The States and Union. [volume] (Ashland, Ohio) 1868-1872, 1869-06-16
Hon. Reverdy Johnson-His Views
of the Rejection of the Alabama
Treaty.

Hon. Reverdy Johnson-His Views
of the Rejection of the Alabama
Treaty.
The New York Times contains an
account. of an interview with Hon.
Reverdy johnson, late Minister to Eng
land, from which we take the follow
ing
"Well," replied Mr. johnson, Il do
not know that any one else is satisfied
with it. 1 tell you that that speech
of Sumner has made England a unit
against the United States. Our friends
there have fallen off by troops. At
first the people declared for war, but
now 1 think they have got over that
idea, and are satisfied hat our inteh-
tions are pacific. The speech having
been approved by the Senate, the Eng
fish people at first thought that it was
a declaration of war, and were prepar-
ed to accept it in that spirit: but they
have since changed their minds, and
now they have justly arrived at the
conclusion that Sumner is, after all,
but one American citizen, and does
not represent the views of the Admin
istration. Motley has gone over there.
I left before he arrived. / do not be-
lieve that he has got any instructions
whatever. They objected to my max
ing speeches that the United States
desired to be on friendly terms with
England. What has he done! The
! x,a--x, e -c& &b,,,~ ha loaC on oDlspr c
to say that his mission is pacific. l
said that my mission was pacific
Sumner says that his speech was made
in the interest of peace. Why, we are
all for peace"
For a few minutes Mr.. johnson
here relapsed into silence, and then
broke out again: Summers speech is
absurd Do you know what they say
of it in England Clarendon says that
it is absurd and preposterous; that it
is not the speech of either a lawyer OF
a statesman (; that its propositions are
wholly inadmissible." "Why," said
Mr.. Johnson, "this same Mr.. Sumner
w1ate to Mr.. Bright on the 18th or
10th OF last January that the protocol
which I sent here would been almost
unanimously approved if it had been
received three weeks o The fact
is, the incoming President did not want
the question settled during the Ad-
ministration of Andrew johnson, and
the Republican party did not want it
settled by me. They did not want the
evAat of having the most difficult ques-
ton, short of the question of actual
separation. that has arisen between the
two countries, settled by a Democratic
Administration. That was the point
of objection to my course and to my
protocol. Mr.. Summer said to my
colleague, Mr.. Vickers, that a month
earlier 1T would have been as well
come as champagne Bright denoun-
ces Summers speech in the strongest
terms"
"Why don't the English papers
publish Nh. Summers speech!"
why, because it is too nonsense
cal. Clarendon says that the United
States as Il Government have no claims
against England as a Government.
The United States have private indi-
vidual claims against England, and
; England has private individual claims
against the United States. These the
English people and Government are
willing to submit to an arbitration
FCtarendon says thai England might
as we'll say that she would reject the
treaty because the holders of Irish
Republican bonds might come in un-
der its terms. The Americans whom
1 have met abroad denounce Mr..
Summer as much as the English peo-
pie do. 1t is a foolish speech, Take
that point which he makes about the
blockade. That decision i'll the prize
cases II. Black, is totally against him.
The English papers have not publish
ed and will not publish his speech"
Mr.. johnson was very indignant on
this subject. He could not tolerate
the idea of attaching any Importance
or significance whatever to the ideas
of the Massachusetts Senator. He
started up from his seat, and walking
up and down the room, nervously and
rapidly, said.
"The English Government will
never accede to the Sumner demands.
Clarendon won't yield one inch from
his position. They have taken it and
cannot be shaken in their resolve
They are a very proud people, a pow
erful people, and cannot be fright
ened."
"What do you think of q war be-
tween England and the United States,
Mr.. johnson! What would be the
result of iti'
'The result would be unfavorable
to us. In the first place our debts are
equal. But there will not be and
there cannot be a war so long as there
is any common sense left to the two
peoples. But, to talk about it for ar
guments sake: England was lever
better prepared for a war than she is
now, and the United States is less able
to enter on a contest of the kind than
she was during the rebellion. Do you
remember Admiral Porter's letter on
the subject! He is of my opinion, or
rather, / am of his, that we cannot
fight England. Yes, they would give
us Canada, provided the Canadian
people were willing to be exchanged;
but 1 do not think they are, and Don
er than part with that Province on
forcible terms, England would lose
her last man and her last shilling"
"What do you think Mr.. Motley
will do? How will he go to work.
HMot'ey will have IN paddle his own