The Sun.
London, England, 1866-11-28 00:00:00

THE AMERICAN PRESS.

The Republicans of Baltimore had entire control
of the machinery of the election, and excluded all
the voters they chose, as rebels or rebel sympa-
thisers. That they should win under such circum-
stances was considered a matter of course. Nor is

their failure accounted for by saying that the rebels
perjured themselves, and so got their votes in. The
figures tell another story. Two years ago the Re-
publicans cast nearly 15,000 in the city, and the
opposition not quite 3,000. Now the Republican
vote has fallen to 7,500, and the Democratic has
gone up to 8,500. The Democrats have gained
5,500, and the Republicans lost that number and
2,000 more. The aggregate vote is 2,000 less than
in 1864, and 8,000 registered voters did not vote at
all. It cannot be said that the Republicans were
kept from the polls by intimidation. The truth is
that many of the Baltimore Republicans are conser-
vative, after the manner of Governor Swann ; but
the result is, in part at least, a protest by Republi-
cans themselves against the policy of exclusion.
They saw that citizens quite as loyal and trust-
worthy as themselves were disenfranchised under
pretence that they had at some time indulged sym-
pathy with the rebels ; they saw this year's regis-
tration set aside by those who made it, when they
discovered that the majority of those registered were
against them in politics, and they began to under-
stand that such gross violations of the right of
suffrage would lead to dangerous consequences.
They, therefore, either voted with the opposition,
or made silent protest by refusing to vote at all.
Notwithstanding there was a disposition on the part
of Governor Swann and his supporters to make an
unfair use of power to carry their ends, and the
defeat of their machinations was cause for satisfac-

tion, one cannot help feeling that the defeat of the
Republicans at Baltimore is also a just retribution for
their misconduct. They begin to remember now, in
their hour of defeat, that there are thousands of loyal
coloured men in Maryland, some of whom fought for
the Union, whose votes would have kept them in
power if they had been allowed to vote. And in
this, too, there is retribution, for these Maryland
Republicans, " Radicals," as they now proudly call
themselves, not only refused to give their own
coloured citizens the ballot, but went down on their
knees and besought Congress not to establish
equal suffrage in the Federal district, for fear it

might hurt their party prospects at home ; and
in the convention of Southern loyalists at Phila-
delphia it was chiefly by the opposition of the Mali
land Congressmen that a declaration for equal
suffrage was prevented. Defeat will have a good
moral effect upon them. They will now believe in
equal suffrage and demand it. The Democrats will
of course use their power to enlarge the suffrage
among white men, and there will be very few dia"
franchised for former treason, whatever the lawirlal
require. Possibly they may plague the Republican,
with their own inventions, and count those "rebels
who do not favour the President's policy. At 3u
„ii
events the Republicans of that State will have szn°';
prospect of returning to power unless they bay
the help of coloured citizens, and as they have 13°;
thing to lose by it now, we may expect them to tak
a bold stand for equal suffrage. We look for 3
similar change in all the border States. It is re-
ported that quite a number of members of the Tell;
nessee Legislature are dissatisfied with the policy
disfranchising white men, and are inclined to that
of universal suffrage and universal amnesty'. In
Missouri, too, it is obvious that the attempt to OP'
the State with half the whites and all the blacks dis-
franchised cannot be long successful. The wile',
thing is hostile to free institutions,
and intoler-
able among a people trained to self-governmen!
Let all the people vote, freely and fairly—this le
the only right and safe way in a republic. if a„111
man is a rebel in act let him be punished legally'with disfranchisement among the other penalties;
but disfranchisement for opinion will not answer.

THE " ALABAMA " CLAIMS.
We may assume as true, by virtue of eubinsrille
intelligence, that the London Times, of Tuesday
last, contained an article setting forth the proprieti
of appointing a joint commission to settle the claims
of the United States against Great Britain uP°3lll
account of the Alabama depredations. That purl]
having been violently opposed to any reparation,
upon account of those wrongs, has been gradual
preparing for a change of tactics, approaching tu
unpleasant subject by degrees. A few days ago,
scarce half a month, the Times, after the cable eele"
bration and the friendly speech of Lord Staaleh
suggested that a commission might be appointed to
determine what ought to be the reciprocal duties 01
nations in time of war, and what rights belligerent
might ask of neutrals. This was a suggestion mere'
to prepare the British mind for a further change in
the tactics of that journal. It was entirely in3154;,°:
bable that the United States would agree to tar
part in any such evasive attempt to avoid the M'
cussion of the amount of indemnity which was due
e
for past wrongs. What international law maY
in future may be agreed upon in future, but for
the injuries of the past indemnity is demanded neva
The article in the Times could not have been foundeti
upon any belief that the United States would accede
to the proposition. It was put forth for English
is
consumption, and was to lead the way to the article
published on Tuesday last, which is perhaps is
tive of a future and further change, and the attviis':
cacy of the payment of the Alabama claims, litst
out the appointment of any commission. It must
not be understood, however, that the Times has au-
thority to speak for the British Ministry ; but it
may be supposed that the change in the tone of to t
journal is indicative of the desire of the presell
Cabinet to settle a very ugly question which e 3"„.
not be disposed of by a determination not to e°l.:
sider it, and which will continual)y obtrude l,w
ugly visage, unbidden, into every diplomatic COil;
plication hereafter. tis to the interest of Grt
Britain that this controversy shall be sett
exactly as the United States wish, otherwise t.t
precedent will be of evil example, whenever GI%
Britain gets into war with any other nation. Then
considerations must also have their weight in 'I,
matter. If, as the article of the Times foreshadr:
the British intend to make an offer for the appal° a
ment of a commission to examine into the Alabama
claims, there can be little doubt that the Unit
States will accede, provided it is clearly unde,too
that there is to be a bona fide settlement of .
claims, and that no delusive trick is disguised in the
offer.—Philadelphia Inquirer.

N'~+•w.