State Ledger, March 14, 1884

State Ledger, March 14, 1884


They Resent the Article of the Carroll Watchman.

By request, we publish the remarks made by several of the colored members of the House in reply to the Carroll Watchman.

McLeod, of Hinds, arose to a question of privilege, and said in substance, after reading the article in the Carroll Watchman to the House:

MR. SPEAKER – Without consultation with any other member of the negro delegation in the House, I most emphatically and directly deny that any part thereof is true so far as I am concerned, I opposed supervision because, NOW is not the time to supervise railroads in the State; we have in fact nothing to supervise, and I make the prediction, that if the Commission created by this bill ever goes into operation, they will begin with less of a “stock in trade” to supervise than any Commission of that kind ever created. Speaking to the charge of the solidity of the colored vote in the House on the railroad and cognate questions, I say, that the colored members have on every occasion cast their vote solidly with the liberal element of the majority party, and placed themselves in allignment with those who voted to advance the material interests of our State, and that in so doing, they have laid aside all partisan bias or fealty, and it is unfair, unjust and cowardly for those who claim superiority and have every advantage of the negro, to write or speak such slanders against their characters or motives, simply because they have sense enough to see and act unitedly upon public questions.


Allen, of Coahoma, said:

MR. SPEAKER AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE – I rise, sir, to speak as one of the negro members to deny the charge made against us of being corrupted in our vote against the Railroad Supervision bill. I voted against it for the reasons I shall now give. I don’t believe it right to invite capital to our State, and then supervise it; I don’t believe it right to place a number of men over the affairs of a corporation like a railroad – who know less about the management of it than the railroad companies themselves. The charge of corruption against us is untrue, and I denounce it as such.

Settle, of Panola, said:

MR. SPEAKER – I desire to characterize the article as unjust, slanderous and false; that all the colored members did not vote against supervision, as the records will show, and in as much as the charge is “false in UNO” it is fair to presume that it is “false in OMNIBUS.”

Lewis of Madison said:

MR. SPEAKER – I do not rise in my place sir, to apologize for the vote I cast against the Railroad Supervision bill. I feel sir, that if it was necessary for me to apologize for the vote I cast against that particular measure, the time is not now, the place is not here. I rise sir, to resent an imputation of the foulest character against the colored members of this House, especially, so far as that imputation reflects on myself. The defamatory article just read by the gentleman from Hinds, from the columns of the Watchman, published in Vaiden, Miss., causes me to rise in my place and enter an emphatic protest against it; and I do so, sir, because it is unjust, malicious and untrue. I character it sir, as a wanton and gratuitous assault upon us, and I repel it with feelings indignant of submission.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.