Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1872-03-08
.UR. sE.n.rER'S POSITION.

Frederick Douglass is reported as ex-
pressing strong regret at the lengths to
which Senator Sumner has allowed per-
sonal animosity to carry him, in his war
upon the President, and sorrow that the
champion of humanity and freedom should
thus weaken his power for future service.
Multitudes of fair minded men, who have
been proud of tue ability and admired the
devotion TO duty Of the Senator from Mas
sachusetts, must share this rolling. We
have no desire to join in the bitter denun-
citation Of Mr.. Sumner, which is current in
some quarters; but it is we'll enough % re-
call the histo. Y OF his break with the ad-
minstratun. The simple facts form a
sufficiently strong rebuke of his course.
Mr.. Sumner, though perhaps a little
Jealous that he was not sufficiently appre
ciated at the State Department, was, we be-
lieve, on very good terms with President
Grant, before the Motley controversy. Mr..
sumner had adopted the view that the
hasty recognition of beIlgerency by Eng
land was something more than au indica-
ton of uniriendly feeling; that it afforded
ground for a claim for damages. He Ella
bnrated this view in his famous speech.
lie secured the appointment of Mr.. Motley
as Minister to England, and Mr.. Motley
adopted the same ground. Mr.. Fish's in
structons to our Minister informed him
that that was not the view taken by this
government that the issue or non-issue of
a recognition of belligerency, was a matter
wholly within the discretion of any neutral
government and that the liability of Eng
land could not be sustained on that ground.
Mr.. Motley, though demonstrated with, in
sisted on asserting his view of the case in
speeches and unofficial ways which were
held to be prcjudicial to our interests; and
he was sustained in his course by Mr..
Sumner. Mr.. Motley finally compelled
our government to relieve him, and Mr..
| Sumner took his removal as a personal
alfront. From that time on he has nursed
his grudge against the administration and
| it is now evident he is willing to crafty it,
at whatever cost to the party and the coun-
| try. He selects the time when our rela-
| tions with England are at a most critical
point; when the great Treaty of Washing
| ton is in the greatest danger when public
opinion in England is in a very excited
state and eXorting strong pressure on the
British government to withdraw from arbi-
tration, though at the cost of war,-he
chooses this time to arraign our own gov
ernment, on charges Of gross violation Of
neutrality, as gross as those for which We
are trying to hold England to account. He
bases the charges on anonymous cable tele-
grams, on hearsay, on statements of Frehch
emissaries. He insinuates charge of fraud
against the Secretaries of War and the
Navy, which he is compelled to withdraw
almost as soon as stated. His position is
not an envable one. 1t seems strange
enough to question the patriotism of Charles
Sumner; but 1t is impossible TO resist the
conclusion that his private resentment, in
this case, has overcome his public spirit.
If this "bomb-shel" had been left solely
to the charge of Carl Schurz, who is kind
of "solder of fortune" it could have ac-
complished little. But MI. Sumner was
long connected intimately with our for
eign relations. His words will have an
effect in England, which no other Senator's
could have. British animosity, which was