The Sun.
London, England, 1869-10-15 00:00:00

It may save two or three papers from a good
deal of future embarrassment about what wo said
a fortnight ago of Mr. Sumner's correspondence
with Mr. Bright to mention that we have taken
much more effective measures than they slow any
sign of taking to secure the exposure of any errors
there may be in our assertions respecting the con-
tents of the letters, inasmuch as we have used, and
are using, due diligence to obtain the letters for
publication. We shall present them to our readers
at the earliest possible moment. The two journals
which have undertaken to contradict what we have
said confess they know absolutely nothing about
the matter, and have nothing better to contribute
to the controversy than the announcement that they
do not believe our story—a fact which, for our
present purpose, is of no importance whatever. As
the case stands, we allege that there are two letters
iu Mr. Bright's possession from the Chairman of
the Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs, which
Mr. Bright has shown to Americans, with strong
expressions of indignation, as proofs that Mr.
Sumner, in delivering his speech on the treaty, was
guilty of bad faith. Mr. Sumner ought not to
allow this to go on. If the letters are not his, or
if Mr. Bright is putting a false construction on
them, he ought to set himself right before the pub-
lic. If we are not misinformed, his attention has
already been called to Mr. Bright's feeling and
language about the matter. If, on the other hand,
these letters are genuine, and justify Mr. Bright's
language, which, we repeat, is very strong, Ame-
rican tax-payers ought to know in what spirit
politicians in high places have been dealing with
one of the most momentous questions ever brought
before the country. As regards the letter of
recommendation (not of " introduction"—perish
the thought!) of which the Springfield Republi-
:CCM so ingenionely--4ried to -conceal the exist-
ence, we happen now to have before us Mr..
Bright's account of it in his note to Mr. Reverdy
Johnson. He says he has a letter " from his [my]
friend, Mr. Charles Sumner, speaking in very high
terms of [you] Mr. Johnson, and of the general
satisfaction with which this [your] appointment
was regarded by men of all parties in the States."
There is nothing remarkable about this, but there
is something very retnarkable in Mr. Sumner's
afterwards expressing to the correspondent of the
New York Herald his surprise that the British
Government should not have known better than to
negotiate with the Ambassador of a retiring Ad-
ministration, and adding that he " thought of say-
ing this to Mr. Thornton, but concluded it would
not be right for him to do so." The Springfield
Republican tries to dispose of this difficulty by sug-
gesting that Mr. Sumner "doubted the wisdom of the
British Cabinet," but had "too much delicacy to say
so to Nlr.Tliornton." Now, why should the Chairman
of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs doubt the
wisdom of a Foreign Government which negotiates
with an American Atnbassa for, possessing regular
credentials, and unanimously nominated by the
Senate, and warmly commended by him (not " in-
troduced") to a member of that Government as a
man of high qualifications for his post, whose ap-
pointment had been viewed with favour " by men
of all parties ?" And what about Mr. Sumner's
" delicacy" in saying to a Herald reporter for pub-
lication all that it would have been " indelicate" to
say to Mr. Thornton, and a great deal more ? We
have thus far only parole evidence of the contents of
the letters, but it is the evidence of a person who
has read them, and who has listened to Mr. Bright's
remarks on them, and felt some mortification on tha
occasion ; but we have always felt the letters them-
selves were also needed, and have lost no time in
applying for them. It is very pertinent to the
matter in hand that, according to Mr. Reverdy
Johnson, Mr. Sumner " advised with him several
times in relation to the negotiations after Mr.
Johnson's appointment, and exhibited an appa-
rently sincere desire that he [Mr. Johnson] should
bring the negotiations to an early and successful
termination. In none of these interviews did he
mention the peculiar views set forth iu his subse-
quent speech. It is hardly to be supposed that as
Chairman of the Senate Committee of Foreilzti
Affairs, and in constant intercourse with Mr.
Seward, he did not know what Mr. Johnson's
instructions were. He certainly knew what Mr.
Adams's were, and these were precisely the same
as Mr. Johnson's. According to the speech, how-
ever, both Mr. Adams's and Mr. Johnson's instruc-
tions were simply folly, not far removed from crime.
We need hardly say that we shall take good care to
point out any inaccuracies into which we may have
fallen in describing the correspondence, when we
succeed in secaring it for publication. In the mean-
time let us modestly suggest to those friends of Mr.
Sumner who doubt its existence, that a much more
effectual way of bringing his detractors to justice than
rolling one's eyes over the Nation's blasphemies, will
be to get Mr. Sumner or Mr. Bright to deny the exis-
tence of the letters. There is the mail and telegraph
both at their service. Mr. Bright, owing to the
achievements of modern science, is within easy
reach ; and, should he feel reluctant to place the
correspondence at our disposal, he cannot in de-
cency refuse to publish it at Mr. Sumner's request.
The accuracy of the Nation's version of it is, after
all, a matter of comparatively small consequence,
and we shall take care not to allow the matter to
go off on that issue. We must also remark that
the badness of Mr. Reverdy Johnson's speeches has
nothing to do with the question. It may have
been well to reject the treaty because it was
negotiated by an unpopular agent, or because it
was defective ; but the real question before us is,
did Mr. Sumner's speech against it contain the
deliberate views of a statesman on important points
of international law and public policy, or were they
simply an afterthought, suggested by the popular
exasperation and excitement produced by Mr. John-
son's course in England ? Everybody whom the
settlement of the Alabama matter may affect in
mind, body, or estate, has a right to have this
question answered.

The next general meeting of the Social Science
Association will be held in New York on the 26th, 27th,
and 28th of October. From the names and character of
the gentlemen who will take part the proceedings pro-
mise to be highly interesting. George W. Curtis, Pro-
fessor T. W. Dwight, David Dudley Field, Sheppard
Romans, and Frederick Kapp, of New York ; A. R. Spof-
ford, Congressional Librarian, Speaker Blaine, J. A. Gar-
field, J. A. Potts, H. L. Dawes, Professors Gilman and
Bacon, of Yale College ; Professor Henry, of the Smith-
sonian Institute, and other prominent gentlemen will read
papers on the occasion.
THE FOREIGN MAILS —The balances due to
foreign countries for mail service must ;,.re paid in gold,
which requires an expenditure by the Post-office Depart-
ment of $50,000 per annum for the premium. The Post-
master-General, however, has recently requested the
Secretary of the Treasury to transfer to the Post-office
Department sufficient gold to pay these balances due to
foreign countries, but the Comptroller of the Treasury has
just decided that such a course would be contrary to law,
and the request was refused. An Act of Congress should
be passed to authorise the transfer, and the $50,000 re-
quired to pay the premium would bo saved.—Philadelphia
Ledger.
NAVAL ITEMS.—The United States steam frigate
Severn has undergone her trial trip, which proved very
satisfactory.—Secretary
Robeson has issued a general order
modifying the naval regulations so far that when a foreign
vessel of war belonging to a country in amity with the
United States shall arrive in a port of the United States
where there is a vessel of the navy, the commanding officer
shall without delay send a proper officer on board to offer
the usual civilities and assistance in his power. If a
foreign vessel bears a flag of au Admiral or Commodore
commanding a squadron, and salutes the flag oftho United
States, salutes will be promptly returned, and the com-
manding officer of the vessel will call upon the Admiral or
Commodore, and salute them in case they return his call.
The same rule will be observed when Commanders of
foreign squadrons visit a navy yard or station. In all cases
when the flag of a nation to be saluted is afloat it will be
hoisted at the tore-royal masthead, and the jib hoisted at
the first and hauled down at the last gun.—Capt. John C.
Feibigen has been ordered to special duty in the Bureau
of Navy Yards and Docks, and Commander Robert M.
Shufeldt to the command of the Miantonomah.

On the 21st ultimo the annual cricket match
between the English hotel keepers of New York and
Brooklyn took place at Hoboken, and proved to be an
interesting contest. Of course both parties were short-
handed, and had to c4ll upon some cricketers and ball-
players for substitutes, and as Brooklyn was best favoured
in this respect they won the game, Sadler being of great
assistance to them. The score stood—Brooklyn, 80; New
York, 25.