I've listened to some singin'
Dat has tuck me up de stairs
Of de Glory Lan' an' set me
Jes' below de Mahster's th'one,
An' have lef my haht a singin'
In a happy aftah-tone.
But dem wu's so sweetly murmured
Seem to tech de softes' spot,
When my mammy ses de blessin'.
An de co'n pone's hot.
--Taken from the Literary Digest.

DISFRANCHISEMENT OF COLORED VOTERS.

While the Northern and Western portions of the United States were
paying tributes to the valor of the Negro soldiers who fought for the
flag in Cuba, the most intense feeling ever witnessed, was brewing in
some sections of the South-notably in the North Carolina Legislature
against the rights and privileges of Negro citizenship, which
culminated in the passage of a "Jim Crow" car law, and an act to amend
the Constitution so as to disfranchise the colored voters. It was
noticeable, however, that although the "Jim Crow Car" law got through
that body in triumph, yet the "Jim Crow Bed" law, which made it a
felony for whites and colored to cohabit together DID NOT PASS.

[Illustration: FILIPINO LADY OF MANILA.]

The Washington Post, which cannot be rated as generally partial to the
colored citizens of the Union, and which is especially vicious in its
attacks on the colored soldiers, has the following to say as to the
proposed North Carolina amendment, which is so well said that we
insert the same in full as an indication to our people that justice is
not yet dead--though seemingly tardy:

SUFFRAGE IN NORTH CAROLINA.

(Washington Post, Feb. 20, 1899.)

The amendment to the Constitution of North Carolina, which has for its
object the limitation of the suffrage in the State, appears to have
been modeled on the new Louisiana laws and operate a gross oppression
and injustice. It is easy to see that the amendment is not intended to
disfranchise the ignorant, but to stop short with the Negro; to deny
to the illiterate black man the right of access to the ballot box and
yet to leave the way wide open to the equally illiterate whites. In
our opinion the policy thus indicated is both dangerous and unjust. We
expressed the same opinion in connection with the Louisiana laws, and
we see no reason to amend our views in the case of North Carolina.
The proposed arrangement is wicked. It will not bear the test of
intelligent and impartial examination. We believe in this case, as in
that of Louisiana, that the Federal Constitution has been viola