Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-03-31
The Latest Case Of Race Prejudice
nostoh (Mass.) Herald.)


O,ostoh (Mass.) Herald)
Ex-senator Dawes and Ex-Governor
Robinson, who have commented upon the
circumstances attending the late visit OF
the Massachusetts, legislative committee
in the Southern States. both censure that
committee for remaining in the South
after there was a refusal to accept its
colored member on an equality with those
who constituted the balance OF Its MEM
bership. Mr.. Dawes thinks Tiers should
have been an instant and indignant pro-
test and an immediate withdrawal. II
strikes us that they do not 60 far back
enough In treating this subject. II they
are right, II is more apparent that the
committee should not have gone at all.
To regard the case as one In which there
was a studded and unanticipated indignity
N 70 be obliyious to facts that were as
patent as anything we'll could be. II was
entirely plain that the southern etates'
in their social relations, did NOT recog-
nize colored men as on an equality win
white men. This was apparent both In
their laws and their usages. There may
b. some people who hold it to be the duty
down: but It will hardly be held that
such an occasion as this was appropriate
70 begin the work. The dignified course
would have been, first, to protest against
them. and then to refuse to visit the
States in the company OF colored men
while such laws and usages existed. III
Massachusetts, was TO BE- insulted by the
exclusion OF one OF It's colored legislators
from hotels and social circles, she IN
yi;ed such insult. II was as well known
before the committee started what was 10
be the treatment of its colored MEMBER as
II was after that time. The only course
IN take. II IL was to be avoided. was TO
keep away.
The regulation of social usages Is a
matter 10 be settled By each society for
itself. Boston cannot say what shall be
the rule for Charleston or for New Or
leans. and under ordinary conditions she
would feel II herself to be an imperti-
nerce II she attempted TO do so. "A true
delicacy of feeling would impel her not
TO do officially what she would shrink
from doing in the capacity or private
life. The same rule holds as regards
law. We maks laws for our own .gov-
eminent in Massachusetts,; they make
laws for their own government in GSor-
gia and in Alabama. Each system or
laws operates within the limits Of each
State respectively. One State does not
attempt to force them upon another
The comfy OF statehood forbids 1t. and
an instructive sense of reason teaches us
its Improperly. We expect the citizens
Of other States to conform to our laws
when they come here. and We should
accord the same respect to their laws
when we visit them. IL there Is a case
where our laws conflict with theirs. We
would feel 1t proper to yield when we
are in their State territory. just as we
would expect them to yield when they
come into ours. IL the same feeling
prevails among States that prevails
among gentlemen, we would not embar-
rass the people Of State by compelling
them to choose between respecting our
laws and theirs. 1t Is something that
we have no right TO do If we act in the
spirit Of comfy toward them.
But principle is involved in the pres
ent case, we shall be told. Admit it,
and there Is q clear argument why the
committee should not have gone to the
South at all, but by no means as clear
a one why 1t should have embarrassed
its hosts and rendered its State liable
to possible indignity by going there.
That was not the time to assert the
superiority of Massachusetts law over
that Of North Carolina. Our State was
In the relation of a guest to the latter
community. II was receiving It's hospi-
tally 1t knew what the conditions or
such hospitality were In advance. II 1t
could not accede to them II should have
remained away. To accept them. and
then TO insist upon forcing an unwel-
come guest was to violate the first law
of hospitality. 1t Is altogether a wrong
manner in which 10 assert a principle.
Every man with the native feeling Of
courtesy and propf3ety will at once re-
cognize this. Surely it calls for no argu-
ment.
AS regards principle itself, are We al
together certain that our own skirts are
clear Of reproach In this matter on which
the South is taken to task? This point
seems to have struck Governor Robinson
as he was giving his views upon the sub
ject. while we may condemn the dis
elimination against the colored man in
the South similar treatment In the North
Is Of the same reprehensibility. When the
colored man and colored woman shall
have the same welcome in the hotels and
In the public places Of amusement and
otherwise that the white man and the
white woman have, then we may more
Justly animadvert IN the conduct OF
other communities who do not accord TO
him or 10 her the same justice" Is not
this a description OF something like
beam In our own eye? II Is not so very
long ago since a complaint came that the
barbersin the State House, where the COL
ored representative who was sent TO the
South as a legislator. had refused to shave
him when he presented himself for that
operation. II there Is an irrepressible de-
sire in Massachusetts, TO eradicate race
prejudice, there Is ample field for its
exercise at home. We are as far as pos
sible from justifying its existence, but
he must be blind that does not recognize IL
as a fact. The dignifed method would
have been to avoid encountering It by
not inviting lis manifestation In the
South. If there is TO be any reproach upon
the subject. IL must be visited upon those
who. knowing its existence, put them
selves in the way to encounter 1t in their
official capaci.y. as legislators.