The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-01-10
Greuing Telegraph
TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1871.
THE MOTLEY FISH CORRESPOND
ENlR


AS an offshoot of the Graut-Sumner San Do
mingo quarrel, the public are regaled with
the Motley-Fish correspondence on the Ala
bams question, and various issues of fact be-
tween high dignitaries are submitted to the
great tribunal of the American people. Few
will care to wade through the long columns OF
the correspondence arising from Mr.. Motleys
removal from the British mission, but its
general purport is interesting to every Ameri-
can citizen. At the bottom of the whole
difficulty lies the fact that Grant did not see
proper to adopt the views of the Alabama
question which had been propounded by
Charles Sumner in his famous Alabama
speech, while Mr.. Motley, when he discussed
this subject at London, came rerrehecting
the views of the Senate Chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs than those of
the President of the United States. 1t is true
that Motley denies this soft impeachment, and
claims that he adhered strictly to his instruc-
tions as he understood them; but Secretary
Fish nevertheless Rdheres to the statement
that Motley did not fairly represent the Pre-
sidents views, and that he was therefore an
unreliable and unworthy representative of the
administration at London.
oussing the Reverdy johnson treaty, took the
bold ground that the British Government
had no right to recognize the Southern Con-
federacy as a belligerent power; that i'm
mense losses, amounting in the aggregate to
thousands of millions of dollars, were en-
tailed on this country by that recognition, and
that the matters in dispute between the two
countries could not be settled until full salts
faction for these enormous damages were
made, either in the way of a cash payment,
territorial concessions, or an humble apology.
This defiant speech set England in blaze of
indignation, and the cry went up from all
parties that if we insisted upon
settlement of that description
no English administration would
dare to consider it for single moment.
When Grant came into power he seems to
have comprehended from the first the fallacy
of Summers demand, and without making an
open issue with Sumner on the subject he
instructed Motley (according to the statement
of Secretary Fish) to ''place the cause of
grievance of the United States against
Great Britain not 50 much upon her SSSu-
Gnce Of the recognition Of the insurgents
in a state Of aoar, as upon her con-
duct Wnder and subsequent to such a
recOgnitton." Now Motley was the pet of
Sumner, and appointed in q large measure
through his influence, and as, in addition to
his written instructions he was authorized to
talk over the subject at issue in general
way with the English Secretary of State, it is
not to be wondered at that he put the strong
est possible Sumner coloring upon the Grant
instructions. 1t was rather rough on the
Massachusetts, statesman to have his Massa-
chusetts ministerial pet tell, in effect, an
English Minister that the new Re-
publican administration did not care
button for Summers high flown and imprac-
ticable theories of the subjects in dispute;
and it is scarcely possible to read the
Motley-Fish correspondence without coming
to the conclusion that the American Minister
was more faithful to his Senatorial patron
than to the President of the United States
Right on the heels of discovery and COM
plant of this delinquency by the administra-
tion, Sumner took issue with it on
the San Domingo question, and
thus two causes of dispute arose
nearly simultaneously. The President aban-
doned the Sumner platform on the questions
at issue with Great Britain, and Sumner op-
posed the Grant platform on San Domingo,
while Motley, in the interest of Sumner, gave
such coloring to his instructions as appar-
emily committed Grant to the Sumner view
of the Alabama question, in spite of himself.
This was little more than the hero OF Ap-
pomattoK could stand. He might have con-
sented to be overruled at London, or to be
beaten in the Senate on his West India hobby,
through Summers overshadowing influence,
but he was not willing to be foiled at both
points without striking back. Motley con-
tends that he was removed solely because
Sumner opposed San Domingo. Fish alleges
that he was removed solely on account of his
violation of instructions. But the real truth
probably is that both causes combined in
duced his dismissal