The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-03-04


ton made their opinions important. They
did not share his fears nor adopt bis views.
asked, among others, General Banks then
and now chairman Of the COMMITTEES on
| Foreign Relations In the House Of Repre-
sentatives. General Banks has been Thought
In this country to hold strong antfEngiish
opinions. In America he is known asa poll
tician Of very great experience, and as par
lticularly good Judge Of popular feeling and
/ of the probable action Of the House on any
4 question In which popular feeling is enlisted.
Els answer was, General Butter may I'M
dertake a campaign of that sort IL he likes,
but he cannot get twelve Republican vote"
Nor Is there much reason to suppose that the
Democratic minority in the House will invite
General Buffers leadership. On Monday of
this week he could not induce the House to
ask the President for information whether
England has proposed to withdraw from the
arbitration. 1t is believed that General But
Ter Is opposed not only to this treaty, but to
any treaty. His friends say he wants a war
with England. The people of Americs do
not.
With the exception OF General Butler,
every American whom met took the Presi-
dents view of the "treaty,n as an act bind
ing the national legislature to carry out its
provisions. There is but one other whose
declarations need quote, and / quote him
because presume Englishmen will consider
what he said in favor of the "treaty" and Of
a good understanding between the two ma
tons pretty strong evidence-1 mean Mr..
! Sumner. 1t has been asserted over and over
again in English papers that Mr. Sumner op-
| posed the ratification of the treaty. He did
nothing of the kind. He supported it. He
defeated the Clarendon-Johnsont treaty be-
cause, among other defects, it provided only
for the claims of citizens, and not for those of
| the Government. He advocated the subse-
quent treaty partly because it included those
claims which the other omitted; partly for
reasons which will state in a.moment. The
notion prevalent here that Mr.. Sumner lost
his craftsmanship of the Committee of Foreign
| Affairs in the Senate because of difference
| between him and the President on the
Alabama claims is an error, as should
have supposed Mr.. Fish's dispatch
might have convinced you. Ills dis
placement was concession, and most
unwise one, by very small majority of the
| Republican senators to the wish of the Pre-
sident, the grounds of whose quarrel with
Mr. Sumner are of no concern to us just now.
| But Mr.. Sumner retained his great influence
| on all foreign questions, The fact that he
| was strong enough to compel the President
to withdraw his San Domingo annexation
scheme sufficiently proves that. Lie could
| have defeated the treaty Of Washington II he
had wished to. Mr.. Fish said: Mr.. Sum-
ner would have opposed the treaty could he
| have done it successfully" The senator to
whom he said it replied: "Mr. Sumner
| could have defeated the treaty, and 1t would
not have passed but for his support" An
other senator, an opponent to the treaty,
said to Mr.. Sumner: off you will exert
onc-quarter Of your usual vigor in resisting
the treaty it will be beaten" Mr.. Sumner
| replied. "On reading the treaty my mind
| was fixed to support it," Other senator's
said openly that Mr. Summers opposition
| would have been fatal to ratification, and
| think there is no doubt it would
What Mr.. Sumner really attempted was to
| amend the language of the three rules, which
he thought loosely drawn, an opinion which
| was shared on this side. How large and
| generous and statcsnmnlike view Mr.. Sum
ner took may lie seen in an extract which l
will quote from letter dated the 18th Of
June last. Mr.. Sumner wrote as follows:
II ann sorry that 50 conspicuous nego-
| tation did not end in more for international
law. We ought to have got more, and man
kind should also. There should have been
| conservation Of the great principle OF lmmu-
nifty of private property on the ocean; also,
the denlmciation as a pirate of any ship plum
lcring and burning prizes at sea without
taking them into port for adjudication; also,
the recognition Of the duty of a neutral
power to exclude from its ports in time Of
war any armed vessel engaged i'll hostilitles
which does not hold Il commission delivered
in some port Of military or naval equipment
in the actual occupation Of the commission
ing Government. These provisions deal with
evils which became manifest during our war,
and | always hoped that the final treaty
would not allow them. With such safe
guards for civilization, would have been
content with less for my own country. Such
treaty l could not have opposed even il it
gave Us nothing"
1t ought to he added that the letter from
| Which quote the above was not written for
publication, and has never been published.
1t was Il private letter, and was so marked,
| but afterward asked and obtained Mr.. sum-
ncr's permission to Use it. will not stop to
comment on it; that may be left to those
journals which occupy their leisure III repre-
senting Mr.. Sumner as moved by nothing but
passionate hatred toward England. My pur-
| DoSt III I'LL 10 ilul
So much that Il taldv justice may be done to
him here, as that the spirit influencing Amer
lean action on this subject may be clearly set
forth. 1 have tried to give you some notion
of what the President and Mr. Sumner and
others have said, and with what sincerity
they signed and ratified this treaty, and how
cordially the American people accepted what
they thought fair settlement. l am very
far from writing all that to an English jour
nal in order to be able to ask, WAS not Mir.
Gladstones in>inuation Of dishonesty on the
part of the United States as bascless as it was
Insulting? But l have written for the sake
of asking, and in the hope that Englishmen
will also ask, whether some common ground
cannot be discovered OH which 10 meet a
Government and 4 people which sincerely
desired then, and l believe still desires, to
close up an old quarrel on terms dishonors.
Die neither to England nor to America.
am, sir, your your obedient servant,
GEORGE W. SMILEY.
Ii Pail-lNaN, February II.
Comments of the London Press.