The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1869-06-11
Reveray johnson on sumner's Speech.

Revcrdy johnson on summers Speech.
A correspondent of the New York
Times reports nm interview with the Hon.
Reverdy johnson, late United States Mi
mister to England. Mr. Johnson says:
"Though Mr.. Sumner may he satisfied
with his speech, do not know that any
one else is satisfied with it. 1 tell you
England O unit against the United States.
Our friends there have fallen off by
troops. At first the people declared for
war, but now think they have got over
that idea, and are satisfied that our in
tentions are pacific. The speech having
been approved by the Senate, the Eng
lish people at first thought it was n de-
claration of war, and were prepared to
accept it in that spirit; but they have
since changed their minds, and now they
have Justly arrived at the conclusion that
Sumner is, after all, but one American
citizen, and does not represent the views
of the administration. Motley has gone
over there. L left before he arrived. I
do not believe that he has got any in
structions whatever. They objected to
my making speeches that the United
States desired to be on friendly terms
with England. What has he done? The
very first thing he does on landing is TO
say that his mission is pacific. 7 said
that my mission was pacific. Sumner
says that his speech was made in the in
terest of peace. Why, we are oil for
peace..J 4 ~ -.t
Summers speech is absurd Do you
know what they say of it in England?
Clarendon says that it is absurd md pre-
posterous; that it is not the speech of
either o lawyer or statesman; that its
propositions are wholly inadmissible.
'The English papers did not publish
Mr.. Summers speech, because it was too
nonsensical. Clarendon says that the
United States as Government have no
claims against England as q Govern
ment. The United States have private
individual claims against England, and
England has private individual claims
against the United States. These the
English people and Government are
willing to submit to an arbitration.
Clarendon says that England might as
we'll say that she would reject the treaty
because the holders of Irish republican
bonds might come in under its terms
The Americans whom 1 have met abroad
denounce Mr.. Sumner rs much as the
English people do. 1t is a foolish
speech. .''t. .-'' ..u.i.:.i ..-.
''The English Government will never
accede to the Summer demands. Claren-
don won't yield one inch from his posi-
ton. They have taken it, aud cannot
be shaken in their resolve. They are a
very proud people, powerful people,
and cannot be frightened.
"a war between England and the
United States would be unfavorabe to
u.s. In the first place, our debts are
equal But there will not be. and can
not he, awar SO long MS there is any COM
mon sense left to the two peoples. But,
to talk about it for arguments sake {:
England was never better prepared for n
war than she is now. and the United
States is less able to enter on a contest
of the kind than she was during the re-
bellion. DO you remember Admiral
Porter's letter on the subject? He is of
my opinion, or, rather, am of his, that
we cannot fight England Yes, they
would give us Canada, provided the Ca
madam people were willing to be ex-
changed; but I do not think they are,
and sooner than part with that province
on forcible terms, England would lose
her last man and her last shilling.
81 acted under the instruction of Mr..
Seward. Every step I took in the mat
ter was by direction Of Mr. Seward. I
managed the entire business in personal
interviews with Earl Clarendon. There
was not much writing about it. called
on him every day, and told him what I
thought our people would deem satisfac-
tory, and what would agree to; but low
they will be unwilling to sign any con-
yention With anybody from the United
States until they shall have obtained rea-
sonable assurance that the Senate will
approve it. They know what the United
States will consent to from Mr.. Sum
ner's speech, bnt it is utterly ridiculous
to suppose that they will yield to his
demands"
"The question of belligerency was
covered in my protocol, and as much
reparation was thero made for it as ever
the English Government will consent to
make. Why, France recognized the
South; Spain did it; Russia did it. Why
is England alone to be held accountable
for it? They will never tolerate the idea.
By-the-way, how about the diplomatic
correspondence? Has it all been pub
llshed-I mean that which covered my
protocol? Immediately after the treaty
was negotiated, on the 9Th of January,
wrote letter on tha traotx, .,o,o,olI,,