The weekly Anglo-African. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1859-1861, 1859-11-26

there when l went.
Several other questions of an important
character were asked, which space will not
permit me to record. The lecturer en- |
phatically declared that he was opposed to
that he had never persuaded
any one to go to Liberia--that Liberians
feel the oppression which the colored peo-
pie of this country bear just as severely as
we ourselves do, and when one oppressive
act is passed here it spreads through that
country as rapidly as interchangeable
communication excepted.
A correspondent, who adopts the sigma
ture of advance" in the last number of
"The Weekly Anglo-African" seems a
little disposed to criticism. He thinks it
perfectly absurd to test the question
whether the prescribed Americans of Phil
adelphia have rights which white men are
bound to respect-and if SO, whether these
rights Gf we have any entitle them to
ride inside of the passenger cars running
through the streets of our city" His
reasons he gives as follows Il use the
personal pronoun of the masculine gender,
but if the correspondent is lady beg her
PARDON: off the prescribed Americans of
Philadelphia are denied the privilege of
riding in the cars I want no better proof
of their right to ride than the fact of its
denial" He here confounds rights and
privileges, and l understand him both to
say and mean that to deny a person the
privilege of doing thing proves the right
to do it. For illustration | will cite but a
single case: Suppose give friend the
privilege of staying in my house without
charge, and when 1 see proper to order him
to find other quarters, does the fact of my
refusing to let him stay in my house prove
his right to stay? l think not. Again he
says: "In considering question of this
character we must not take our privileges
for our rights, nor our rights for our privi-
Ieges. They are two distinct things, and
one cannot exist without the other" That
is right cannot exist without the privi-
lege to exercise it, and ace verS0, a privi-
lege cannot exist without the right to use
it. But in the very next sentence he says:
"Our rights can exist without the privilege
to exercise them. The latter the courts
may favor us with, but the former they
never can" By this understand neither
the correspondent nor his position, unless
he is writing for bunkum, and if | thought
SO wonld not write line in reply. He is
guilty of ignoratio eleaschi, (mistaking the
question: for we are fully aware that
courts can neither give us rights nor take
them from us but courts can decide
whether any person or persons are entitled
to the exercise of rights and not privileges,
for courts have notnrng u uu with pr1v1-
leges. Rights are of two kinds-natural
human constitutions, independent of hu-
man codes, but the latter are the creatures
of legislation. Every Individual surrend-
ers part of his natural rights when he
enters community of individuals, formed
for mutual protection. Hence legislatures
have the right to pass laws defining the
rights of citizens, and courts are established
to decide such cases as come before them
under existing laws-no more. In con-
Guiding, the writer says: "What grave
question We will for the present give
way under its gravity" This is precisely
the way that a great many persons act in
considering grave questions. 1t has been
SO from time immemorial. Nearly all the
churches of this city have been notified of
our intention to sue for the right to ride,
which has been denied us by city passen-
ger railroad corporations and their agents
They have felt it to be SO grave and mo-
mentous question also proper one
that some of them have opened their
doors and given us collections, while others
have given way under its gravity. A great
many futile attempts have been made by
prescribed Americans in this city to remove
the legal disabilities under which we live,
but it is too serious a question, and the
masses give way under its gravity. 1t is
so in other respects. Pharaoh felt it to be
a grave question of liberating the children
of Israel from Egyptian bondage, and he
gave way under its gravity. Had Noses
given way under the gravity of the ques-
ton, his mission would have been under
taken in vain. Felix dismissed Paul when
he felt convinced of the correctness of
Pauls mission, and was almost persuaded
to become Christian, but not quite. He
felt it to be momentous question, and gave
way under its gravity. Finally, the peo-
pie of New York were treated Just as we