hotel-keeper they profess to only conform to the wishes of the public (meaning white, of course), or, in other words, are governed by the spirit of the times, implying that to the American people the negro is obnoxious and to insure the prosperity of their business he must be excluded. But we ask, is this the sentiment of the people or of a few rebel-hearted men who would inflict their outrages under the plea of a public necessity? If not, why stand by and with the cry of "unconstitutional" permit this human wrong to go unmitigated? Or, if we accept the theory that the negro is obnoxious, how shall we explain his presence in all dining and sleeping cars, in the largest hotels in our country, and at all pretentious receptions and parties? We have known instances in this city where the presence of the negro was so essential to the dignified aspect of entertainments to be given that they were brought from other cities for the occasion, the odium imported. And yet we cannot see why these persons courting the approval, in the matter of railways and hotels, of the most fastidious public, and in the elegant social gatherings of their most esteemed friends, would mar the equilibrium of their guests by having the negro present. "But," you say, "we have always considered them invaluable as servants, and are willing now as ever to concede to them the highest position as menials; it is only when they rise above what we consider their natural sphere that we protest—when they would become our equals."
But we say to you, this is despotism and hardly consonant with true American principles. You have adopted as a fundamental doctrine that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights, namely, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You pity England, with her Lords and Commons; Russia, with its Czar and subject, and yet practically acknowledge that you have a people among you of American birth whom you consider by God created for your servants, your inferiors by nature rather than by condition. We would ask also, if not in the land we have enriched with our labor, where would you send us that we may enjoy the civil treatment we ask? Would you say to England, France or Ireland, "Though in times of oppression in your countries we have afforded your oppressed an asylum on American soil, strange to say we have a people among us who, because of a color which to us is a badge of inferiority, we cannot suffer equal rights with ourselves, and we would ask you to take them from us, and give them what they ask"? And you might
