Stupidity unsurpassed, unless by the pacifist visionaries of the present day who seek to usher in the millennium by proclamation,—peace treaties, world federations, or leagues to enforce peace. Human nature cannot be changed overnight by edict. When the sun fails to rise wars will cease. It is to be hoped that enough sanity yet remains in the American people to save them from such nonsensical vagaries of sentimental dreamers.

But the Negro, son of a wild and tropical race, content for thousands of years to roam the jungles of Africa, supplied by bountiful nature with all his heart’s desire, failing thus to develop any controlling trait of character, or mental stamina, and although civilizations rose and fell beside him, it meant nothing to him. And even now in the midst of American civilization he is moved to action, mainly, by the gusts of primitive emotion and passion. This is the creature that was expected to take an equal share in the government of the most enlightened and progressive people that the world has ever known.

“Who sows to the wind shall reap the whirlwind.” So to-day all other domestic problems or questions pale before—“What shall be done about the Negro? The mob acts upon it, conventions of learned sociologists discuss it. Every superficial thinker has a solution of the problem,—ready made, but never in good working order. The Negro is such a problem in our society mainly, no doubt, because he represents the chief criminal element,—how criminal, let statistics, by way of comparison, declare:

In the Northern and Western States in 1910, one white person was in a penal institution for every 982 of the white population, and one Negro for every 123 of the Negro population; while in the South, the ratio was one to every 2014 for the white, and one Negro to every 308 of the Negro population. Thus in the North Negroes had eight times their proportion in prison, and in the South six and one-half times. That Negro crime is on the increase is evidenced by the fact that in 1890 the Negroes had hardly six times their proportion in prison in the North, and hardly five times their share in the South.

In this connection statistical tables should be helpful and interesting as well. Table I gives a comparative showing of whites and Negroes in some State penitentiaries. Instead of giving the number of prisoners on hand at a certain time, some prison reports give the number received and discharged during a certain period of time while a few give both. In Table II is given the number of prisoners received by the penitentiaries of a few States during a specified time.

TABLE I

TABLE II[76:1]

For the Southern States considered, Table I shows that the number of Negro prisoners around 1910, varied according to the State from five plus times their proportion in Louisiana to eleven times in Georgia. While in the North, the number varied from eight times in Connecticut to seventeen minus times in Kansas. Thus showing that the Negro is everywhere many times more criminal than the white man, and that his criminality is more pronounced in the North than in the South.

That he is discriminated against by the court,—and otherwise,—is sometimes given as a reason for the great criminal showing of the Negro; that for the same kind of crime the Negro gets a much longer sentence than a white man, etc. This is hardly to be held as against the North, and that it is true to any appreciable extent in the South is doubtful, but hard to determine,—absolutely.

As Table I gives the number of prisoners on hand at a certain time and Table II the number committed to prison during a period of time,[77:2] other things being equal, it is clear that if the Negro is discriminated against through the length of sentence imposed on him by the court, it should be shown by a smaller number being sent to prison in proportion to the respective population of the two races in any State than is to be found on hand at a certain time. For instance, at the Maryland and the Texan penitentiaries, according to the above tables, in 1910 the numbers of Negroes on hand were, respectively, eight-minus times and eight-plus times their proportion, while those committed for the same year were seven-plus and seven, respectively. This would seem to indicate that in neither Maryland nor Texas was there but little, if any discrimination against the Negro. But a comparison of the statistics for Arkansas and Louisiana seems to show that the Negro is discriminated against in these States. However, upon further investigation it is found that ninety-one Negroes were sent to the Louisiana penitentiary in 1911 for murder and manslaughter, and thirty-two for shooting with intent to kill, as against thirty white men during the same year for these crimes. Again, in the Arkansas penitentiary in November, 1912, there were 213 white and 643 Negro prisoners. Of the whites but 50 had committed homicide, while 218 of the Negro prisoners were guilty of the crime.

Moreover, one might naturally expect that the whites, on account of greater influence, would be much more likely to secure pardons. It is doubtful if the whites are thus favored to any large extent. Between November 1, 1910, and October 31, 1912, Arkansas granted pardons to 121 whites and 86 Negroes, while during the year ending November 30, 1911, Kentucky pardoned nine white men and eighteen Negroes. If statistics were available from all the States it might be rather conclusively demonstrated that the Negro is discriminated against but little by the courts.

In this connection it may be well also to note the fact that in Ohio fourteen-minus times as many as their proportion (according to Table II) were sent to the penitentiary; in West Virginia fifteen times, and in North Dakota forty-three times their proportion.

A comparison of the number of whites and Negroes arrested a year in some of the large cities is given in the following table:

TABLE III

Table III shows that for the cities given, one white person to twenty-one-plus of the white population was arrested during 1910 or thereabouts, but one to eight-minus of the Negro. In the cities of the North one to twenty-three whites were arrested and one to six Negroes; in the South excluding Wilmington, Del., and Washington, one to twenty whites and one to eight for the Negroes. In Detroit: one for every two plus Negroes were arrested.

In this connection, it would seem that a comparison of the jail population of a Northern and a Southern State might be of interest. For this purpose Alabama and Connecticut were selected. In 1910, Alabama had a white population of 1,228,832 and 908,282 Negroes while Connecticut had 1,098,897 whites and 15,174 Negroes.[81:3]

In both Alabama and Connecticut the ratio of whites and Negroes sent to jail during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1914, was about the same, one white to four Negroes.[81:4] However, in Alabama one white person to 216 of the white population as against one to 54 of the Negro, while in Connecticut, one white person to 100, and one Negro to 20 was put in jail.

Again, the four counties of Connecticut embracing the large cities of the State, and having nearly all the Negro population, sent to jail one white to 92 of the white population, and one Negro to 24 of the Negro, or nearly four times their proportion.[81:5] But in the other four counties with an aggregate of 187,058 whites and 1,661 Negroes the ratio was one to 174 for the whites, and one to 64 for the Negroes or hardly three times as many.

Now, taking the three counties of Alabama in which the cities of Montgomery, Mobile, and Birmingham are located, with an aggregate population of 207,295 whites and 182,211 Negroes, one white person to 90 was sent to jail and one Negro to 21, or nearly four and one-half times as many.

Moreover, twenty-two counties with no towns of more than 1000 population each, and having a total population of 293,187 whites and 274,533 Negroes one white to 523 was sent to jail and one Negro to 141, or nearly four Negroes to one white.

Also, in fourteen counties with cities of 1000 to 10,000 population, and a total population of 205,844 whites, and 207,966 Negroes, the races being almost equal in numbers, one white to 400, and one Negro to 75 were sent to jail, or six times the Negro’s share.

Furthermore, six counties consisting almost wholly of white people, having a total population of 119,496 whites and 5,670 Negroes,—had in jail one white to 363 and one Negro to 27, or twelve Negroes to one white person.

Moreover, eight counties of Alabama, with an aggregate population of 41,323 white and 185,222 Negroes, about four and one-half times as many Negroes as whites, one white to 689 were sent to jail and one Negro to 156, or about four and one-half times as many.

In studying the jail statistics of Alabama, whether cities or counties, it soon becomes evident that the criminality of the Negro increases as his proportion to the whole population decreases; in other words, the fewer the Negroes in a given population the more criminal they appear. An examination of Tables I, II, and III will show that this is not only true of Alabama, but true, with scarcely an exception, both North and South. Negro crime seemingly increases in the cities and in the North and the West. So does the crime of the white man increase, although not to the same extent.

In general, the denser the population the more likely is friction to occur, or collisions among its units. But this is not an adequate explanation for the increase of Negro crime. Nor can it be accounted for except in small part, by attributing it to the more complex social environment of the cities and of the North. However, it is not to be doubted that the unstable character of the Negro is easily influenced by the temptations incident to city life. More important, no doubt, is the assumption that where Negroes are few in comparison with the whites, they are more tempted to commit acts of thievery, robbery, and burglary. Again, in the cities, officers of the law are on the watch, consequently more apt to detect and catch a criminal; also, where the Negroes are few they are likely to be held more strictly to the white man’s standard of conduct. However, in some parts of the South, a white man sometimes may be arrested when for the same act a Negro would hardly be bothered. The idea seems to obtain that for certain things allowance must be made for the ignorance of the Negro, but no excuse is made for the white man.

Again, a great deal of the friction between the two races in the South is caused by the resistance of Negro criminals to officers of the law. Not only so, but relatives, friends and other Negroes as well often attempt to shield the Negro criminal in order that he may escape detection and arrest. This is not exceptional but rather of frequent occurrence. It is one of the ways in which the black man shows himself to be an enemy of law and order. He does not seem to realize the attitude in which he places his race in acting thus. Now, where the Negroes form a large part or the greater part of the population, it is much easier for him to aid Negro criminals, and it is often effectively done. But where there are but few Negroes in the population, it is to that extent more difficult for the Negro criminal to escape detection and arrest. These seem to be the main reasons why Negroes appear more criminal where there are but few in the population.

In addition to statistics, a few newspaper clippings may aid one more fully to appreciate Negro criminality.[85:7] It is hardly probable that anywhere in the United States has the Negro, on the whole, had better advantages than in Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware, especially is this true of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. For this reason the following are the more significant:

RESISTING OFFICERS, ETC.

A Negro in Chestertown, Md., being tried on three charges of arson, attacks the officers of the court:

NEGROES AT PICNICS AND ON EXCURSIONS