The orator then sketched compactly but vividly the critical situation of 1780, and tells at length the story of Arnold’s treason, its frustration by the capture of André and his pathetic fate. This “one romance of the Revolution” is a thrilling tale, and all adornment is given to it. The account of the struggle to save André’s life gives the interest of controversy, as does the defense of Washington’s course. The anecdote and the illustrative parallel are both supplied by the case of Captain Nathan Hale, executed by the English as an American spy. The address closes with a fitting tribute to André’s three captors, whose modest monument marked the spot, and a very effective quotation of William of Orange’s heroic oath at his coronation, “I will maintain.”
OUTLINE OF SPEECH BY GOVERNOR FORAKER AT THE DEDICATION OF OHIO’S MONUMENT TO THE ANDREWS RAIDERS, AT CHATTANOOGA
Why this monument and this dedication. The story of the raid, the suffering of the raiders, and heroism of those who died.
The controversial part covered two points–the military value of the raid, and the manner in which the raiders had been treated by the enemy while prisoners.
The illustrative setting was the historic background of Chattanooga and the contrasts of war and peace.
OUTLINE OF ADDRESS BY CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW AT DINNER ON THE 70TH BIRTHDAY OF JOHN JAY
Not on the programme–pleasantry with Mr. Choate (President) about his railroad fees. Mr. Choate wants it made the rule for all ex-presidents of the club to have a dinner on their 70th birthday. This will help them to live at least that long, as Gladstone and Bismarck, when they had an object, have lived on in spite of the doctors!
Depew, a native of the same county as three generations of Jays. Services of the Revolutionary Jay.
_The Anecdote_.–General Sherman yesterday told a beautiful young girl–Generals always interested in beautiful young girls–that he would be willing to throw away all he was doing or had done to start at her time of life again. But the nation could not permit that, nor could it in the case of John Jay–closing words of tribute and esteem to the guest of the evening.
OUTLINE OF ADDRESS BY CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW AT THE RECEPTION TO HENRY M. STANLEY BY THE LOTUS CLUB
The speaker jests about his own locks whitened by the cares of railroading, and the raven hair of the reporters–where do they get their dye?
Stanley’s lecture fee, $250.–Lotus Club gets one for only the price of a dinner!
Stanley a great artist in his descriptions as well as a great traveler.
Americans a nation of travelers.–This makes railroads prosperous! What some reporters have done.
The motive makes heroism.–Livingstone the missionary–his rescue by Stanley.
The civilized Africa of the future with Stanley for its Columbus.
SPEECHES AT A DINNER GIVEN TO THE RELIGIOUS PRESS
Toast.–“The Religious Press and Literature.”
First, what are sound views of literature; second, what is a religious paper? The speaker used two illustrations bound in one. A great book is the Nilometer which measures intellectual life as the original Nilometer measured the life and fertility of the land of Egypt. A description of the rise of the Nile and of the _Divine Comedy_ of Dante, as such a measurer of the life of the Middle Ages, made up the speech.
Toast.–“Religious Press and Questions of the Day.”
Eternity begins _here_. The paper must show on which side of any question the right lies. It should go even further than this. It should cover a wider range of topics and aim to secure the attention of the general public to the questions it discusses and so entitle it to circulate more widely.
Toast.–“Should Religious Papers Make Money?”
If I may make the paying papers, anybody may make the others. Money losing–soon comes, _hic jacet_. Money making proves usefulness and renders the issue of a paper possible. Letter from the oldest editor of New York in which he says the editor is under life sentence to hard labor.
Toast.–“The Religious Paper and Scholarship.”
He laments that he has no letter from an editor to read (like the last speaker), and tells a story of a Methodist, on request, praying for rain; and when a terrible storm came, the man who asked, was heard to murmur: “How these Methodists do exaggerate.” This was to show the excellence of the dinner. Two other stories were used by the speaker, about the length and discursiveness of his talk. The people need and will read deep, accurate, and scholarly productions. There ought to be a general paper for such. Something has been done in that direction by two religious papers.
The speaker treated his topic by giving a semi-humorous review of the preceding speeches. He showed how denominational traits affected each item in the work of the paper. He did not make just the kind of a paper _he_ liked best, for some people were of the same taste as Artemus Ward, who always ordered _hash_ at a restaurant, because he then knew what he was getting! The speaker also referred ironically to the mistaken idea that church papers could not pay, and gave striking instances to the contrary. He concluded that denominational papers may be as successful in their line as those purely undenominational and independent.