MTDiiuiiil Jones is friendless and helpless, shall we let him hftggwMbout aneffort to save him? It is up to you'll
. _ * r :* " ' '***•*" " ' C'~ it - - •
The papers "formerly known as The Statesman and The have been merged into The Denver Star
TWENTY-SIXTH YEAR Number 72
The Wrong Way, Did It
Pay? If So, What?
Only One Real Road To Manhood and
Justice.
Every Race Pays the Price, So Must Negro.
No close observer of the situation of today would deny
that we have been, and are yet, traveling along the wrong
road.
We have been advised to take up the path of least resist
ance. We have been told we must gain respect by commer
cial conquests and peaceful achievements. But has any race
or nation gained respect wholly by these methods? Does
anyone believe that Belgium would have been better off to
day and in the future had she chosen the path of least resist
ance offered by the Germans? Had she voluntarily opened
her pathways to the Teutons must she not have found herself
aligned with them against the allies? Once the Germans
determined to go through Belgium to get at France there
«as no third way. As it is, Belgium has chosen the most
honorable and, in our opinion, the best in the end. The path
4 of least resistance is dishonorable and cowardly, but
IT DOES NOT PAY!
Can WE gain the respect of the nations by commercial
conquests alone when the only respect worth while in a world
of broken treaties and discarded “scraps of paper” is the re
spect that is born of the sword? Would England be what
she is today without the bold uss in the past of this arbiter of
human rights? The “nation of shop-keepers" is respected
more for her overwhelmfng navy and battle history than for
any commercial or scholastic achievements. The Eliza
bethan age that boasted so many of the best creations and
greatest names of English literature, among them Shakes
peare himself, grows dim in a contemplation of Waterloo.
German tpde achievements and German scientific discov*
* cries and inventions are today given many an ovation, but
' what were they before 1870?- What would they be today
without the great spirit of self-sacrifice and unity behind
them ?
Wduld Germany, with all her scientific discoveries and
her trade buildings; or England, with all her literary accom
plishments, her art, her colonial genius, and her vast com
merce, be as well respected among the nations of the earth
today without the achievements in 1870 of the German army
and its subsequent growth and menace; or the British navy
and its thousand years of fame, with Drakes, Frobishers,
kelsons. Howards, and the like? Would England be any
better off for the absence from her roll of fame of the names
of Wellington, Sir John Moore, Clive, Gordon, Wolfe and
others too numerous to mention, who spent their lives and
spilled their blood in warlike Britain’s service ? To
* answer these questions it is but necessary to turn to the
dilemma of the Jews. How much real respect do they get
with all their colossal achievements in trade, in literature, in
arts, compared to which the vaunted achievements of the
Aryan races stand dwarfted and insignificant? Are they not
everywhere almost the same JEWS? In many countries
their status has not even increased. In others they are tol
erated because of the money behind them. But in what
country is their real rorth recognized and admitted?
Even in America today are not they fighting, but a little in
the lead of us, for equal opportunities and citizen rights?
True, their organized efforts and huge money backing are
accomplishing more for them than has yet been done for us.
But were it true that commercial conquests and intellectual
achievements were the surest roads to respect they would
surely not be faced to-day with the necessity of fighting prej
udice, which, after all, is but another phase of disrespect.
NO! Tl)e commercial road is NOT the true path to real
and lasting respect. Our respect for the Belgians increased
ten fold when we found they were not only busy and indus
trious, but could fight as well. We must taste our own Run
nyraede, our Boston Commons and our Marathon. At
Runiiymede a determined nobility faced a tyrant king and
forced the signing of the great Magna Charter of English
liberties. At Boston Commons was the first blood shed —the
blood of a colored man—in the war of the Revolution, when
a small and untrained nation re-taught England the lesson
*she ha’d taught and wrested independence from the most
powerful nation of Europe. Ten thousand Greeks at Mara
thon, fighting for libetty and thrtt
one hundred thousand Persians in glorious battle.
Are we less brave that ten million of us sit supinely by
and' prefer degradation to death ?
Lynching would cease in short order if cplored peo
ple of this country resented the lawless murderiifg of friends,
relatives and compatriots as (hey should yrith the rifle and
The Denver Star
DENVER, COLORADO. .SATURDAY, FER 6, 19*5
sword. The ballot will not settlo it definitely. Neither will
commercial nor intellectual achievements. But mobs do not
lynch when they are assured of a come-back. Least of all,
would a mob invade a colored district in chase of its victim
were there any likelihood *of their being received as they
should be —with bullets The forty-nine colored persons
who were lynched last year would have received just trial by
law had those who preceded them fought Instead of begged.
or more who have been lynched already this year
would have been left to be dealt.with bylaw had those forty,
nine victims of last year—the women, of Course, excluded—
showed fight instead of ctaven fear. But the blame does not
altogether rest with the murdered dead. The issue is up to
the living. Perhaps, were the poor slaughtered victims as.
sured of proper support from their raee.the tale had been
different. Now, if we are not all rank cowards, let us resolve
that in future the tale SHALL BE DIFFERENT! Of
what avail the pleading and the biggfag? Those who
pleaded the hardest and begged the meat~j>iteou*ly were not
spared. Innocent or guilty, they died a shameful death—the
more shameful that they died pteadingjosuiad of fighting.
The Irishman is said tob* able ti Aght other people’s
battles, but not his own. But the Irishman would soon find
cause to fight for himself were half the Ueltment meted out
to us his portion for a day. The courage oo the battlefield
of the colored man has surpassdcPthat of the fighting Irish*
The black man fighting in Europe today is again demon,
strating the fighting qualities of the colored race. Are we,
their brothers in America, less brave that we swallow like
cur-dogs and cowards the indignities and insults heaped
upon us, the murders and lynchings? We ate not true
Americans as long as we tolerate We are
not loyal to our country so long as we alfow the perpetration
on ourselves, or any others, of such wnmasand injustices
Colored men and women, the true>Ai£ltric£B,aplrit.of the
Constitution calls on you to resent uaWtjatMlM
You cannot be Americans and slaves «* gfa •jfeiT-ttmc
Organize! Organize! Let the
American nation and the entire wdrtpKigmf 4k*t you are
men and will no longer tolefate wrongs any! persecutions.
Let the world kno* that ; Aattfe vilbrg'r., fight for you*
rights, if only by fighting can you obtain and enjoy them.
Let them know you are resolved to protect your women.
Rise up and drive the lascivious Caucasian out from among
your women. Protect with your life, if need be, the dearest
possession of any race. In degradation and disgrace, with
the virtue of your women dragged in the mud. what were
life to you—if ye be not dogs? Will you wait for the time
when some white man shall shoot you down for walking with
a woman of your own race, as was recently done in Dixie?
Shall the white man dictate to you that you shall not walk
with ANY WHILE WOMAN, nor with 1 HIS or THAT
colored woman, because his lascivious nature desires her?
Will you leave your house unshuttered until the wife, daugh
ter or sweetheact is degraded beyond salvation?
“Ye are neither children nor gods, but MEN in a world
of men," and the answer rests with you. Will it be the an
swer of the full-grown man or that of a babbling child ? Will
you fling proof of your manhood in the face of the oppressor
or will you bow your back to the burden and list to the prate
of your selfish leaders? —Amsterdam News.
COMMISSION FROM M.E.
CHURCH ON FED
ERATION
Chattanooga, Tenn. The
members of the Methodist
Episcopal Church appointed
as a commission on the feder
ation of colored Methodist
chuiches in the United States
met in the Wiley Memorial
M. E, Church on January 8.
Present were Bishop Thomas
B. Neely of Philadelphia.
Bishop Theodore S. Hender
son of Chattanooga, and Bish
op Wilbur F. Thirkield of
New Orleans; the Rev. R. E.
Jones of New Orleans, the
Rev. J. P. Wragg of Atlanta,
I. Garland Penn of Cincin
nati, and E. H. McKissick of
Holly Springs, Miss. •
The Rev. R. E. Gillum of
Mexico, Mo., and L. f. Price
of Atlanta were absent. Bish
op Henderson presided with
>l. G. Penn as secretary.
The legislation of the gen -
eral conference, relating to
the creation of the commis
siun, was presented by Bishop
■Veely and the commission ap
pointed Bishop Thirkield,
Bishop Neely and the Rev.
R. E. Jones as a committee
to denne the powers and
prerogatives of the commis
sion.. The committee embod
ied its findings in a set of
resolutions which included the
statement from the 1912 gen
eral conference that "it is
plainly our duty to assist in
every way in allaying compe
tition among the colored
Methodist churches.’’
The resolutions declared
that "we recognize the pro
priety of seeking to avoid
unnecessary duplications of
churches and educational in
stitutions; to prevent the
passing from one denomina
tion to another of improper
ministers and members; and
to reach wise understandings
for the practical welfare and
enlarged efficiency of the said
churches, including the mat
ter of better preparation tor
and in the ministry.” and
recommended the appoint?
ment of a committee to open
correspondence with com
missions appointed by the
other branches of Methodism
looking to a general federa:
tion. —Age.
Tom Mask Falls, Lays
Bare Motive.
Envy Admitted, Though Not Confessed
The SV*r desires to state
for the information of all who
do not know that the article
'Tearing Off the Mask’ was
written by the associate edi
tor. That it was written to
show up the ‘lf-I-can’t-get-a
-job-you-shan't’ spirit, the pre
vailing sentiment exhibited
by some in reference to posi
tions to be given Negroes at
the State Capitol. We will
not be disturbed nor stopped
neither by threats,* cajolery
nor attempted attacks from
constantly pressing the right
ful claims of the Negro. Yet
we will not abuse nor will
The Star condescend to mud
slinging nor washing dirty
linen in public print. Wp ask
no quarter and we grant none-
We have before us the cel
ebrated journalistic ‘reply’ of
our co-temporary. ‘The Colo
rado Statesman.' Imagine a
writer, self-inflated with per
sonal charm and egotistic.ful
some flattery and an editor of
more. tjum _ 'quartet 6f £
century of journalistic- expe
rience' ‘replying’ to thecharge
made against his paper or at
tacking his ‘sincerity of ac
tion,’ instead of making'an
swer' to the charge. He
should permit the complain
ant to make ‘reply’ to his
‘answer.’ Most of the younger
editors of less years of jour
nalistic experience would ‘re
ply’ to an ‘answer’ and not to
the ‘charge.’ However, we
reluctantly and shamefully
confess that we carefully, pa
tiently and laboriously waded
through his four and half col
umn of ‘reply’ and character
ize the whole conglomerate
mass of heterogeneous mat
ters as immaterial, incompet
ent and irrelevant. It consist
ed of insinuations, suspicions,
assumptions, envy, egotism,
threats, sympathy, advice,
mystery and the futile attempt
to be funny, raising additional
issues without in any way ans
wering our. questions and
charges. '
We asked certain well di
rected and definite questions
and that is what we received
in the ‘reply.’ The Star said
recently and repeats now that
'The editorial of the Colorado
Statesman under the caption
of ‘Plums’ was written for
some purpose to appease an
enmity or spite against the
Republican organization.’
Did The Star tell the
truth, if so. why did you not
stand up and answer or plead
guilty? ‘lt dared not speak
directly, and in only prema
ture criticism, it used and sug
gested unsuspecting inuen
does, etc. Are any of these
facts so; did you do this, if so,
you stand before the bar of
public opinion, condemned, as
guilty We charged that you
Kit« Cum a Con
made an attempt to land the
messengership to the Gover
nor and failed, after which
you wrote your famous but
attempted-to.be ironical edi
torial on ‘Plums.’ Did you
say these things; are these
the facts, if so, The Star
rightly considered that the
spirit you had shown after
defeat was the most repre
hensible exhibited for years.
Was the editor of 25 years of
journalistic experience ever a
candidate for the messenger,
ship? Did he prematurely
criticize the Republican or.
ganization in his article?
Did The Star tell the truth
when it said your criticism
came from a disgruntled, dis
appointed and defeated polit
ical ' candidate, when your
pseudo-political organization
born over night, had not only
failed but also whose fond
hopes for the messengership
had too vanished in thin air?
If you are such a strong,
staunch ajtyi . e vetlastiqgße*
publican that you claim you
are on paper, why don’t you
co-operate with the colored
Republican club to GET
JOBS tor others and not op
pose them for yourself?. Did
not you intend your actions
to cause and create doubts,
scatter and dissipate the
promises that this Republi
can club had gotten in spite
of your opposition? If you
will say that you did not in
tend to prematurely and
spitefully attack the colored
Republican club, and that
you are in sympathy with its
efforts, The Star will publicly
confess its error, and if you
are not in sympathy with
their movements, let the pub
lic rightfully judge your mo
tives. To criticise at that
time the colored” Republican
club that was pushing and
fighting for six or eight ap
pointments which were then
being considered by the sue.
cessful candidates, especially
after your defeat, meant de
feat for all the rest. Is that
the kind of Republicanism
you boast for 25 years?
Would the editorial writer
be exultant in glee and joy
over the Negroes defeat?
After you failed suppose the
club aJso had failed, what
then?
Having failed to fully and
completely answer the charge
of The Star, The Star closes
the controversy and turns
the facts over to the public
for their judgment. Besides
tiring the public, The Star
would surely fall a victim in
the trap laid, if it were to
continue the harangue, so as
to give some credence to the
belief that the Negroes were
fighting among themselves
(Concluded on page 4)