The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-11-10

with Senators Tor retaining MT. oumnes IL
the Craftsmanship. In that conversation
General Grant says that Mr.. Curtis repeated
Summers statement that he had left no IN
finished business, when Grant immediateiy
asserted the contrary. Mr. Curtis was SO
incredulous that the President sent him to
the proper place to procure record OF the
facts, and he expressed the utmost astonish-
ment on finding how complete was the refu-
tation of Mr.. Summers statement. MIR.
Curtis is therefore most important witness
in this branch of the case. Why has Mr..
Phillips failed to put him upon the
stand? Mr.. Curtis was one of Sum-
ner's warmest friends and admirers.
Had he been applied to to write
letter contradicting the averment Of General
Grant he would doubtless have complied
with alacrity could he have done SO in con-
sistency with the truth. Did Mr.. Phillips
apply to Mr.. Curtis and get refusal? We
wish he would explain the non-production
of so important and so trustworthy wit
ness. A denial of General Grants state
ment by Mr.. Curtis would be worth all of
Mr.. Phillips smart AMI lively lodging.
With regard to the other principal point
Mr.. Summers alleged promise to support
the st. Domingo treaty--the letter of
Colonel Torney, written few days after the
fact and while the interview between Grant
and Sumner mt the latter's house was
fresh in his memory, will be deemed
pretty conclusive. Forney stated explicitly
that his own impression from what Sumner
said was 'that he would cheerfully support
the treaty" and he added further, ''that
such is my deep regard for Mr.. Sumner that
to stimulate me in giving it my own sup
port" This testimony of a witness who was
present on the occasion and listened to the
conversation with deep interest is not re-
futed by Mr.. Phillips evasive reasoning on
the improbability Of Mr.. Sumner having
made such o promise.
Earl Beacon,feld On Russia's Motives.
England Las ''both hope and patience
with respect to the war" and does not de-
spair Of m early peace, if the speech Of Earl
Beaconsfeld at tho Lord Mayors dinner
last night may be accepted rs correctly de-
claring British opinion. Doubtless this
speech will be disappointment to those
who had fancy some few days since that
the Premier was on this occasion to s'put
down his foot" as to the passage Of the
Dardanelles. On the contrary, the subject of
the Dardanelles is not touched at all-and
no other subject is touched save in the most
gingerly fashionable, SO far from His
Lordship putting down his foot, he goes as
carefully and softly as dainty pussy picking
her way in the wet grass. He evidently ap-
preciates that it is not time to clear
his throat like chanticleer, and he purrs
softly pleasant phrases in the hope to soothe
Russian susceptibilities on the subject Of
military prestige. It is evidently deemed
in the English Cabinet that the great obsta-
Gle to peace is moral one-the soreness of
the Russians over the failure to achieve that
rapid success they counted upon and the
presumed necessity that they should fight
on to recover prestige. Perhaps this is
true; but for the English Premier to let it
be clearly perceived that he takes this rather
small view Of the motives and purposes Of a
great Power is to give one more evidence of
that want of tact in diplomacy that has of
late years SO often awakened unpleasantly
the susceptibilities of other governments