The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-10-26

over the entertainment of Booker Wash ington at dinner by President RooseVet' This was natural and proper. IL ls the first time a President of the United states has entertained man with negro olood at his table, It was an extraordinary | occurrence. Unquestionably 1t was a great mistake, one that neither ffesioeis | Roosevelt nor Booker Washington should have made.
 Finally on yesterday The Advertiser In commenting upon the fact that the re- ported second dining of the President and Washington at Yale University had not occurred said:
 Possibly the President and Washington have both been convinced by public com- ments that a blunder was made the first time The President has probably not been misled by any Of the Northerh sentimentalists who have expressed ap- provaI of his conduct. He has doubt less listened to words of counsel rom his own Party leaders, and possibly has not desired to infiame Southern oplmon against him, when he regards 1t as or much more moment to strengthen his influence for more important ends in this section.
 Those expressions should have left no doubt in any ones mind about The Advertisers attitude towards the Presi- dents dinner to the negro leader. There Is no adequate excuse for MT. Macdon- aids misunderstanding of this papers condemnation of social equality in gen. eral, or of this specific breach of the rule heretofore observed even by Republican Presidents.
 But while The Advertiser has unequivo- cally condemned and deplored the incl dent in question, it has been unwilling to see any injustice done the President or | Washington because of one thoughtless blunder. In law, morals and common sense people are judged by their motives. It is extremely improba- bIe that even MT. Macdonald be- lieves that President Roosevelt has declared by his act his willingness to dine the average negro of the South, or to give his daughter in marriage to any negro, no matter how able or esti- mable.
 The Advertiser has expressed the view that the President acted impulsively, un- advisedly and ignorantly of the construc- ton that the South would put upon his dinner to Washington. We have not believed that he intended deliberately to set an example to the whole country of social equality of the races by enter taining the ablest and most respected representative of the negroes of the world Like the average Northern man he looked at Washington as an individual and treated him according to his merits as he saw them. disregarding color. We have not believed that the President in- tended to insult the South or to disregard the views of this great section, or to weaken the social barrier here. A strong support for this view is found in the fact that the President did not dine at Yale with Washington as had been announced It has been too manifest that he had set out to ingratiate himself and to strengthen his Party in this sec tion. He would not have dreamed of upsetting this great plan by
 preaching social equality His break, we believe, was due to impulse and igno- rance and we have thought it unjust to denounce him in bitter terms. when he | has shown himself a more courageous friend of good government in this section than any other Republican President.
 And so with Washington. We did not believe that his motive in accepting the Presidents invitation was to preach social equality when all his life down here he had been talking and living against any such practice. We believe Washington the most useful negro in the South, and have been afraid his influence for good with his race would be injured, that he might be set aside for some less wise negro or for some Northern senti- uentalst, who would not preach and practice the gospel of work and character building to the negroes of the South. Washington made a serious blunder, but we think it is his first. we believe it will be his last, and we don't think it just or fair to turn our backs on his lifetime habit because of one blunder under most tempting conditions.
 It is plain that MT. Macdonalds chief
 concern in this matter is due to the politl
 cal campaign in Alabama just now. He | ayers that The Advertiser is behttling l "one of the strongest, if not the very
 strongest. arguments in favor of the new | Constitution" We are very sorry that
 the distinguished member of the Conven-
 tion from this county implies his inability to offer any stronger argument for rati-
 fication than the dinner of the President
 to Washington. If the other speakers
 throughout the State are not broader and more resourceful than he in appealing 10
 voters, there should be the greatest alarm for the result. Appeals to the prejudices and passions may reach some
 people, but we don't believe that the
 merits of the new Constitution rest on so
 slender a basis. or that the bulk of whit.
 people are open 10 such arguments.
 No one is more anxious to see the new
 Constitution adopted than The Advertiser
 but to secure that end we don't think il