The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1877-07-12

r cal antagonists. and IL III becomes pn
3 per that has supported. advocated ant
{ eulogized Mr. Hayes for ten years, TO nop
J. stUltiiy itself in its passionate ASSAULT
L upon him
2 Harper's Weekly does not prov,
that the Republican platform justife'
Mr. Hayes IN his policy AZ fully a. th.
: journal on May 18th proved IL in reply
ing TO the Standard A review Of tbos.
points is reproduced elsewhere: beinF
limited to a column. they cannot be in
corpOrated into this reply.
8. The journal has nothing TO retraci
from what IL has DECLARED and argued
and 10 the question put by the Standard
at the close OF the third paragraph. the
following might be put in rsjoinder
Does any man outside Of an asylum for
idiots believe that statesman would
predict precisely what he would do in
difficult position. before be was placed In
that position or had the means OF thor
oughly studying itT'
4 In paragraph four the Standard
complains that Mr. Hayes permits tn.
color-d vote Ito be completely set ~
nought by violence and murder"
The Journal on June Sth called attsn
ton TO the fact that u any State in th.
South were to deliberately declare IL. in
I
class. and the miscreants were To be care
fol not to trsspass upon the Federal Laws
the President would be powrtl-ss 20 pre-
vent IT, That the standard doe. not ap
p"ar To know this, will serve as one -
PLANTATION OF its course upon the Pr--i
dents policy IL evidently knows no byl.
\ ter.
5 In paragraph Eve the inti.1ation. u
not the broad declaration. i mad. th.i
/ Hon Charles Foster aud Hon Stani.y
/ Matthews were authorized by Mr. Hayes
TO make a foul bargain. Mr. Fo-trr la.
already denied this, the Southern gen
I urm-n TO whom Mrssrs Foster and Mat
thrws wrote have di-avow ed u. and th.
Standard only makes itself contcmptibl.
aud shows the weakness Of it, cause by
rrhashing such a shallow exploded false
! hood
8. II the Standard will show how the
President could constitutionslly take
official cognizanee Of the Chisolm horror
and so interpo-e his executive authority
a. TO prevent similar murders. or punish
the perpetrators Of these, the Journal
will then concede all that the Standard
claims
In the case Of the postmasters in Lou
isiana prompt action has been taken II
is easy to lind fault. or TO expose ones
ignorance when attempting TO judge
without requisite knowledge. Thus far
the Standard has only been successful In
these easy things
On June Sth the Journal copied the
last sentence OF this injected article and
replied TO IL. pointing out that the United
States Courts have no Jurisdiction in
cases OF murder; yet In its issue Of 2la
inst the Standard efifontiully intitnatsd
that the journal had not been able 10
answer the injected stupidity and wac
probably about played out" Such 10 |
the dishonesty and vanity OF the Stand. |
ard
This ends Part Of No. 3.
Attention will now be given 10 part II. |
7. The Standard evidently Is either
unable TO quote correctly or has not hon.
or enough TO do 90 Paragraph seven I. |
so grossly inaccurate in all it, details |
that no further space will be wasted in /
replying to Il.
s. In its article published May 18th.
the Standard put a Hypothetical case.
which Il rrproduces in paragraph marked
eight, and. in paragraph nine, IL dares
the Journal to reply TO Il.
The supposition that a serious reply
can be made 10 a hypothetical case Il a.
ridiculous as the supposition that men
can be tried for murder In the United
States Courts. The Standard is unhappy
in both suppositions The point that
either the Hon. e. Foster or Hon s
Matthews were authorized 10 make, or
that they made dishonorable proposals.
has already been noticrd The whole
proposition la the hypothetical case
amounts to this. suppose a statesman rec
fEssF aFfT he a
unassailablr character in the Nation, poe
s-ssing the clear-st perceptions and
souudrst Judgment. should Hll at once set
likea pruhigaie. charactsrl-ss. partiIan
politician. The only reply possible was
made by the Judg- when the lawyer said
"suppose. your Honor. the Court were an
ns-.' III ~ not suppOssbi~ car@. err
3 Paragraph nine y answered shove
10 Certainly Ia 1875 the policy o. |
reconstruction aud the amendments were
hx-d facts. aud the resolution quoted
nom the National X. publican platform
does not refer TO them. but TO the con
dition OF the citizens OF the Southern
States under those amendments.
IL. In paragraph eleven the Standard
again mi-rrprc-entrd when 10 d-ciafsn
the President "and all his backers de-
clare there is no power IN the Unitrd
STATES TO enforce these amrBdmrnts"
No one declares any such nonsense.
There is a power, its action IL prescribed
aud limited by the Constitution, and
" hen the President has been called upon.
or bas had IL in bis power To set. under
the Constitution, and has tailed TO do 90
then IL will be IN ord-r 10 complain, on.
I'll then. paragraph eleven. as publish~d
by the Standard, u either ignorast or
malicious nons-nse.
IL The journal. the President, aud
every Republican worthy OF the name,
are unanimous in obi-cting. IL the
Standard will stop the stupid raving be
gotten OF ignorance. rather than int.-lli
grnce. and point out how the President
can constitutionally interfere TO prevent
this numbering out OF a majority, IL will
attract the attention and deserve tho
support OF every Republican in the Ma
ton.
l3 The perceptions of the Standard
are perhaps dull. aud possibly 10 is Tor
this cause that IL 10 exhibiting itself go
uniayorably. The Journal has been
strongly tempted 10 drnounce 10 for an
untruthful paper. destitute alike OF moral 1
principle or a sense OF honor IL would 4
p-rhaps be unjust Ia the Journal TO do 1
this. aud ~ - cause for satisfaction that
this has not been done. Paragraph thir.
teen exhibits case In point. On the i
frontier OF Texas. predatory bands from
Mexico. in their drpredations on Ameri. /
can soil. thr-aten n collision b-twecn the /
citizsns Of the two Nations. The Stand.
ard finds in this parallel case with a
State controlling its own aflairs. SO In /
the Standard OF May 81 the interference /
oi a Governor in the affairs OF a county /
was made a parallel case TO the interier. /
ence OF the President IN the affairs OF a /
State. lt 10 evident that either the per. /
ceptive powers Of the Standard are very |