The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1870-08-26
NUMBER 81.
SENTIMENTAL sTATEsMASsHIP.

thus far withheld from the public-ano
the appointment of Mr.. Frelinghuysen
which in itself is received with general
favor, re-opens q little the interest in the
Alabama question. There has been
also, a brief synopsis published of cor;
respondence between Mr.. Motley and
Lord Clarendon upon the subject. In
this report Mr.. Motley is represented a:
making a very wise remark to the
British Foreign Secretary. q remark
indeed, which Mr.. Frelinghuysen and
every other American Minister mus
repeat to the British Government until
some settlement is reached. The remarI
was, that the first step toward the estab-
iishment of friendly relations between
the two governments is to see the case
as we see it, and to understand the deep
sense of wrong which we feel. This
view of the subject is usually sneered
at as sentimental diplomacy; and it is
caustically said that nations don't pay
damages for wounded sensibilities, but
| for merchandise illegally destroyed.
Mr.. Sumner has been reproached for
treating the question sentimentally, and
| for a display of emotional statesman
ship; and Mr.. Motley is supposed to
have sympathized with what is called
the Senator's folly.
But what is derided as sentimental
craftsmanship is merely regard for the
fact that feelings and passions are the
| real motives in human affairs. Inter
national differences of dollars may be
compounded or forgiven. They are moi
vital. But as man thinketh, so is he.
If one man attacks the child of another.
the difficulty is not settled. nor the
peace re-established, because the assail-
ant pays fine for assault and battery.
The real injury is not to the body of the
victim, it is to the feelings of the parent
| This law operates with the same force
| in international affairs. And it was the
perception of this truth which led DIR.
| Franklin, one of the most practical OF
men, to suggest a purely sentimental
| clause in the treaty of peace between
America and Great Britain which closed
the Revolution. III paper of hints as
to what was advisable but not essential
in such treaty the Doctor proposed
''some sort of acknowledgment in some
public act of Parliament, or otherwise. y
of the British error Gin distressing those
countries SO much" The English nego-
tiator, who mentions the fact, adds: "a
| few words of that kind, the Doctor said
would do more than the people could
imagine"
Poor Richard was never more practi-
cal, nor more shrewd, than in this
| sentimental suggestion. 1t was not
indeed adopted. Governments, we are
told, can have no emotions. But that
the Doctor was right, who doubts
That his proposition, if adopted, would
have done good, who questions? That
there would have been a very different
feeling between the two countries, which
might have avoided the jealousy OF
| 1884, the war of 1872, and the alienation
of 1861, is evident. Now, it is precisely
| in this spirit that Mr.. Sumner made his
speech. He demanded nothing. He
said only, this is the case as we under
stand it. 1t has two aspects: one OF
pecuniary damage, the other of national
feeling. The outcry was made because
he was supposed to have demanded
money in settlement of the feeling. But
what he did demand was, first, recogni-
ton of the wrong-exactly what DIR.
| Franklin suggested; and, second, a con-
sideration of the national losses growing
| out of this wrong. The computation
| in money of such losses is indeed diff
cult nor do we believe that the country
| asks more than the recognition of this
| wrong. But whatever it asks, the ques-
ton of a proper settlement is to be
| determined wholly by the purposes of a
| treaty.
What, then, is the real end to be
sought in an Alabama treaty? Perma-
nent peace and friendship between the
two countries. Any other object is
futile. A treaty not inspired by this
purpose would be only another source
of discord. But does any body imagine
that such an object can be attained
without regard to feeling? What was
the moral of the rejection of the John.
son treaty? AS q method of ascertain.
ing certain computable pecuniary losses
and indemnifying the losers, it was a
very good treaty. But under the cir
cumstances it was body without soul.
It was monster, and instantly repealed
It lacked any provision whatever which
bore in any degree upon the chief diff
culty-upon the national sense OF
wrong. Great Britain says that we
but actually Mr.. Seward made it, and
he was not in sympathy with the coun-
try. Great Britain continues that,
having rejected our own treaty, it GER
tainly is not her place to propose an
other. Technically, again, this is true.
But unless there is a craftsmanship
which can rise above technicalities,
there will be no settlement except such
as that in which Prussia and France are
now engaged. In DIR. Franklin's phrase,
then, what is advisable 2"
Another treaty can, of course, be
made providing for the settlement of
claims and leaving the "wrong" I'M
touched. The presidents established
by Great Britain may remain unques-
toned and our money bill be paid.
Then what? Then the instant Great
Britain is drawn into war, every one of
these presidents will be turned against
her as with fire. Such an arrangement,
therefore, is no settlement. It can not
secure the proper objects of a treaty
between the two countries. And, con-
sequently, Great Britain plainly does
herself and the just purposes of q set
Element the utmost wrong when she
plants herself upon a purely technical
ground. She is not asked to go down
upon her knees to cry peccGci. She is
not asked to renounee the right which
we ourselves claim, and which the Presi-
dent so strongly stated in his first annual
message to Congress, and in that upon
the Cuban questionable right of every
power to determine for itself when to
acknowledge beiligerency. She is asked
to consider whether she should not be
willing to refer to arbitration the ques-
ton whether the precedents established
by her conduct during the war should
be sustained as a part of international
law. Are they, in fact, presidents by
which she is willing to stand?
If the object of q treaty at the present
time between the United States and
Great Britain be not only to satisfy just
pecuniary claims, but to establish good
will, it is mere folly to expect that it
can be done in any merely ceremonial
manner and by total disregard of feel
ing. The arrangement must have some
reference to the real springs of human
action. And what those are the dryest
diplomatist knows.-Harper's Weekiy.
KANSAS,