The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-11-09

"ness, the threatened danger was avoided"
In answer to this statement, we would remark,
that if Mr.. REED really believed that the demands
of the allies exceeded the bounds of strict
justice and propriety and that the only effect of
their insisting upon Incorporating the obnoxious
stipuatons into the body of the treaty would be
to induce the Chinese to violate their engagements
as soon as the presence of the feet was withdrawn
it was but proper that he should so express him
SELF 1t is well known-for the fact was frequently
stated at the time in letters written from the Peho
riyer-that subsequent to the signing of the Ameri
can treaty, the Chinese Commissioners solemnly
assured Mr.. REED that the Emperor would never
consent to admit resident Minister at Pekin, or
to throw open the great rivers to foreign commerce,
and earnestly besought him to use his good offices
with the aliesfto get them to waive those points,
as they could not, and would not, be conceded In
the correspondence to which we have referred, it
stated that Mr.. REED declined to interfere; but
this appears to have either been mistake, or
the American and Russian Commissioners, after
taking counsel together, concluded to make the
effort to induce Lord ELGN and Baron GRos to
abate the most obnoxious of their demands. We
see nothing in this that can properly be regarded
as misunderstanding in fact, but what any hon
orable and upright man might have done, who,
entertaining no hostile feelings towards the Chi
nese took an Independent view of the relative po-
stion of parties, and while opposed to their selfish
and exclusive policy, preferred to cultivate their
good will rather than to witness their humiliation.
Whatever Count PUTIATIN might have thought of
the prospects of obtaining future concessions, it is
evident that Mr.. REED placed implicit confidence in
the solemn asseveraons of the Chinese Commits
sioners, and sympathzed with them in the personal
danger to which they declared they would be ex-
posed if they failed in obtaining from the hostile
Commissioners relaxation of their demands.
That they deceived him in stating that the Emperor
would not yield the points under contest and in
exaggerating the peril in which they Stood there can
be doubt but this only goes prove that his
honesty of purpose was no match for the wies Of
Chinese diplomacy, and certainly does lot justify
the harsh commentary of the English critic. One
of our contemporaries conceives that the point
upon which The Times is most sensitive, is the
fact that we obtained treaty without a display
of force In Boston, on the contrary, they find
the sensitive point in the desire of Mr.. REED to
nave tne opium lraue ueClareu COnlraDanu. we
believe they are both mistaken. The grauanaea of
The Times is that Mr.. REED and Count Pull
ATTN should have worked together, and should
have shown themselves, throughout the whole pc
riod of their soourn in the Chinese waters, in
plete accord. The Times has not forgiven Count
PUTIATIN for the act of discourtesy practised by
him in sending copy of the Russian treaty over
land to st. Petersburg, without rendering to Lord
ELGIN and Baron GRos the compliment of sending
their dispatches by the route, and it sees, or
affects to see in the harmonious action of the
American and Russian Commissioners a closer
utilization between their respective governments
than is altogether desirable in view of English
interests. Herein lies, in our opinion, the motive
for its appeal to the people of the United States
We have no doubt that it will elicit a reply from
the friends of Mr.. REED, and we trust that the
response will be a complete and triumphant refill
tation of the charges brought against him by his
English critic.