The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-29
A DAY OF CANT.


| have the good sense to see that this decision
| deprives them OF none of their rights and to
| accept it in that spirit of acquiescence with
/ which all law-abiding people in this country
receive the decisions of the courts"
! Up to the present time, may it please the
New York Times, the colored people have
behaved themselves in way to SHOW
their fitness for self-government' quite as
well as has the rabble which forms the ma
! jority in New York city, and which governs
in that, as i'll many other places in the United
J States. There is a vast deal of unctuous
! Pickwickian cant in this patronizing talk to
and of colored people. The colored people
have astonished the world with the advances
they have made in all that goes to make up
capacity for self-government, and in the pa
thence and fortitude they have shown in the
eventfnl history through which they have
| passed. We are heartily sick and tired of
this stuff and misunderstanding the negro
| into the middle of tine street, and then pat
ting him on the back and bidding him show
! his capacity for self-government If che
who ruleth his own spirit is mightier than
he that taketh city," what words of praise
! can be too much for an entire race
who stood and waited for deliverance
with a patience unbroken, and who
have been the unmurmuring victims of
crimes which, to quote Mr.. Douglass's quo
tation, "might we'll shame EXTREMIST hell"
What has the negro done that he should be
/ told IN cbOyv biD1saIf hIa of calf.COvarp-
ment? Has he rebeled? Has he en-
gagged in instruction? Has he mas
sacred and burned and outraged
by wholesale? Has he rioted in our cities,
pillaged orphan asylums and beat the
brains of white children out against the
lamp posts? These things have occurred in
this country; have occurred in New York,
Have they been the work Of the colored
people, who are now, with pious
twaddle, told to prove themselves
capable of self-government? Who has gov
erned himself better than the poor, outraged
despsed negro?
But the Times speaks of that spirit of &C
quiescence with which all law-abding peo-
pie in this country receive the decisions of
the courts" Does the Times believe what it
says? What about the spirit of acquies-
cence' with which the bred Scott decision
was received? What about 1.-THE spirit of ac-
quiescence" with which the legal tender de-
cision was received? What about "the spirit
of acquiescence' with which the
decision of the Supreme Court
of Indiana, overturning the constitutional
amendments in this State, was received?
Was the Times itself then "a law-abiding citi-
zen" or did it show spirit of acquiescence"
in that decision? What about the spirit of
acquiescence'' with which the recent de-
cision of the Supreme Court of New York,
making valid Jay Gould's Western Union
watered stock, was received? Was the Times
"law-abiding citizen" when it filled its col
umns with attacks upon the court for that
opinion was a corrupt one because
some of the judges were stockholders? 1t
is high time all this humbug and hypocrisy
should come to an end. If the country is
tie" of the law, let US have the manliness
and dignity to say so. The Supreme Court
does not hesitate to judicially determine
that the time has come to send the colored
people adrift to shift for themselves, and
however much we may disagree with the
court as to either the wisdom or the prov
ince of this dictum. we can but have more
respect for the court than for those who are
trying to stuff the negro with fine senti-
ments, but evidently secretly pleased that
the struggle to maintain equal rights has
come to an end by power outside of them
selves. But, if the Republican party was
| honest and sincere in its work of reconstruc-
ton; if it meant anything when it passed
the constitutional amendments and the
several civil-rights bills; if it believed them
just and appropriate legislation at the
time they were enacted into laws,
in the name of all that is of
good report in the history of
Republicanism, let no man be ashamed or
afraid to say so. 1t is not necessary to assail
the Supreme Court decision as being against
the law to do so much. And if anyone, after
studying the question for himself, thinks
the decision of the Supreme Court not wise
one, not based on the soundest principles of
law and national safety; if it be that he sees
possible danger ahead if the principles of
mis- decision be pushed to their logical con-
clusion, it is not only that mans right, but
it is his solemn duty to say so, and ii need
be- and he thinks best, he may preach a cru
SADIE against it and yet be "a law-abiding