Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1869-05-21
The Alabama Claims.
Public Opinion I'm England Senator
Summers Speech.

Nearly all tho leading English journals
have articles on the Alabama claims, ridl-
culing the position PIT forward by Mr..
Sumner in his speech in the Executive ses-
sion of the Senate full synopsis of the
views of several Of them have already been
received by cable telegraph. We give be-
low some extracts not before published:
The Pail Mall Gazette, of the LIST inst.
says:
< Mr.. Sumner has proved to de-
monstration what is the real feeling of the
nation and tho Government, which on this
question, he may be said to represent. 1t
is evident that it is not q feeling which can
possibly be propitiated by any half-and
half concessions. Either We must acknow-
ledge that the civil war was as much our
work as the South's, and meekly accept the
| consequence, or we must abandon the hope
OF bringing the American people into a
more friendly attitude toward this country.
AS even the EXTREMIST Northern sympathi-
Ter will hardly go the lengths demanded
| by MIR. Sumner we may hope that the
opinion of Englishmen will be practically
unanimous in favor of the latter course
! The right answer for Lord Clarendon to
| give to Mr.. Motley is simple non pussu-
mus-a refusal to enter into any discussion
which includes the mention Of the prccla
nation of neutrality as matter either for
compensation Or arbitration. We should
have spared ourselves some humiliation,
and the Americans soma additional lrrl-
tation, if we had acted on this principle
throughout Mr. Johnson's visit There
is another use to which MIR. Sum
ner's speech may be turned. We
shall be greatly to blame ii we do not see
in it warming that we have incurred
! though by no fault of our own, the anger
of a very powerful people, which has only
now found out that in military aud naval
emiuence it can rival the greatest OF Euro
pean Powers. No doubt Mr.. Samner's
only reference to war was ii reputation Of
| its alleged necessity. But that repudia-
ton was itself founded on the effect which
! it is assumed will follow from the exer-
! tons OF good men each side, and VIC know
, by this time what an American Repubh-
can means when he talks Of good men
| The epithet is rarely, If ever, applied, eA-
cept to those who adopt tie whole Eadi
cal programme. A good Englishnan
means man who has started from the
same premises as Mr.. Sumner, aud has
como to the same conclusion. ii good
men Of that type are sufficiently numerous
and sufficiently persuasive to bring the ma
Ilorltv OF Engushmen round to their view,
Mr.. Summer may be right In thinking war
| between America and England Il perma-
| nent impossibillity. But if, as we antici-
pate, there is difficulty in finding the
! preachers, OK If, rs we are sure will be the
case their celebrations fall on deaf ears
aud stony hearts, it is quite possible that
this certainty of unbroken peace may rove
only FOOLS paradise. The ties OF blood
are not likely to count for more where
England and the United States are con-
cerned than they counted for when the
com hatantS were two sections OF the same
people. The paramount considerations
which should govern the present policy of
/ this country toward the United States are
the fruitIessnees Of further negotiations
and the necessity Of being prepared for
war.
Mr.. Summers speech impiessas the Spec
tator very deeply with the necessity there
Is for greater candor on both sides Of the
Atlantic Those who feel keeniy the moral
strength OF Mr.. Summers case against
England ought to favor every opportunity
for informally expressing that keen sense
of regret and mortltication which the
! Spectator heatt;'y believes that the great
majority Of thA people of Great Britain
and Ireland entertalu with regard to the
conduct OF tie ruling Class and the Gov
eminent during the first four years Of the
civil war Those, on the other hand, in
America ~ho ieel with corresponding
keenness the utter nnreasonableuess Of
such a&suaJp tions as Mr.. Sumuer's-that
England committed in this case a con-
spicu0Es breach of international law like
the boarding Of the Chesapeake, or Che
raid of 1887 into the territory Of the United
| Stat~s--Slould do their best to restrain
such unreasonable and self-contradictory
demanlls as MIR. Summers which seem con
No.
law. Of course, If we are decided to have
been guilty Of a breach of international
law, let us by all means apologize but to
assume the very point in discussion, on the
ground that we have certainly been guilty
Of ill-feeling, is as monstrous as it would
be for us to ground our own defence on
Tie plea that America has sympathized
openly with the Fenian conspirators H.
formal national sins must be expiated, 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 people in relation to the Fenian matter.
America cannot ask the Government of
England to apologize for the sins of it's
people in relation 10 the civil war If the
only even disputable point as regards legal
liability is the negligence of the Govern
ment in permitting the escape of the Ala
Oaiha, now IS IL possible 10 ask us TO eX-
press formal contEition till it is decided
whether even then we were not acting
strictly within our legal competence?
The Economist thinks that after this re-
ception Of oHr overtures 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 if
they wish. The time for an impartial dis
cussion of our legal liabilities cannot be
come when a body Of men of business so
acute as the Senator's Of the United States
act in this weakly, susceptible and sent;-
mental fashion. And when it is come we
shall know from their own mouths that it
Is so. Doubtless we must remain in that
terrible uncertainty, on the awful nature
of which the United States seem to plume
themselves, whether when next we get into
a war We may not have Alabamas swarm
ing out of American ports, Or, worse still,
an American foe in Canada in addition to
the European foe. We do not at all dis
pute (the Economist continues) that such a
prospect is unpleasant, but we do clearly
see that We shall not in the least avert it by
hurrying negotiationso or evincing any reuc-
tauce to wait We are not hy any means