The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1861-10-22
The Abolition Organs and Secretary
Stewards Reply 20 Lord Lyons.


have been expected that those Journals which
have labored most earnestly to break up this
Union and anarchsze our government would
be either the first Or the most active In resent
Ing attacks upon that Union from foreign Pow.
ers. A conspirator is always traitor. The
clique of JEFF. Davis, having raised their own
hands against their country's flag, would gladly
see that flag humbled by foreign foe. The
biuclight abolitionists shine not more brightly
to welcome the runaway slave than to guide
the hosts Of foreign invader man who
will seek to divide will also seek to destroy
this nation. Consequently we are not surprised
to find that the Tribune and the 1imes-the
twin organs of abolitionism-the former advo-
Gates of peaceable secession-tbe authors Of
the Bull run massacre--the anarchists that
wonld supersede Lincoln and make George
Law dictator-the fermenters of mutiny in the
army-tbe apostles of war Of emancipation
the secret opponents, hypocritical friends and
constant embarrassors of the administration
came out Yesterday and, in their criticisms Of
Secretary Stewards reply to Lord Lyons impu-
dent letter, either shiiked the real issue
alto. ether or covertly insinuated defence Of
Lord Lyons and an attack upon our Secretary
OF State.
In neither of these journals do we find one
honest, hearty wcrd of reprobation Of the
British ministry which inspired Lord Lyons
note, and whose mere amanuensis he was, nor
of cordial. patriotic support Of our own gov
eminent. Lord Lyons letter was direct as
sertion--a threat-that we must accept the
English construction of our own constitution,
or suffer the consequences of refusal. To this
threat Secretary Seward appropriately re-
sponded. Tie Times calls Lord Lyons letter
courteous" repeats Secretary Stewards argu-
ment, and applauds his 'masterly presenta-
ton" of the subject In other words, tho
Times treats the matter as a personal one be-
tween Lord Lyons and MIR. Seward, instead OF
national one, between England and the
United States To the Times it is a small
matter that England should presume to dictate
to u.s. as she does to smaller States, just how
we are to understand and interpret our own
supreme law. With his usual ignorance, the
''little villain" does not understand the subject
at all, and, with his usual want of patriotism, he
can find in it nothing to appeal to the people,
and to excite the great heart of the nation.
And SO this lesser of the two great evils Of
American journalism shirks the great question
Of international comfy.
The Tribune, however, has brains enough to
understand and honesty enough to hint at ita
sentiments in regard to- this great subject.
In an adroit article it first appears to
favor, and then vehemently attacks, our
administration. England has always favored
the abolitionists, and it is not at all singular
that the abolitionists should now favor England.
The Tribune attacks the administration in the
following masked battery style-First it says
that the cases OF Messrs. Patrick and Raining
(referred to in the correspondence did not JUS
tify any official remonstrance from Lord Lyons,
but that the cases of Arbuthnot and Ambrister-
hung by General Jackson in I81S--would have
justified such a remonstrance. Now, why did
the Tribune refer to these cases under Jackson
at all? Not, certainly, merely to show lis learn
ing or its reading. No, but ingeniously to put
itself in the wrong and Lord Lyons in the right.
Arbuthnot and Ambrister were hung by Jackson
for abetting the Seminole Indians in their attack
upon our frontiers by supplying them with
! arms and ammunition. Raining and Patrick
were arrested for abetting the rebels in their
attack upon our government by precisely tho
same means. Yet the Tribune says the former
cases would have justified Lord Lyons remon-
STRANGE. Does 1t not clearly mean to have il
inferred that these latter cases justified remon-
STRANGE alsos Most assuredly; for in the very
next paragraph it says that Patrick and
Raining should never have been sent to Fort
Lafayette-that there was no necessity for
denying the writ of habeas corpus in these
! cases-it demands to know why none of our State
prisoners have yet been brought to trial,
! and hopes that no more foreigners will be ar
rested unless the evidence against them justifes
| their immediate conviction, and that there will
! be no hesitation in according them the privi-
! lege of habeas corpus. Now, every one of
| these matters happens to be included in those
| upon which the British Minister and our Secre-
| tary of State differed, and upon every one Of
these questions the Tribune sides with the Bri-
fish government, and against our own. Tho
Tribune and Lord Lyons say 'these men should
not have been sent to military prison. Our
government says it is the best judge Of that.
The Tribune and Lord Lyons say 'sthcre is no
| necessity for denying the writ Of habeas corpus
in the cases of these suspected traitors, either
native or foreign" Our government says that
in the cases Of native traitors the British Minis
ter's advice is neither asked nor required, and
that in regard to foreign emissaries the Secre-
tary of State is presumed to know his own
business and. to be able to decide what is ne
cessary and for the best interests of the nation.
Them say the Tribune and Lord Lyons
syou must make distinction between native
and foreign traitors, or England will force
You to do SO. Our government replies thai
foreigners who come here and commit treason
must take their chances, and that they deserve
all they get; and that, as for England, we will