{95}

Accordingly, in the year of grace 1888, the _Atlanta Constitution_
publishes the astounding fact, and calls the world to heed it, in
conspicuous head lines:--

"WHITE OR BLACK--A PROMINENT MUSICIAN WHO TEACHES BOTH COLORS--HIS
BUSINESS SAID TO BE INJURED."

Then followed the whole sad story. The musician had been interviewed
and investigated. He did not deny the serious charge to this
superintendent of public proprieties. With a heart as hard as old
Pharaoh's he proposed to go on and do more likewise. In short, the
representative of the _Constitution_ could do nothing with this
intractable professor. Hence "he did not stand upon the order of his
going, but went at once," and reported that "_according to Mr. Suiter's
own statement, he is teaching a colored class_, and he has lost a white
pupil, which shows that his course is hurting his business." "Diligent
inquiry has failed to bring to light any proof that he has notified
his _white_ pupils that he is teaching _colored_ people."

Leaving out the meanness of this, has anyone read anything published
lately more ridiculous? It is not necessary to quote the professor's
public reply. It simply claimed the right of manhood and common sense,
and doubtless left the _Constitution_ wondering how a man capable of
making it appear so foolish could yet descend to such depths of
ignominy as to teach people whose ancestors came from Africa, the
unpardonable sin of singing praises to the Author of their being. To
what deeps some will descend! Why should colored people add to the
criminality of being born black, the fearful temptation of pay in