </p> + <p> + Let us take one more step. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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? + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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: + </p> + <p> + First. I claim that the Constitution of New Jersey declares that: + </p> + <p> + "<i>The liberty of speech shall not be abridged.</i>" + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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 put in this indictment + do not amount to blasphemy. + </p> + <p> + There is still another point. This statute says: "whoever shall <i>wilfully</i> + speak against." Now, in this case, you must find that the defendant + "wilfully" 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 "wilfully" being honest—"wilfully" + telling his real opinion—"wilfully" giving to his fellow-men his + thought. + </p> + <p> + 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 <i>animus furandi</i>. 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 "wilfully" said. And I + claim that if you believe that what the man said was honestly said, you + cannot find him guilty under this statute. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + In my judgment, however, there would have been no harm in giving this + pamphlet to every citizen of your place. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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 may be 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + For the sake of your State—for the sake of her reputation through + the world—for your own sakes—for the sake 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 thumb-screw 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + What light is to the eyes, what love is to the heart, + </p> + <p> + Liberty is to the soul of man. Without it, there come suffocation, + degradation and death. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + Liberty is the condition of progress. Without Liberty, there remains only + barbarism. Without Liberty, there can be no civilization. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + Without Liberty there can be no worship, no blasphemy—no love, no + hatred, no justice, no progress. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + Understand me. I am not blaming the people. I am not blaming the + prosecution, nor 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. + </p> + <p> + While I do not blame these people—they not being on trial—I do + ask you to stand on the side of right. + </p> + <p> + 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." + </p> + <p> + 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." + </p> + <p> + You are expected to do this, because I believe you will be true to your + consciences, true to your best judgment true to the bests interests of the + people of New Jersey, true to the great cause of Liberty. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <div style="height: 6em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of C. B. Reynolds For Blasphemy, by +Robert G. Ingersoll + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF REYNOLDS *** + +***** This file should be named 38103-h.htm or 38103-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/8/1/0/38103/ + +Produced by David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + </body> +</html> |