The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-02-24
Our Difficulties with England.
From the N. Y. Times.

From The ". Y. Times.
We are by no means certain that the treaty
which Mr.. Reverdy Johnson has negotiated
with England for the settlement of the Ala
bama claims ought to be ratified by the
Senate. Indeed, if our differences with Eng
land are so grave and comprehensive as they
are represented in some quarters, it is very
clear that it ought not to be. 1t is unques-
tionably true that the material loss OF the
ships burned or sunk by the rebel cruisers
fitted out in English ports by no means mea-
sures the injury done US by England during
the war. 1t was her premature recognition
of the rebels as belligerents, and as entitled to
all the rights of nation at war, which first
gave the Confederacy position and strength
to carry on the war; and it was the tolerated
use by the rebels of English ports, English
workmen and English capital in building,
armipg, manning, equipping and sending to
sea rebel cruisers against our commerce, that
created rebel navy, gave Vlgor ana enect TO
the rebellion, and prolonged the war for q
year or more beyond what, but for such aid,
would have been its end. And the motive of
this extraordinary course was very largely
hostility to the United States as national
power, and a desire to check its growth and
arrest the development of its national
strength.
But these are acts which constitute national
insults and national wrongs. 1t may be very
well urged that such acts of hostility cannot
be settled by the payment of damages. The
material losses which may have resulted di-
rectly from them, even where they can be dis
tinctly traced, do not measure the degree OF
wrong involved or the extent of injury in
flicted. But FIR the moral support and en-
couragement held out by England and France,
| at the beginning of the Rebellion, and at va
rious stages OF its progress, it is very doubtful
! whether the war would have lasted year,
while it is quite certain it could never have
grown so powerful and lasted 80 long, and
done such serious damage to the country, as
it actually did.
On this theory, a large part of the whole
cost of the war, in lite, in money, and in suf-
fering, may rightfully be- charged to England,
if this is to be made matter of account cur
rent and settled on that basis.
But every one sees how absurd that would
! be. If hiS is our cOmplaint-if we charge
England with having prolonged the war and
added millions 10 its cost with having
swept our commerce from the ocean, driven
our flag from the seas, discarded the Obliga-
tions of neutrality, tTampled on our national
| rights and insulted our national honor-the
question ceases to be one oi damages, and be-
comes one of national honor, and can be ad-
justed only as questions of honor always are
adjusted by nations prOud enough to feel an
insult and strong enough to resent it.. 1t can
only be settled by rar. If we are to take this
view OF the wrong dOEe us, we cannot take
any other view of the remedy open to us
Nations do not claim damages for their inju
honor. They do not present pecuniary claims
for rights scofled at and trampled on. We
must either place our complaints of England'i
action during our war on different basis
on some basis that admits the allegation OF
specific acts, involving specific losses, to be
atoned for by specific acts of payment OF
spology-or else we must punish the wrong
and avepge the insult in the usual way. The
world has not outgrown the era OF wars
nor has any new mode of settling interna
tional controversies been yet devised and
accepted.
The Tribune finds another mode of settling
this difficulty. 1t is opposed utterly to Mr.
Reyerdy JOhnson's treaty. Our complaint
OF England, IT says, is not for the specific