Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1875-04-01
CIVIL RIGHTS.

of negro for refusing to serve him with
breakfast, stated as reason for his ac-
ton to representative of the Tribune
that, if he had served him, it would ruin
his business by driving away his custom
ers, upon whom he has to depend for his
patronage. Mr.. Burke is unquestion-
ably right in his statement It ,oould
drive away the great majority of his
patrons, but why should it These
same patrons when they go there for
their meals are served with food which
has been handled, manipulated, and
cooked by negroes. They never stop
to inquire how these negroes have
cooked it. 1t Is served to them by a
negro, who brings the food to their table,
gives them knive, fork and plate, per-
haps wiping the latter with his apron or
napkin which has been doing much SER
vice of a similar sort and this knife,
fork, and plate were scrubbed before
hand by a negro, and this napkin was
washed and ironed by one. Is it not an
anomaly, therefore, that this restaurant
patron can sit down to his meals prepared
IN this manner with good appetite and
without a single qualm, and yet that his
gorge will rise at sight of a negro eating
at another table in the same restaurant!
The case is the same in hotel. Hotels
are full of negroes. They cook
the food, serve the tables, brush
clothes, black boots, answer bells, sweep
rooms, and make beds. All this can be
endured. They even live, eat and sleep
III the hotels, and no guest makes any
objection to it !; but when negro seeks
to register his name and become a guest,
although he may eat at side table and
sleep in the cock-loft, speedily there is an
uproar among the white guests, and all
pack up their trunks and threaten to
leave. Why9 is negro who pays a
hotel proprietor for sleeping or eating in
the house any more Objectionable than a
negro who eats and sleeps In the house
and is paid by the proprietor? Again,
q negro must not be an inmate of sleep
ing-car, and yet negro can
serve meals, make up the berths,
and do all the serving work in
a sleeping-car without objection. The
H. II.
fnitum. Negroes can be our servants.
They can do laundry work. Negro hair
dressers can do up my lady's hair and
handle her at their own sweet will. Ne
gro nurses can wash, dress, fondle, and
handle white babies. Negroes can sit in
our pews and worship, and there is no
one to say why do you so? Black
Swans and Blind Toms can sing and play
In our concert-rooms, and the elite Will
throng to hear them, but negroes must
not go there as auditors. Negro. BARRIERS
can shave us, and can manipulate us
from head to foot, an hour at a time,
even in the hot summer days, but they
must not eat in the same restaurant, ride
IN the same ear, sleep in the same hotel,
go to the same theater, or attend the
same school with white children.
What is the reason for these finely
drawn distinctions and these delicate
shades of prejudice Is it prejudice
at all? Is it not, rather, the determine
ton of the white race that the black race
shall continue to hold the mental posi-
ton in social matters2 We have admit
ted them to political equality, and the
most blatant of all the Bourbons does
not object to vote side by side with
them, to electioneer for their votes, and
to serve under them in Office. Were
negro, for instance, to be elected Sheriff
of Cook county, there is not blather-
skite Democratic hummer of the city
who would not accept Office under him.
This attempted social outlawry is only
a proof that the influences of the two
centuries of negro servitude in this
country have not yet ceased to work.
1t shows that the North, as well as
he South, has not yet outgrown the
idea that the negro is the inferior and
must be kept in the inferior position, so
cially, if not politically. 1t shows that
the blighting influences of slavery are
still alive. In Europe, white and black
go side by side without any trouble, and,
as human nature is the same the world
over, it is very apparent that the social
opposition to the negro does not grow
out of natural causes, but is one of
the relics of slavery. The negro must
not be admitted to social privileges, not
because he is offensive, not because he is
not worthy of it, but simply because he
is negro, branded by two centuries of
cruelty and oppression as an inferior.
Is this just, or courageous, or manly
treatment of race just emancipated