The New York herald., 1870-10-06
The Armistice QuestiOn--A Fresh OppOr
tunity for Intervention.

France it does appear is misunderstood not
only in this country, not only all over Europe,
but by the combatants themselves, and even
by the representatives Of the two rival nation
alities. The difference Of peace and an
armistice wemade plain to our readers some
days ago. Because Prussia made certain con-
| dtions for an armistice-cOndtiOns which,
though just enough for an armistice, might
| not unjustjy have been deemed hard for a
peace settlement-most Of the newspapers,
not perceiving the difference, burst into tow
ering passion and denounced the tyranny and
| injustice of Prussia. France was unfortunate
| and downtrodden. Prussia, or, rather, Ger
many, was barbarian and brutal. Bismarck
was iend from the lower regions. Jules
Favre was an angel of light. France was all
right. Prussia was all wrong.
Now, however, that we are in possession of
Bismarcks version of what actually did take
place at his interview with Jules Favre, the
difference between peace settlement and an
armistice is no longer misunderstood. Nor is
it any longer possible to doubt that if Jules
Favre had been able to find reason in his un-
reasonable colleagues this most unnecessary
and destructive war would have been ended at
least two weeks ago. Bismarck tells us, and
tells us plainly, that ''the statement that he
refused an armistice is false When he met
Jules Favre at Ferrieres sit was agreed that
an armistce would be possible if France
gave Prussia guarantees against delay
against destroying the advantages of the posi-
ton she had won in the war" These guar
antees included The retention of the fortresses
on the lines OF communication between Ger
many and the advance posts of the German
armies They included also the surrender of
certain Notifications in the neighborhood of
Paris, 50 as to prevent the beseged from taking
undue advantage of the armstice to gather in
supplies and so strengthen their position On
these terms Bismarck was willing to grant an
armistice OF fifteen or twenty days, thus per-
mittiug France TO make her elections and
convene her Constituent Assembly and form
a responsible government which could say
''Yea' or May" According to Bismarck M.
jules Favre could not bind France to any such
arrangements but he promised to consult his
colleagues. Not finding his colleagues in
mood to comply with such terms, Jules
Favre wrote letter to King William, as all
our readers know, full of patriotism, but full
also OF buncombe. With Bismarck's statement
of the case before us, we must repeat that, by
the newspaper world generally, the conditions
OF peace settlement and of AN armstce have
been absurdy confounded that Prussia had
= IL 81, LII.
such conditions, and that the provisional gov
ernment was greatly TO blame for not accepting
the conditions and agreeing to a temporary
suspension Of hostilities. 1t was not unnatural
for tue provisional government and for France
| generally to regard these conditions as hard;
but il must also be admitted that the Prussian
authorities would have revealed miserably
| plentiful lack Of that wisdom which has won
them so great success il they had agreed to
/ grant armistice on terms more
| easy. Count Bismarck was not the
man in any circumstances, least of all
when his triumphant legions were knocking
loudly at the gates of Paris, to fling away
victory which his people had won at a cost of
so much blood and so much treasure, and
which he himself had made it his life labor to
accomplish. For poor France we all feel
but sentiment is not always just, and no man
who loves France and loves justice, too, can
have any difficulty in endorsing the senti-
ment s.Pity that two weeks ago an armistice
was not agreed to-" The fault clearly was not
Bismarck's. 1t was not Jules Favre's. The
blame rests with France, and with France
because she has no responsible government.
An armistice to-day is more possible and
more desirable than ever. Tie terrific artil-
| lery Of Prussia is pointed and ready to burst
upon the doomed city of Paris-a city in the
| preservation of which, somehow, all the world
| feels interested. Ii the Prussian guns do open
their mouths and belch forth destruction on
The monuments and art treasures of the fairest
| city Of which modern civilization can boast no
one can blame Prussia. 1t will not be the
fault OF Count Bismarck, or Of General Moltke,
or of King William, of the Crown
Prince. 1t will only be their painful
duty-their necessity. They have no choice !:
they cannot help it. II will not, we think, be
the fault OF Jules Favre or OF General Trochu.
With unreasoning colleagues they have no
choice; they cannot help it. But still we
must regret the necessity OF the destruction of
! Paris II Prussia has no choice but to pour
| upon it destruction and death if the pro-
| visional government is SO feeble that it can
neither repel the invader nor become respon-
sible for an armstice, there is loud and i'm
| peratve call addressed to the neutral Powers
once more to kindly interfere-to persuade if
they cannot compel. IL is now manifest to all
the world that the door for Intervention is open
that both Prussia and France are willing to
listen to reason, if only they are properly