He will meet men who will tell him that in certain backwoods communities “the people don’t know that the war is over,” or he will be told that in some mountain counties “they are still voting for Andrew Jackson.” But would Professor Hart take such statements for anything but jokes? Doesn’t he know that the jest about the rural belief that the world is flat instead of round belongs to the same gray-haired family? Even a professor of history should learn that there is just as great a difference between jokes and facts as there is between facts and jokes. * * * * * Professor Hart says that “in a few communities, notably South Carolina, the poor whites have unaccountably discovered that if they will always vote together they always have a majority, and they keep a man of their own type in the United States Senate. In most other states, however, politics is directed by intelligent and honorable men.” Isn’t this a rippingly reckless arraignment of the entire state of South Carolina? Does the Professor of History at Harvard mean to say that the politics of South Carolina is directed by men less intelligent and honorable than those of “_most other states_”? If so, upon what ground does he base the accusation? As a matter of fact, the poor whites do not control South Carolina. It is _the middle class_ whites who control South Carolina, and who elected Ben Tillman to the United States Senate. Of course, Professor Hart intended to give Senator Tillman a side-wipe of special vigor, and he did it, striking the whole state at the same time he struck Tillman. But to what extent was the blow deserved? Ben Tillman may, or may not, be an ideal Senator. He may, or may not, be an ideal leader. Opinions differ about that, even in South Carolina. But why should a Northern writer select a Southern senator and a Southern state to be held up in this insulting manner to public odium? In what respect does Tillman’s record in the Senate, for honesty and ability, compare unfavorably with that of Quay of Pennsylvania, Platt of New York, Aldrich of Rhode Island, or Gorman of Maryland? Each one of those senators has been basely subservient to thievish corporations, and has helped them to fatten on national legislation at the expense of the great body of the people. Can Dr. Hart say that of Ben Tillman? I defy him to do it. * * * * * Dr. Hart asks, “Why should the negro expect protection _when the white man is powerless against any personal white enemy who chooses to shoot him down in the street_, when not one white murderer in a hundred is punished for his crime?” Dr. Albert Bushnell Hart is evidently thinking about the case of James Tillman, of South Carolina, who shot down in the street Editor Gonzales, and who was acquitted, on his trial. By all sane persons it is admitted to be utterly unfair to judge the entire South, or North, by any one case, or by any one crime.