he lays the brick and mortar; here he is a common laborer, there he is an artisan.

*

* *

"I have complained to my people,' said Rev. Dr. D. P. Roberts, pastor of the A. M. E. Church in Charles street, and the white people have complained to me, that we negroes do not take advantage of the educational opportunities offered us by Boston. All the schools and colleges of this State are opened to us as to whites; * * *but as a class we do not study. Why? Massachusetts opens her schools to us, but she shuts her shops. * * * Boston does many splendid things for the negro visitor, but other than as a guest she has no room for him except in the places no white man wants. She loves to put a diploma in his hands, but with it a ticket for the South.'

*

* *

"The color line is drawn in Boston-silently and courteously, but positively and rigorously drawn.

* * *

'I came from Baltimore to Boston,' said a negro in answer to our question as to how he liked the city, 'and I am going back to Baltimore. The difference between the two places is just this: There we know what to expect, and we take our place; but here you are never told and you never know, but for all that you find yourself quietly pushed aside and left out.""

And the Providence (R. I.) Journal apologetically says: "As it is in Boston, so it is in other Northern cities. There is no particular moral to be drawn from the fact, no especial complaint to be made on either side. There is no ill feeling entertained by the whites of the North toward the negro. Nobody wishes to deprive him of a single legal right. But when it comes to the intimate and private phases of society the white man will erect such barriers as he pleases, whether against the black, the Mongolian, or the uncongenial white person. This"-forgetting the "civil rights bills"

supported in Congress by Massachusetts and Rhode Island-"is something outside the pale of law, and no amount of legislation could effect a permanent or widespread change.

NOTE AB.

Accepting the theory that the Southern people were fighting in defense of slavery in the Southern States, some uninformed persons, even in the South, have expressed surprise that the Confederate authorities did not agree to surrender to Mr. Lincoln "when he offered to pay for the slaves." But although most of the school boys and newspaper readers, North and South, have been reading about this offer for over thirty years, and most of our channels of information have been befouled by the falsehood, Mr. Lincoln made no such offer to the Confederate authorities. But it is asserted by the apologists of the North that Mr. Lincoln did, on the 6th of March, 1862, recommend to the Congress the passage of an act offering pecuniary compensation to slave-holders; and that such an act was passed. This is "history" in Alden's Cyclopædia. But no such an act was ever passed; and however much Mr. Lincoln may have personally favored compensation to slave-owners, nobody has told us where the money was to come from. Did Mr. Lincoln propose to collect it out of the pockets of the slave-holders of the South as well as of the non-slave-holders of the North? The only act ever passed offering compensation to slave-holders was that of April 16, 1862, abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. It provided for compensation to "loyal" owners in the District, if the applicant for compensation could prove by other testimony than his own oath that he had approved all the measures of the usurpers.

NOTE AC.

Extract from a speech delivered by the author October 7, 1893,1 in the House of Representatives:

The Speaker pro tempore. The House is in session for the purpose of discussing the bill H. R. 2331”—to repeal Federal election "The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Grady) is recog

laws.

"Now, Mr. Speaker, having given a brief resume of some of the decisive facts in our history, and given what I believe, and what my people believe, to be the true principles on which the Union of these

1Cong. Rec., 53d Cong., 1st sess., pp. 2303-2306.

States was founded, it seems unnecessary to tell this House what I think of some of the provisions of the Federal election laws. I deny, of course, that there is any such thing in this Union as a national election or a Federal election.

66

The States conferred upon the Congress the power to make laws or alter State laws prescribing the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Representatives, and the times and manner of choosing Senators. I grant all this. But there is another provision of the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, which must be permitted to have its full force when these election laws are under consideration. It was taken for granted that it would be an insult to the dignity of a sovereign State for the United States to send their soldiers into its borders, even for the purpose of guaranteeing the State ' against domestic violence,' unless demand for assistance were made by the State Legislature or by the Executive when the Legislature could not be convened; in which case the Federal Government was to be obedient to a State. I remind gentlemen that this is the meaning of that provision, that when the State makes that demand the Federal Government is to obey.

66

The spirit of this provision-indeed the well-known temper of the States at that time, when they declared that the Congress should never raise an army for a longer period than two years--can not be misunderstood; and if Federal troops can not, unless invited by the State, go into its borders to quell 'domestic violence,' where do we find an excuse for sending them, of our own motion, to anticipate 'domestic violence,' and 'to keep peace at the polls?' Mr. Speaker, words have no meaning if Congress possesses this power.

"And how can Congress interfere with the registration of voters when their qualifications are absolutely subject to State determi nation? I should doubt the sincerity of any sane man who will assert that it can.

"But, Mr. Speaker, the advocates of these laws fortify their contention by citing decisions of the Supreme Court; and I wonder how a political party which has scouted and trampled on decisions of that court can stand here, unabashed, and ask us to yield our opin ions as lawmakers to the opinion of that court. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the Supreme Court is against us as to some of the sections of these laws, but what is its argument? Here it is in a nutshell, as delivered by Justice Miller in ex parte Yarborough (110 U. S. R., 651):

666

'That a government whose essential character is republican, whose executive head and legislative body are both elected, whose most numerous and powerful branch of the Legislature is elected by the people directly, has no power by appropriate laws to secure this election from the influence of violence, of corruption, and of fraud,

is a proposition so startling as to arrest attention and demand the greatest consideration.'

"This reasoning looks sound, Mr. Speaker, but it is drawn from the necessity of the case-not from the Constitution. And when we remember that the President of the United States-our king in dress coat-has more power than any other elected officer in the world, the necessity for supervising his election and guarding it against fraud and corruption overshadows any such supposed necessity for supervision of elections for Representatives. But the States delegated no power whatever to the Congress over the Presidential elections, while they did make the House of Representatives the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members. The argument from necessity, therefore, proves too much, and reaches, in my judgment, a lame and impotent conclusion; indeed, it is founded on the 'national idea.'"

APPENDIX.

1

A DECLARATION BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN GENERAL CONGRESS ASSEMBLED. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, and to assume among the powers of the earth the equal and independent station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the strange separation.

We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life & liberty & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriv. ing their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles & organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to subject them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government & to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of govern: ment. The history of his present majesty is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which no fact stands single or

1 Jefferson's draft, taken from a facsimile in Conrad's Lives of the Signers and copied literally, except that capital letters are substituted at the beginnings of sentences for the small ones almost invariably used by Jefferson.