Such justice is outrageous and such methods disgraceful. Black folk are willing to shoulder their own sins, but the difference between a vagabond and a murderer is too tremendous to be lightly ignored. “SOCIAL EQUALITY.” At last we have a definition of the very elusive phrase “Social Equality” as applied to the Negro problem. In stating their grievances colored people have recently specified these points: 1. Disfranchisement, even of educated Negroes. 2. Curtailment of common school training. 3. Confinement to “Ghettos.” 4. Discrimination in wages. 5. Confinement to menial employment. 6. Systematic insult of their women. 7. Lynching and miscarriage of justice. 8. Refusal to recognize fitness “in political or industrial life.” 9. Personal discourtesy. Southern papers in Charlotte, Richmond, New Orleans and Nashville have with singular unanimity hastened to call this complaint an unequivocal demand for “social equality,” and as such absolutely inadmissible. We are glad to have a frank definition, because we have always suspected this smooth phrase. We recommend on this showing that hereafter colored men who hasten to disavow any desire for “social equality” should carefully read the above list of disabilities which social inequality would seem to prescribe. ASHAMED. Any colored man who complains of the treatment he receives in America is apt to be faced sooner or later by the statement that he is ashamed of his race. The statement usually strikes him as a most astounding piece of illogical reasoning, to which a hot reply is appropriate. And yet notice the curious logic of the persons who say such things. They argue: White men alone are men. This Negro wants to be a man. _Ergo_ he wants to be a white man. Their attention is drawn to the efforts of colored people to be treated decently. This minor premise therefore attracts them. But the major premise—the question as to treating black men like white men—never enters their heads, nor can they conceive it entering the black man’s head. If he wants to be a man he must want to be white, and therefore it is with peculiar complacency that a Tennessee paper says of a dark champion of Negro equality: “He bitterly resents his Negro blood.” Not so, O Blind Man. He bitterly resents your treatment of Negro blood. The prouder he is, or has a right to be, of the blood of his black fathers, the more doggedly he resists the attempt to load men of that blood with ignominy and chains. It is race pride that fights for freedom; it is the man ashamed of his blood who weakly submits and smiles. JESUS CHRIST IN BALTIMORE.