The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-05-12

COfreSpOntu
keenness the utter unreasonableness OF such assump
tons as Mr.. sumners-that England committed in
this case conspicuous breach of international law,
like the boarding OF the Chesapeake or the raid OF 1887
into the territory OF the United Statesshoud do their
best TO restrain such unreasonable and sefcontra-
dictory demands as Mr.. Summers, which Seem con-
course, II we are decided to have been guilty OF a
breach OF international law, let u.s. by all means,
apologize; but to assume the very point of discus
sion, on the ground that we have certainly been
guilty of IN feeling is as monstrous as it would be
for us to ground our own defense on the plea that
America has sympathzed openly with the Fenian
cousprators. Informal national sins must be eXp-
ated If at all, by informal national expressions OF
regret. We do not ask the Government of the
United States TO apologize for the sins OF its people
ask the Government Of England TO apologize for the
sins of its people in relation TO the ciyu
war. II, we heartily believe bhe only
even disputable point as regards legal liability
is the negligence OF the government IN
permitting the escape OF the Alabama, how is it pos
sibe to ask us to express formal contrition till it is
decided whether even then we were not acting
real grievance, and the real grievance OF the North
ern people, is that the English Parliament displayed
q hearty sympathy with cause naturally hateful to
it, the slavery cause, out OF some poor jealousy OF
the growing power of the North. Well that Is not
breach OF international law BY all means let us do
what we can TO wipe out blot on Englsh national
character which many OF us always marveled at and
sorrowed over. But, on the other hand let the more
moderate and sensible statesmen OF the United States
restrain their sensitive politicians from the undigni
fed weakness Of Confoundng an act of marvelously
bad taste and bad feeling-thOugh one which unfor-
unatey too often initiated by America itself with
out any formal reproach from us-wlth an lnterna-
tOnal crime.
The London Daily NewS, paper OF liberal views,
OF the 1st inst, reviews the speech Of Mr. Sumner
follows:-
Mr.. Charles Summer is one OF the great orators,
if not Of the great statesmen of the United States
Senate. He is great in speeches II not in measures,
is power in council if not in action. On any great
question his speech is usually looked for and is read
with admiration If not conviction. The material
claims Mr.. Sumner bases the old argument.
England granted the South beligerent rights with
out any OF those conditions which are essential per-
quisites OF such concession" After this premature
recognition followed the escape OF the Alabama, her
which permitted English soil to become IN TACT the
basis OF warlike operations against American )m
merce. These acts form, Mr.. Sumner says the triple
cord which binds upon Us our liability. They make
England responsible for cumulative injuries which,
Mr. Sumner says, ''stand before us mountain high,
| with base as broad as the nation, and mass as
stupendOus as the rebellion itself" In round num-
| bers we may reckon that the Alabama claims,
| cording to Mr.. Summers present estimates, amount
TO nearly $500, 600 600 and Mr.. Sumner assures us
that he attempt to close this international debate
| without a complete settlement is little short of
puere." But il is surely far worse than puerle to
| carry on great international debate with such
arguments as these In what court OF law could Mr..
| Sumner get even hearing for claims which rest
| on the assumption OF profits that might have been
made? Yet he not only reckons such prospective
| profits in his estimate OF loss, but adds TO them
the possible increase which might have taken place
during the years of the war. The yet further claim
artifice, which takes the fancy of Americans, but
which has on Englishmen only the effect OF an anti
climax Mr.. sumner IS always serious, or we might
! suspect him of poking fun at his countrymen. He
has ably stated the American side OF the argument
| on the questions which are allowed to be open be-
tween He has given expression to that feel
ing which can neither be matter of argument nor OF
arbitration. But his figures simply remind us of
more vulgar and commonplace compensation claims.
What would satisfy him Shall we take the Five
twenties and pay the interest on them? Shall we
take one-half the debt and add II to our own?
Even then we must add to it an humble apology.
Mr. Sumner not only presents bill of five hun
dred millions, but demands that we should
pay it of on our knees. But such discussions as
these mere waste of time. 1t is one misfortune
OF the reopening of this question that it RENTS the
whole dispute rhetorical discussion by irresponsi
ble persons Mr. Sdmner may represent an intiu-
ential American opinion on this subject, or he may
not; but he does not represent the American Gov
| ernment.- We have referred to his speech merely
letting us know what a great rhetoricia ian could
make OF the argument in audience of the American
| people. Such discussions can, however, have but
one result. They retard the settlement instead OF
| advancing 1t. They surround business question
| with all the complications and distractions of
cited feeling What we want to settle is how far we
| are responsible for certain injuries inflicted
! American commerce, and when that is settled we
| Will pay the bill.
The London Times OF the lst inst. again returns to
the subject of the Alabama treaty, after discussing
it at length the day previous. In this later article
! it dwells especially on the neutrality proclamation
! OF her Majesty, and goes on to say
| The proclamation OF neutrality made by the Queen
OF England in May, 1851, was, according TO Mr.. sum-
ner the source OF almost every evil of the 1t
| placed the rebels in the position OF an independent
| power; it encouraged them TO persevere in their
| IL
| they had not previously possessed. Mr. Sumner so
! far admits the cogency OF the arguments urged on
this side that he is disposed to conne the otnse Of
England to the recognition OF what he calls ocean
| beligerency." There is a dominion OF the land and
| a dominion OF the ocean; but whatever power the
rebels possessed the land, they were always with
| out power on the ocean. Admitting that they were
begerents on the land, they were never bege-
rents on the ocean. But what right had we TO draw
any such distinctions? What we saw clearly was
a great conflict on the other side OF the Atlantic,
| which affected every relation of British commerce
| with the Southern States and was extended over
| the ocean and close up to our own waters by the
| Presidents proclamation of blockade, under which
British ships alleged TO mediate the breaking OF the
blockade could be seized even of our own coasts and
taken into American ports. II, as we confidently
maintain, the proclamation was iusthable, there is
nothing to be said; but, even were it not so,
IL would be absurd to argue that the issue Of the pro-
camation caused the blockade-running and so
heightened the war. Notwithstanding is not legal
lied by the Queens proclamation on the contrary,
II is expressly prohibited and those guilty of it and
the other oenses enumerated are told that they will
do ''at their peril and of their own wrong, and
will in nOwise obtain any protection from us against
any liabilities or penal consequences, but will,
the contrary, incur our high dispeasure by such
conduct The whole tenor OF the proclama-
ton is prohibition, and is difficult TO understand
how il can be accused Of sanctOning, much less OF
causing, the very acts against which 1t was directed
Surely experience is not wanting In America to prove
that the recognition OF begerency or the proclama-
ton OF neutrality is not necessary to authorize
blockade running? 1t is said good authority that
| at this very time the Cuban insurgents are being
supplied by American vessels and yet these 'rebes
have not received the character of begerents either
on land The only real evil inflicted by the
| proclamation was the position given by 1t 10 the
Alabama in the ports OF the British empire and this
| part OF the American grievance would have come
| within the operation of the rejected treaty.
The PdU NAL Gazette has also had its say in the
matter. In that Independent and sophOm)rsh style
which il almost Invariably affects, it brings in tn
Irish question with the Alabama claims and Senator