Vicksburg weekly herald. (Vicksburg, Miss.) 1868-1883, 1870-09-24

AAA AA-a0 @ @ANes " W
amendment wee to establish sepa.
rate schools for WAiies when appIi-
therefor was duly made by
the parents or guardians Of twenty
Eve pupils."
There was no necessity for stat
Ing IN the amendment referred to
hat such additional schools were
Tor whites. Tho term separate
schools" made that point plain
enough. II there were to be "sepa-
rate schools" they could not be
'mixed."
Now Why has this important
word Separate" been omitted from
the official publication Of the bill ?
That's the point! Let the Citizen
US here and explain the care
lesSness, ignorance, duplicity or
knaveFy Of the party or person II
champions.
Says the Citizen : 1.-THE bubble
u Of the HERALD is shameful and
wicked"
at is q quibble," Is 1t, to omit q
word from Q law which omission
virtually depEives every white
child Of the State of the advantages
Of schools which their parents al
most wholly support?
at is Shameful Is It, to disclose
and emphatically condemn the
recklessness or knavery which has
caused that criminal omission?
at 0utrages common sense" and
"ruins g noble enterprise" does It,
to set up q bold claim for justice to
the white race, or utter an appeal To
Radicals 10 "tote fair"2
1T is villainous" in the HERALD
to protest against the payment Of
an exhOrbitant school tax when II
comes out of white mems pockets
and goes for the benefit Of the ne.
groes TO the exclusion Of The Dhites!
Our charge that the school law
has been altered or garbled "is a
bold pretence only" says the Citi-
zen.
"a bold pretense only" Is it?
Then tOhy does the Citizen say III
was fully understood the Section
(49) was intended to secure the in.
terests Of the White parents Of the
Stated"
Does Section 40, as published, Sc
cure their interests?
We deny It!
True, 1t provides for additional
schools, but does it say anything
about their being SepGrGte2
Could any teacher, school direct
or. superintendent or any court in
the State legally prevent the admis-
sion Of negroes into such "addi-
tional" schoOls2
Has not the editor of the Citizen
common sense enough to see that
such admission could not DO denied
TO negrOesH
Then, what becomes Of Paine's
amendment without that little word
"~separate"1
Says the Citizen: "The law is
plainly ~ Intended to secure sep.
arate schools for white commune
ties"
Will the sagacious and witty ed
itOr of that paper point out to US
the terms Of section 40 which make
this "plain" provision for separate
schools for whites?
In conclusion the aforesaid editor
gives US q hint of libel. He says:
at isa very easy matter for a party
having control OF ink aud type, to
sling around charges Of swindling
when they know that no remedy
exists for the victim except a tedi-
Gus libel suit, and then generally
nothing found at the end, If a suit
Is prosecuted"
In reply to which we only refer
him to Judge Burwell.
He challenged Us to bring him
proof of our charge that the law
as published is altered or garbled.
We have done SO we have proven
we are correct out of his own
mouth
He acknowledges that the amend
ment provided fOrseparate schools.
Does section 40 contain that pro.
He acknowledged that said
amendment was plainly intended
and understood to secure the inter.
ests of the whites. Does section 40
accomplish this?
We refer him to the Vicksburg
of June 10th, for q synopsis
If the law wherein section 40 does
provide for separate schools" Is
Z thus in the official publication ?