The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-04-12
E NJ G. T. a N ..
Senator summers Removal-An English Esti-
mate oil the American SIatcsuaG's Char

was trying to do his duty by his country In these
particular matters deeper regret Is felt by many
OF the best men IN America at the humiliation OF q
man who had long been representative or what
was noblest In their internal politics. And what
ever may be our sense OF Mr.. Summers errors on
Inc issues between England and America we cannot
help sharing the feeling which has made his removal
the OF earnest tributes TO his general course
as statesman. Or those who suffered IN the cause OF
emancipation in the sorrowll years OF IT'S weakness
ana danger Mr.. Sumner Is one OF the few whs
survive TO share the gOries OF It's triumph He was
among those wno amlu tue scons OF inc senate ana
seed into the hard and frozen soll with II he en-.
dured through the winter OF contention. and at la ST
able to put in his sickle to the harvest and oiu
In the harvest nome Generally men paw the homage
due to thu martyrs only to their dns. u was so
Lovejoy ie, beside the Mississippi, beneath the bull
lets OF slavery, while defending the printing press he
had devoted to freedom; 1t was so when Captain
Brown was borne from VrgInlan scafold to
rise again In the battle hymn. In winch MS
soul So tns Kept nn acAhS ON Charles g e aer
lie had fallen under the Shareholders bud.
geon, slowly recovered. and was SCI, sent and
resent to the Senate where he mad been struck
down, for the eloquence OF his scars no less than
the eloquence Of his speech; and In 1861. when the
power whose ferocy he had fearlessly faced LETT
the Congress 1t could no longer control. It was with
a genuine enthusiasm that the republican party
raised him to the chief place on It's most important
committee ana gathered around HIM as a leader.
Where were circumstances which, as Iney had rem
dered Mr.. Sumner especially obnoxious to the party
OF slavery, caused him to be all the more esteemed
and Irusted BY the friends OF lreeaom. Unless we
except Mr.. Seward who had been more deadly than
Outspoken IN his hostility to the regning institution
the Massachusetts senator was the first scholar who
had represented In the national Legislature the anti
slavery principles Of New England Passing from the
h0nors Of Harvard to the Capitol. he had borne with
hun the ssmpathles OF the literary class Of his
State and was sign that 1t had forever abandoned
the compromising attitude OF Daniel Webster. The
history OF the United States mad 80 uniformly EN-.
national laws, that when MI. Summer came to Show
that the mind Of that section was made up that
slave hunting should cease, and slavery be I'm,
prsoned III It's existing domain, it was recognized
by the South as an omen OF coming struggle. The
struggle came, with what issue the word knows,
and through 1t the Senator bore himself bravely.
Again and again was he insulted and threat
ened, ana more than ever did he show him
izing methods Tnat fearlessness which was
his chief characteristic he displayed when he with
stood President Lincoln IN his desire to admit Louisi
ana to the Union before its laws were purged Of
pro-savery eatures and IN the recent conflict with
esdent Grant 1t at least cannot be charged that
he has with tlmidtY with an eye TO his per-
MIR. Sumner unquestionably had faults as party
leader, and these became more noticeable when the
8 avery question no longer occupied the foremost
place In American politics. He sometimes showed
tiers Of eternal principle. and perhaps rem
dered himself Liable to the old criticism OF
@ moa IS and
the degree to which theory liked in his mind
drew after 1t the facts was shown In his unfortunate
These are. indeed such faults as might be expected
OF q senstively conscientious man and student
somewhat removed IRON contemporary affairs; put
they are grave, and, while we may sympatlize with
him under humiliation that does not seem attri-
buIabe to them, we cannot but suspect that he IS
leaving field where few great successes awaited
him, to be all the more devoted TO those where
add to the auGels which. In his case, mean twenty
years OF Senatorial career marked by industry and
herosm, untouched by any suspicion OF dlsbonor
Maritime .Wnrfare-A Consideration of the
eubject-TEc InAncuce Of Stcam-The Posi-
ton Of the United states Regarding Future
Treaties.
IFrom the London Standard March o.
The existing law, as our readers are aware, dates
only the enemy's goods, and those only under the
enemys dag. neutral cargo taken under hostile
cargo IS exempt from molestation under Neutral
nag. The latter change completely altered the posi-
ton OF maritime belligerents. up to 1866 the Power
that was strongest at able entirely to inter-
cept the commerce Of It's enemy, so far at least as
it can only intercept Its enemy's shipping; and II
that shipping he not very great the general trade Is
carried with almost equal facility under neutral
nags This 49, OF course very serious disadvantage
to England. On the one hand, as the largest ship.
any oiner state from the law which still allows the
capture OF an enemy's goods under his own
nag.
carried out. We should then be able TO carry
trade all over the world without lear OF Interrupt
ton, SO long as no enemy was strong enough to
blockade our ports. On the other hand, our feet.
though released from its most ardu0us duties would
be rendered almost powerless Tor offensive action.
We have SEEM in the late war, how little feet can
effect against an enemy who does not pretend TO
keep the sea- and the progress Of science tends TO
reduce that little to absolute zero. Now defence
must often depend upon offensive action. Suppose,
for instance, war with America. The enemy can
retaliate by land invasion. Our mode OF
defence would be to strike as hard as possible
strike efectually II their ports be protected by
torpedoes and their mercantile shipping by law
1t may be supposed, too, that II the immunity OF
private property from maritime capture ne once
established, the right of blockade viii 90 with 1t,
except as affecting military ports and naval exped
perry at sea would work with preposterous unfair
ness 1t would permit the North to capture every
vessel bound TO or from the Confederate ports but
forbid the Contederacy to capture Yankee ships in
return; 1t would enable us to seize and stop the
tire trade OF America while oblIging America to
leave our trade unmoested. The question resolves
itself, then, into comparison Of advantages. On
the one hand, we gain The perfect freedom OF q COM
OF which, under existing laws one half would be
destroyed, and the other transferred to neutral ags
the rights OF capture and OF commercial biockades
and our maritime strength becomes all but useless
sessions. 1t must be remembered that the cond
tons OF maritime warfare are now wholly changed
artillery mas abolished armed and self-relying mer
chantmen while both combined have rendered it
possible for single swift cruiser to drive the ene-
mys merchant ships from q whole sea, for dozen
cruisers to render his mercantile marine absolutely
useless. Every one Of these considerations de-
mands and deserves careful consideration: aud we
certainly shall not undertake at this moment to sum
up the case and pronounce WIFI CHI set OF interests
should prevail, which class OF motives prep0nderate.
But thus far we have written on the assumption
that the change IN the law would be adopted by all
maritime nations, and when adopted would be
faithfully observed. Would this be the case we
doubt 1t. The case Is entirely distinct from that OF
the Treaty OF Paris Belligerents are compelled to
respect their engagements with neutrals BY fear or
bringing the neutrals upon them as enemies but
what guarantee Is there OF their engagements with
the enemy Both Federas and Confcderates though
not bound by 1t, virtually observed the Treaty Of
Paris, because by violating II they would have pro.
voked the resentment Of England. But what mo-
tive would or could have restrained them rom
selzing each others merchant shipsS The advO-
Gates OF the change talk OF assmilaIing the law OF
the sea to that prevailing land. But private
property on land enjoys no immunity and it is this
fact which renders US 80 incredulous Of the pro.
posed immunity at sea- While the troops OF SherI-
dan and Sherman were devastating, burning pil-
laying In Virginia ana the Carolinas, who believes
that Confederate cruisers would allow Federal mer-