eriously publishes the fact that "it was whispered
about for some time," until patience ceased to be a virtue, when it
sent a guardian of public safety in the form of a reporter to
investigate. "Was it really true that a white man who was giving music
lessons to white people was also teaching a colored class at another
time and place? If so, what about the New South? The black man had no
business to be black, but he _was_ all the same, and being so what right
had Prof. Salter to teach _colored_ people to sing? Let the matter be
thoroughly searched out. The reporter departed on his mission, with a
countenance more in sorrow than in anger, and returned _vice versa_.

"'Tis true, 'tis pity,
And pity 'tis 'tis true."

The professor was actually doing this very absurd thing. He had taken
charge of a colored class in the church of which Rev. Evarts Kent is
minister and was teaching them how rightly to use the talents with
which God had so richly endowed them.
{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