The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-11-28

tended Mr.. Sumner so understood 1t, and Mr.. Fish
denisd that thisw It's intent. Well knowing
that Mr.. sumner regarded IL he met the latter at
terward in q conference official business, during
which ne offered no explanation. thus by implication
indeed have been maulicr have spoken his name
outright The language all who read 1t saw charged
hy pocrisy. Six years and more nave passed
since those words were referred TO in the
Senate as intended Tor Mr. Sumner, and Mr. Fish has
never denied that he meant Mr.. sumner when he
wrote them and that no meant to charge him with
personal dshonor. Such offences arc not likely to be
charged among gentlemen, among public men, GER
tainly not among those who have been long friends.
An nputaIion like this would break any friendship III
the world or this passage Sumner says his state
lnent:- .Ii, beyond paying court to the President,
even ut the expense of making MIN praise hmself the
concluding OF this elaborate PASSAGE fun
were anything but mountain Of words,
u was an open attempt TO make an OH
suit me- and this insult was signed Hamilton Fish,
As became Of It, and found also that It
and pcrplcxed. / could not comprehend IL. knew
why the Secretary should step SO far out OF hts
way, in a manner absolutely Without precedent to
treat me with ostentatous indignity, especially when
/ thought that Tor years had been his irtend that
had never spoken OF HIM except with klndness and
that constantly since assuming his present duties he
had ,urned 70 me Tor help. This was more inconpre.
hensibe when considered how utterly groundless
were all HIS imputatious l have lived In vain II
such an attempt on me can tail to rebound on its
author"
Mr. Schurz is quoted in debate oil March 10, 1871,
In hch he says :-"Have not shown that IN off,
CT Il document which emanated from the State Depart
the Senator from Massachusetts, was most grossly
insulted, that document speaking Of the scorn and
contempt with which he ought to be treated by the
his recent letter OF October 20 1871 says bandy,
~ am not conscious OF any just cause tor tho discon
tinuing the relations which mad existed between ns
II the ACCUSATIONS OF betrayal OF confidence and
hypocrisy are not Just cause for such dscontin-
ance, what can be After that impeachment OF per-
sonal character could Mr. Fish expect Mr. Sumner to
come again as guest SIT At his table and call upon
Fish 10 understand that their intercourse must relate
to official matters on which he was always ready for
tho fullest and most unrcserved conference
Mr.. Sumner, In hIs statement. speaking oil this
sstudied insult "ntcnsited ny obvious premedi-
tation,n said, 'Pubc business must not suffer; but
In such personal relations naturally cease. and
Ills rule have followed since. Is there any Senator
VINO would have done less9 Are there not many who
how tho Secretary could expect anything beyond
those official relations which declared my readiness
at all times TO maintain, and which, even after his
assault me, he was willing TO seek at my own
house 10 expect more shows on his part grevoos
insensibility TO the thing he had done. Whatever
Secretary, when no signed this document
adopted libel upon his friend, and when no
Nothing like II can be shown In tho history OF
government. II stands alone The Secretary Is alone.
Like Jean Paul In German literature. his just title
will be tho only one For years have known sec
rstaries of State and Often differed from them, but
never before did receive from anything but kind
never u U
document libelling associate In the public service
and publish Il TO the world Mover before did Secrc
tary OF State 30 entirely set at defiance every senl-
ment OF friendship II ID impossible 10 explain this
strange alteration. except from the disturbing inu
encs Of st. Domingo. But, whatever It's design, ITS
true character ~ beyond question:"
FISH AGGRESSION.
In writing this despatch 10 Moran Mr. Fish was tho
aggrcssor MIR. Sumner had done nothing 10 pro-
woke IT, They friends when the session began
Mr. Sumner IN mis- personal explanation OF December
q called Mr. Fish his 'irend,' ana IN his speech Of
- Nam antd nj I'm trh
Mr.. Fish could take offence On Mr.. Fish and on him
alone, by OF the studied insult contained IN the
bllliy OF any disturbance Of personal relations. Not
withstanding all this Mr. Summer was always ready to
confer officially with Mr. FISH IN the freest and mos!
It most important to have conference with the
Senator in relation to the reopening OF the nego.
tiatons with Epgland concerning the Alabams
question Naturally doubtful how Mr. Sumner
would receive him alter The Moran despatch
no procured the intervention Of Senator Pat
Schurz In the senate March 10, 1871, and from
Mr.. summers statement Mr. Sumner answered
through Mr.. Patterson that he was not only willing,
but would be happy to have the interview, and would
the Secretary as an old friend The interview
was held NJ Mr. Summers house, and Mr.. Fish has
never claimed that Mr.. Sumner was reticent uncivi,
or In any way wanting in courtesy or duty. Mr. Sum-
ner after stating that Mr. Fish had said TO Mr. Patter.
son that he wished TO confer with Mr.. Sumner. and
that he mr. Fish) did not know what we're mis- rela-
tons with Mr. SUMNER and how he would be received,
said IN his statement "That this message was com.
municRted by Mr. Patterson cannot doubt for tina
Secretary my house and there was iree con-
ference. How frankly spoke on public questions,
without word other things, the Secretary
knows He will remember II any inquiry, ronark Or
alusion escaped from me- except In reference to pub
lie business The interview was OF business and moth.
ing else"
Further reference Is made to Senate debates to
show the true reason of Mr.. Summers removal and
TO his postnu stateme OF the matter and the
subsequent publications by M. FISH,
DEFEAT OF THE ST. DOMINGO TREATY.
1t has been SAID that the removal OF Sir. Sumner
had nothing to do with the defeat OF the ST Domingo
treaty, because that treaty uready dead June.
1870 earlier But the kricfs of conest the anger
revenge growing out Of it, often long survive tho
brol second inaugural and again his hnai Message
OF December 1876, the President took OCCASION to
traverse the old ground. But the scheme did die
In June, 1870 IL was in fuli vgor when Sumner
removed IN March, 1911 The President, In bis Mes
sage OF December s. 1870 pressed the measure 1T
siderable length, and with the view oil promoting IL,
recommended y commission OF investigation, which
Congress created, Mr. sumner opposing IT, and which
engaged IN its work At the time Mr.. sumner was
removed The partisans OF the project were as anx-
ous Tor success in March, 1871, as they wore the
year before;
II lie impossible 10 read the debate In tho Senate
March 10, 1871, without being reminded oil the
trast between those days and tnese Senators may
how tue motives and measures of the President
ana OF his Cabinet both Congress- and elsewhere,
with freedom equal, II not SURPRISING, any which
Mr.. Sumner used the ST. Domingo controversy,
and affecting seriously personal intercourse, IL
report be true: Dut ordinate department OF
the government demands thor removal from tho
posts to whicn they have long been assigned and Mr..
Evarts is not found writing dispatches TO our Legal
ana hypocrisy Surely we have fallen on better tmos.
EDWARD l.. PIERCE.
HE BROOKLYN BRIDGE.