The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-05-11

try suspicicus Of the attitude Of the President
in respect to Cuba. Tue position OF the Score
tary of State is well known No one, In this
community at least, doubts has robust conser-
vatism. 1t provokes the coarse ribaldry which
daily crops out in journals like the Herald
aud others, which Affect to be In the confidence
of the President, advocate the appointment of
Sumner to the Department Of State, and
which would trample under foot all the re-
straints OF municipal or international law in
the path of the flibusteripg emotions of the
hour. But as to President Grant, his outside
surroundings are bad, and his refusal to issue
proclamation such as his predecessors
in Office have done on similar occasions cre-
ates an uneasy fear that Banks and Sickles.
and such like Influences may be assiduously
poisoning his ear. II was Banks, it will be-
remembered, who, two years ago, induced
the House of Representatives to repeal the
efficient provisions of our neutral code, de-
nouncing 1t as unworthy yielding to the die
tation of European nations, and an obstacle
in the Advancement Of American civilization.
II was Banks who engineered through the
lower house of Congress, during the expiring
hours OF the last session, a resolution to re-
cognize forthwith the insurgent organic alton
in Cuba. 1t will be relief to the country when
President who could be persuaded by Wash
burne, as the EUening Post publishes, to re-
cast his whole Cabinet formed after month of
elaboration, is sheltered by proclamation
from that back. stairs influence of that ilibus-
tering spirit which aims to relieve the itch-
Ing OF Mr.. Sumner for the Department of
State.
The neutrality policy of the United States
is child OF the statesmen and diplematists of
the Revolutionary era. 1t is one of our chief
claims to national glory. II was inaugurated
in the day of our infancy and weakness. 1t
called forth those memorable words of Canning
in the House of Commons, when he said:-
"IfI wished for guide in system of neu-
trality, should take that laid down by
America in the days OF the Presidency of
Washington and the Secretaryship Of JEFF
ferson."
The underlying doctrines of the neutrality
code of 1918, which Banks would repeal and
certain political influences would violate, were
worked ont by Washington in his three
months controversy with Genet, during the
war between France and England, wherein
not even the fresh memory of the priceless
service the former power had rendered in up
holding the fsltering footsteps of the young
republic as she entered the circle of nations
nor the hostility of the latter power, which at
that time required all the wisdom and firm
ness Of Chief Justice Jay to keeI from burst
ing out in war, could dissuade or deter our
great chieftain, sustained by Jefferson and
Hamilton, from vindicating the inviolability
OF neutral soil, even against our first and best
ally. And in all this primary struggle there
was no neutrality law to aid the Executive,
as now.
We wish President Grant would study the
records of our early neutrality history, and
see how the statesmen of the Revolutionary
epoch pushed aside all personal sympathy
when confronted with their duty to maintain
the national honorl
The enlistment oftroops, the sailing of mill
tary expeditions, are very different things
from supplying, on our own soil, to either
fighting party, munitions OF war. OF these,
we can freely and legally sell to both as much
as we please. Our markets are wide open to
the insurgents as well as to Spain, and We
can transport to each, in our own chips, if we
see fit, subject to the right of capture by either
belligsrent as contraband OF war.