Philo to Frederick Douglass, April 15, 1859

OUR CORRESPONDENCE.

DUTCH GALLANTRY.

F. DOUGLASS, Esq:—In your last paper, your correspondent Communipaw took it into his mind to comment upon so much of my last, as referred to Elizabeth I. Smith, the colored woman of Providence; and as it would seem, would censure me. I would ask the gallant brother, why it is that he has selected out and individual, and assumed the championship of that particular individual, when the individual was but one of a party alluded to in common, and which party was charged alike with that which Communipaw would be ashamed to be guilty of? I hope that neither myself nor the gallant Communipaw will ever be found wanting in proper gallantry. I feel that I will never be, when a lady is in question; but when any person, though a woman, though in the opinion of Communipaw an "amiable and estimable lady," shall so far transcend the bounds of propriety, and become a party to a transaction intended and known by the individual to be a shaft levelled at the character of an entire class, and that class as an oppressed class, struggling for their rights, a case presents itself meriting more severity than is expressed in the language to which the gallant gentleman would take exception.

I do not object to the employment of competent colored teachers in schools set apart exclusively for colored scholars, so long as they exist; but rather assert that such should be preferred; but when selected, under no circumstance should they be guilty of a partizanship in a movement to falsely effect the character of an entire class, even to retain such a position. Such an act it was, that excited the feeling and displeasure of every decent intelligent colored family of the city of Providence, known unto the facts.

Two years ago, the colored people of Rhode Island embarked in the school reform move; they did not seek, desire, or expect to remove

any competent colored teacher, nor to destroy any existing school, but to relieve all of them of their exclusive character. We, as we expected, were warmly opposed by the whites; but unexpectedly, we were opposed by some colored people. We struggled on in the midst of expected and unexpected opposition. This opposition, believing that we were about to be successful, resolved upon a depth of infamy which must be revolting to even a semi-moral nature.

The characters of the poor innocent colored children attending the colored schools were unqualifiedly, unfeelingly, brutally assailed in terms unfit for your columns. Letters were written by a colored school teacher verifying the same. This was secretly used, until by accident the move was discovered, when the attacking party became bold, save an "amiable and estimable lady," borrowing the gallant Commuipaw's words. A member of the General Assembly, when the school question was discussed before that body, remarked as follows: "The colored people are suffering a great hardship; and if their school is half as bad as represented by the Superintendent, it ought to be abolished." Communications written by Elizabeth I. Smith, the colored teacher, were privately circulated among members of the General Assembly. The Providence Journal in an article on the subject, says: "Talk of it as much as you please, the girls will not go to mixed schools; their mothers do not want them to go, and when their fathers have learned all that they may learn by calling on the Superintendent of Public Schools and the teachers of the colored schools, they will not let them go."

The colored people demanded an examination. It must be borne in mind that the Superintendent, leading and influential school committee men, and those teachers, all of whom were active participants against us, were implicated, and they must be shielded.—The Smith woman, the colored individual, had become inveigled through the agency of the other parties, and they stood by her, because of this "hold which it is believed she had on

some of the school committee," as I said in my last. The committee on investigation did not, in the opinion of the colored people, act impartially; they were biassed; yet they could not free the parties. Now, with the above statement of facts, with other corroborative ones that might be given, I would ask the gallant Communipaw, if Philo has been too severe? Has he even Communipawized the individual? This committee upon investigation were forced to unanimously admit that "the Meeting St. Grammar School is worthy of the full confidence of the public."

Is not the gallant Communipaw growing captious? Where is the force of his objection to the move for Equal Suffrage in New York? What if the persons favoring the same may have even, after the fashion of an able "New York Correspondent" of yours, dressed it in its most favorable wordy garb? What of all this, if the right be secured? Would he have the property qualification retained, that the word colored may remain in the Constitution for the flimsy pretext spoken of? From what I know of the original Dutchman, I should think not.

His captiousness in this matter is shown in a criticism of his on a resolution of the Legislature of the State of New York on this matter, laying a stress on the word "amended." The resolution is as follows: "Resolved, That section two of article two of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to read as follows;" when follows a complete section, saying nothing of a property qualification. Now according to Webster's reading of the resolution, I should feel quite safe, for it nullifies or corrects, or alters all of the original section; for, according to Webster, in "amending" it, there is a "correcting" of it, a reforming of it, there is an "altering for the better" of the section, not a part of the section, not any particular word or words of the section, but the section, the whole section, and not necessarily,

nay, not at all, as the growing captious Dutchman says, adding something to the section. Further, the Dutchman will, if he taxes his memory, know that many an amendment has been to strike out words, as well as in many other instances to have words "added" when so expressed. This is not an amendment to, but of the section.

PHILO.

PROVIDENCE, April 15th, 1859.