Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1943-10-08

demand with the possibility of
his daughter or sister marrying a
Negro: whereupon he shudders; he
sets his teeth; he bars the doors
and windows of his mind; he says
with determination: "They shall
not pass" -.
Mr.. Moses does not stop there.
He points out that at the last New
York State Constitutional Conven-
ton an amendment was offered
which provided that no person
shall, because of race, color, creed
or religion, be subject to any dis
elimination by any other person,
firm, corporation or institution. AS
a delegate he objected, because, he
argued, "you cannot legislate toler-
ance. There are no constitu-
tional sanctions to enforce the Ten
Commandments" AS a result the
delegates inserted the words Gin
his civil rights" after the word eds
elimination" And thereby, says
Mr.. Moses, the whole provision
was rendered meaningless.
The impression this makes is
that Mr.. Moses is of the settled
opinion that little or nothing can
be accomplished by the Negro
through the law: "You cannot
legislate tolerance by constitutional
amendment or statute"
What, then, is left for the
Negro? The answer is: he must be
satisfied with slow progress; i'm
provements will be made as the
white folk become more and more
benevolent; thank God for the
little favors - for example (these
are from Mr.. Moses article),
Harry Burleigh singing the re-
QUEEN at the funeral of John
Pierpont Morgan; the plan for the
memorial to James Weldon John
son; the tapping of Bill Robinson.
The Southern gentry do not be-
lieve in the efficacy of the law
when it comes to doing something
for the Negro: witness their OPP
position to the passage of any
anti-poll tax legislation or the
anti-lynching law. They say that
the Negroes should be left to the
white people; they know how to be
fair to them. They say you cannot
legislate tolerance.
How far would Mr.. Moses have
gotten as a planner without the
aid of the law? How many times
has he had dealings with obstinate
landowners who refused to negoti-
ate with him, and how far would
he have gotten without the right
to condemn property?
Nor is the constitutional provi-
sion referred to by Mr.. Moses a
meaningless gesture. Teeth in the
provision are provided by the Civil
Rights Act of New York, which
defines the scope of "civil rights"
as the phrase is used in the Consti-
tuition.
The term civil rights" is
no lOOser than the term due
process of law" and equal
protection of the law" as those
phrases are used in the Federal
Constitution. Congress and the
courts have put flesh and bones
on these phrases, so that they
do have significance.
In our society you amount to
something, as a member Of
group, if you have economic
power, the law, or social Opin-
ion on your side; and the law
is important as attracting
either or both of the others.
Without the law, the Negro
stands naked and mdefended.
With the law-the Legislatures
and eOurts-On his side, he is
on the high road with hope in
his heart.
Mr.. Moses, apparently, stands, as
he puts it, with the Negro leaders
who follow in the footsteps of
Booker T. Washington, and con-
centrate on improvements in hous-
ing, health, physical conditions, and
on wider opportunity in employ
ment. This is all to the good. Yet
when it came to the question Of the
Board of Estimate of New York
approving or disappearing plans of
the Stuyvesant Town Project Of the
Metropolitan Life Insurance Com
pany, which would bar Negroes as
tenants, Mr.. Moses came out in
favor of the Project.
The Metropolitan Project will not
be built unless the city undertakes
to exercise its right to condemn
property on behalf Of the builder,
donate the public streets and grant
partial tax immunity for a quarter
Of a century. This contribution
hardly serves to keep the Project
entirely "private." If a business
man were to make a contribution to
the venture, Of equal worth, he
would certainly have the right to
claim a partnership interest to q
substantial extent. The public viii
not be a partner, but it certainly
has a very obvious legitimate in
terest in the proposed undertaking.
Under the Civil Rights Law,
exclusion from, or segregation
in, theatres, is illegal Ger
tainly q theatre Is as private"