The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-09-13
Tom watson Amuses Himself.

The ever esteemed Springfield Repub-
lican seems to be under the impression
that Tom Watson's proposed %catechism
of Esopus squirm, or words to hat ef-
feet. This is what Tom said:
The south should demand to know
the facts about Judge Parker. How
docs he stand upon the alleged negro
Question? Is his position at all differ
lent from that of Roosevelt? If so, in
what respect? The south should de-
mand explicit reply to the following
questions before it votes for him upon
the assumption that he differs from
Roosevelt on the negro question:
I. Would refuse to cal at the
same table with Booke Washington?
-. Would you refuse to appoint ne
lgroes to office in the south?
q. If elected. will o refuse to re-
lceive on terms of equality at the White
house such negroes as Bishop Turner,
lBooker Washington, and T. Thomas
lFortune?"
But why should these in~terrogatories
strike dismay to Mr.. Parker's soul?
The answer to eac Of them in turn
lis obviously mo-" And yet either Mr..
Parker or Mr.. Roosevelt, when elected
to the presidency, might serve the full
NSAiA AIAiooN opPolAIlAhS d ~ VI
flee or dining with Booker Washington,
Tor receiving Bishop Turner,o or T. T.
Fortune at the White house on terms
of equality" and all this without vio-
Hating the spirit of his declaration. Tom
lWatson's catchpenny trick of argu-
lment, which seems to have impressed
our worthy Massachusetts contempt
Irary, involves the absurd proposition
la failure to do this or that is eQuiva-
lent to an injurious Reputation of the
individual concerned and of the RAGS tC
(which he belongs. President Roose-
lveit appointed DR.. Crum collector of
the port at Charleston, but did he do
SO simply because Crum was a negro?
And suppos he had passed over HIM
land appointed q white nan would that
have been refusing to appoint negroes
to office in the south?" OF course 1t
would have amounted to nothing more
than selecting the person he thought
most competent to discharge the duties
IOf the office.
AS for the social equality features of
WatsOn's cathecism. they are we
need hardly say, mere impertinences.
How could a president refuse" to eat
at the same table with Booker Wash
iinston, or, for that matter, with Tom
Watson himself? The question could
possibly arise save by the preSi-
dents own procurement, and, of course
lie NOuIu not DIOdCH IL IOI the purpose
of refusing. The truth of the matter is
that watson is sardonicaily playing on
the ridiculous and false proposition
for which he has not the slightest res
lpect-that negroes are to be considered
en- masse, not as individuals, and that
the failure to appoint one to a given
office. or ask him to lunch with the
family, or receive him on equal terms
at the White hou.e-whatever that
lmay mean-is a slap at the entire race.
The Hon. Tom. E. Watson is a partic-
lularly intellectual man who finds it to
his taste to worry, or try to worry, the
people who have rejected him. We
take no exception to that. since they
Iseem quite able to take care of. them
selves; put this is to protest against
his playing tricks with the Springfield
Republican, which knows nothing
Iabout Tom Watson and still less about
the negro, yet is, nevertheless, a most
reverend and worthy newspaper.