Part 24

George Thomas Robinson was born in Macon, Miss., January 12, 1854, of slave parents. An orphan, in 1865, he set out to fight life's battles with no one to guide and protect him. He has risen to a place of distinction--a journalist of note, a lawyer of high standing, a learned professor of law, an orator of repute, a molder of thought, and a reformer. He received his first inspiration from a remark which he heard Hon. C. S. Smith, now a bishop in the A. M. E. Church, make to a public school of which he was a pupil. It was: "A boy can make of himself whatever he has a mind to." George said to himself, "I will make speeches, too." Since that time Captain Robinson and Bishop Smith have delivered many addresses together. They spoke at the Emancipation Celebration in Nashville, 1st of January, 1892, which took place in the Representative Hall of the capitol. They were the principal speakers.

An afternoon paper on the 2nd said: "The ablest address of the occasion was delivered by Capt. George T. Robinson on Abraham Lincoln. The speaker electrified the audience."

"Cap." Robinson graduated from Fisk University in 1885 and from law in Central Tennessee College, now Walden University, both of Nashville, Tenn. He is a professor of law in the university.

In 1875 he refused a seat in the Legislature of Mississippi, in order to complete his education. In 1886 he delivered the commencement address at Lane College, Jackson, Tenn.; the same year he began the publication of the "Tennessee Star" in Nashville. In 1887 he was made a Captain in the Tennessee National Guard by Governor R. L. Taylor, In 1888 he was on the invitation committee to invite President Cleveland to Nashville and served on Gen. W. H. Jackson's staff as commander of a division in the parade. In 1893 he was a nominee on the Citizens' ticket for the city council. In 1896 he was appointed a member of the executive committee of the Negro department of the Tennessee Centennial and was chairman of the Military Committee. But the entire committee resigned before the exposition opened.

Settling in Nashville in 1886, he soon forged his way to the front and became a champion of Negro rights. Hon. George N. Tillman says of him: "He is one of the best and ablest men of his race in the State." Bishop Evans Tyree says: "Professor Robinson is a giant physically and mentally." Mr. Robinson's fame rests on his journalistic career.

The "Star" was regarded as one of the ablest edited Negro journals ever published. After several years of successful work for God and humanity, it consolidated with the "Indianapolis Freeman."

The "Star" made its advent in the midst of a big social scandal with a pastor of the most prominent Baptist Church in the city, the central figure. With the large following the divine had, it was not only unpopular, but dangerous to fight him, especially since he had been acquitted by the courts; and a large majority of his congregation endorsed the verdicts. The editor routed the opposition. He told the preacher that he had to quit that pulpit and leave the city.

This was the beginning of a reformation in colored society in the city which was far reaching, and brought editor Robinson into prominence. "He woke up one morning and found himself famous." His article, "A Pure Ministry," caused the reformer to be welcomed to Nashville as a Moses.

I answer this question in the negative.

There are some exceptions, but proof is too abundant to gainsay the assertion.

In the first place, all of the machinery of the law is in the hands of the white man. He is judge, jury, sheriff, constable, and policeman.

Race prejudice and antipathy so over-ride reason, that the average dispenser of justice is blinded to a sense of right, especially when a white man appears against an accused Negro. What is sop for the white man, is not always sop for the black man. As a matter of fact, the black man is discriminated against in everything in the South, and it would be unreasonable to expect the courts would do otherwise.

The presumption of law is that the accused is innocent, and that presumption stands as a witness in his favor until overcome by credible proof. But in the average court of the South, this applies to white men only. The Negro is presumed to be guilty, and the burden of proof is placed upon him to establish his innocence.

Cases have come under my observation where the accused Negro was not only tried without being represented by counsel, but on ex parte evidence, the black defendant not being permitted to testify in his own behalf or to introduce proof. These cases were not in courts of record.

The organic law of the land guarantees not only trial by jury on an indictment or presentment, but entitles the accused to be heard by himself and counsel and to introduce witnesses. In some instances, the accused is not even in court. The matter is prearranged and the imprisoned wretch is informed afterward and forced into agreeing to the "sentence," as the easiest way out of trouble. It is a rare thing now to see a Negro on a jury In the South.

Even the Federal courts are ignoring him. A white man does not consider a Negro his peer. Then from a white man's standpoint, a colored man tried by a white jury is not tried by his peers.

The Constitution is violated in letter and spirit, in order that the criminal Negro may not be justly dealt with. The greater the demand to keep the convict ranks filled up, the more unjustly is the black criminal dealt with in the severity of the sentence.

The very fact that Negroes are not permitted to serve on juries, even when all the parties are black, proves that it is for the purpose of preventing justice being done the accused Negro.

One of the most popular courts in the South is the Court of Judge Lynch. This "court" comes pretty nearly voicing the sentiment of the section where it thrives and does a large business. Members of this court are summoned as jurors to try Negroes, in legal courts, and thus the mob spirit is carried into the very temple of justice and is meted out to the black criminal in the name of the law. In such cases, who could expect a just verdict? Again, the professional juror, believing his job depends on the number and severity of the convictions of Negroes, is always ready to strain a point in order to convict.

Instead of giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, he seeks to ease his guilty conscience by rapping criminal laws.

The Negro who outrages the person of a female, is worthy of death--a legal death. His crime is no less heinous because his victim is colored--the crime in either case is blacker than the hinges of midnight.

A mob composed of white men takes the ravisher of a white female and burns him at the stake or hangs him and riddles his body with bullets or dismembers his body.

In such a case the criminal is not only unjustly dealt with, for both the moral and civil laws are violated, but a great sin is committed against society, the moral sensibilities are blunted and the crime intended to be suppressed is given new impetus.

Mob violence is the violation of every penal law. The victim has no show whatever.

A mob is not composed of men who have it in their hearts to respect the rights of the victim of their fury.

This is the cause of so many innocent, inoffensive Negro men, women and children perishing at the hands of mobs. Mob violence leads to the utter disregard for law and order, and increases crime, making criminals of "some of the best citizens."

There can be no such thing as dealing justly with the criminal Negro, as long as the rule is to deal unjustly with all Negroes.

For instance, take the black laws, notably the Jim Crow car laws and the infamous election laws, the most outrageous ever inflicted upon a free people. The Negro has been legislated out of the legislative halls, leaving the white man clear sailing in enacting unjust laws which discriminate against all Negroes alike, regardless of condition, culture, refinement, wealth, position or station.