Daily Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1876-1884, 1881-11-27
Judge J. S. Black on lngersoII.

Judge J. s. Black has addressed
to the Philadelphia Press an ex-
PLANTATION Of his failure to reply to
Colonel IDgersoll's second article
on the Christian religion, publish
ed in the North American Review:
"From the beginning it was dis
tinctly understood that my defense
was to be printed in the same mum.
Der with the accusation. The edi.
tor was, or at least pretended to be,
q firm believer In Christianity.
and he would not for the world
publish Ingersoll's poisonous stuff
without putting the antidote right
beside tito do SO would not only
sf1ict his conscience but greatly
iDjure the character OF his Review.
At the time of the publication I
agreed that II Mr.. Ipgersoll had
any fault 10 find with the result 1t
might seem cowardly TO refuse
him another chance on the same
terms. l was not afraid OF any
new assault he might make IL he
was not afraid of my defense.
Three months afterward fifty
pages of the foulest and falsest
libel that ever was written against
God or man was sent to me. l
was entirely willing to treat it as
I had treated the other; that is,
give 1t the answer thought it de-
served and let both go together.
But 1t came when [ was disabled
by an injury from which l could
not hope TO get well for some weeks,
and 80 I notified the editor. To
my surprise I was Informed that
no contradiction, correction or crit
icism OF mine or anybody else
would be allowed to accompany
this new effuslon Of filth. 1t was
to be printed Immediately, and
would occupy SO much space that
none could be spared for the other
side. l proposed that II its bulk
could not be- reduced so as to ad-
NIT of answer ia the same number
1t should be postponed until re-
ply could be made ready for publ
cation in the next succ seeding num-
Der. This and divers other offers
were rejected for the ex : ress rea.
son that Mr.. Ingersoll would not
consent. Finding the Review COLI
troiled by him 10 suit himself. 1
did not think I was bound to go
further.
True, was offered the cnance of
replying In a future number, but
that was not the privilege had
hargsined for nor the duty I agreed
to perform. Besides, Ii l would
write an answer, what confidence
could I have that they would not
suppress. it? A promise of heirs,
express or implied, is not, in my
estimation, worth a straw il they
have an interest In breaking IL.
Their object was not what they
professed-to get vindication-but
to make q sensation and increase
the sale Of their paper.
/ am especially biamsble for al
lowing myself TO be taken In by
them on this occasion, because the
same treacherous concern had base
ly betrayed me once before. After
tracking me out and hunting me
down to get an article from me on
the great fraud Of 1876, a subject
then of much general interest, and
making by its publication, as the
proprietor himself told me, not
less than $4,000, they handed
me and my friends, liv-
ing and dead, over to be
covered with Irrelevant SLAM
ders on q bargain that 1 should not
be permitted TO refute them In
their pages. The pamphlet to
which I was driven could not
reach half the readers Of the
Review, and the other half proba-
bly, believe to this day that l and
certain other men, some Of them
the best and worthlest in the land,
were guilty of the most strocious
crimes known to any law, divine
or human. 1t was weak in me not
to prosecute those libelers in
court of justice; still weaker to
c0ndone the offense and put my.
self In the way of being similarly
maltreated again. Perhaps, also,
1t was unwise at the beginning to
look for otter behavior from adj
ventures conducting magazine
without avowed convictions or
principles and without capacity to
contribute an original thing OF
their own except rags and lamp
black.