7:10 P.M. An easy talk with W., who took matters calmly though pleasedly. I noted a bundle of Posts in basket. Had sent a number away—among others, to Ingersoll and Johnston. Listened to all I had to recite him. I left paragraph with Post this morning. It appears with W.'s own. "Ingersoll, Walt Whitman, the Academy of Music." Bonsall also quotes an energetic passage and more from the New York Star. Yesterday's Telegraph, under "Baker on Atheism," publishes a considerable interview with the Academy officer. This the Times takes in substance for a four-inch note this morning. Times and Press both review editorially—the latter apologetically enough—the former, though not all satisfactory, yet with a manly note. Both very good for advertisements, whatever else they may fail in. So far have nowhere seen anything like a solid, sound, generous protest.
The following telegram from Baker today: "You are doing splendidly make it lecture not address subject Liberty and Literature put title on posters get posters out immedy let Colonel know when you want money. I write tonight."
Letter also from Johnston, as follows:
As to stage at Horticultural Hall, W. said, "I had wished to take a front seat below," but assented readily as to stage. "I am ready to be part of the show: well you know."
Read him letter I had from Law. He laughed exceedingly at last paragraph:
"Very true, Matthew. What right have we to be corresponding anyhow?" And then, "I saw the letter today: Jim sends me a note—with it a clipping from the Tribune, which copied the letter. The forgery is not a bad one—quite plausible, in fact. Yet it is forged, forged—shows forgery from top to toe." He then had had no letter at all? "You know as much as I do about that." Expressed "enjoyment and gratitude" that it had "turned out no worse," and counselled me, "Wherever you go, contradict the letter. Tell the truth about it: say you know it is a double-dyed perpetration." And so he went on. "And shall I say this in print?"— "No, I would not go into print. It has been a principle with me so far, not to make public explanations—to get into any sort of personal controversy." Expressed great pleasure with Ingersoll's title: "That seems a great headline."
W. suggested that I put advertisement in the Post; thought Camden "might have a contingent," etc.
McKay in high good humor over Ingersoll matter: "Certainly expect to be there." His father had said to me in his wise slow way, "And they call this a land of freedom!" W. said, "Free? Are we not free? What have they to do for us now? Us fellows are free: it is the others who are not. I would not admit it in that way. We are a free people in spite of all—our fellows are free anyhow—whatever may come with the others. Ain't we saying, doing, cutting up all the capers we choose? Ain't we non-respectable—healthfully under public ban?" And then, "Yes, the morals—the religious! They would not let Jesus Christ himself speak in their Academy. To them he would be tramp, intruder, perhaps with stained and ragged clothes. Oh! it is an old story fitting a new instance!"
Would have me take Lippincott's. "I have just been reading Clark Russell's story there—'A Marriage at Sea.' It is not powerful—but is good—a cheerful piece to take up when you do not wish to be drawn into tiresome, laborious thinking."— "A good thing not to be exercised about," he called it again.
Got him half a dozen big envelopes, which he said were just what he wanted.