The Minneapolis journal., 1902-11-14
A More PerpIexIns Case.

A much more perplexing and vastly
less pathetic case has come up in the
same department, where a white clerk
perhaps 60 years old, has taken his negro
housekeeper, to wife.emHis first Wife,, a
white woman, by whom he has one or
Two grown children, died some time ago.
The children were terribly distressed over
their fathers remarriage, and have had
little or nothing to do with him since.
He braves the matter out, however, and
the department never would have heard
of the matter but for the complaints of
a group OF real estate owners and agents.
1t appears that, without making known
his newly welded state, he bought a
house in pleasant neighborhood, paying
an lnstallment of the purchase price in
cash, and giving a note secured by mort
age for the rest. The former owner Of
the property says that when arranging
to take the mortgage, the purchaser was
described to him as a widower, but that,
before the papers were drawn, a report
got abroad that he was married, so he
was required to get his wife's signature
and have her make the proper acknowl-
edgment before a notary.
On their face, Of course, the executed
papers conveyed no hint Of the wife's
color, but a few days after the transfer
Of the property the neighborhood was in
state Of excitement. The woman. 1t
seems, was a widow with several chill
dren Of her own color, and these. as soon
as the family took possession of it's new
house, ran out into the street to play.
It was not many hours before everybody
among the latest arrivals, and was duly
scandalized. Tenant householders de-
clared that they would surrender their
leases at expiration and move away, and
owners began to talk of selling out. The
real estate agents who were drawn into
the affair held several meetings to dis
cuss ways and means of facing the crisis.
In response to threat which some one
made to the clerk in person, Of complain
ing to the department and procuring his
dismissal from the public service, he re-
torted with some bitterness that there
was no law in the District Of Columbia
against miscegnation, and the depart
ment was pOWerleSs to neddle with him
as long as he acted wholly within hts
own right and privilege.
AS the question is likely to be brought
before the department before long, de-
cision will have to be rendered, and it is
hard to say what will be done. If
clerks conduct, although violating no
statute, defies local public sentiment in
such matter, his fellow clerks may re-
fuse to associate with him, and the gov
ernment's work put to a serious d1sad-
vantage thereby. And while there is moth
ing in the civil service rule making mis-
CeSendClOH cause 1OI ulSllllooc1i' ISltliol
is there any rule limiting dtsmissals which
would interfere with the exercise of dis
cretion of the head Of the department in
such case. The whole question is open
for decision on it's own merits. Only a
few days ago clerk was dismissed for
lack Of personal cleanliness. He felt. or
pretended to feel that he was the victim
of gross oppression, but out he went in
spite of his protests. The ground COM
monty taken by the appointing powers in
such an instance is that the government
is not bound, legally or morally, to retain
in it's service a person who ignores the
decencies of life and renders himself Of
fensive to those who have to associate
with him during working hours. On it's
face, the case Of a white clerk who mar
ries negress is not precisely parallel to
that of one whose uncleanliness of per-.
son is the cause of offense, and 1t is rem
dered all the more embarrassing locally
by the fact that Frederick Douglass.
negro citizen Of the District of Columbia,
held public office Of large responsibility
and dignity for years after his marriage
with white woman.
w. W. Jernane.