The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1877-06-28
BOTH SIDES.


sides Of question; hence we were pleas
ed to enter into a controversy with our
old friend, John Hopley, who is one Of
the very ablest editors in Ohio But he
shows signs Of petering out, and we have
tried to get light and knowledge in an
other quarter.
We wrote the following to the New
York Tribune:
AUTHORITY IN THE CHIsOLM CASES.
To the Editor Of the Tribune:
SIR: | notice that, in answer to a cor
respondent, YOU say that the General
Government has no power TO punish the
murderers of the Chisolm family. / see
in the papers that the General Govern
ment has ordered the troops to punish
cattle thieves in Texas. IL there is no
power to punish thieves in Texas. why is
there no power to punish murderers in
Mississippi2 Are Texas cattle more val
liable under the policy" than Republi-
cans2 Please answer in the Tribune.
d. NJ.
The Tribune published it, and gave the
following answer:
The troops have not been ordered "to
punish cattle tnleNes IN lt&A.. luey
have been ordered to protect the State
of Texas against the incursions OF Mexi-
can marauders The Constitution makes
il the duty Of the Federal Government TO
"protect each of the States against in
vasion; but il does not give the Federal
Government Jurisdiction in cases Of muir
der or other crimes against State law. A
mischievous notion seems to have be
come popular of late years that whatever
goes wrong the Federal Government is
bound to set right. President Hayes has
no more authority TO PUNISH the Chisolm
murderers than has our loose-thinking z
friend d. NJ, who appears to think that
the Executive can choose for himself
what powers he will exercise. without
the slightest regard to the provisions Of
the Constitution.-ED
In day or two the Tribune had a
lengthy editorial upon the subject, and
in a few days another editorial. We
have not room for them, but we will
publish them next week.
Again, we wrote the following:
RE ExsLAvEMENT OF THE coLORED MEN.
To the Editor Of the Tribune:
SIR: l thank you for the kindly man
ner in which you answered my inquiry
last week. would like to ask you one
more question. II the white men Of the
late Rebel States should resolve TO abro-
gate the amendment to the Constitution
which abolishes slavery in the same man
ner in which they have abrogated the
amendment giving the colored man the
privilege Of voting 10y violence and muir
der) is there any power in the General
20 n
ment Of the colored race?
Yours.
DAVIS MACKLEY.
Jackson, ONO, June Is, 1877.
The following is the Tribunes answer:
TCertainly there is. The Thirteenth
Amendment provides that neither slav-
cry nor involuntary seTvitude, except as
punishment for a crime, whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or
any place subject to their jurisdiction,
and that Congress shall have power to
enforce this article by appropriate legis-
lation. Herein lies a grant OF ample pow
er to the General Government to prevent
the re-enslavement of the colored race.
Personal liberty is a right guaranteed by
the Constitution. and the General Gov
ernment is bound to protect it. But the
privilege of voting is not conferred upon
nybody by the Constitution; 1t is under
the protection Of the States; only the
States are forbidden by the Fifteenth
Amendment to make any discrimination
on account OF race. color, or previous
condit on Of servitude.-Ed.l
The Thirteenth Amendment is the on
ly part OF the Constitution that says any
thing about Congress having power to
enforce its provisions, and according to
the Tribune. the rebels can nullify any
part Of the Constitution save and except
the Thirteenth Amendment. 1t means
that or it means nothing, as the Tribune
dare not deny that the Fifteenth Amend
ment has been abrogated by violence and