y heart, I do not hate
Catholics. Some people might be so prejudiced that they would not
vote for a man whose wife belongs to the Catholic Church; but such
people are too narrow to be consulted. General Sherman says that
he wants no office. In that he shows his good sense. He is a
great man and a great soldier. He has won laurels enough for one
brow. He has the respect and admiration of the nation, and does
not need the presidency to finish his career. He wishes to enjoy
the honors he has won and the rest he deserves.

_Question_. What is your opinion of Matthew Arnold?

_Answer_. He is a man of talent, well educated, a little fussy,
somewhat sentimental, but he is not a genius. He is not creative.
He is a critic--not an originator. He will not compare with
Emerson.

--_The Journal_, Kansas City, Missouri, February 23, 1884.

SWEARING AND AFFIRMING.

_Question_. What is the difference in the parliamentary oath of
this country which saves us from such a squabble as they have had
in England over the Bradlaugh case?

_Answer_. Our Constitution provides that a member of Congress may
swear or affirm. The consequence is that we can have no such
controversy as they have had in England. The framers of our
Constitution wished forever to divorce church and state. They knew
that it made no possible difference whether a man swore or affirmed,
or whether he swore and affirmed to support the Constitution. All
the Federal officers who went into the Rebellion had sworn or affirmed
to support the Constitution. All that did no good. The entire
oath business is a mistake. I think it would be a thousand times
better to abolish all oaths in courts of justice. The oath allows
a rascal to put on the garments of solemnity, the mask of piety,
while he tells a lie. In other words, the oath allows the villain
to give falsehood the appearance of truth. I think it would be
far better to let each witness tell his story and leave his evidence
to the intelligence of the jury and judge. The trouble about an
oath is that its tendency is to put all witnesses on an equality;
the jury says, "Why, he swore to it." Now, if the oath were
abolished, the jury would judge all testimony according to the
witness, and then the evidence of one man of good reputation would
outweigh the lies of thousands of nobodies.

It was at one time believed that there was something miraculous in
the oath, that it was a kind of thumbscrew that