The New York herald., 1869-05-12
COMMENTS OF THE ENGLISH PRESS.

sires not TO inname angry passions. but to prOmot
peace and concord by rejecting treaty which wou'
useless to terminate quar- rel by an arrangement
which would not content the offended party.
. MT sumner may perhaps believe tina! the re
cognition or belhgerency was proof o
uniriendly feelings, and yet nothing is NOR
certain than that the English government issued TIT
proclamation with genuine and earnest desire u
avoid any offence to American susceptibility. Al
the motives OF the act have been not unnaturay nus
apprehended 1t necessary rely the undoubtec
fact that the English government was exercising
indisputable right. The blockade which had beer
previously proclaimed by the President Of the United
states Is conclusive evidence OF the existence OF
war, although Mr.. Sumner misrepresents the argu
ment OF his opponents when he affects to believe
that their justification reSs exclusively on single
admission. 1t was, according to Mr.. Sumner, a
mere verbal mistake to announce q blockade when
the government might have closed the Southern
ports by Executive authority; but decree by which
the pors were closed could have created no right tC
capture on the high seas vessels which might be
bringing munitions OF war to the COniederates. II
was Tor the purpose OF guarding against sucn di.
Guilty that Mr.. Lincoln and Mr. Sumner deliberately
proclaimed blockade, estopping themselves. ac-
cordlng to subsequent judgment OF the Supreme
Court from denial that state of actually exist
ed. AS might have been expected Mr. Sumner leaves
unnOtIced the unanimous assent OF all European gov
ernments to the neutral policy OF Eng Tue French
recognition OF beIgerent rights was issued on the
same day, in the same words; and within two or
three weeks every maritime Power, Including Rus
sia, committed in the same form the same wrong
which Is exclusively imputed to England. At tnat
time there was little difference OF OpiniOn on either
side OF the Atlantic that the disruption OF the Amer.
can federation was complete and final. IL Is true
that the conclusion was erroneous; but the cOnfede
racy held unuiSputed possession OF s own territory
and 1t was evident that according TO the universal
opinion, state ties were more binding than federal
allegiance. II any Kingdom in the civilized world
had been split into two parts In similar clrcum-
stances the American government would have re-
cognlzed not onyi,s beligerent rights but It's pOlt
cal independence.
The speech itself is from first to last thoroughly
consistent In injustice. The secession was, Mr..
sumner truly says IN the first instance partly en-
couraged by the hope that England would recognize
the independence Of the South. In the cant Ameri
can phrase, cotton was king, and England would
prove her loyalty TO her economic sovereign by EN-
ploytng her neets and armies IN aid OF the cotton
growing coniederacy. That the expectation was
signaly disappointed no Ignorant person could learn
from Mr.. Sumner. III man complained that capital
ist whom he regarded as his friend had advanced
money TO start against him trading competitor,
it would be Thought sufficient defence that the
application had been urgently made and positively
refused. In controversies with England American
dispntants regard TACT and logic with impartial con-
tempt.
In another year the passions which Mr. Sumner
stimulates may have partially subsidized, or they may
have expanded into a declaration Of war and an in.
vasion OF Canada there Is perhaps no example OF
war undertaken solely for purposes OF vengeance.
disintereSted expression OF sentiment. There Is no
other quarter In which England Is especially vulne-
rable IN contest with America; but the great
sources OF the United States unscrupulously EN-.
ployed, would undoubtedly cause great injury and
sunering not without heavy cost to the wrOngdoer.
II such result is TO be produced, either by design
or by the unforeseen operation of hostile feelings
reasoning would have no effect in averting lament
able crime and misfortune. From the beginning OF
the discussion the only hope Of solution was to be
found IN an appeal to the doctrines OF International
law or In the discretion OF an Indifferent arbitrator.
Although the arguments which induced Lord Rus
sell to decline reference have never been confuted,
II Ia now generally admitted that the concession
winch was afterwards made by Lord Stanley was
judicous; but for every step which the English gov
erument has advanced, the Americans have receded
TO twice the distance short OF war II Is impossible
TO go further than Mr. sumner IN hostile direction.
The London Economist Of the same date sums I'D
the subject as follows:-
We believe this to be the real state OF mind ndi-
Gated In Mr.. Summers speech Indeed, he indicates
IL clearly enough when he complains that no apology
OF England for her wrong doilR is atiixed to the
convention as we have afiXed to former conventions
when we have admitted our own wrong doing be-
forehand. 10 which we might reply, how apologize
for what is to be SUB JUDGE for what may prove TO
be legal nnocencei The convention was never in
tended to appreciate and heal sentimental wrongs
on either side Of the Atlantic. 1t was convention
for determining what legal obligations were due on
either eth sid side and tor satisfying them But
point, because MIR. Sumner entirely ignores
the legal doubts to be resolved and insists that we
are absolutely out Of COURT that We have case to
plead; that we are rather insulting America afresh
by asking for alr hearing when we ought clearly to
begin by admitting our gilt and submit TO arbitration
only as TO the question OF damages. II we had PAID
few millions into court with humble apology, then
Mr.. Sumner might have been satisfied TO admit
were or were not enough; whether they ought or
ought not TO be made many millions. But nothing
kuUft OIL tuat WOuld SATISFY the demands OF his
speech. IL seems 70 US, we confess a womanish
speech mixing up matters Of feeling with matters
OF law, and inveghIng against u convention. the
object OF which was to determine whether law had
been infriDged by considerations directed 10 prove
that whether 1t had been infringed or not feelings
had been grievously injured.
IL seems to US that aiter this reception of our
oyertures the time has come when Great Britain
will act most wisely IN letting this matter alone and
leaving the United States to make the next move II
they wish. The time for impartial discussion OF
our legal liabilities cannot be come when body OF
men Of business 50 acute as the senators OF the
sentimental fashion. And wnen IL Is come we shall
know from their own mouths that 1t is so. Doubt
less we must remain IN that terrible uncertainty,
the awiu nature of which the United States seem TO
plume themselves whether when next we get into
war we may not have Alabamas swarm
ing out OF the American ports, or, worse
still, an American foe 10 meet in Canada in
addition TO the European foe We do not at all dis
pute that such prospect Is unpleasant; but we do
Clearly see that we shall not the least avert It by
nurryng negotiations or evincing any reluctance TO
the ngsb M. oy any means proud OF the part
can civI war. IL was, no doubt, somewhat OF an
Ignorant and jealous and an ungenerous
that government with the exception al east OF
one very doubtful case, sincerely and scrupu.
wSics our aoysrnmsn, snq ,nm the only thing for
we have done what we could to make concessions
WINCH M might h ,. clear up this one doubtful point
almost unintegible disgust. Ii Is the turn of the
United states next Whatever risks we may nun in
than we have often run before, and less than woud
result from undgni1ed anxiety TO bring matters 10
a conclusion. The fault OF the misundersta and,ng
now lies at the door OF the government OF the
United states, and a. soon ~ It IL aware OF this we
shall be as ready as ever TO take the matter up with
candor and good temper. Till then we hope our
Foreign once Will have the good sense 70 act on
Lord Mebourne's policy OF cant you let II alone -
The London Spectator goes elsborately into the
subjecs and winds up in the following self.compia.
cent Manner
As regards Mr. Summers argument TO prove that
we were guilty OF a breach of International right
that We did violate the laws OF neutrality In our
policy towards the SOUTH we need not say much.
Some things he said which are fair arguments 70 lay
before an arbitrator. others he said which seemed 20
colored By prejudices and prepossessions so ex.
traordnary that we read them twice before we could
credit him with having made any statement so
monstrous tmch for instance, az the assertion that
the 1ttng out OF the Alabama was a. much the fitting
out OF hostile expedition as n she had sailed forth
from her Majcstys dockyard; but the great feature
of his speech II that In treating the legal ques.
tIons he does not even condescend 10 grapple
with any one OF the more powerful con.
aderations which tell against him. He
Ignores the point that the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF the
fact OF beiQerency at sea was essential TO give the
United states the power OF blockade In the sense In