The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-09-27

possible moment. The two journals which |
have undertaken to contradict what we have
said confess they know absolutely nothing
about the matter, and have nothing better to
contribute to the controversy than the an
nouncement that they do not believe our
story--a fact which, for our present purpose,
is of no importance whatever. As the case
stands we allege that there are two letters in Mr.
Brights possession from the Chairman of
the Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs
which Mr.. Bright has shown to Americans,
with strong expressions of indignation, as
proofs that Mr.. Sumner, in delivering his
speech on the treaty, was guilty of bad faith.
Mr.. Sumner ought not to allow this to go on
If the letters are not his, or if Mr.. Bright is
putting a false construction on them, he
ought to set himself right before the public.
If we are not misinformed, his attention has
already been called to Mr.. Bright's feeling
and language about the matter. If, on the
other hand, these letters are genuine, and
Justify Mr.. Brights language, which, we re-
peat, is very strong, American taxpayers
ought to know in what spirit politicians in
high places have been dealing with one of the
most momentous questions ever brought be-
fore the country.
As regards the letter of recommendation
mot of introduction" perish the thoughtD
of which the Springfield Republican so ingen-
uously tried to conceal the existence we hap
pen now to have before us Mr. Brights ac-
count of it in his note to Mr.. Reverdy John
son. He says he has letter ''from his (my)
friend, MIR. Charles Sumner, speaking in very
high terms of (you) Mr.. johnson, and of the
general satisfaction with which his (your) ap-
pointment was regarded by men of all parties
in the States There is nothing remarkable
about this, but there is something very re-
markable in Mr.. Summers afterwards express
ing to the correspondent of the New York
Herald his surprise that the British Govern
ment should not have known better than to
negotiate with the ambassador of a retiring
administration, and adding that he Thought
of saying this to Mr.. Thornton, but
concluded it would not be right for him to do
So" The Springfield Republican tries to dis
pose of this difficulty by suggesting that Mr.
Sumner doubted the wisdom of the British
Cabinet, but ''had too much delicacy to say
so to Mr.. Thornton" Now, why should the
Chairman of the Senate Committee on For
eign Affairs doubt the wisdom of foreign
government which negotiates with an Anne
rican ambassador, possessing regular creden-
tials, and unanimously nominated by the
Senate and warmly commended by him (not
''introduced'O to a member of that govern
ment as a man of high qualifications for his
post, whose appointment had been viewed
with favor ''by men of all parties ?' And
what about Mr.. Summers ''delicacy" in saying
to Herald reporter for publication all that it
would have been ''indelicate" to say to Mr..
Thornton, and great deal more?
We have thus far only parole evidence of
the contents of the letters, but it is the evil
dence of person who has read them, and
who has listened to Mr.. Brights remarks on
them, and felt some modification on the oc-
casion; but we have always felt the letters
themselves were also needed, and have lost
no time in applying for them 1t is very
pertinent to the matter in hand that, accord
ing to Mr.. Reverdy johnson, Mr.. Sumner
''advised with him several times in relation
to the negotiations after Mr. Johnson's ap-
pointment and exhibited an apparently sim
cere desire that he (Mr. Johnson) should
bring the negotiations to early and sue
cessful termination. In none of these inter-
views did he mention the peculiar views set
forth in his subsequent speech. 1t is hardly
to be supposed that as Chairman of the Senate
Committee of Foreign Affairs, and in con-
slant intercouser with Mr.. Seward he did not
know what Mr.. Johnson's instructions were.
He certainly knew what Mr.. Adams were,
and these were precisely the same as Mr..
Johnsons." According to the speech, how
ever both Mr. Adams and Mr.. Johnson's in
structions were simply folly, not far removed
from crime.
We need hardly say that we shall take good
care to point out any inaccuracies into which
we may have fallen in describing the CORES
pondence, when we succeed in securing it for
publication. In the meantime, let us modestly
| suggest to those friends of Mr.. Sumner who
doubt its existence, that much more effect
ual way of bringing his detractors to justice
than rolling'one's eyes over the Ndti0b'S bias
phemies, will be to get Mr.. Sumner or Mr..
Bright to deny the existence of the letters
There is the mail and the telegraph both a
their service. Mr.. Bright, owing to the
achievements of modern science, is within
easy reach; and should he feel reluctant tt
place the correspondence at our disposal, h,
cannot in decency refuse to publish it at Mr.
Summers request. The accuracy of the Nations
version of it is, after all, matter of compare
lively small consequence, and we shall take care
not to allow the matter to go off on that issue
We must also remark that the badness of Mr.
Reverdy Johnson S speeches has nothing to d,
with the question. 1t may have been we'll t.
reject the treaty because it was negotiated 10y
an unpopular agent, or because it was defec
tive; but the real question before us is, die
Mr.. Summers speech against it contain tn,
deliberate views of statesman on importan
points of international law and public policy
or were they simply an afterthought sug
gested by the popular evaporation and excite
ment produced by Mr.. Johnson's course il
England? Everybody whom the settemen
of the Alabama matter may affect in mind
bedy, or estate, has right to have this ques
! tiOn ansWarad