New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1872-04-25
VOL. III.-NO. 1917

ness and barbarism; and / can have n,
respect for him who disregards such distinc
| ton.
| But it is not my present purpose to dis
prove your correspondents faulty philosoph,
on caste. 1t is only by a simple statement
of truth that l hope to repel the imputatior
of an unworthy prejudice which d. A. S
seeks, by an gorgeous Misrepresentation o
| facts, to fix upon an eminent colored either
of acknowledged ability, education, and re-
finement. If this Misrepresentation was
willful, it was most malignant, and ought tt
brand its author with the stamp of SANDER
If the author was not personally cognizan1
| OF the facts, but has made the statement upon
the assertion Of others who have misinfomed
him, he is still culpable, and should at least
retract. A man may not blamelessly give
credence to idle rumOr, and then add coniir-
nation and currency to it by publishing it as
fact. When a gentleman's reputation may
be affected thereby, it is not sufficient that
the author hide himself behind so paltry a
defense as 81 was told it was So" He
should know whereof he speaks.
While ID. A. S. did not name the individual
whom he assailed, yet his description was
sufficiently definite to make it clear to most,
if not to all, to whom he referred. But, in
order that may not be charged with giving
the insult greater publicity and detiniteness
i'm my vindication than it originally had,
will be equally impersonal. The facts, as
shall state them, are not cleaned from any
mediate or hearsay evidence, but are derived
may say that know the motives which ac-
tuated the gentleman in his conduct, ESQ far
as it Is ever possible for one person to under
stand the motives of anOther.) But what
are the grounds for this invective of d. A.
S.--which ii is not the fault of his intention
if they do not rival the Phillippics of Demos
themes. Let us see.
This gentleman, while sojourning in this
city, attended one of our largest and finest
white churches. This church disavows all
prejudice or discrimination on account of
color, and, consequently, it is largely at
tended by colored people. But this gentle
man soon observed (what must be perceived
by any one on entering that church) that
colored persons seemed always excluded
from the more prominent portions of the
church, and were invariably confined to the
last three or four rows of seats. Beyond a
certain point no negroes were permitted to
penetrate. The reason assigned for this was
that the others were rented pews. But this
gentleman did not like this "black belt"
which gave every appearance of prescription,
and, in order to test the validity of the ex-
cuse and the sincerity of the profession of
unprejudiced sentiments ON the part of the
church, made application to rent pew. The
pew assigned was adjacent to this prescribed
section, however, and, therefore, the question
which he had attempted to solve was still dubi-
GUS and unsettled, although it was said that
that was the best pew then unoccupied. Nor
did subsequent events tend to remove the sus-
picion that the old negro hate still lived and
fingered in that sanctuary. Rented pews had
hitherto been regarded as inviolable, if not
by white, at least by colored, visitors. The
sections had been assiduOus in the mainte-
nance of this rule. But upon entering this
gentleman invariably found his pew partially
occupied. He cheerfully submitted to this,
however, having no objection to allowing WIS.,
itors to share his pew when there were not
enough of his own family or friends to ill it,.
On one occasion when he required the entire
pew he was obliged politely to request some
persons to vacate it. But he soon observed
that only colored and no white visitors were
ever put into his pew; while that, if white
persons were, certainly no colored persons
were ever placed in any white mans pew.
This became so apparent that he decided to
mention it to the pastor. He told the pastor
plainly that there appeared to be a decided
exhibition of prejudice Notwithstanding their
professions of Republicanism. He said he
was not ungenerOus. He would willingly
share his pew, when convenient, to strangers,
whether white or black. But he objected to
any system of prescription. Justice required
that he should be put upon the same footing
with other pew-hOlders. He declared that
no discrimination should be made in the Sc
lection of the strangers who were placed in
his pew; that white man should be placed
there as readily as a colored one. And he
demanded, further, as requirement of JUS
tice, that colored people should also be placed
in white peoples pews. The minister claimed
to be ignorant of the custom, but said that
every pew-holder had a right to object to any
one coming into his pew, and that if mem.
bers refused to allow colored persons in theil
pews he had no power to compel them to dc
so. He would, however, he said, on the sue.
ceeding Sabbath, publicly request those who
objected to receiving strangers in their pcws
| to leave note to that effect in them, and
that he would then specially instruct the
sections to place strangers, regardless Of color
in the pcws of all those who did not thu.
| object.
In compliance with his promise the pasto
did make the announcement. And this il
the "rebuke" our friend received, as d. A
S. alleges. Why, so far from being a rcbuke
it was furtherance on the part of the pas
tor of the gentleman's endeavors to breal
down the unhOly prejudice! But it is need
1ess tn dominant further The facts sneak fo