THE NEW YORK AGE, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1916.

VIEWS and REVIEWS

JAMES W. JOHNSON, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

PUBLIC SENTIMENT AND THE NEGRO.

More than once we have said that the main difficulty of the race question does not lie so much in the actual condition of the colored people as it does in the mental attitude of the white people. That is to say, the burden of the question is not that the whites are struggling to save ten million despondent people from sinking into a hopeless slough of ignorance, poverty and barbarity in their very midst, but that they are unwilling to open certain doors of opportunity and to accord certain treatment to ten million aspiring, education-and-property-acquiring people.

When we look at the problem from this angle, it is not so hopeless as it sometimes appears to be; because a mental attitude, especially one not based on truth, can be changed more easily than actual conditions. If we were really a backward, downward moving people, our problem would indeed be one that might be called hopeless. But we know we are not that kind of a people. We know we should ask no favor of the mental attitude of the whites—that is, the general public opinion—would allow us a fair field.

This change of the mental attitude of the whites, of the general public opinion regarding us depends more upon the Southern press and pulpit than upon any other agencies in the country. If the press and pulpit of the South would take a firm stand for fairness, justice and common humanity toward the Negro, it would not be long before the sentiment of that entire section and the whole country would be changed. But the words of Southern preachers and editors have for years ranged from pale apology for lawlessness, oppression and brutality all the way to a fierce upholding of those practices; and in this, the pulpit has been the chief sinner.

Nevertheless, here and there the Southern press is beginning to speak out. The migration of so many colored men from the South seems to give these editors the occasion and opportunity to say some things that they have long felt to be right but dared not utter. They dare to utter them now because they are relieved of the embarrassment of basing their arguments on morality or sentiment, but can base them on dollars and cents. And so it seems that this exodus will bring us a double blessing; the whole race will be better off, for as many as can will leave and find profitable employment in the North, and those who remain will receive better treatment.

There are several papers in the heart of the South that are taking a stand for fairer treatment to the Negro. Among these is the Columbia "State," the best edited paper in South Carolina, and one of the few southern dailies that is widely quoted throughout the country. The State, under the heading of "The Unlynchable Facts" published several weeks ago a column editorial on the Abbeville crime. We quote below the last three paragraphs of this strong article.

"The State would prefer to deal with this matter as one of morals, but, that being apparently futile, it may be as well to get down on the lower level of the pocketbook. Shall the Negroes be driven out of South Carolina? Shall an Abbeville mob tell them that their case is hopeless, absolutely hopeless, and that their sole safety is in flight? To say that they have but to behave themselves is to trifle. White men quarrel and fight, committing assaults. The Negroes will never deport themselves better than do the white people. Shall the farms be depopulated? Shall they be desolated? Shall the mob go into partnership with the boll weevil to drive away the labor from the farms and bankrupt this Southern country?

"For two or three years lynching has been on the wane in South Carolina. Whether or not the Abbeville affair shall give it a new start is for the white people to determine.

"The time has come when the lynching of a Negro may be expensive. The time has come when it may be easier to be rid of Negroes than by lynching them—when the task is to keep them. Mobs in these days may lynch their pocketbooks.

"We leave the question with the land-owning farmers of South Carolina. Hard facts are unlynchable."

Still more recently; in fact, only last week, the State had another column editorial under the heading, "South Carolina Election Laws." This article is the first of a series which the editor intends to write on the subject. From this editorial we reproduce the last paragraph, which was emphasized by being printed in big type:

> If the vote of the Negroes is to be curtailed in future THE NOTION THAT A WHITE SKIN AND NOTHING ELSE SHALL BE A SUFFICIENT QUALIFICATION FOR VOTING WILL HAVE TO BE ABANDONED. THE MAKERS OF THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED THAT IT BE ABANDONED AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 1898. IF THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA LACK THE COURAGE AND THE CONSCIENCE TO DISFRANCHISE AN ILLITERATE WHITE MAN THEN THEY WOULD BETTER CEASE TO TALK ABOUT KEEPING THE NEGROES OR EVEN THE MAJORITY OF THEM PERMANENTLY OUT OF POLITICS IN THE COMING YEARS.

The New York Age, Thurs, Nov. 23, 1916

369

We quote these paragraphs for the benefit of our readers who, otherwise, would not see them. We believe, after reading them they will agree that when a paper like the State, in the heart of South Carolina dares to publish such sentiments, a new day is dawning for the race in the South. And not only the Columbia State, but the Macon Telegraph, in the heart of Georgia, and the Times-Union, the most influential paper in Florida, and papers in other Southern states are daring to speak the truth. If all the principal publications of the South will follow, the result will be a gradual but certain change of public sentiment regarding the race; and more than that we need not ask.

## BEAUTIFUL WORDS.

Read the following paragraph carefully, and see if you can think of any finer expression of what Americanism ought to be that was ever put into words:

"I need not say that, coming to me as you do on such an errand, I am very deeply gratified and very greatly cheered. It would be impossible for me offhand to say just what thoughts are stirred in me by what Mr. Gompers has said to me as your spokesman. What I have tried to do is to get rid of any class division in this country not only, but of any class consciousness and feeling. The worst thing that could happen to America would be that she should be divided into groups and camps in which there were men and women who thought that they were at odds with one another, that the spirit of America was not expressed except in them, and that possibilities of antagonism were the only things that we had to look forward to.

"As Mr. Gompers said, achievement is a comparatively small matter, but the spirit in which things are done is of the essence of the whole thing and what I am striving for, and what I hope you are striving for, is to blot out all the lines of division in America and create a unity of spirit and of purpose founded on this, the consciousness that we are all men and women of the same sort and that if we do not understand each other, we are not true Americans. If we can not enter into each other's essential welfare, then we have not yet qualified as representatives of the American spirit."

Now can you guess who uttered these beautiful sentiments? They were uttered by none other than President Wilson. He was speaking in response to an address by Mr. Samuel Gompers on behalf of a delegation from the American Federation of Labor, which went to Washington to congratulate him on his re-election.

The only conviction we are able to get from the President's words is that colored Americans as a class did not in any degree enter his thoughts while he was speaking. From the many such sentiments expressed by Mr. Wilson, we are forced to believe that he does not in any way think of the Negro as a part of the American people.

## DOWN IN OLE SOUTH CA'LINA.

The following social note is clipped from one of the leading papers of South Carolina:

Edgefield, Nov. 18.—Tuesday afternoon Miss Marie Abney and Mrs. Gladys Calhoun were hostesses to the Edgefield chapter, United Daughters of Confederacy. The meeting was presided over by the president, Mrs. R. A. Marsh. During the business sessions Mrs. J. L. Mims read an interesting letter from Mrs. John Lake, a member of the chapter who is now engaged in missionary work in China. The report of the committee to arrange for the printing of the year book was received and it was ordered printed.

Mrs. Pendleton Jones presided over the historical programme, the first number being "Old Black Joe" by the chapter's choir; Mrs. J. H. Cantelou read a beautiful "Tribute to Old Southern Mammies." Mrs. Woodson read a selection entitled, "Mammy and Me." "Massa's in De Cold Ground" was next sung by the choir. "The Old Time Nigger" was the title on an interesting paper read by Mrs. P. M. Feltham. At the conclusion of the historical or literary programme the hostesses served dainty sandwiches, with coffee and whipped cream. The vases of large roses on the mantel and tables in the parlor added brightness and cheer to the occasion, which was one of unusual pleasure.

Here is one of the best explanations we have ever seen given of the fact that South Carolina is at the tail end of the procession of the States. In this distinctly forward looking age, here is a party of what we suppose are the most intelligent people in the state wasting their time looking backward. We can imagine the handling the "New Negro" must have received in Mrs. P. M. Feltham's paper on "The Old Time Nigger." We would suggest to Mrs. Feltham that it would be more profitable for the Edgefield chapter, United Daughters of Confederacy and the whole state of South Carolina to let the "old time nigger" rest, and to study and try to understand the "New Negro."

THE NEW YORK AGE, THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 1917.

VIEWS and REVIEWS

NOT QUITE THE SAME.

The London Times, in going over the present status of the war,
prints a long editorial under the title, "Neutral Opinion," which re-
fers particularly to the American Civil War, and draws a parallel
between the cause for which the Allies are fighting and the cause
for which the North fought. The editorial is a plea for the support
of American opinion, and concludes as follows:

"The friends of the Norht,' says Bancroft, 'felt that they had thenceforth a cause to plead,' while the advocates of the South were reduced to silence and to shame. We are convinced that the ends for which the Allies are fighting to-day are as high and sacred as those, for which Americans fought and died two generations ago. They are, in the last resort, the same ends; the assured supremacy of right, freedom and law. We believe if their true character could be brought home to the American masses American opinion would support them as warmly as British and French opinion supported emancipation in 1863.

This statement of the Times is pure bosh. There is absolutely
no comparison between the cause the Allies are fighting for and
the cause the North fought for in the Civil War. In the Civil War
the Government fought for two definite objects; one, of the greatest
political importance, and the other, of the highest moral importance.
It fought to subdue a rebellion within its own borders and to liberate
the slaves.

Can the Allies state in definite terms what they are fighting for?
They have not yet been able to do so. They are reduced to using
vague abstractions. They say they are fighting for the supremacy
of right, for freedom and law; Germany says, with about as good
reason, that she is fighting for the same things. When England is
specific and says she is fighting to curb German military power,
which is a menace to the peace of Europe, Germany replies that
British naval power is a menace to the freedom of the seas, and
should be overthrown. When the Allies declare, as they did in their
reply to Germany's peace offer, that they are fighting for the prin-
ciple of the free existence of small states, their declaration is not
convincing. Especially is this true of England; she has built up her
great empire by crushing out the free existence of small states.

Not only is there no comparison between the righteousness of
the cause of the Allies and the cause of the North, but, conversely,
there is no comparison between the unrighteousness of the cause
of Germany and the cause of the South. The South fought a war
of rebellion for the purpose of maintaining human slavery; no such
case can be made out against Germany.

The press of England and the United States is full of the atroci-
ties committed by Germany. We believe that when the war is over
many of these "atrocities" will be proved, as has already been done
in numerous cases, to be no more than exaggerated tales. The Allies
point at the atrocities committed by Germany but that is no proof
of good character for them, because they have not yet had an oppor-
tunity to commit atrocities, for they have not yet occupied hostile
territory. Does any one suppose that when the Germans invaded
Belgium the Belgians made up their minds to be nice to their con-
querors and obey the new laws laid down by them? Not a bit of it;
they gave the invaders all the trouble they possibly could. It is
only reasonable to believe that much of the suffering in Belgium
was but the natural consequence of an invasion. If England ever
occupies German territory, we shall hear of English atrocities. War
is war, and war is hell, and it is not regulated by the catechism or
the book of common prayer.

Among the Allies, Belgium has called forth the greatest amount
of sympathy in this country; yet, without justifying Germany's inva-
sion or condoning her acts in that country, we say that nothing she
has done in Belgium can surpass what the Belgians themselves did
in the Congo.

The truth is, this is a war of aggression on both sides. In our
opinion, France is the least blameworthy of all the nations engaged.
But not a single one of these nations is fighting for ends as "high
and sacred" as those for which the Americans of the North fought
and died two generations ago.

THE PERIL OF KENTUCKY.

The following despatch which recently came up from Louisville
gives warning of a great peril hanging over Ole Kentucky:

"Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be marrying
persons having Negro blood in their veins unless Negro births are
registered with greater care," said W. L. Heiser, state registrar of
vital statistics, before a meeting of Kentucky city and county health
officials here.

"Numbers of quadroons." said Mr. Heiser, "cannot be distin-
guished from white persons, and the resultant conditions are a real
peril to Kentucky."

The New York Age, Thurs, Jan. 11, 1917

The same despatch reported that Mr. Heiser plead for a na-
tional system of compulsory registration of vital statistics. He
urged that the greatest care should be observed in fixing the racial
status of children when registered, for the protection of future white
generations. So we see that the state registrar of vital statistics at
Louisville is not concerned only about the future white generations
in Kentucky, but in the whole nation.

The admission made by Mr. Heisler knocks the life out of one
of the sacred doctrines of the South. We have always been given to
understand that the most infinitesimal fraction of Negro blood in the
veins of a man or woman was as plain to the eye of the Southerner
as the mark on Cain's forehead. And we have been given to under-
stand further that if by any chance the test of mere sight should fail

to detect it, there were other subtle tests which made a mistake im-
possible. For instance, the literary critic of the Louisville Courier-
Journal in reviewing "The Autobiography of An Ex-Colored Man"
several years ago said: "The assertion that the mistreatment of the
Negroes by white persons in America is 'actually and constantly
forcing an unascertainable number of fair complexioned people over
into the white race,' is based upon ignorance of the fact that it is not
by complexion alone that race is ascertainable." That is to say,
according to this old and sacred Southern doctrine, a single drop of
Negro blood renders a human being so inferior to genuine white
person that the difference is always apparent.

Now Mr. Heisler comes and sweeps away this long accepted
theory by declaring that the grandchildren and great-grandchildren
of simon pure Kentuckians will be marrying persons having Negro
blood in their veins unless Negro births are registered with greater
care. Of course, he means that they will do so under the false
impression that they are marrying white persons.

If, as Mr. Heisler admits by his confession, it will be not possi-
ble to determine the difference between these white people and the
colored people they are going to marry except by a record made
a hundred years before, we should like to ask what difference will
there really be between them?

THE LYNCHING RECORD.

We have before us the editorial pages of two leading Southern
newspapers, The Montgomery Advertizer and The Macon Telegraph.
Each contains an editorial on the lynching record for 1916 which
was sent out from Tuskegee Institute. It is amusing to note the
difference in the tone of the two articles. The Macon Telegraph
offers a shame-faced apology for Georgia and her fourteen lynch-
ings for the year; while The Montgomery Advertizer, standing
boldly on Alabama's record of only one lynching for the past twelve
months, points the finger of righteousness indignation at Georgia.

Thus speaks out the Alabama paper:

We suppose Georgia will continue to rail at "outsiders" for "inter-
fering" with Georgia's own private matter. Georgia is sensitive on
the point of its prerogatives and resents the suggestion of forward
persons from the outside who meekly hold that it might be good for
this whole section of the nation if Georgia would kindly mend its
ways and quit spilling human blood on the picturesque theory that
"it's no harm to kill a nigger." Georgia, we suppose, will continue
to proclaim its theorem that Georgia is "misunderstood."

Be that as it may, what the rest of us would like to know is when
will Georgia decide that it's murder to kill a defenseless human be-
ing, no matter what the charge against that human being, without
due process of law.

Those of us who cannot avoid sharing some of the bad reputa-
tion which Georgia has given, and continues to give the South, feel
that we have a right to look to Georgia, the Leader in Lynching,
to inform us whether or not it expects to do better, and if it is to do
better, when does it purpose to begin?

And the Georgia paper, in an article of more than a column in
length attempts to show that Georgia is not so bad as fourteen
lynchings in one year would paint her. In the midst of the article it
devotes these few words to Alabama:

Georgia is bitterly ashamed of her lynching record and does not
attempt to excuse its fourteen any more than Alabama in its suddenly
acquired virtue of but one for the year, may set forth to apologize
for it. It is not a matter of quantity or number at all. That part of
it is merely incidental. Alabama may have the fourteen next year
and Georgia the one. There should be shame for one as much as for
fourteen—they are all bad.

Now as to the proportion of guilt between Alabama and Georgia,
we shall not decide. We shall not here take up the question whether
one lynching, like one black ball in a select club, is as damaging as
fourteen, or whether Georgia is fourteen times as barbarous as Ala-
bama. What we shall point out is that lynching has been made a
vital, moral issue, a great question of right and wrong, a question of
civilization or barbarity. It has been made a question which not
even the Southern press can avoid facing.

IT REALLY IS.

The following editorial squib apeared in the New York World
relative to the appointment of a colored member on the Board of
Education of this city:

The question of the appointment of a Negro member of the
Board of Education depends mainly on the competence and not the
color of the appointee. It is conceivable that the city's educational
system would profit from having a man of the Booker Washington
type on the board.

We agree that it really is conceivable that the city's educational
system would profit by having a man of the Booker Washington
type on the board.

THE NEW YORK AGE, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1917.

VIEWS and REVIEWS

MORE PLUNDER.

The following despatch shows that the Democrats in Congress intend to keep up their program of distributing money from the Federal treasury throughout the South on any excuse that they can dig up:

Washington, February 2.—A bill appropriating $196,000 for mail carried in the southern states during the civil war, previously passed by the house, was passed tonight by the senate. The money goes to mail contractors, mostly confederate veterans, or their heirs. The 800 claims have been pending for more than half a century.

The only hope of putting an end to this sort of thing is for the money in the treasury to give out, for it seems certain that as long as the money lasts, the Democratic statesmen will be able to dig up the necessary excuse. The South is in the saddle.

RESPONSIBILITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES OF THE
COLORED MINISTRY.

No one who travels over the country, especially through the South, can fail to be impressed with this fact: The most complete and powerful organization in the race is the Negro church. No other medium that we have can compare with the church in strength of appeal, breadth of influence and finality of authority.

In this respect the colored churches relatively constitute a more powerful organization than do the white churches. For while white people are influenced religiously by their churches, they are influenced in matters social, industrial, financial and political through other well established mediums. On the other hand, the only medium through which many millions of colored people can be reached and influenced is the church. There it goes without saying there rests upon colored ministers greater race responsibilities and opportunities than upon any other single set of men.

The writer has several times said in this column that if the white churches of this country should unite in taking a real Christian stand on the race question, a miraculous change would be brought about; a similar statement may be made about the colored churches. If the colored churches of this country would unite in taking an intelligent and unselfish stand on all questions of vital interest to the race, there would also be brought about a miraculous change. The taking of such a stand depends entirely upon the colored ministers. It is first necessary that they come to realize the responsibilities and opportunities that their position gives them.

Of course, there are many of our ministers who do realize these responsibilities and opportunities, but the great majority, those that reach the mass of millions, have not progressed beyond the standard of ante-bellum days. They are still consuming all of their time in the pulpit, and using up some mental and a great deal of muscular energy in efforts to expound what Paul said. The things that Paul said are, of course, important and it is the duty of a minister to preach and teach them, but there are things being said by men living to-day and in this very country important enough to the race to be worthy of some of the time usually devoted to Paul.

Here is a great work which must begin with the intelligent and progressive ministers. The work of making this powerful organization not only the instrument for promoting our spiritual welfare, but our welfare as men and citizens.

WILL THEY STAND FOR IT?

We learn from the Atlanta Independent that the Board of Education of Atlanta a short while ago abolished the eighth grade in the colored public schools of that city, and that the abolishment of the seventh grade is now contemplated. We understand that the Board proposes to substitute industrial training in place of the work of these two grades. At the same time it is given out that a new Junior High School for white children will be provided. The Independent charges that this additional grade is being taken from the colored schools in order to allow for the establishment of the new white school.

In Atlanta there are high schools, technical schools, grammar schools and all other kinds of schools for white children. The colored children have no high school and now their grammar schools are being gradually reduced to mere primary work. Against this high-handed action the Independent comes out in a strong editorial in which it says:

There is no need of parleying, no need of yes-sir, boss, with hat in hand, no need of cringing, but like men and citizens, meet the Board of Education and tell the authorities what is in our minds. Not insultingly, not offensively, but stand upon our rights as men, as citizens and as taxpayers and ask that we be given that which the law provides for us. The Board of Education has no authority in law or morals to withhold from the Negro child any rights granted the white child. We ought not to stand for it, and we will not stand for it.

This expresses exactly what the people of Atlanta should do. The trouble has been that in most communities where we are treated in the manner in which the Atlanta colored people are being treated we have talked about what the white people were doing to us, but we have not talked to the white people who were responsible, and placed our demands before them properly. The Independent editorial calls upon the colored people of Atlanta to take precisely the attitude that ought to be taken in such a case. This is a situation in which a cringing supplication would be as degrading as a silent submission. It is a situation that calls for a straightforward statement of the two top grades of their grammar schools there is no reason to

suppose that the Board of Education will not ultimately reduce these schools down to the three primary grades or abolish grammar schools for colored children entirely. Will they stand for it?

## A YEAR'S WORK FOR FARMERS.

The Hon. John M. Parker, the man who ran for Vice-President in single harness, may or may not be a great politician or statesman, but as to his ability to give good, sound, practical advice to Southern farmers, there is no question. They are holding a land show in Atlanta, and Mr. Parker made the opening address. He was talking to white farmers, but what he said applies so completely to colored farmers that we reproduce the following paragraphs from his speech:

> Reduce your cotton acreage to what you can thoroughly cultivate, and see that it is thoroughly cultivated. Fertilize your land thoroughly and carefully, save up all your stable manure, which is a valuable fertilizer. Don't wear your land out, but rotate your crops and improve it.

> Plant and cultivate your corn thoroughly, and when ready to lay-by sow broadcast a bushel and a half of peas to the acre, and then run a sweep through the middles to cover. The pea hay will be excellent stock feed, and the roots most fertile for the soil. Raise ample corn to furnish bread for the family and food for your horses, mules, hogs and chickens. Raise plenty of poultry, chickens, turkeys and guineas. They will destroy thousands of insects. Chickens and eggs are good eating, you can always sell them for cash with which to purchase luxuries.

> Kill your razor-backs and buy a good sow. She should be bred the last of November, and will bring you a nice litter of pigs in 112 days, so you can be on the watch for them. Take care of them while young, and, in addition to selling off some good pigs at good prices, you insuſe yourself of fresh pork, spare ribs, chine bones, sausages and lard for the winter. Make a good garden and buy enough mesh wire to keep the chickens out. This will give you fresh vegetables all summer, and Irish and sweet potatoes, pumpkins and turnips for your winter use. What you cannot eat and cannot sell, give to your hogs and cattle, which will enjoy them and thrive on them. When your crops are laid by, build good sheds for your mules, cattle, hogs, poultry and to cover your wagons. Bring in and keep under shelter every agricultural implement you have.

> Now, the writer does not pretend to know very much about farming either in the South, the East or the West. The little that he does know is the result of mere observation made when he taught school one summer in the backwoods of Georgia. The reader will doubtless feel that mere observation of farm operations for the brief period of four months would not qualify anybody as a critic of agricultural methods; let the writer say, however, that he made these observations at a very impressionable age, that he had never lived in the country before, and so the opinions he formed about farming in the South were, at least, free from any preconceived notions. A truth is often revealed in a flash to such an observer.

> The strongest impression made upon the writer was that the old-time Southern farmer was about the most idle man in the United States. In the spring he planted and tended his cotton, in the summer he loafed around, in the fall he picked and marketed his cotton and then loafed around until the next spring. He worked on an average of less than one hundred days to the year.

> It is not difficult to see that a man working only one-third of the time that other men devote to their business would fall behind and remain in debt.

> The excellent thing about Mr. Parker's advice is not so much in that he says plant this and plant that, or raise this and raise that, as it is in the fact that his program calls for farmers to do a year's work in one year. The idea that a man because he is a farmer can loaf a couple of hundred days out of the year and be proportionately as successful as the man who works the year round is passing away.

THE NEW YORK AGE, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1917.

VIEWS and REVIEWS

WELL WORTH THINKING ABOUT.

We clip the following editorial from the Atlanta Constitution of
February 8:

WORTH THINKING ABOUT.

Jim Keith is a Negro who, more than a year ago, narrowly es-
caped lynching by a Georgia mob under the impression that he had
murdered a sheriff.

He was saved by Worth county officials, but the lawless band
did succeed in lynching five other Negroes thought to have been im-
plicated in the murder of which Keith was accused.

Jim Keith subsequently was tried, found guilty and sentenced
to a life term in the penitentiary.

In the meantime, while Jim Keith lay in prison, new light was
shed upon the original crime, and the life convict was given another
trial.

Now, the new evidence proves Jim Keith and the five dead Ne-
groes innocent; and he was acquitted and his freedom restored by
a white jury!

What a commentary upon the accursed institution of lynching!

A murder is committed; a mob forms; five innocent Negroes
are lynched; the life of a sixth barely saved by the authorities from
the mob. Then, more than a year later "further evidence has led to
the general belief that Mozelle Lake, who escaped, is the murderer!"

A white jury and the law, soberly and with deliberation, could
restore to the one living victim of a premature mad impulse his lib-
erty, but not to the five others, who are dead.

How long are the decent, law-abiding citizens of Georgia going
to tolerate this disgraceful, barbaric practice—which is the foulest
blot upon the name of the state today!

This editorial brings out several things worth thinking about. Here was a man accused not of the "usual crime," but of having killed a sheriff. He was saved from the mob, but five other Negroes thought to have been implicated in the cause were lynched. Five innocent men murdered by a mad mob on a mere suspicion! Jim Keith, the accused man, was sentenced for life, and now he is found to be innocent. It is worth while to think about the total number of innocent Negroes that have been murdered by mobs in the past thirty years.

The Constitution editorial does not say what manner of man
Mozelle Lake was, and the facts about this lynching have slipped
from our memory, but the very omission of designating him as a
Negro is equivalent to saying that he was a white man. It is worth
while to think about the total number of white men who have com-
mitted crimes, especially rape, for which innocent Negroes have
been lynched in the past thirty years.

It is worth while to think about the hypocrisy of this country.
Here we are holding up our hands in horror at German "atrocities,"
at what is being done in Belgium and at what is being done on the
high seas, while the wholesale murder of American citizens on Amer-
ican soil by bloodthirsty American mobs hardly brings forth a word
of comment. We have a President who still continues to talk about
humanity, about bringing peace and righteousness to all the nations
of the earth, but who has yet to utter one word against this outrag-
ing of humanity within the territory over which he presides. Amer-
icans, in their smug hypocrisy, look upon the Turks for their treat-
ment of the Armenians as cruel barbarians; but comparing the
moral pretensions of the two countries, the American lynching record
makes the Turkish treatment of Armenians look like deeds of mercy

It is also worth while to think about the sincerity or the wisdom
of those who in the face of such conditions counsel us to be patient, to
think only of our duties and to forget about our rights. Let them
tell the Belgians to be patient. Let them tell the Armenians, the
Serbians, the Poles, and the Jews in Russia to be patient.

It is our duty to ourselves and to those who come after us to
cry out against lynching and every other form of wrong that is prac-
ticed against us. There must be created a sentiment that will make
lyncher feel not that he is a hero who deserves to have the Iron Cross
bestowed upon him, but that he is a criminal and an enemy to society.
This can never be done by silence or any amount of long suffering.
The whole nation has got to be aroused, and that can be done only
by fearlessly proclaiming the truth. The Constitution in this edi-
torial does that which if followed by the press and pulpit of the
country, will create such a sentiment.

The New York Age, Thurs, Feb. 15, 1917

## SHALL THE NEGRO FIGHT?

The present international crisis is again bringing forward the question, "Should the Negro volunteer to fight for the United States in case of war?" This is not an entirely new question, but the frequency and earnestness with which it is asked by men of the race have greatly increased in the past few years.

A correspondent of the New York Sun, Mr. R. K. McWoodson, concludes a letter on this subject with the following words:

> The first blood shed for America's Independence was by Crispus Attuck, a black man, in Boston. A question comes in my mind now, should a black man shoulder a gun and go to war and fight for this country, a country which denies him the rights of citizenship under a flag which offers him no protection, strips him of his manhood by enacting laws which keeps him from the ballot box, disfranchised, segregated, discriminated against, lynched, burned at the stake, Jim Crowed and disarmed. If he fight, and fight he must, for what does he fight?

Readers of The Age know the writer's answer to this question; we have already stated it in these columns. We hold that the Negro

should never cease to claim the rights of American citizenship, and also that he should never shirk the duties of American citizenship. We hold this because the Negro has a case in court upon which his life depends and which he cannot afford in any way to jeopardize. He should not let any of his rights go by default. Neither can he afford to weaken his claim to any of those rights by a non performance of duty. To keep his case in court clean and to win, the Negro must continue to claim every right of American citizenship as his own, and always be ready to perform the corresponding duties. This seems to us to be the only sensible course to pursue. It is certain that a failure on his part to claim all the rights of American citizenship will be equal to a surrender of those rights. It is hardly less certain that a denial of obligation to perform the duties of American citizenship will be equivalent to an admission that he surrenders his claim to the rights.

Nevertheless, we know that Mr. McWoodson has good reason for asking his question. We know, too, that there has been a change of sentiment working in the race. The enthusiasm with which black men have always sprung to the colors, and the loyalty and bravery with which they have fought for this country in all of its battles have become a tradition. There are serious doubts if this came at the present time that colored men would live up to that tradition so fully as in former years. Mr. McWoodson has well summed up the reasons.

## MEANS FOR MAINTAINING WORLD PEACE.

Of all the means suggested for maintaining world peace, after it is secured, an International Court of Arbitration is the only one that is reasonable. If such a court is established and strives to be fair in its decisions, it will be backed up by the united public opinion of all the nations, and in that way the chances for war will be lessened. But when it is proposed to back and enforce these decisions by an international armed force, a plan is being laid not for world peace, but for world war.

Just one question: Why should it be thought that an international court will always be unanimous in its decisions? The United States Supreme Court is not always so; in fact, hardly ever so. Now, does anybody dream that England and France and Russia and Italy, or any other group of powers are going to abide by a decision of the court which might be against their vital interests simply because they are outvoted by Uruguay and Nicaragua and Haiti, etc.? And that they are going to allow that part of the international force which they furnish and support to be used against themselves to make them do it?

Those who are planning the enforcement of peace by arms seem to think that in the future all international quarrels will be between single nations, and when the decision is rendered, it will be a league of all the nations against one. The truth is, in Europe, at least, when two nations quarrel the other nations will line up on either side, according to their greatest interests. So, at a showdown of force it will not be a league of all the nations against one, but one group of nations against another.

It may be noticed that these plans to maintain peace are mostly talked of in the United States and England. Very little is being said in France. The French have too much logical sense, they are too frank with themselves to go in for a plan that has in it at bottom so much Anglo-Saxon hypocrisy.

The United States or England or any other power will break any kind of agreement if it becomes vitally necessary to do so. What is the use then of all this sanctimonious cant about solemn and binding agreements?

President Wilson and the white people of the United States know that they haven't got the moral courage to live up to and enforce the Constitution; what guarantee is there then that this Government would live up to and enforce any mere treaty that might clash with what it considered to be its vital interests?

THE NEW YORK AGE, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1917.

VIEWS and REVIEWS

THE PROHIBITION QUESTION.

The fact cannot be ignored that prohibition is today the greatest internal question—we are not trying to turn a joke—before the country. There is more widespread and active interest in it than there is in preparedness or any other strictly national question. State after state has gone dry; and many of the "dry" states are now taking steps to become "bone dry." Congress has passed a bill in aid of prohibition, and it seems certain that a prohibition amendment to the Constitution will sooner or later be submitted to the states. That such an amendment, if submitted, will be adopted is very likely. More than half the states in the Union have declared in favor of prohibition; in more than eighty-five per cent. of the territory of the United States liquor has been outlawed and more than sixty per cent. of the people of the country live in that territory. So it looks as though we are well on the way to nation wide prohibition.

So far as the United States is concerned, this is not a sudden movement. It has been going on for a long time and gaining all the while. Nevertheless, the national importance which it has now attained may be set down as a result of the great war. The actions taken by Russia and France and England with regard to alcoholic drinks gave the whole question new legislative importance in this country. This is especially true of the actions taken by Russia and France, although for opposite reasons. These two countries provided the advocates of nation wide prohibition with a double-headed argument. They could say that Russia, with all of its ignorance and backwardness, had seen the advantages and necessity of national prohibition. On the other hand, they could say that France, the most intelligent country in the world, the home of wine and of gaiety, had realized that national restraint on alcoholic drinks was necessary to give to her people the increased physical and moral stamina needed so much now.

That the actions of some of the European nations have given to prohibition better standing as a matter for legislative and official consideration in this country is strikingly illustrated in the history of the order abolishing the wine mess aboard ships of the United States navy. When Secretary Daniels issued his famous order, the country was amused and the navy was disgusted. Every newspaper paragrapher and humorist in the country made jokes at Mr. Daniels' expense and by more serious writers he was held up to scorn and derision. By way of argument, it was pointed out that the officers of our ships would be placed in a terribly embarrassing position when they received the officers of foreign ships aboard without being able to offer them a glass of wine. Since then, the navies of England, France and Russia have prohibited the use of alcoholic drinks on their ships, and Mr. Daniels' "grape juice" order has ceased to be a laughing matter.

The prohibition movement is gaining in importance and strength, and the indications are that it will at no far off date sweep the country. The "dry" forces are aggressive and confident, while the "wet" forces are on the defensive and extracting what comfort they can from the declarations that prohibition does not really prohibit and that the rigid prohibition laws being passed will of themselves bring about a reaction in sentiment.

A correspondent in the New York Sun brings figures to prove that prohibition does not prohibit. He claims to get his figures from the latest report of the United States Internal Revenue Bureau. These figures show that the Government collected a tax of $169,990,-660 on 146,355,146 gallons of whiskey in 1916, as against a tax of $137,004,131 on 124,549,210 gallons in 1915; that is, an increase of $32,986,529 in taxes and 21,805,936 in gallons. They also show that the consumption of beer was 61,145,869 barrels in 1916, as against 57,805,869 barrels in 1915; and the yield for 1916 amounted to $91,-718,375, as against $86,708,803 for the previous year. We have not verified these figures and cannot vouch for them.

However, whether the above figures are true or false or merely misleading, it can be said with certainty that the prohibition laws in many of the "dry" states are more or less farcical. In most of these states people who want to go to the trouble can get just as much whiskey and beer for their personal use as they could reasonably want. In some cities the express companies do such a rushing business that it has been intimated they are interested in having prohibition laws passed. The question naturally comes up: if these states really want to abolish the use of liquor, why do they not prohibit it absolutely?

The New York Age, Thurs., Feb. 22, 1917

It may be claimed that these states are gradually working up to absolute prohibition; that the whole step could not have been taken at once. At any rate, many of them are now attempting to pass "bone dry" laws.

South Carolina passed a law last week which makes it a crime to have liquor in one's possession except for scientific, mechanical, medicinal or sacramental purposes. It may be that this law is as tight a one as the legislators of that state feel can be passed at present, but any one can see that it is bound to become leaky.

Perhaps, no greater efforts have been put forth by the opponents of alcohol than their efforts to explode the theory that it possessed any medicinal value when taken internally. Numerous books have been written and many experiments made to prove this point, and it has been pretty well established. There was a time when spirituous liquors were administered generally in hospitals and by physicians; such use of them is now almost entirely discontinued; so it seems that the principles of prohibition are particularly and needlessly discredited when an exception is made of brandy and whiskey to be taken as medicine.

The South Carolina law provides that a person may be allowed one quart a month upon a doctor's prescription; this will undoubtedly result in producing many chronic invalids and liars and lead to the ethical downfall of many practitioners of medicine in the Palmetto State.

There is another question raised by this law that is rather curious. Ought not the church refuse to accept a provision which makes it one of the obstacles to the enactment of an absolutely prohibitive liquor law? Would it not be an example worth the cost for the church to ask that the word "sacramental" be stricken out of the law and to adopt the use of unfermented wine?

As to the other statement of the "wet" forces, that the prohibition laws being passed will of themselves bring about a reaction in sentiment, the truth remains to be seen. In our opinion, there will be no such result. But there is one phase of the whole question which we do not believe the prohibition people appreciate. They treat the problem of drink as though it were merely a matter of appetite and habit. They do not seem to realize that it is psychological as well as physiological.

In order to stamp out the use of alcohol it must be understood that men do not drink simply because they like the taste of liquor, as children like the taste of candy; or simply because they have gotten into the habit. An element which enters largely into the use of alcohol is the fact that many men find in it the easiest, quickest and cheapest way of attaining self-realization. Civilization puts men in grooves and keeps them there; so, many a man who wants to break out of the groove and become the thing that he most desires down in his inmost self to be resorts to the quick and easy means of alcohol. One man yearns down in his heart of hearts to experience the joys of feeling that he is rich, and he finds that fifty cents worth of whiskey will do the trick. Another man longs to be a gay and carefree troubador, and he finds that a few glasses of wine will make him one. The use of alcohol is in a large measure a revolt against the limitations imposed by life, which make existence so different from the things men dream.

But there are other ways of escaping these limitations. Some men do it by reading the books they love, some by playing the games they enjoy. It is a part of the work of the people who want to see the use of alcohol abolished to have men learn that they can escape the limitations of life through many far less damaging means than drinking liquor. But this brings up a question which space demands that we take up at another time.

A good many people are opposed on principle to prohibition. They believe that personal liberty should not be curtailed by law. If these same people should visit the states where prohibition is in force, especially the Southern states, we are sure they would be willing to waive the principle. They would find that those who were most damaged are the ones who are now most benefitted. The drunken men who used to crowd the cheap barrel houses and line the slum streets are not able to order their monthly consignments by express, and so prohibition, even though it may not be in accord with the principle of individual liberty, is working great good in practice.

COMMENDING THE AGE

AN EDUCATIONAL MEDIUM.

To the Editor of THE NEW YORK AGE:
Please find enclosed money order for
my subscription. THE AGE is a welcome
visitor to our community. Let me com-
mend you upon getting out such a great
paper. It is certainly a great educa-
tional medium, and an exponent of prin-
ciples pertaining to the race.

D. B. YOUNG.

Okeechobee, Fla.

CAN'T DO WITHOUT IT.

To the Editor of THE NEW YORK AGE:
Find enclosed money order for my
subscription. I like it much. I can
do without it.

S. G. JOHNSON.

Bovina, Miss.

BETTER AND BETTER.

To the Editor of THE NEW YORK AGE:
Enclosed please find order for sub-
scription. THE AGE is better and bet-
ter. I cannot afford to miss a single
issue.

D. A. BETHEA.

Terre Taute, Ind.

INSPIRATION FROM THE AGE.

To the Editor of THE NEW YORK AGE:
I have been a reader, subscriber and
admirer of your paper for several years.
I have gained much inspiration from
your paper.

LOCE SALES.

3310, 11th street, Meridian, Miss.

MIGHTY CHAMPION OF NEGRO'S
RIGHTS.

To the Editor of THE NEW YORK AGE:
I am enclosing you check for renewal
of my subscription to THE AGE. There
is no better evidence of the worth of
a paper than the subscribers it has, and
being an ardent admirer of THE AGE
and its editor, I feel it my bounden
duty to continue a constant perusal of
its most excellent columns.

THE AGE is a mighty champion of the
rights of our race, and without its ap-
pearance in my home each week, I
should feel that the greatest exponent
of justice and righteousness of the race
had forsaken them.

With best wishes for the success of
THE AGE, I am

R. E. PHARROW.

Atlanta, Ga.

A MESSAGE OF INSPIRATION.

To the Editor of THE AGE:

Enclosed find order for renewal of
my subscription for your valuable paper.
I have been an AGE reader for over five
years. It has a message of inspiration
and helps one to understand the laws
of life and success. THE AGE teaches
the practical things of life and tells
what all the world is seeking to learn.

THE AGE hammers away each week
to keep the race working along sane and
conservative lines, to bring the best
results to our people.

SAMUEL WINSTON,

Reading, Pa.

"GREATEST COLORED PAPER IN
THE WORLD."

To the Editor of THE AGE:

Enclosed you will find money order
for $3 for the greatest paper in the
world among our people. Your edi-
torials are equal to the best in the coun-
try. If we had more like you the strug-
gle would be less intense. Keep at it,
we will win. Look forward to the time
when your paper will be a daily.

D. G. CORBIN,
Vallejo, Cal.

ALWAYS A PLACE IN HIS HOME.

To the Editor of THE AGE:

You will please find enclosed money
order for the amount of my subscrip-
tion. I am profoundly pleased with
THE AGE, and it shall have at all times
a happy place in my home, in recogni-
tion of the same principles for which
it stands. With best wishes for its con-
tinued success in the interest of human-
ity.

(Rev.) P. P. WATSON,
Benedict College, Department of Agri-
culture, Columbia, S. C.

INDISPENSABLE TO THE HOME.

To the Editor of THE NEW YORK AGE:
You will find enclosed my money or-
der for amount of subscription due.

I am delighted with your paper. It
is indispensable to the home and the
community—a fearless defender of the
race.

Charlotte, N. C.

J. WILLIAMS.

LEADING PAPER OF THE RACE.

To the Editor of The Age:

Please find money order for my sub-
scription to your very estimable paper.
The Age is the leading paper of the
race and should be in the home of every
colored family. The high-toned edi-
torials of Mr. Johnson alone are worth
the paper. The cut of the "Old War
House," Hon. P. B. S. Pinchback, which
appeared in your recent issue, was
well received and complimented by
many of the Ex-Governor's friends of
Bay St. Louis. Many have enquired of
the whereabouts of Mississippi's "War
Eagle," Major Jno. R. Lynch. With
best wishes to you and success to The
Age, I am as ever,

L. J. PIERNAS.

Ray St. Louis, Miss.