To this, the New York _Age_ makes reply in two ways. Its editor, in an interview given to the _Tribune_, declares that: The representative Negro does not approve of radical socialistic outbursts, such as calling upon the Negroes to defend themselves against the whites. And in its editorial of last week it insists that: No man, or woman either, for that matter, is a friend to the race, who publicly advises a resort to violence to redress the wrongs and injustices to which members of the race are subjected in various sections of the country at the present time. The Negro race is afflicted with many individuals whose wagging tongues are apt to lead them into indiscreet utterances that reflect upon the whole race. … The unruly tongues should not be allowed to alienate public sympathy from the cause of the oppressed. Now, although _The Voice_ seeks no quarrel with _The Age_, we are forced to dissent from this cringing, obsequious view which it champions. And we do this on the ground that cringing has gone out of date, that _The Age’s_ view does not now represent any influential or important section of Negro opinion. The group which once held that view went to pieces when Dr. Washington died. The white papers in their news items of last week gave instance after instance showing that Negroes not only counselled self-defense, but actually practiced it. (And _The Age_, by the way, was the only _Negro_ paper in New York City which excluded these items from its news columns.) If the press reports are correct, then _The Voice_ told the simple truth when it spoke of the new temper which was being developed “unbeknown to the white people of this land.” And an outsider might conclude that _The Voice_ was a better friend to the white people by letting them know this, than The Age was by trying to lie about it. But the controversy goes much deeper than the question of candor and truthfulness. _The Age_ and _The Voice_ join issue on this double question: Have Negroes a right to defend themselves against whites? Should they defend themselves? (And this, of course, means violence.) _The Voice_ answers, “Yes!” _The Age_ answers “No!” Who is to decide? Let us appeal to the courts. Every law-book and statute-book, every court in the civilized world and in the United States agree that every _human_ being has the legal as well as moral right to kill those who attack and try to kill him. Then the question for _The Age_ to decide, is whether Negroes are human beings. To call our view “socialistic” is to call the courts “socialistic,” and displays an amazing ignorance both of Socialism and of human nature.