any one place or on any one occasion, a larger variety of peoples
of all forms, features and colors, and all degrees of civilizationr
than was assembled at this World's Exposition. It was a grand
ethnological lesson, a chance to study all likenesses and differ¬
ences. Here were Japanese, Soudanese, Chinese, Cingalese,
Syrians, Persians, Tunisians, Algerians, Egyptians, East In¬
dians, Laplanders, Esquimaux, and as if to shame the educated
negro of America, the Dahomeyans were there to exhibit their
barbarism, and increase American contempt for the negro in¬
tellect. All classes and conditions were there save the edu¬
cated American negro. He ought to have been there if only
to show what American slavery and freedom have done for
him. The fact that all other nations were there and there at
their best, made his exclusion the more marked, and the more
significant. People from abroad noticed the fact that while we
have eight millions of colored people in the United States, many
of them gentlemen and scholars, not one of them was deemed
worthy to be appointed a Commissioner, or a member of an
important committee, or a guide, or a guard on the Exposition-
grounds. What a commentary is this upon our boasted Amer¬
ican liberty and American equality ! It is a silence to be sure,,
but it is a silence that speaks louder than words. It says to--
the world that the colored people of America are deemed by
Americans not within the compass of American law and of
American civilization. It says to the lynchers and mobocrats
of the South, go on in your hellish work of negro persecution.
What you do to their bodies, we do to their souls.
I come now to the question of negro suffrage. It has come
to be fashionable of late to ascribe much of the trouble at the
South to ignorant negro suffrage. The great measure according
suffrage to the negro recommended byGeneral Grant and adopted
by the loyal nation is now denounced as a blunder and a failure.
They would, therefore, in some way abridge and limit this right
by imposing upon it an educational or some other qualification.
Among those who take this view are Mr John J. Ingalls, and
Mr John M. Langston. They are both eloquent, both able,
and both wrong. Though they are both Johns neither of them
is to my mind a"St. John" and not even a "John the Baptist."'
They have taken up an idea which they seem to think quite
new, but which in reality is as old as despotism and about as