LIFTING
LIFT TOO
The monitor
NEBRASKA’S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER DEVOTED TO THE INTERESTS OF COLORED AMERICANS
THE REV. JOHN ALBERT WILLIAMS, Editor.
GROWING —
THAN 1C YOU
$2.00 a Ye. %S Cents a Copy
Omaha Nebraska, Friday, November 2, 1928
Vol. XIV—No. 18
Whole Number 690
NEGRO LI JERS
TE IH ..PPEAL
AGAINST PREDJUDICE
Representatives of Three Political
Parties, Editors, Educators, Clergy
and Social Workers Issue
Protest
DECRY DEFAMATION OF RACE
Would Arouse Conscience of White
America to Repudiate Sinister
Campaign of Racial
Hatred
New York City, Nov. 1—An appeal
to America, signed by leading Ne
groes in all walks of life throughout
the United States, against race prej
udice, which it is charged, has been
injected in the presidential campaign
by both republican and democratic
parties, was made public recently by
the National Association for the Ad
vancement of Colored People, from
their national offices. The list of
signers, headed by Robert R. Moton,
head of Tuskegee Institute; W. E. B.
Du Bois, editor of The Crisis maga
zine; and Dr. John Hope, president
of Morehouse college, includes men
and women, editors, politicians,
churchmen, and the civil service com
missioners of New York and Cleve
land.
The appeal warns that “bad as re
ligious hatred and evil personal gos
sip are, they have not the seeds of
evil and disaster that lie in continued
unlimited and unrestrained appeal to
race prejudice.’’
The statement characterizes as “an
appeal to the lowest and most prim
itive of human motives” the “em
phasis of racial contempt and hatred
which is being made in this political
campaign” and asserts that “as long
as this appeal can successfully be
made, there is for this land no real
peace, no sincere religion, no nation
al unity, no social progress, even in
matters far removed from racial con
troversy.”
The appeal lists as among the ob
jectionable utterances of “partisans
cf the leading candidates,” the fol
lowing:
That Negro voters should not be
appealed to, or their support wel
comed by advocates of just causes. !
That colored persons should not
hold public office, no matter what
;heir character may be nor how well
they do their work, nor how com
pletely they satisfy their constitu
ents.
That the contact of white people
and black people in government, in
business, and in daily life, in com
mon effort and co-operation, calls for
explanation and apology.
That the honesty and integrity of
party organization depend on the
complete removal of all Negroes from
voice and authority.
That the appointment of a public
official is an act which concerns only
white citizens, and that colored citi
zens- should have neither voice nor
consideration in such appointments.
The signers of the appeal, whose
names are being added to by tele
graph, are as follows:
R. R. Moton, principal of Tuskegee
Institute, Tuskegfee, Ala.; W. E. B.
Du Bois, editor. Crisis magazine, New
York City; Mordecai W. Johnson,
president, Howard university, Wash
ington, D. C.; Harry E. Davis, civil
service commissioner, Cleveland,
Ohio; George C. Clement, Bishop, A.
E. E. Zion church, Louisville, Ky.;
Sallie W. Stewart, president, Nation
al Association of Colored Women,
Evanston, 111.; C. C. Spaulding, pres
ident, North Carolina Mutual Insur
ance company, Durham, N. C.; James
Weldon Johnson, secretary, The Na
tional Association for the Advance
ment of Colored People, New York
City; Fred R. Moore, alderman of
the city of New York, editor of The
New York Age; Eugene K. Jones,
secretary of the National Urban
league, New York City; W. T. B.
Williams, field agent of Jeanes and
Slater Funds, Tuskegee Institute,
Tuskegee, Ala.; Walter White, assis
tant secretary, The National Associ
ation for the Advancement of Col
ored People, New York City; C. A.
Barnett, director, Associated Negro
Press, Chicago, 111.; R. Nathaniel
Dett, head of the Department of Mus
sic, Hampton Institute, Hampton,
Va.; Ferdinand Q. Morton, municipal
civil service commissioner, New York
City; Mary McLeod Bethune, presi
dent, Bethune-Cookman college, Day
MADE COUNTY TREASURER IN
KANSAS
Topeka, Kans.—As a result of the
resignation of Thomas Boyd, county
treasurer, who is running for the po
sition of state treasurer, John W.
Wright, first deputy county treasur
er, ha3 been made treasurer.
Mr. Wright is one of the outstand
ing colored men of Shawnee county.
Thirty-six years ago he was appoint
ed deputy county clerk under John
M. Brown and later was elected twice
as county clerk. Twenty-five years
ago, he became r. deputy in the coun
ty treasurer’s office and with the ex
ception of two years as city clerk and
six months as Y. M. C. A. secretary
during the war, he has been in the
county treasurer’s office continuous
ly. Mr. Wright was born in Michi
gan and educated in Douglas county.
He came to Topeka in 1888 and
taught school before beginning his
service for the county.
ELABORATE CABARET
OPENS IN THE WEST
Los Angeles, Cal.—Marking a step
towards the addition of a cosmopoli
tan aspect to the colored section of
the city, an elaborate cabaret has
been opened in the Brookins auditor
ium, which is unequaled by few in
the east. It is also one of the most
exclusive, none but members and
their friends being admitted. The
glassy floor is surrounded by a tier
containing tables on three sides of
the room. A high balcony contain
ing tables in beautiful nooks, over
looks the main floor. Massive di
vans, finely upholstered, are located
in various parts of the room, for
large banquet parties.
ATTEMPT TO SEGREGATE IN
SCHOOLS AT PASADENA
Los Angeles, Cal.—Co-incident
I with what seems to be a spreading
i desire of whites to bring about segre
! gated schools, there has arisen an at
J tempt to inaugurate segregation at
! the Grover Cleveland school at Pas
adena, California. It has been re
ported that several secret meetings
were held by the whites for the pur
pose of having the colored students
removed to a separate school.
EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS
AMONG NEGROES STABLE
New York, IV. Y.—The industrial
relations department of the National
Urban league of which T. Arnold Hill
is director, has issued the following
bulletin on present employment con
ditions:
“The industrial situation for Ne
groes throughout the country does
not seem to have altered since the
last report. Little movement of la
bor between cities is evident. The
general note of the reports from ev
ery section is one of fairly constant
conditions with a slight tendency to
ward improvement.”
tona, Fla.; William H. Lewis, former
assistant Ittofr.ey general of the
United States, attorney at law, Bos
ton, Mass.; George W. Harris, for
mer alderman cf the city of -New
York, editor of The New York News,
New York City; E. P. Roberts, physi
cian, New York City; George E.
Haynes, secretary of the Federal
Council of the Churches of Christ in
America, New York City; Monroe N.
Work, director of research, Tuskegee
Institute, Tuskegee, Ala.; John R.
Hawkins, financial secretary of the
African Methodist Episcopal church,
chairman of the Colored Voters’ Di
vision, Washington, D. C.; Reverdy
C. Ransom, bishop of the African
Methodist Episcopal church, Nash
ville, Tenn.; Archibald J. Carey,
bishop of the African M. E. church,
Chicago, 111.; Channing H. Tobias,
secretary, International Committee
of Y. M. C. A., New York City; Al
bert B. George, judge of the muni
cipal court, Chicago, 111.; S. W.
Green, supreme chancellor, Knights
of Pythias, New Orleans, La.; Robert
F. Jones, bishop, Methodist Episcopal
church, New Orleans, La.; Carl Mur
phy, editor, Afro-American, Balti
more, Md.; F. B. Ransom, manager
of the Walker Manufacturing com
pany, Indianapolis, Ind.; Elizabeth
Ross Haynea, member of the national
board, Y. W. C. A., New York City;
Robert W. Bagnall, director of
branches, N. A. A. C. P., New York
City; L. K. Williams, president of the
National Baptist convention, Chica
go, 111.
EDITORIAL
Next Tuesday, November 6th, every American citizen, male and fe- j
male, of voting age, has a solemn duty to perform. That is to go to the
polls and vote, according to his or her best judgment and conviction, for
the President of the United States, the Governor of this State and other
officials to be clothed with authority, administrative, legislative and judicial.
Senators, congressmen, judges, members of the State legislature, county
commissioners, members of the Board of Education and like officials are
to be chosen. Not only men, but vitally important measures, locally, are
to be determined at this election. These men are to be elected by YOUR
VOTE. These local issues, so important to the well-being of this commun
ity, are to be determined by YOUR VOTE. Your vote, just ONE, think
of it! as unimportant and insignificant as you may consider it, may de
termine, incredible as it may seem, who the President of the United States,
the United States Senator or Congressman from your district, the Governor
of your State, or the Supreme Justice, shall be. Just one vote, and that
yours, cast or withheld, may determine such momentous issues of a po
litical campaign. Did you ever think of that? Is voting important? Is
it not a solemn duty?
Do you realize then the tremendous power of your vote, and the at
tendant far-reaching responsibility which goes with this high privilege and
duty of American citizenship? Do you realize the weight ysignificance of
an intelligent and conscientious use of the ballot? “The right of suffrage
is a holy duty never to be abused or misused.”
See then that you neither abuse it or misuse it. You abuse it when
you neglect to use it; and you misuse It when you use it thoughtlessly, in
differently or lightly. Where we have the privilege to vote we ought to
vote. And as American citizens who exercise this privilege and duty we
should not cease our endeavors and agitation until those of our brethren
in sections where this privilege is unlawfully withheld from them are granted
this constitutional right of casting their ballot and having it counted.
Go to the polls Tuesday and vote. It is your solemn duty which if you
value your citizenship you will not neglect.
“But how >hall I vote?” This has been a question frequently asked us
by those who value our opinion.
We have refrained from advising, specifically, further than stating
how we personally expected to vote. We have answered generally, “Learn
all you can about men and measures, parties and principles, and then vote
according to your best judgment and conscience. Use your own mind. Do
some thinking for yourself.”
This advice we now desire to repeat publicly. And we hail it as a
most encouraging sign that our people are beginning to think for them
selves along political lines; that they are ceasing to be blind partisans,
seeing nothing but good in one party and nothing but evil in the other
party, and realizing the truth that there are good men and true, large
minded, justice-loving and patroitic in all parties, major and minor, and
that the mere party label is not necessarily a guarantee of political probity,
statesmanlike magnanimity, or racial justice and fair treatment. We are
therefore exceedingly glad that some of our ablest men and women, whose
characters are above reproach and whose sincerity, honesty and integrity
of purpose, cannot be questioned, despite the sneers and unworthy in
nuendos of shallow-pated, narrow-minded individuals whose insinuations are
but the reflections of their own jaundiced, pecksniffian little selves, are
working with, in and for the other major p»ditical party. It prophesies and
presages a political prestige and preferment which we of today cannot be
gin to appreciate. T. Thomas Fortune, one of the ablest of our pioneer
editors, was right when he wrote in 1884, more than four decades ago,
“When the colored voters differ among themselves and are found on BOTH
SIDES of a political contest, they will begin to find themselves of some
political importance. Their votes will be sought, cast and counted.” Since
in this remarkable campaign our people are found on both sides, our votes
are being sought. It remains for us to cast them, according to our best
judgment, and they will be counted and count.
In our desire to help our people think, we have endeavored, so far as
cur space will allow us, to present the facts on both sides as we saw them
so that after weighing the facts presented they might vote intelligently
not merely from sentiment and tradition but from convicion. If this con
viction accord with sentiment and tradition, so much the better, but if not
sacrificing sentiment for conviction would give moral strength. In this
our final word we shall follow the same course.
*****
There are certain paramount local issues and candidates to which we
as voters should give our attention first, because they touch us in this com
munity most closely. We advise then, that before taking up the large ballot
containing the Presidential and State ticket you give your attention to the
smaller ballots in the following order:
1. The Non-Political Ballot, and mark ther on your choice for Su
preme Judge the better qualified man for this position from his long and
varied experience in our judgment being the present incumbent, Judge
Frank S. Howell; nine District Judges; one County Judge, and Bryce Craw
ford is the man; and three Municipal Judges.
2. The Board of Education Ballot, from which six persons are to be
chosen. The candidates represent several persons of ability and we believe
fair-mindedness. Two men whom we would like to see elected are John M.
Gibb and Victor E. Levine. A slate which our people are asked by a con
ference committee of twenty-four of heads of churches, lodges and socities
to support is published elsewhere in this issue. Vote it.
3. Douglas County Ballot County Hospital Bonds. Be sure to vote
“Yes.” A new County Hospital is sadly needed. There are more than one
hundred known persons suffering from tuberculosis for whom there is no
room in the Hospital, to name only one crying need of a new modern
building.
4. State Ballot Proposed Constitutional Amendment, placing Nebras
ka Schools for the Deaf and for the Blind under the Board of Regents of
the State University. This should pass.
6. Street Railway Franchise. Dependent as the vast number of our
citizens are upon adequate street car service, this measure should pass.
These, in our judgment, are vitally important matters touching the
welfare of our community upon which we should register our approval.
There are three other matters, Aviation Bonds, Bridge Bonds, and Amend
ment of the City Charter to provide funds for fire apparatus and pensions,
which have certain merit but can afford to wait. This is our opinion.
Yours may be different. Whatever it is, express it by your vote.
Having registered your vote on these matters next turn your attention
to the Presidential, National and State Tickets.
*****
Which shall it be, Smith or Hoover? That, too, is for you to say.
But whatever be your decision, let it be made with understanding and
with your eyes wide open.
Despite regrettable slanderous things that have been said or whispered
in this campaign, both candidates, Herbert Hoover and Alfred E. Smith
are men of good character, who have risen from lowly conditions to high
positions, demonstrating the fact that they are men of ability. One is a
man of high academic training broadened by extensive travel and wide in
ternational contacts; the other of meagre academic training, lacking the
broadened culture and viewpoint that, extensive travel gives. That Smith
is what he is despite his limited opportunities bespeaks a mind and char
acter above mediocrity.
Behind Herbert Hoover there are forces unfriendly to the Negro,
notably the Ku Klux Klan, and the spirit of klanism, epitomized in lily
whiteism, with its various ramifications. Its slogan is “White Supremacy.”
(Continued on Pave Four)
“WHY I AM A REPUBLICAN”
BY G. H. W. BULLOCK
Through the storm of this hectic political
campaign, we have coursed our way through
fog and fury until at last we vision the port
of anchorage. Never before in the history
of elections in this country have we been
put so nearly to our wits’ end to know where
and how to best cast our vote. Parties and
candidates alike have ventured forth upon
such strange and conflicting issues that they
have created a confusion on the part of the
electorate, the like of which we have never
before experienced. Precedents and tradi
tions have been so completely broken that
it is hardly possible to discern which is re
publican and which is democratic. Because
of this situation, it is necessary that the
voter, who is the final arbiter, judge and
| jury, shall exercise the utmost intelligence
in passing on this most important matter.
The colored people occupy a rather unique
position in this conflict. The customary
slick politician whose main stock in trade
has been to befog and befuddle the voter
by political considerations only, is not much
in evidence. The reason being that he is
as, much at sea as we are to explain the
strange alliances made in this campaign.
The colored people are put upon their own
metal. We can either rise to the occasion
by putting away from our consideration all
else but sound reason, or we can fall far'
short of it by allowing sentiment and petty
grievances to influence and determine our
decision.
j Be it remembered that in choosing the
i president and vice-president on a ticket, we
! at the same time register our choice for the
party they represent. If we vote for Hoover
and Curtis, we at the same time vote for
the republican party and the things for
which it stands. If we vote for Smith and
Robinson, we vote for the democratic party
and all for which it stands. Then our first
consideration should be what this or that
party espouses and how will those princi
ples affect us. The second should be the
character, preparation and experience of the
candidates running for president and vice
j president in that party.
THE PARTIES
The republican party was brought into
existence on the issue of slavery. It cham
pioned the causes of emancipation, and the
reunion of the seceded states. It won its
cause. It set about to do what it could to
establish our rights and liberties which the
democrats had taken from us. It was this
party which fostered and brought through
to a successful end those amendments which
form the bone and sinew of our citizenship
—the 13th, 14th, and 15th. While, during
the 60 odd years since emancipation, that
party has been guilty of sins of omission
and sins of commission, it has not sought
to annul those amendments, neither has it
disregarded or in any marked instance open
ly ignored those amendments. In a word,
the republican party must be given credit
for giving the colored race at least half a
loaf, while the democrats have for over 60
years not only given us no part of a loaf,
but have tried to take away from us that
half loaf which we had already. It has suc
ceeded in doing that very thing whenever
and wherever it could. Bringing to bear
upon this question alone, our good reason,
I ask, can we conscientiously punish the
party that has given us a half loaf, because
it has not given us more, and reward the
party which has consistently sought to take
that half loaf from us ? We could not. and
at the asme time use good judgment. I
should say not! I am a republican for much
the same reason I am a Christian and mem
ber of a certain religious denomination. I
am so by reason and not the prompting of
emotion. F am quite sure to remain there
for much the same reason. To me, my po
litical suffrage is God given. I interpret
that injunction—“From him that hath not
shall be taken away even that which he
hath,’’ to mean that he who has been given
something and has not properly used it, it
shall be withdrawn from him. I take my
politics seriously. I regard it as a duty not
to be shirked or neglected. This is the way
all of us must regard that duty on Novem
ber 6th. In view of the foregoing facts, I
am for the republican party and the things
for which it stands, because my reason for
bids that I place a party in position to do
more harm to my people which has already
done too much, with the limited power it had
already. I am for the republican party with
a conviction. I am for it because I have not
so soon forgotten the many and nefarious
injustices the democratic party has perpet
rated against our people. I am a republican
because I see Jim Crowism, discrimination,
disfranchisement and lynching visited upon
my people with impunity in the south where
that party lives and flourishes. I am for
the republican party because I was born in
that land where Negr^ liberty is a mockery
and their suffrage is a mere sham. I am a
republican because I am not the kind of
citizen who would thoughtlessly cut off my
nose to spite my face. I rather have one
of those members disfigured than both of
them.
1 am for the republican candidates tor
president and vice-president, and the repub
lican platform and principles, because the
men are much better qualified from every
angle for the office, and the platform more
possible of accomplishment.
I close this article by a brief sketch of
the background of the presidential candi
dates to show you which, in our judgment,
is better qualified to be our next president.
Be it known here, that I know Governor
Smith personally and like him well as a man
and clean gentleman. I lived in New York
and voted for and against him many times
for office in that great commonwealth of
which he has been governor for eight years.
If I had to decide my preference in this elec
tion on personal favoritism, I am frank to
say I would choose Smith in preference to
Hoover. But this is not the thing for any
citizen to do and I am a citizen. I wish to
Uy further that I am not going to vote
“Straight,” although I don’t advise this
course for those who are not thoroughly
familiar with the art of “splitting” tickets.
It is a mark of intelligence to “split” a tick
et, but this course is far more susceptible to
mistakes. I shall vote for certain demo
cratic candidates because they stand for the
things for which I stand and in which I pro
foundly believe. But I shall stick in the
main to the republican party and ticket, for
the reasons stated above and the superior
qualifications enumerated below of the can
didate for the republican party, Herbert C.
Hoover. Mr. Hoover, the republican candi
date, comes to us with a very illuminating
background. Born of humble surroundings;
orphaned from childhood; Quaker by reli
gion; finished scholar and skillful engineer;
successful business man; administrator ex
traordinary; food administrator during the
World War under a democratic president;
secretary of commerce for eight years;
stands for the economy practiced under Cal
vin Coolidge and Harding; for the retention
and enforcement of the 18th amendment;
for farm relief based upon sound economics;
clean, honest, upright; bitterly opposed to
religious intolerance and bigotry. In a word,
qualified in every detail for the presidency
of this government.
Alfred Smith: born of humble surround
ings; half orphaned from childhood; meagre
education; Roman Catholic by religion; no
profession; no business except politics; eight
years governor of New York; many years
assemblyman of that state; stands for re
peal of the 18th amendment and return to
state rights; able official and administrator;
in a rather ambiguous way, for farm relief
and the equalization fee; honest, clean, up
right, courageous. Only a casual compar
ison here of these two men will be quitei
ample to detrmine which is better qualified
for the office they seek. If your duty is to
choose the man that is better qualified you
most certainly will have no alternative here
than to vote for and elect Herbert Hoover.
Mrs. Joseph La Cour left Friday
night for New York City, where she
will visit her daughter. Margaret.
“NORRIS-ISM"
“Ye Cannot Serve God and Mammon"
By Geo. H. W. Bullock
Senator Norris’ defection to A1
Smith and the democratic party fur
nishes no great surprise. It was dis
appointing, however, because of its
belatedness. The republicans will
shed no tears at his going, neither
will the democrats be over-elated at
his coming. He will be received into
the democratic bosom with much the
same relish that a bully is taken into
a fraternity of boys he has just lick
ed—with a spirit of awe lest such an
act be repeated. His course was per
fectly agreeable to republicans. In
fact, such a course would have been
hailed with joy years ago. It was
not the honorable thing to do, how
ever, because he waited on the fence
until all the alignments had been
made, including himself with his ap
proval. We expected that if he de
sired to support the democratic tick
et, he would have done so whole
heartedly and honorably, like his
democratic bolters, Simmons of
North Carolina and Owen of Okla
homa—make the choice immediately
upon the nomination of the two can
didates. Surely he knows no more
about either candidate now than he
did then. But this is Norris-ism.
This is the Norris way of doing
things. Fortunately for the country
at large, he has joined a party now
that, notwithstanding its hopeless mi
nority and its eagerness to acquire
votes and support, will brook no per
fidy, but will, with the courage it
has displayed in the case of others
of far more value, show him the door
with hat in hand.
Now that he is in the democratic
fold, the questions that loom in our
minds are: Can the democrats con
sider it an asset to acquire the sup
port of such an uncertain, capricious
gentleman as Norris is? Can they
open their bosom in loving embrace
to this man who has for all times con
sistently and persistently ripped the
very insides of everything and every
body democratic? I hardly think
they can in good grace.
The trouble with Norris is, he is
trying to ride two horses at one and
the same time, while both are going
in different directions. He is trying
to serve God and mammon. He
came to Nebraska last spring and
made a strenuous campaign in sup
port of his republican colleague, Sen
ator Howell. He was instrumental
in procuring Howell’s nomination.
He comes again to the same place
with the announced purpose of help
ing Howell in his campaign for elec
tion. He avows support for hid
friend Howell, who stands four
square for Hoover and the republi
can ticket and platform, while he
goes forth to battle for Smith and
the democratic platform. His friend
and beneficiary, Howell, stands on
the republican position of the 18th
amendment. Norris claims to be do
ing the same thing. But he is for the
candidate and party whose strongest
bid for success is for the repeal or
modification of that amendment.
How, then, in the name of heaven,
can these two positions be reconciled?
Can he, by some strange Norrisonian
trick, support and oppose the same
thing at one and the same time? He
must either be for Howell and the
things for which Howell stands, or
he must be diametrically opposed to
Howell and the things for which he
stands.
I ask again, can the democrats,
any more than any other party, rely
on Norris not making some charac
teristic “slip” which would throw
them into confusion? Will he now
try to support Metcalfe for senator
in opposition to Howell, his republi
can opponent? Will some genius on
political crossword puzzles answer
some of these questions ?
We are unalterably opposed to
Norris-ism for the good reason that
it is destructive to all reliable sys
tems of government. Plain, common
honesty requires that a candidate
who accepts the honor and support
in offices of a party, thereby ac
knowledging its worthiness to bestow
them, should cither be consistent to
that party while receiving its emolu
ments of office, or be honest and
courageous enough to get out. We
admire independence in thought and
conduct, but we condemn hypocrisy
and sham. We can put no other con
struction on Norris’ latest escapade
but that of perfidy. Norris-ism has
(Continued on Page Four)
