Will the American People never cease to oppress and torture the helpless poor?

COLORED CHILDREN EJECTED FROM AN INDIANA SCHOOL.

Indianapolis, Dec. 3.--Brazil, Clay County, about 50 miles west of here, is in a fever of excitement over the practical application of the recent decision of the Supreme Court regarding colored children in the schools. Thirty-five colored children have been ejected from the public schools there by order of the local trustees, and against the earnest protestations of the School Superintendent. Many of the children cried bitterly when informed that they must leave, and begged to be allowed to remain, but the trustees insisted that they must leave, and they were so informed by their teachers. The Board of Trustees consists of three members, one of whom is a Democrat and two are Republicans.

--[N. Y. Tribune.]

I envy not the man, who can read this extract with dry eyes and an unmoved heart. I envy not the man, who cares not for the grief, which wrung the little breasts of these dear children, as they were driven from the school rooms they loved, and from the white children they loved, and by whom they were loved.

Where rests the responsibility for this outrage? Chiefly on the hesitancy of the Republican Party to pass the pending Civil Rights Bill--chiefly on the perfidy of this Party, which said in its platform of 1872:

"Complete liberty and exact equality in the enjoyment of all civil, political and public rights should be established and effectually maintained throughout the Union by efficient and appropriate State and Federal legislation. Neither the law nor its administration should admit any discrimination in respect of citizens by reason of race, creed, color or previous condition of servitude."

If the Republican Party had had the bravery and justice to pass the Bill, such cowards and scoundrels as those in Indiana would have been cowed in the presence of these high qualities, and would not have dared to do this deviltry. But the shrinking of the Party from passing the Bill gave these cowards and scoundrels ample occasion to despise both the Bill and the Party.

May the God of justice and mercy prompt this fallen Party to rise to its feet by passing, very speedily, this Bill or one essentially like it! If the passing of it be delayed, hell will break loose again all over the land, as it did in the days of the "Fugitive Slave Act," when, even in the remotest North, slave hounds were, every where, upon the track of poor men, women and children.

But why do I blame the Republican Party only--and, this too, notwithstanding it gave nearly its entire Congressional vote for this Civil Rights Bill? Why do I not blame the Democratic Party also--the Party, which gave not one vote for it, and which was the great upholder of slavery and the ally of our enemy in the Civil War? My answer is--because nothing better was to be expected from such a Party. In the light of its ever disdainful and cruel treatment of the negro, all the world knew that the strong words for him in its platform of 1872 were only hypocrisy. But the different character of the Republican Party made it entirely reasonable to regard the like strong words in its platform as spoken in sincerity.

I proceed to ask, what is the excuse for this crushing of hearts and blasting of hopes--the hearts and hopes of even innocent and helpless little children? It is that the laws require it. Whose laws? Not His surely, who is "no respecter of persons" and "hath made of one blood all nations"? His laws forbid all crimes against our common humanity--all abuse and contempt of any portion of it.

It is claimed that the Federal Constitution, if not indeed affording a warrant for striking at the very manhood of our colored brother in the atrocious and murderous wrongs inflicted upon him, does nevertheless not forbid the crime. In its obligation to protect the rights of citizenship is included its obligation to protect all the rights of manhood. I might admit that ingenuity can dig down into this instrument and bring up what, with the help of the pro-slavery training of the country, shall look a little like an apology for oppression and injustice. But the day for interpreting the Constitution in behalf of oppression and injustice has passed away. We now read it in the light of that liberty and justice, which, as they shine all over its surface, determine its legal character, whatever in its depths may be tortured against that character.

Reluctant as I am to "speak evil of dignities," I must nevertheless be frank enough to say, that this distinction, which is drawn between national citizenship and state citizenship is an absurdity. I need not add another to my arguments on former occasions, that national citizenship cannot be enjoyed without concurrent state citizenship, or rather without the oneness of the latter with the former. I add that this national citizenship, which can be baffled and brought to naught by state citizenship, is a discovery, which reflects but little honor upon its eminent judicial discoverers. To be a citizen of the nation is to be a citizen of every state in the nation.

But candor requires me to go farther, and to confess that I would have no account whatever made of laws, which are repugnant to the divine laws. The conclusion that such laws are no laws needs above all things to be accepted. If widely accepted now, it would work such a blessed revolution in the minds of men, as would make the nineteenth century the glory of all the centuries. It would do more than all the pulpits and presses toward lifting up mankind out of practical and blasphemous atheism into the sweetly transfiguring recognition of the paramount claims of heaven.

Just here, let me thank Archbishop Manning, in the name of truth and righteousness, for bravely saying in his Reply to Gladstone that "the civil allegiance of no man is unlimited, and therefore the civil allegiance of all men who believe in God, or are governed by conscience, is in that sense divided." The Archbishop's virtual declaration is that no man is at liberty to obey a human law, which is in conflict with a divine law.

The sphere of human law and the sphere of divine law must be kept distinct from each other. Human law must consent to accept and protect with entire impartiality all men, as they come from the hand of the creator. Human law is in its proper sphere when, acknowledging the equal rights of all men, it regulates the dealings and intercourse between man and man. But when it undertakes to make one man a despot and another a slave; one man merchandise and another his owner; or does, in any wise, invade the essential manhood of any portion of the human family and curtail its inborn and God-given rights, it then breaks out of its sphere, makes war upon the divine will and divine arrangements, and becomes no law.

Am I asked what are the divine laws regarding man and protective of him? I answer that they are the laws of his being; written all over it; just what it calls for; and in the panoply and protection of which he stands. The equal rights of all men make "equality before the law" the right of every man. As sacred and inviolable is this right as his right to the members of his person.

But must not the laws be executed? Not those, which are in opposition to the divine laws. As mere chaff before the wind must they be counted--and, this too, even though they reach the dignity of Constitutional laws. Legislators, judges, commissioners and executive officers, who had a part in reducing the fugitive to slavery, were all atheists and were all guilty in the sight of God of a heinous crime. Heinous as it was, however, I had about as soon stand in their shoes in the great reckoning-day as in the shoes of the heartless men, who, whether in the capacity of legislators, or judges, or in any other capacity, had a responsible part in thrusting from the common school these dear little children, whose only crime was the complexion, which their Heavenly Father gave them.

The common plea for obeying wicked laws is that they command obedience. Our one and sufficient plea for disobeying them is that of the Apostles: "We ought to obey God rather than men."

I do not forget how very odious and even ludicrous formerly was all respect for the higher law in this land where the low law of slavery had obtained for centuries. Scarcely less odious and ludicrous is it now, when laws kindred to the low law of slavery call for the shutting out from the school children as dear to the heart of God as are any other children, and for shutting out of the car and steamboat and hotel persons, however well-bred and refined, if only their complexion can be found fault with.

Alas, the South! Did the low law of slavery bring her peace? Far from it! But by the tears and bloodshed, poverty and desolation to which it brought her, it abundantly convinced her that "there is no peace to the wicked" And, now again, she cries out for peace--and, now again, her sins will not let her have it. Peace will be hers when she shall consent to "do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God," and not till then. It is for her to elect whether she will have it now, or whether she will, for twenty or thirty years longer, be the prey of a troubled conscience and appalling fears. It will not, however, be ten years, ere she will see, and lament with tears of anguish, the great and guilty mistake of her present attitude. With the help of the many truly christian white men and women there are in the South, and with the help of that philanthropy of the North, which already pours out upon this object scores of thousands of dollars yearly, the colored masses will be rapidly educated: and let me here add that just so rapidly will they assert their manhood before the terror-stricken faces around them, provided the policy of making enemies of these masses shall be persisted in.

I close with beseeching the South to accept the wise advice, which President Grant offers her in his recent Message. He is her friend; and he says to her: "Treat the negro as a citizen and voter, as he is and must remain." Let her bear in mind, too, that the President has no pride of learning, and does not give to the word "citizen" the narrow definition, which the ingenuity of judicial learning gives to it. He is, very eminently, a man of common sense, and therefore does he give to the word a common sense and comprehensive meaning.

G. S.

Peterboro, December 12, 1874.