The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1875-09-30

tod you thai had
never made any charges against you; that lr-
vine DUNCAN was the man, and for sou to go
to him, and if he would take back his charges,
1 would publish it. did as promised.
Again you say:
Again you fnsinuate that keep saloon
where spurious liquors are sold, and that was
nned Tor selling in violation oflaw-at the same
time You know thai the prosecution was ma
refer TO is al orCies{y and well Kept drug store;
where not drop of liquor is sold in Violation
of law"
The above is nearly all false. You plead
guilty when indicted for selling liquOrin viola
ton of law, and paid your fine and the cost.
Why did you do so, if you Were not guilty?
The man to whom you sold told me that he
drank it in your ROOM This was violation of
law. You knew perfectly we'll that this man
was notoriously in the habit of becoming in
toxicated. This made il unlawful for you to
sell it to him. You say not a drop of liquor is
sold in your drug store in violation of law.
Now Dr., you know that is false, and you know
that can prove it TO be false.
And then you say;
"a gain you insinuate that offered thousand
dollars to resist the Government in her lawful
| efforts to prosecute the war. Wen knowing
that the tender was made resist InobS, illegal
anu aroIdfIy arrests, not authoflzed by the
Government, which were occurring daily in
/ our midst, and all over the State OF Ohio"
All knowa bout that, is what You told me
/
present at the time. You said ]. L. Jones was
misinformed if lie claimed that you had offered
/ money 10 bay arms to resist the draft. You
said il was to resist arbitrary arrests. You said
I that you had been arrested, and Nallandigham
/ had been arrested, and so had others, and you
had recommended that arms ba purchased and
| organized resistance made to these arrests. You
said nothing about mobs. You know that
your arrest in the beginning OF the war was foI
your notorious disloyalty. and sympathy for
the rebellion, and was made, not by a mob but
by the military authority OF the struggling
Government. Your arrest by Col. Keith in
jackson was made in the same way, for youI
notorious sympathy with The rebels as shown
specially in your keeping butternut breast pins
for sale, and having your children wear them
| You also know that NallandighaIn was noi AZ
rested by mob; but by Government authority
AS you referred to these arrests, when talking
to me, you had no reference TO mobs. The Gods
truth is Dr., you might just well admit thai
you proposed in a crowd of rebels at Columbus
to give thousand dollars 10 help organize an
armed rebellion in Ohio, 10 aid the Southern
Confederacy That is the whole of that matter
and you cannot explain ii away.
You try to deny that you favor a division o
the school funds. You say you are not opposed
to our school system. So say the Catholics. II
your letter, which published two weeks ago
you certainly advocate division of the schoo
fund, but even there you argue that this is no
opposition to the school system. Whether this
would destroy our schools or not, is for the
people to judge.
On the school question you say:
''If L was opposed to our school system
or in favor of dividing the school funC
among thesdifferent churches, would say so
AN am an not' Tn the letter p9bIisbed which Ior
misinterpret l simply give the argument of ont
6RfininuY than
public schools are to be run in the interest o
The radical party, and the coiored children o
the State mixed in common with the Whit
lie school system. 81. T. MONAHAN.'
You appeal to me as Christian to be fair
You say 1 mi mtsrepresent your letter, and tha
you did not give your own opinion, but that o
one of the organs of the Catholic Church. LIE
US see. In speaking of the Catholics you say
"But are they opposed to Free Schools. anC
do the quotations by the STANDARD from tht
Catholic Telegraph warrant any such conci u
sions? We think not. The Telegraph admit
the right of the State to tax, and further de
clares that the Catholics are willing to givt
equally with their fellow citizens for the bene
fit of Free Schools but objects to the appropri
ations of the funds, upon the grounds tnat ia,
Catholic believes where the mind of his chilC
receives human knowledge spiritual inStruc
ton should also be given. This is not oppOsin:
Common Schools 1t is asking as matter o
Justice, that the School Funds arising from tn
tax imposed upon Catholics should be differ
entity applied, IN short that their faith or relig
ion will not permit them to enjoy the benefit
, | OF the Free SchOOiS, unuer the present system
and that is unjust to them to support a sys
tenn where they cannot enjoy the benefits aris
ing from the tax thus imposed upon them. Ii
this article do not propose 10 condemn or JUS
tify the present School System. l only wish 4
show that Catholics are not opposed to Com
mon School education, but as a matter of faitl
and religion, only wish to educate their Chill
dren as their conduct may dictate"
You surely are giving your views wher
you say: "This is not opposing Common
Schools. 1t is asking matter of Justice,
&c.
I have always tried to treat you fairly DR..
and my columns have ever been at your service
even when the Democratic paper has refuse,
you hearing. Yours, fraternally,
DAVIS MACKLEY.