The Sun.
London, England, 1870-08-08 00:00:00

StN, LONDON, MONDAY IVIORMNG, AUGUST 8, 1870.

THE WAR.

THE FRENCH DEFEAT AT WEISSEMBURU.
PARIS, FRIDAY.

After the hot fit comes the cold fit, We have just re-
covered from the ill effects of our extreme, delight at the
Saarbruck triumph, only to be afflicted with the opposite
evil. The news of the battle at Weissemburg has over-
spread every countenance with gloom. Great was the
crowd on the Boulevard this - evening; woeful was
the aspect of the entire throng. True to
its policy of secrecy the Government published
no news of the engagement until the truth was known all
over Paris, and this reticence has caused the affair to be
represented as much worse than it really is. Moreover
the extremity of the Saarbruckian exultation naturally
had the effect of bringing about a correspondingly severe
reaction. For, after all, the defeat is not very bad. There
can be little doubt about the meagre news supplied, for
both parties publish substantially the same account ; and
according to both, it appears that a single French
division of about 8,000 men was assailed by portions of no
fewer than three army corps. Each army corps numbers
80,000 men ; and it is therefore clear that a
fragment from each would, united, greatly out-
number the French. It cannot be doubted that the dis-
proportion of numerical strength was really very great.
Moreover, the Prussians came upon our troops unex-
pectedly ; for, had they not done so, the French would
not have given battle on such unequal terms. The pro-
portion may have been two or three to one. The
Government papers call it ten to one. Even on these un-
favourable conditions the French fought well, and sus-
tained their ancient name, inflicting severe loss upon the
ranks of their adversaries. After a long resistance the
French retired. They lost (though the official bulletin says
nothing of it) many prisoners, and General Douay was
killed.

Well, there is nothing particularly disgraceful or
alarming in this defeat. It is an unfortunate loss of
prestige, but it proves no superiority on the part of the
Prussian soldiers, arms, or generalship. But the grave
9uestion is the mistake, the blundering, the oversight
which led to the isolation of a single division, at no great
distance from Strasbourg, and other places where strong
bodies of troops are posted. Surely it is no sign of good
management to leave an unsupported body of 8,000 men
opposed to a general who has evidently 100,000 at
immediate command, though of course in this particular
action there was no need to use so many. Thus, whilst
the populace are enraged at the simple check to the
French arms, the generalship is an ugly fact which
thinking men deplore. Altogether this is our
unfortunate quarter of an hour. The iublic
is eagerly demanding the' restoration of French
honour, and, what is scarcely less important, more light
in future respecting the operations. Marshal M`Mahon
is said to have gone against the Oros n Prince, and we are
in hourly expectation of great news.
There has been a panic amongst the money dealers. A
large number of packets of bullion have been seized by the
police agents. They were said to be dispatched to Eng-
land, Holland, Switzerland, and Italy, by several great
financiers, Messrs. Raphael Rothschild, Hirsch, Bischoff-
sheim. &c. The amount seized is estimated at fourteen
millions of francs. In addition the police went to the
counting-house of M. Hirsch, and placed his strong box
under official seals. This embargo was raised on the
interference of the banks of France, and the sums seized
yesterday have also been released.. The public are asking
whether the Government claim the right of thus meddling
with business operations. It is hoped not.

At the end of -last week, the Emperor found
himself face to face with a numerically superior
,force.
And if he was willing but unable to move forward then

he may be both unable and unwilling to advance
now. That he is not unaware of the strength of his
opponents is hinted at by the report from Paris
that 250,000 Prussians are messed between Saarlouis
and Neuenkirchen. What there is between Neueukircben
and Kaiserslautern the Parisian telleth not. It is there-

fore possible that the inactivity of the French army up to
Thursday last has been partly caused by it change in the
plan of campaign; that instead of attacking, the French in-

tend to remain on the defensive, and to take advantage of
the greatly increased strength which breech-loaders and
rifled artillery give to an army awaiting an attack in an en-
trenched position. But if this be resolved upon, it will be a
very disappointing commencement of the campaign for the
French. To sacrifice half Lorraine and Alsace without a

pitched bat,le—and we doubt that any good position for
such a large army can be found nearer the frontier than
about Metz— is a serious undertaking for the Emperor.
Against such a movement of the French the Germans
would develop the, plan explained before. They would
attempt' o entangle their opponents into a great battle
before Metz could be reached ; they would push forward
between Saarlouis and Metz. They would try in all cases
to outflank the French entrenched position, and to inter-
rupt its communications towards the rear. We repeat
that we start from the supposition that both
French and Germans have brought up every available
man to the front to take part in the first great battle. In
that case, our opinion is still that the Germans
will have a numerical superiority sufficient to insure
them the victory—barring great mistakes on their part.
We are confirmed in this supposition by all reports, public
and private. But it is manifest that all this does not
amount to absolute certainty.—Pall Mall Gazette.

A military critic in the Neue Freie Presse thinks the
Prussians made a mistake in dividing their troops into
three separate armies instead of keeping them together.
This, he says, is owing to the traditional Prussian policy of
bringing up as many members of the Hohenzollern dynasty
as possible to the art of war. The King, who fought at
Waterloo in his youth, naturally wants a separate com-
mand for himself ; while the Crown Prince, who has a
reputation to make, and Prince Frederick Charles, who
shewed such great military qualities at the battle of Mis-
sunde, are also ambitious of a similar position. But such
a division of commands, observes the critic, is very preju-
dicial to the movements of an army, and has often caused

its defeat. It is true that in the last German
war the Prussian tactics were the same in this respect as
they are now : General Herwarth, Prince Frederick
Charles, and the Crown Prince each entered Bohemia
separately. But it was the fault of the Austrians that
they did not take advantage of this mistake. Even at
Kiiniggratz the army of Prince Frederick Charles had to
bear the whole burnt of the battle, *and it was all but too
late when the Crown Prince arrived, and secured the
victory to the Prussians.

This victory (at Weissemburg), apaA from any effect

it may exercise on the French Army, is most important,
as admitting. the first of the three great columns into
which the German Army has, we believe, been divided,
into France, and making the railway between
Haguenau and Saarbriick useless. We should now
hear of the advance of Prince Frederick
Charles from some point near Trbves with
120,000 men, and then of the King's with the still larger
Reserve. All must have some common point within
France, probably Luneville, and each to reach it must
fight his way. Next week ought to be full of battles, as
it is now clear that, as we have steadily maintained would
be the case, Baron von Moltke has decided, as in 1866,
on a policy of magnificent audacity—an advance on
French soil upon the French Army. —Spectator.

about this weapon having cleared an embankmeht of
troops at 1,500 metres may be accepted as quite
apocryphal. every one who has had any experience
of the kind can remember scores of such accounts of
troops being swept away by artillery, of other artillery
being "shut up" in a round or two, and so forth, but
these results have certainly occurred only in the imagina-
tions of perfervid gunners. Artillery fire is a very useful
aid, but battles are won with musketry, and unless the
Chassepot is vastly superior to the needle-gun, the Prus-
sians have not much td fear in the way of their opponent's
armament.

The United Service Gazette expects great things of the
mitrailleuse, if the account of its ravages in the French
bulletins be true. The German army, it must also be
remembered, is composed to a great extent of conscripts,
torn suddenly from the field, the shop, or the counting-
house ; men of comparatively high literary culture; and
of a highly-imaginative temperament. If, therefore, the
French bulletin be true, if the mitrailleuse has actually
swept away, say two-thirds of a Prussian battalion, we
may suppose that the stories carried back by the survivors
to their comrades of its terrible powers of destruction will
not increase their fighting zeal,- or much fortify their
courage.

THE REPORT ABOUT COAL.—The Railway News
understands that there is no foundation for the report that
colliers had been chartered at Newcastle to convey coal to
the French fleet in the Baltic. A correspondent writes :
—" It having been definitely stated on the quay-tide at
Newcastle yesterday (Thursday) that a Tyne collier had
been chartered on the previous day to convey coal to the
French fleet in the Baltic, the repretentative of the French
Government, in answer to inquiries, has authoritatively
denied that such was the case, and further stated that the
news which appeared in the papers to the same effect one
or two weeks ago was totally without foundation. The
supply in French ports was quite sufficient to meet all the
exigencies of the fleets."
ANOTHER CORRESPONDENT'S DIFFICULTIES.—
We have no further details of the affair at Saarbruck.
The one correspondent of the French press whose accu-
racy and reliability form a brilliant exception to the
general rule, M. Jannerod, of the Temps, has been unable
to describe what took place in consequence of his excessive
zeal. M. Jannerod formerly belonged to the army,
and advanced with a French picket into Saar-
bruck when it was supposed to have been evac-
uated by the Prussians. But they made a "retour
oftensif, and captured M. Jannerod. He was released after
thirty hours, after having gone through all manner of in-
cidents. He returned to France by the road from Saar-
louis to Boulay. On his arrival at Merten, the first vil-
lage on the French frontier, as a matter of course he was
taken for a spy, and very nearlylynched by the infuriated
natives. After a great deal of difficulty he succeeded in
persuading his patriotic but misguided captors to take him
to the French advanced posts, where he easily established
his identity. He telegraphs this information to the Temps
but announces that he is too tired to write.—Standard's
Paris Letter..

INTERNATIONAL USAGES IN THE WAR.
There are already gratifying indications that the present
war in Europe will do something towards the advancement of
more humane and just principles of international law than
have heretofore found acceptance outside of the books.
The principal points that need to be covered by well-de-
fined rules in time of war are such as relate to the respec-
tive rights of thosd who are, and those who are not, en-
gaged in actual hostilities—of belligerents and neutrals;
but these are the very points upon which any general
agreement has been found most difficult, because different
nations at the same time, and the same nation at different
times, as belligerent or neutral, have conflicting interests.
The vast extension of commercial pursuits and intercourse
in modern days has made the interests of neutrals, on the
whole, so much more important than those of belligerents,
that their views of international relations have gradually
become incorporated into the recognised Code. Previous
to the treaty of Paris, in 1856, usage had fluctuated be-
tween two rules, favourable respectively to belligerents
and to neutrals. They were : first, that the nationality
'of "property" on the sea determined its liability to cap-
ture ; and, second, that the nationality of the "vessel"
determined the liability of the cargo to capture. Under the
former rule an enemy's goods on the sea were liable to
capture wherever found, in a neutral as much
as in a hostile vessel, while a neutral's goods were every-
where safe. Under the latter rule, a neutral flag pro-
tected an enemy's goods, while a neutral's goods under
an enemy's flag might be seized. The treaty of Paris, as
is well known, bound the contracting parties to the observ-
ance of the second of these general rules, with this
modification in favour of neutrals—that neutral goods,
except contraband of war, should not be liable to capture
under an enemy's flag. Briefly stated, the rule, thus
adopted is that free ships make free goods, but hostile
ships do not necessarly make hostile goods. The United
States, being invited with other nations, declined to join
in this declaration, although it secured the freedom for
neutral shipping which our policy had uniformly favoured
for the reason that the abolition of privateering was
coupled with it, and the two must be accepted together or
not at all. Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, declared,
however, that our Government would agree to place
privateering "under the ban of the law of nations," if an
arrangement could be made by which all private property,
except contraband of war, should be exempted from cap-
ture. This proposition, known as the " American
amendment," was understood to be favoured by all the
parties to the treaty except Great Britain, and her
opposition defeated it. Now, however, the principle
seems in a fair way to be adopted. Prussia has officially
announced that she will observe it, " without regard to
reciprocity," and the late new French Minister at Wash-
ington is reported to have felt himself justified in saying
that Napoleon would do the same. If this important gua-
rantee of the immunity of innocent private property and
pursuits should thus become a recognised, rule of interna-
tional law, it will be a matter of just congratulation to
the people and Government of the United States.—New
York Times.

THE 'LAST OF k MEMORABLE SHIP.
The first merchant vessel that ever displayed from her
peak the flag of this republic is reported sunk in the har-
bour of Payta, Peru. She was built in 1782, barque
rigged, about. 300 tons, and called the Maria. A few
years ago the writer of this paragraph saw her in a har-
bour on the South American coast flying the Lone Star
flag of the prosperous little Repubhc of Chili, where,
after many vicissitudes of fortune, she was employed in
the grain trade with the surname of one of the aristocratic
families of that country, Pacheco, added to her original
designation. As might be expected, the Maria Pacheco
was a quaint-looking craft, reported a good sailor, and
notwithstanding for eighty-eight years she had ridden
the stormy seas of ocean and withstood the violent blasts
of Boreas, was sound and staunch, giving no more evi-
dence of old age in her live oak and locust frame than
many of her juniors by half a century that were floating
about her. Her history would be interesting if it could
only be faithfully recorded. After long services in the
merchant marine, she was purchased by a firm in Nan-
tucket, and for a number of years, was a successful cruiser
of the adventurous American whalinge, fleet from that
island and the port of New Bedford. Subsequently she
was purchased by a Chilian merchant, who named her for
his wife, and after serving him as long as many a modern
ship just from the stocks, a treacherous leak gained the
Mastery, and the brave old bark now rests beneath the
waters of the Pacific.—Norwich (U. )

ENFORCEMENT OF OUR CLAIMS AGAINST
VENEZUELA.

From present appearances it looks very much as if our
government was about to take definite action in regard to
our claims against the Republic of Venezuela. If such
should prove to be the case the sooner the step is taken
the better. We have been too patient with these Vene-
zuelans all along, and our patience has been misinter-
preted and regarded as weakness. These claims
have been of long years standing, and yet no
attention has been bestowed on them though re-
peated efforts have been made by the United States
government to have them amicably adjusted. No other
government would permit itself to be treated as this
government has, and in proof of this we see that the
custom duties in certain Venezuelan ports are even now
devoted to the payment of claims made by French and
German citizens. In order, however, to arrive at this,
both the French and Prussian Governments found it
necessary to make a demonstration such as would
convince the Government of Venezuela that the citizens
of these two countries should have their rights,
even if force had to be employed to enforce them. This
is just exactly what the United States should have done
years ago. It is altogether wrong to permit our citizens
abroad to be imposed upon. Our policy in this respect
has been weak and timid in the extreme. We trust the
government has become alive to the importance of deci-
sive action, and that even the republic of Venezuela will
be made to understand that while we sympathise with her
in her present troubles we cannot permit our citizens to be
imposed upon with impunity.—New York Herald.

MR. MOTLEY'S RECALL.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN TIMES.

Sir, —The summary dismissal of the United States'
Minister to the Court of Great Britain has caused pro-
found surprise among all who do not know, or had
forgotten, some incidents, in the history of the foreign
diplomacy of the United States relating to Mr.
Motley's connection with the Austrian mission ;
and as your contemporaries are casting about for
adequate reasons for this sudden change, it may be
well briefly to recite them. It will be remem-
bered that Mr. Motley resigned his post as United States'
Plenipotentiary to the Court of Vienna, on receiving from
Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, an extrordinary
letter of inquiry, if he had not been guilty of rather free
expressions of opinion concerning Mr. Seward's fitness for
the place he occupied in the United States' Cabinet. At
the time public opinion ran high in favour of the Minister,
who declined accountability for his private opinions
or expressions, and for more than two years following
Mr. Seward was not able to find a successor accept-
able to the United States Senate. On the election of Gen.
Grant to the Presidency, the choice of Foreign Ministers
fell quite justly to Mr. Sumner and other chiefs of the
dominant party ; and we may well conceive the double
pleasure the chairman of Foreign Affairs in the Senate
had in paying off an old score against Mr. Seward and
serving his friend, Mr. Motley, at the same time. The
new President, all uninitiated in State craft and wholly
unacquainted with the new appoint6es, accepted them on
recommendation, reserving for himself the unquestioned
prerogative of review, and recall as time and their record
should indicate. In Mr. Motley's case, although there
had been sympathy by reason of Mr. Seward'r treatment
of him, yet there were not wanting prophets who foretold
that a gentlemen who had distinguished himself only as a
historian would not fulfilthe expectations of the practical
man who had so rapidly acquired the confidence of his
countrymen in hardier fields than literature. The well-
nigh unanimous action of the Senate in confirm-
ing Mr. Frelinghuysen his successor is the best evidence
that the President has but carried out the wishes and
judgment of the American people, although the instance,
we believe, is without parallel of the removal of a Foreign
Minister who had but barely entered upon his duties,
without the especial cause of his dismissal coining to the
knowledge of the country to which he was accredited.—l
am, sir, yours &c., AN AMERICAN.