The Denver star., 1914-04-18
Measure Passed In Norfolk,
Va, Called Unjust.
DENIES MANHOOD RIGHTS.
What an Influential Weekly Paper
Ambition and Check the Progress of
the CoIored Citizens Race Must
Contend For Justice.

The recent adoption of new segre-
CATION ordinance in Norfolk. Va, is
causing no little unrest among the
colored citizens against whose interest
the measure is aimed. The first segre
cation law adopted by the city was de-
clared invalid, unreasonable and un-
just by Police Justice James S. Bar
ron and ruled out by Judge McLemore
of the city circuit court
The Journal and Guide, an intiuen
tial weekly edited by p. B. Young in
Norfolk Va, commenting at length on
the new ordinance in an able editorial,
in part says:
''The new ordinance as adopted by
both bodies of the city council with
only one dissenting vote differs from
the old ordinance in one or two essen
tial parts 1t establishes the right of
the city to appeal by eliminating the
Jail sentence from the penalty for its
violation and under its provisions
whether intended so to be or not-is
operative in only such city blocks as
are already white or black as de-
fined by the ordinance
''The old ordinance defined block
as white or black in proportion to
the number of white or colored resi-
dents in the block. Strange to say,
the new law takes no cogniZance of
blocks occupied by both races. From
10 int of x-iaxx- tho nriinl
merely anticipates condition that
may never exist. Still in its f1nal
analysis it is as Objectionable as the
old ordinance inasmuch as in its legal
aspects ii abrogateS the right of one
citizen to contract with another and is
serious menace to the economic ad-
vancement and even existence of the
Negro.
.'In order to conform to a legislative
statute it is framed to prevent con
fict and Ill feeling between the white
and colored races in the city of Nor
folk and to preserve the public peace
and promote the general welfare by
making reasonable provision requiring
the use of separate blocks for residents
for white and colored people respec-
lively
In this particular it is misnomer.
No arbitrary law, no manner of class
legislation can prevent i'll feeling be
tween the races. on the other hand.
il can only serve to accentuate race
prejudice and is of itself a practical
demonstration of i'll feeling between
the races. As DR.. James Il. Dudley
has wisely said. That government is
best that governs least-that places no
Unnecessary restrictions and handicaps
upon the activities of the people
The vote in the common council was
almost unanimous. only one member.
John J. Pitt of Washington ward vot-
ing against it. Mr.. Pitt made state
ment before casting his vote to the eff
feet that he did not think the meas
ure was just to the colored residents
of the city. l cannot get the consent
of my conscience to vote for it, and
Tor that reason make this statement
before voting. Mr. Pitt also said that
he did not subscribe TO the doctrine
that might makes right and that he
regarded human rights above property
rights
Those were lofty sentiments. 1t
requires great courage for a young
southern white man TO take that stand
He stood alone. which was not rare
thing. But it gives him more honor
able distinction because of having
stood alone. The colored citizens of
Norfolk, who have long suffered as
the result of unjust restrictions, have
written the name of John J. Pitt upon
roll of honor. which is headed by
the names of those princely Virginia
gentlemen. Tazewell Taylor and James
:. Barron.
We fail to recognize the necessity of
Il Segregation ordinance in Norfolk.
The Negro does not want to encroach
upon the precincts which the white
man has set aside for himself. He
does not want to invade the white
mans exclusive reservations. The Ne
gro does want room for expansion.
however. He cannot he restricted to
an area inadequate to meet the de-
hauds of natural growth and survive
the pressure OF economic competition
The Ne&ro's fight against segregation
is not hght to live with the white
man. but fight TO live by himself.
I'VE have been asked why the Negro
objects to segregation. We do not OBJ
jcct 10 segregation as voluntarily prac-
ticcd by both races because Of the nat
ural law Of selection which leads men,
bcrS OF separate races to group togeth
er which is good and desirable thing
in our situation. but we do object to
segregation by legislation. because 1t
stigmatiZes us as legal undesirables
MS to undesirable localities:
denies MS participation in public i'm
provemeuts: subjects us to unsanitary
increases our inconven-
ienccs; diminishes our accommoda-