The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-12-31
MIR. SUMNER AND SAN DOMINGO.

MIR. SUMNER AND SAN DOMINGO.
From the NJ Y. Times.
Whether Senator Sumner adheres to or
recedes from the position he has assumed in
the San Domingo dispute is a question to be
decided by himself. Whether, il the oppor-
tunity required, he would-as some of the
newspaper correspondents alege-repeat his
recent speech, making it. more severe, if
changed at all, is a matter which must be left
to his own taste. If he prefer personalities
to principles, and imagines that vehement
attacks on the President constitute proof of
craftsmanship, he will probably travel
further on the course he has chosen. He
may rest assured, however that the approx
ing words of Gerrit Smith or William Lloyd
Garrison will not shake the judgment formed
by the great body of intelligent observers in
reference to the merits of the controversy
That Judgment is not favorable to him. His
attainments, experience, and general charac-
ter might have been accepted as guaran-
tees against the adoption in his
case of the tactics common to ordinary ward
politicians. He of all men might have been
supposed to be superior to the methods of
carrying on discussion with which speakers
of less pretension have made the country
familiar. Where we looked for an example
we have found a warning. A Massachusetts
Senator, instead of stating calmly and oour-
teously the reasons which impeied him to
oppose the policy of the Executive, deemed
it not unbecoming his reputation to assail
the President, to insult his motives, and
coarsely and Extensively deride his sugges-
tions. Mr.. Sumner may look back on what
be said and did with entire self com placency,
but the public regard him and his speech in
quite a different light. They look upon the
speech as discreditable to him, and as an
illustration of the degrading tendencies which
have crept into Congressional debates, and
lessened their influence upon outside opinion.
So far as San Domingo is concerned, Mr..
Sumner has done more than any other man
to break down the opposition encountered
by the treaty. The policy of annexation was
fair subject for difference of opinion.
Weighty considerations were available on
both sides. On either, plausible argument
might be constructed with strict reference to
eSpediency. The President has certainly
stated his view temperately and fairly. If
those portions of his late message which re-
late to it indicate an ardor not usually dis
played by him, there is no reason for suppos-
ing that it proceeded from anything but
conviction of the Importance of the subject
from the standpoint of public interest. Was
it not possible to present the opposite view
with the same temper and the same respect
for different opinion2 Are we to conclude
that the opposition to the treaty rests not
upon profound conviction, but upon personal
plque and anlmosity! we apprehend that this
is the conclusion which MIR. Summers course
has forced upon the minds of many. The
mere fact that he has exposed himself to sus-
picion upon this point is fatal to his authority
in the final disposition of the main ques-
ton. 1t will be said, and not without SEM
blance of plausibility, that he is simply
keeping up fight with the President, ire
spective of matters directly connected with
the treaty or the policy that is relied upon for
ifa justification IF fhja impreasiop doas in
Justice to Mr.. Sumner, he can blame only
himself. He threw away all the influence he
ever had in regard to San Domingo when
he converted grave issue into pretext for
bandying epithets and making war upon the
President.