Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-10-16
washinston Special to the Cincinnati Com
merctal. October 10Th

following alticles, which we copy from two o.
the leading organs of public opinion:
A PARTISAN ATTORNEY GENERAL RE
WED.
| Washington Special to the Cincinnati Com
mercia1, October 18th.
The action of the encouragement, In
refusing the authorities of Tennessee the
privilege OF prosecuting the perpetrators o.
the recent Outrages in that State, is received
here with considerable indignation, II is
commented on as indicating that Il is the pur.
pose OF the administration u make the Inn.
preston that the State governments in the
south are moi able TO preserve peace and
order, and that 10 carry this out, the attorney.
general Is determined, even in cases where
those authorities demonstrate their ability
and strength, that they shall not be per
mitted TO exercise their functions. The at.
torney-general has been charged all this
fall with a persistent effort 10 make capi-
tai for the ReDublican party at the ex-
pense Of the south by misrepTeSenting the
condition Of affairs in that section, and by
such other means as may be In his power, as
In the case in question. The uniform testimO-
ny or impartiA! observers, Republicans and
Democrats, who have gone TO the scene Of al
legged ouirageS, for the purpose of arriving at
the truth in regard TO the disturbances, has
been that they have been grossly exaggerated,
and the conviction is inevitable that this has
been done for the purpose OF assisting the Re-
publican party ct the coming election. With
reference 90 the ection OF the attorney general
1t may fairly be Questioned whether he has
not permitted his zeal % Outrun his legal DOW
ers He claims the right TO take the cases n
VOlved away from the State officials OF Ten
nessee by authority of the enforcement act.
United states District Judge Ballard, OF Ken
lucky, has recently, in very public manner,
expressed his doubts as 10 the cOnsti-
tuti9pality of the act in charge TO a
grand jury. The enforcement act was
passed for the purpose of enforcing
the fourteenth amendmen, to the constitu-
ton, which, among other things, declares,
"NO State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immuni-
ties of citizens OF the United States, nor shall
any State deprive any person Of life, liberty
or property without due process OF law, nor
deny 10 any person within its Jurisdiction tine
equal protection of the laws" To show that
the attorney general would probably not be
sustained In his Interpretation Of the enforce
ment act, several opinions 20 its support
and eject from some of the ablest jurists Of
the country may be cited. In the ease of Barte-
meyer IS. the state OF Iowa, Justice Field, of
the United States supreme court, said, in de-
uverinR his opiuion about a year ago: "NO
one has ever pretended, that 1 am aware.of,
that the fourteenth amendment interfereS In
any respect with the police powers OF the
state. Certainly no one who desires to give
TO that amendment its legitimate operation,
has ever asserted for it any such effect.
II wss not adopted for any such purpose"
Justice Cody, OF Michigan, in speaking
of the amendment, recently, said: "Notwith-
standing this section, the protection of all
citizens in their privileges and immunities
and in their right 10 an impart al,administra-
ton OF the laws, is just as much The business
OF the individual States AS IL was before 4 he
centrate power in the general government for
any purpose of police government within the
States" In the United States supreme court
Justice Miller, in delivering the opinion in
the celebrated New Orleans slaughter-house
csse, used the following language: "Was IL
the purpose OF the fourteenth amendment, by
the simple declaration that no State should
make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges and immunities Of the citizens
of the United states, 10 transfer the security
aD protection of all he civil rights which
we have mentioned from tile states 10 the
Federal government; and where II is declared
that congress shall have toe power 10 en-
force thai article, was it intended TO bring
within the power of congress the entire
domain OF civil rights, heretofore belonging
exclusively to the States? We are con-
vlnced that no such results were intended by
the congress which opposed these amend
ments, nor by the legislatures of the states
which ratified Them" Justice Bradley OF the
same court, In the Grant parish louisiana
case, declared an opinion in strict accord with
these quoted. Thus IL will be seen that four
Of the leading judges in the United States, all
Republicans, too, have united in the opinion
that the enactments upon which the attorney
general relies, do not rob the State OF ner po-
ice powers, and do not confer upon the Fed
sral authorities The right to take the prosecu-
lion OF such OffenseS away from the state
especially in cases where the lat
ter are able and willing to do 50; while the
ifth Judge lMr. Ballard) deli berately questions
he cOnstitu ionality of the enforcement act, /
using such emphatic Language Is the follow
ng: "For all the disorders Of the State, the
United etafes are in no wise responsible.
they have no power 10 punish them"
THE DANGER OF FEDERAL TSTRPA