Pioneer press. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1882-19??, 1885-08-01

/
republican party, he quotes us very
much.in the manner Of the old preacher
who had in his flock a pilfering dea-
con, who, when caught in the act of
approp1iating one of his fellow-dea-
cons hogs, importuned his pastor to
find some passage of scripture and
preach sermon from it that would
exonerate him. So in consideration
of "hal%of the hog the preacher con-
sented, and when the church had as
sembled he arose, and with great
gravity said, Brethren, my text will
be found in Ephesians, " chapter,
and the 28th verse; and the first part
of the first clause of that verse, which
reads thus: ''Let him that stole STEAL"
the whole clause reads: "Let him that
stole steal no more" Of course he
gained the point with an ignorant
congregation.
Now, our language is this /: "While
we are free to affirm that the rights
which we, in part, enjoy came by and
through the republican party, yet we
cannot admit that we are debtors to
the party on that account. These
rights were not given in order that
we might be looked upon as debtors;
but because the guarantee of equal
suffrage to all loyal men of the South
was demanded by every consideration
of public safety, of gratitude, and of
Justice; none of which implies q
debt, except on the part of those who
owed us gratitude and Justice It
is plain that he, like the preacher,
left out the ''no MORE" but we will
not say he did so for q purpose. In
order that we may not have our po-
sition again misrepresented we will
state frankly that we want it distinct
ly understood, that we are tired of
being told before each recurring cleo
ton that the Negro is a republican
because he oaoes that much to the
party. We want all parties to un
derstand that principles with us are
sacred things, and not objects of
merchandise, that we are actuated by
the same motives in our republican
ism that actuate white men, that
whatever debts we owe, when the bills
are presented will be settled as other
men settle theirs, but not at the sac
rifice Of principles. Are we under
stood?
We do say that colored men should
support only those men who are ex-
ponents of the principles long since
enumerated by the party. Does Bro.
White object to that? We did say
that the republican party through it's
indifference to it's Constitutional pre-
rogative made the present solid South
possible. Did Bro. White deny it
And we stand by what we said about
the platform of '94, that the most
| (not ally that could be said was that
we extend to the republicans of the
South our sympathy. What more
could be honestly said in the face of
the then, but recent decision of our
Supreme Court, which had in sub
stance declared that there was no
power in the Federal government to
protect the colored man in the States?
WHY does the able editor make such
a display of printers ink in telling us
what the party denounced, ETC., unless
it had first denounced the Supreme
Court that had made it impossible
for the party to carry out single
pledge?
But he concludes by saying that
''the party that gave the colored man
his rights will yet see to it that he is
protected in them, and they (the par
ty of course) will do it whether the
colored man stands by them (the
party or the rights we can't tell which)
or not.
We conclude by exhorting the able
editor not to leave the common en-
envy, which he has so often met and
vanquished, for the barren honor of
wasting his intellectual strenoth in