Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1874-04-10

Charles Summers Suppressed speech.
The speech of Senator Sumner prepared
in March, 1871 but never delivered, Civ
ing an account of the circumstances at
tending the recall of Mr. Motley from the
English mission, appeared in the New
York Tribune of Monday. The Boston
Journal questions the propriety of the pub
LEGATION of the speech, and regrets the uI-
necessary reopening of this unpleasant
contro vcrsy after the death of one of the
dispuants. Eor this reason that paper
publishes only So much Of the speech as is
of historical importance. We copy as fol-
lows -
Mr.. Sumner Lesins with narrating the
circumstances which, in his judgment, re-
quire him to speak in self-dcfence, refer
ring TO the accusations Of certain Senators,
to the reported hostility of the White
House on account of his opposition to the
San Domingo scheme, and the insulting
remarks of a member OF the Presidents
household. He says, however: 81 should
do injustice to my own feelings il did not
here declare' my regret that l could not
as he did, bat l could not. listened to
the arguments on his side; but in vain.
The adverse considerations multiplied with
time and reflection" But the burden of
the speech is directed against Secretary
Fish, with whom he had been ON friendly
terms from the time they both entered the
Senate in 1851. At first they agreed on the
San Domingo question, but the Secretary
soon fell in with the views of. the Presi-
dent, and used all his powers of persua
sion TO induce Mr.. Sumner TO do the same
In one of his conversations on the sub
ject, says Mr.. Summer: lie "renewed his
pressure in various forms, returning to the
point again and again with persererns as
siduity that would not be arrested, when,
at last, finding me infleXible, lie changed
his appeal, saying, why not go 10 London?
] offer you the English mission. Ii is
yours The Senator's comment is "Thus
early did the mission TO London begin to
pivot on San Domingo" lie felt that his
object was merely TO get him out OF the
way. The day after the San Domingo treaty
was rejected, Mr.. Motley was summary
removed.
The Secretary of State, In his subsequent
letter on the subject, discaimed that either
the treaty or Mr.. Sumner had anything to
do with Mr.. MUtley's removal, although
he INDUCED in the most unkind insinua-
tions against the Senator. Still, their Off
cal relations were kept up by the latter,
though he keenly felt his treatment. lie
shows that the preteXts for the removal of
Motley are historically unwarranied. He
explains the part he had in Mr.. Motleys
appointment, and the duty incumbent up
on him 10 stand up in defence Of the lallers
good name. The following extract is of
public value as showing the extent Of Mr.
Summers connection with our recent dip
lomatic history:
my early relations with the Secretary
have already appeared, and how he began
by asking NE Tor help, practicin2 constant
ly on this appeal. lew details will be
enough. AT once on his arrival to assume
his new duties he asked my counsel about
al pointing Mr.. Bancroft Davis Assistant
Secretary or State, aud l advised the APP
pointment, without sufficient knowledge, |
am inclined TO believe now. Then follow
ed the questions with Spain growing out of
Cuba, which were the subject OF constant
conference, where he sought me repeatedly
anu hlluly llSleHeu 10 my Opinions. linen
came the instructions for the English mis-
sion known as the dispatch of May 10, 1869.
AT each stage of these instructions was in
the counsels of the Secretary. Following
my suggestion he authorized me to invite
Mr.. Motley in his name 10 prepare the me
molr' or essay on our claims, which, not
withstanding its entirely confidential char
acter, he drags before the world. for pur-
pose of assault, in manner clearly unjus-
titable. Then, as the dispatch was prepar-
ins, he asked my help, especially in that
part relating to the concession of beliger-
ent rights. l have here the first dram of
this important passage in pencil and in my
own handwriting, varying in no essential
respect from that adopted. Here will be
found the distinction on which have al
ways insisted, that while other powers con-
coded belligerent rights to our rebels, it
was in England only that The concession
was supplemented by acts causing direct
damage 10 the United States. Not long af-
terward, in August, 1869, when the British
storm had subsidized, advised that the dis
cussion should be renewed by an elaborate
communication setting forth our case in
length and breadth, but without any eSti-
mate OF damages, throwing upon England
the opportunity, If not the duty, of making
some practical proposition. Adopting this
recommendation, the Secretary invited me
to write the dispatch. ! thought II better
that it should be done by another, and
named for Inc purpose an accomplished
gentleman, whom knew to be familiar
with the question, and he wrote the dis
patch. This paper, bearing date Seplem-
Der 25, 1869, is unquestionably the ablest in
the history of the present Administration,
unless we except the last dispatch of Mr..
Motley"
OF the latter paper, Lord Clarendon said
in conversation that 1t was "Mr. Summers
speech over again." while another English
parsonage said ait out-Sumnered Sumner"
The Secretary continued TO get assistance
from the Senator until the shadow of San
Domingo came between them. The speech
closes with Mr.. Summers expression of the
sorrow with which he had discharged the
duty OF Standardization which he felt to be
resting upon him.
CUBA.-The indications are that the re-
Gently declared policy of the new captain