The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-06-07
OUR POLICY TOWARDS ENGLAND.


the EgeDiUg Post are to be relied upon,
President Grant has directed that no instruc-
tions be given to Mr. Motley in respect to
our differences with England and the reiec-
tion of the Johnson-Stanley treaty. These
correspondents, or a portion of them, assert
that the President has declared to them that
he would leave the violation to our injury by
England of admitted rules of international
law to rest without settlement, so as to fur
nish a precedent for violation in kind should
that nation find herself at war and ourself at
peace holding an attitude of pretended neu-
trality. Grant proposes to postpone enforc-
ing due reparation until our enemy is ham,
pered by war, and then repeat the villany
taught us by her.
II can but be that if President Grant now
and then bethinks himself of such policy
it is only uttered as a spur to England to
reopen negotiations. He must see that the
conduct of that power towards us was either
right or wrong in a legal sense. If right
there is am end of the matter If wrong, the
law of nations, which it is our duty to vindi-
cate, has not been changed by the disobe-
dience of one nation. As no one government
made, so no one can unmake, the rules of
national intercourse
The United States has. for five years, pub
1icly maintained that the acts of England, in
fitting out Confederate cruisers were palpable
infractions of neutral obligations as defined
by international law, which is an ensemble
of treaties, usages, and received opinions,
aided, in case of need, by the doctrines of
abstract justice and universal reason. The
United States has never said that those
acts modified repealed any portion of
that law. By our own declarations, there
fore, we are estopped from following, as
neutral, the precedent England gave us,
and calling it lawful Whenever England
is at war with some power foreign to us,
against her commerce, burn innocent
merchantmen, and so TetdLi0te in kind
or by way of reprisals; but that is imperfect
war, not neutrality. If President Grant
means that we shall lie by till our rival is as
sailed by some other nation, and then join in
the hostilities against her, his policy is COM
prehensible, even if not quite chivalric A
proud and high-toned man at the head of the
Federal Government would the rather say to
England:-We scorn to take you at disadvan-
tage, and, unless you straightway do us JUS
tice, we will attack in the plentitude of your
unhampered strength. If we are to fail or
win it shall be with honor; but under no cir
cumstances will we, while protesting to be
neutral, sneak into war.
The dog-i -in-the-manger policyis confession
that we are inspired only by emotions of
spite. 1t lets the controversy down from ma
tional indignity to one of individual griev-
ances. 1t gives no consideration to what a
humane and expedient neutral code demands
of us, its foremost champions from the days
of Washington, jefferson, and Hamilton.
For another reason, this policy, in the
forum of craftsmanship is vicious. Our
cause is not yet in a condition to bear it. The
record, the pleadings, are not adapted to it.
What has been done? The Department of
State asked, or England proposed 1--WE know
not which, stipulation by treaty that the
individual claims, since 1858, of our citizens
against the latter power be referred to COM
mission to be thereafter constituted, which
commission shall have power to select an
arbitrator in case of disagreement. This
stipulation was given by convention; it
covered the claims for damages to individuals
by Anglo-Rebel cruisers; and the Senate
rejected it. That is the record! With no
thing more asked on our part and refused on
the other part, can we build on this record
a case for retaliation in kind, or case for
carrying on what publicists call imperfect
war" like that we waged, prior to 1900,
against France for placing an embargo on our
vessels at Bordeaux? The proposition is boy
like How can Lord Clarendon know whether
the views advanced by Mr.. Sumner controlled
Senators in rejecting the treaty, or what mea-
sure of atonement and redress will satisfy Pre-
sident Grant He asks Mr.. Motley. Accord
ing to the reported policy of Grant, the
Minister replies to his Lordship:- you
what is right !" But answers Lord Claren-
don, ''what is the demand of your Govern
ment?" II am not prepared to answer re-
spends Mr.. Motley. "Our policy is, in the
language of the turf, to ride waiting race.
every we'll !" concludes Lord Clarendon; ''if
your Government has not standard nor ex-
preston of the reparation it demands, further
conversation between us on the topic is use
less !"
No such management of our controversy
with England BELTS the dignity and frankness
of the United States, nor can it command
popular appreciation. Lightly as we estimate
the intelligence of President Grant, we do not
believe such can be the policy of his admins
tration. 1t is unlikely that Mr.. Fish can be
made party to such line of conduct. He
appreciates the importance of enlarging the
prerogatives of peaceful industry and com
merce, by upholding the doctrines of neutral
reserve and impartiality in the intercourse OF
nations. The United States, instead of fall
ing back into the international ethics of bar
barism, burning as many ships of England as
she has burned of ours-''an eye for an eye
and tooth for tooth-needs to revise he
own municipal laws in the interest of homes
neutrality, advance still higher her standar,
of neutral rights, and insist that Engant
shall Join us in making a new and improves
neutral CODE Whatever other nations ma
do in this business this country can take n
steps backward
We do not believe that any folly such a
the E0eni1ag Post and Republican correspon
dents attribute to President Grant has II
ceiyed Endorsement or utterance at the DE-
,nortnent of State To have sent Mr. Mote