The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-27 00:00:00

may be a vision, but I will cherish it. I tee one vast
Confederation stretching from the frozen North in
unbroken line .to the glowing South, and from the
wild billows of the Atlantic westward to the calmer
waters of the Pacific main ; and I see one people
and one language, and one law and one faith, and
over all that wide Continent, the home of freedom
for the oppressed of every race and of every clinic."
JOHN BRIGHT is the most representative English-
man alive, and what his mind's-eye saw with enthu-
siasm ought not to alarm his countrymen. No other
principle is better established than that the one
thrives in the success of all. The wealth of pro-
duction developed in America is a source of gain
to Europe, and if Africa, instead of being a dead
continent, poured the riches nature hasstored therein
over the world, the world would benefit in a secon-
dary degree only to Africa. In the remarkable
article in the Edinburgh Review, of which we have
elsewhere given au outline, the writer appears to
conclude that the prosperity of the Republic, if it
continues to be prosperous, will be attained, not in
4 consequence of, but in spite of, its institutions. But
a glance at the world ought to have taught
the reviewer that out of Europe the Union
stands alone in its prosperity, in wealb, and civili-
zation, though other nations own territories as exten-
sive, and even more gifted by nature. While
from the Rio Grande southward to Cape Horn, igno-
rance, poverty, and lawlessness prevail, so as to
throw them out of the pale—northward we have a
comparison. Can the reviewer explain why the line
of the St. Lawrence and the British boundary is
marked on the one side by progress, material pros-
perity, and corn-fields, and on the other by stag-
nation and the primeval forest? Can he explain
the rcaeon of the exodus from Canada into the
United States, which is now creating such astonish-
ment and even dismay? No; while we grant the cor-
ruption, we contend that there has never been such
ny, ;eats nee of i,"cm.wt growth, and we conclude that
to those who have effected so much may safely he
left the destinies of the Continent. IF, then, Eng-
' land, even more than other countries, would benefit
by American prosperity, and that prosperity can be
advanced by the absorption into the Union of the
British Provinces, BRIGHT'S picture should be seen
by England as seen by him. While advocating the
end, we object, if our surmise be true, to the means.
The Alabama question has nothing to do with the
withdrawal of British sovereignty from America.
The subject, if openly approached, has a much
better chance of success than as tacked to a threat
and a bribe. No country aspiring to a leading
place, and which valued the national honour, could
consent to barter away its territory for security
except on compulsion after defeat. Nor is the
treaty—though termed the Alabama Convention—
for the settlement of the claims arising from the
ravages of the cruisers only ; fer British subjects
also have bills for damages. Yet, it is true, that in
the spirit which actuates the community is to be
found the real difficulties to a settlement, or facility
in arriving at an amicable solution ; and from such
a withdrawal, would ensue in the feelings it would
engender, among numerous other benefits, the obli-
teration of a dangerous precedent, and the remo-
delling of international law.

The article in the Tribune which called forth the
preceding remarks was suggested by what it termed
" a significant article of the Anglo-American Times."
While thanking our great American contemporary
for its flattering allusion to us, we note in it a pecu-
liarity of American jou' nalism. The Tribune is not
content with saying that we arc an " able London
paper," but begins speculating on who is its editor.
In America, the editor is the spirit ; the journal,

mere paper. In England, the journal is the spirit;
the editor, a myth. If the journal be a power,
the editor in this loses some personal importance,
but the weight in society taken frcm himself is
thrown with a multiplying effect into the scale with
the journal. When one meets an apparently stupid
man in society, and is informed that he is the edi-
tor of " au able London paper," the respect formerly
entertained for that organ is subjected to a severe
trial. Henceforth it is associated with whatever
peculiarity or defect was observable in the indivi-
dual, even after he is buried. 110 R ICE GREELEY,
of the Tribune ; RAYMOND, of the New York Times;
and BENNErr of the Herald are like the chiefs of
clans, and they always come up, as in Seothind,
associated with that ilk. Indeed, as there where
names are merged in the estate, they are merged in
the papers, or rather the papers in them ; at any
r ite the two being so associated as to be almost
inseparable. Now, if asked who is the edi-
tor of the /3a// Mall Ga:ette ? we would reply,
we neither knew nor cared ; not havi❑g even the
remotest idea, and being content with our igno-
t ranee. Who writes the Echo ? and our answer
would be " Echo ;" yet the editor of this rising
young paper, so largely circulated in London, holds
a most responsible position. We know that Mr.
WALTER is the principal owner of the Times, and if
the magnificent house he is building in Berkshire
is to be taken as a test, his share can be no small
thing. Although we lately saw the information in
an American paper, we have no notion who own or
write the Daily News, Standard, Stir, or Telegraph,
notwithstanding that the gentlemen who control
these powerful organs of opinion exercise more in-
fluence in the country than perhaps any other men
in it. Would they exercise more, if each journal
became as intimately associated with its chief edi-
tor as is the case in America ? Certainly not, nor
anything approaching it, for it is the abstraction
that conveys much of the power; the mystery that
gives weight to the oracle ; the very fact of its want
of association with any individual on whom the
imagination can fix it. No men can better tell this
than the leading article writers of the Times. To
them it must be intense amusement to enter society
and hear their own thoughts reproduced, indeed
their very words, as the utterer's own, while perhaps
setting the spoken words of the writer aside with su-
percilious disdain. This must constantly occur, and
owe of these journalists could give most amusing
narratives of their experiences. But if the article
were associated with the writer, not even the
Times could save it from losing vastly in import-
ance. At the same time that the knowledge
would elevate the writer in the opinion of those
with whom he came in contact, it would be
out of proportion with the heavy cost to the jour-
nal. In England, therefore, editors wisely prefer to
merge their individuality into their papeis, existing
so far as a mere abstraction. Another advantage in
this is, that in shielding it from personalities, it
elevates the profession. Angry men, with pens in
their hands and a journal to give publicity to what
they write, will often say what they wish to recall
in their calmer mood. It is not because of opinion
that men get annoyed with each other, but on ac-
count of the personalities imported into the con-
troversy. But these could not be introduced unless
the arguments were connected with individuals.
Hence one good reason for not allowing them to
be so connected. A man can never write with an
untrammelled pen ori such questions as occupy
journalism, if the public know who the writer is.
What pleasant scenes we shoald have in drawing-
rooms, if, say, the Pall Mall critic was brought
face to face with the lady author ; nor would it
tend to make a dinner:table ageeable, if the writer
of a severe animadversion on the speech or conouct
of another of the guests, was at the table. The
consequence of American editors photographing all
their pages with themselves, is bitter personality,
and often tragical quarrels. In France this effect
is only less because the Press is shackled, while in
America it is as free as air. A Look more funny
than any " Joe Miller" could be compiled by simply
esthering what the editors say of each other in the .
Sta!es. We will just cast a glance through a tile
of a❑ American paper for an iustance. —here is the
result : ^

" A Missouri editor speaks thus of one of his brethren
of the press The poor, old, dilapidated piece of flesh
and bones who hangs himself out every week in the Jack-
son Standard, and who, by common consent, was consi-
dered the jackass of the Editorial Union, has rattled his
old skeleton at us.'"

Ha! ha! ha! not bad that, as a sample, and we
are thankful to the kind chance which has so helped
us in our illustration. Although the chiefs of the
great American metropolitan papers have made
their names celebrated by associating them inti-
mately with such widely circulated organs of opinion,
yet they are constantly subjected either to venom-
ous attacks, or to impertinent familiarities. Indeed