The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-03-18
DANGEROUS PREACHING.

References have ire luently been made to the address recently delivered in San Francisco by Bishop J. W. Hamilton on the subject of race relations. and one paragraph may not be without interest. In speaking of intermarriages between the white and colored races he said:
 You may shudder at the idea of such intermarriages and # Is natural that you should, but such unions are an illus tration of the sweeping away of caste lines, which should occur in the church, and which are occurring in the world.
 With the subject of "the sweeping away of caste lines'' in the churches The Ad- vertiser has nothing to do, but from the general tenor of the Bishops address it is plain that he advocates the abolition of caste or color lines in social life also, He was asked if he would consent to have his daughter wed a negro" one re- port says, "and replied that he would if the general prejudices against such un- ion could be removed" This was plainly a subterfuge. because he well knows that this general prejudice cannot be re- moved, and hence 1t was safe to express himself as he did. But If he really meant that he would be willing to see his daugh- ter married to a negro he is not fit man to teach or associate with white people.
 But it is the effect of such language as this that is to be deplored, and that ef- feet Is shown In the comments of the or fharnSa1uoG A newspaper called The Christian Register of Philadelphia, published by a colored man, highly commends Hamilton, mo less for his bravery than jor his consistency" the editor says. We do not know that much bravery is required to preach such doctrines in San Francisco. The aboli- tionists of fifty years ago were brave enough to preach their belief in the North, but they did very little of 1t in the South. And to show the effect of the Bishops position we copy this from the current issue of The Register:
 In the way of an amicable relation be- tween the races are the two formidable bugbears of social equality and intermar- riage. Social equality cannot mean the right of any colored man, or the average colored man, to cross the social threshold of his white neighbor without his invi- tation or consent for no white man IS accorded q privilege of the kind. It can only mean that the parties who elect thus to affiliate shall be exempt from interfer- ence in an injurious way by outsiders. The same principle holds good with refer ence to racial intermarriages in which if the contracting parties please themselves all others should hands off Talk about the era of peace and the close Of the breach between the races, nothing will prove so effectual step to that grand march as the right to be relieved of color restrictions where merit alone should have right of way.
 This is definite claim that those who wish to practice social equality. even to tho extent of intermarriage, should not be opposed or interfered with and that none but themselves are concerned. This doctrine, whether neld by Bishop or newspaper, will not go down in this sec- ton. and preaching 1t down here would be both unpopular and unpleasant, we apprehend. The idea that when we'll es- tablished and absolutely vital social laws and regulations are violated nobody is in- terested except those who are guilty is a monstrous doctrine and one which will not go down in this section. As well | might one argue that the practice oi adultery and fornication affects none but
 those who indulge in such offences, as tc argue that miscegenation and the socia
 intercourse of whites and blacks is a
 matter about which all but those who practice these forbidden habits should hands off. Let us hope that there are not many religious teachers like Bishop Ham l flton s-9