Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1854-04-13
abe Daily Spy.
Ko.snrh,. Lcrtcr.


ards Kossuth, Ledua Rollin, and Joseph MAJ
zini. because they have publicly expressed the
opiuion that the removal of George n. San
ders. bv the U. S. Senate, from the consulate
of London viii tend, at this crisis, to encour-
agethe European absolutists and, consequent
", to discourage the republicans.
We will not stop to discuss the proposition,
whether the expression of this opinion is an
..impertinence," or an courageous attempt at
dictation," on the part of Kossuth, Mazzini,
and Rollin. It's oflittle consequence to the
true issue, whether Mr. Sanders or any other
person is the discoreded consul. But, the
question is, is the opinion of the lesders OF tie
European Democracy correct, in relation to
this removal, and are their structures on the
alleged cause of that removal logicaE
1t is stated that Mr.. Sanders is removed
from his consulate, because of his intimacy
with the distinguished exiled leaders of the
republicans of France, Italy, and Hungary
He has received these men openly to his
house and table, he has sympathized with
them in their misfortunes, and in their hopes;
and has done what he could, consistently,
with his official position and duties, to adj
vance and elevate the Democratic cause in Eu-
rope His recall, it is said, has been issued in
consequence of these republican attachments
and activities.
fthis is a true statement of the case, be-
tween the Senate and Mr.. Sanders, are not
Kossuth and his friends correct, in stating that
absolutism will smile in triumph at the recall
of Mr.. Sanders, while the downtrodden Re-
pubhcans will feel that they have not the SYM
pathy of the only nation in the world which is
the representative of the democratic princi-
pie; We think they are The sympathy of
the United States legitimately belongs to the
European Republicans. The moral influence
of the United States is pledged, by the sacred
VOWS of our fathers, by our history, by our
constitution and laws, and by the aspirations
of our people, to the oppressed nations that
dwell in the East. We may not go to war on
account of republican peoples struggling into
democratic nationalities, against the organized
ruffanism of Kings; but we cannot refuse
them our sympathy. Our sympathy belongs
to them by logical necessity; and the same
necessity compels us to maintain an eternal
disapprobation Of the principles of monarchy
and despotism. Mr.. Sanders, true to his in
stincts as an American, and consistent with
the principles of the Republic which La Fay
cite, Pulaski, and Kosciusko shed their blood
to help establish, received the exiled compat-
riots of those heroes as friends, and sympa-
thlzed with them and their countrymen,
trodden in the dust by tyrants; and for this he
is publicly rebuked by the Senate of the Unit
ed States. We think this rebuke, if the pre-
misses are correct, does less discredit to the
discarded consul than to the Senate who ad-
ministered it. 1t was not alleged that Mr..
Sanders was republican propagandist. It
was not pretended that he was an agitator of
revolution. He was simply the friend of rev.
olutionists, and the counsellor Of Republicans,
and that was all. On these accounts, the
conservative presses of England denounced
him-o,w conservatives repeated those denun-
clalo4ls, anu tue SENATE IekuSeu W cOuHrln
him as our commercial agent at the port o.
London.
We think we can partially appreciate tn,
sentiments of Kossuth in this case, and W,
can somewhat realize the justice of his opin
ion in relation to its effect upon the adherant
of democracy in Europe. History reminds u
how Franklin, and other ENJOYS felt. in Lon
don and Paris, when we were struggling int
Life as a nation, and we are informed that tn,
countepance of a Chatham, or Stanhope
was as grateful to our, then, obscure represen.
tatives, as more " material aid," afterwarc
was to the country.
We do not see any reason for denouncine
the leaders of the European democracy, fol-
writing their Sanders letter. Probably Wash
ington, Jefferson, and John Hancock, would
have written similar letter, under similar
circumstances. One thing is certain, and il
is this, the men who suffered that we might
be free, had livelier sympathy for universal
freedom than the q. s. Senate now has.