The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-01-09
THE SUMNER CONTROVERSY.
Wendell Phillips Reply to
Bancroft Davis.
ALLUSI0NS TO THE LATE Mr.. FISH.
The New Charges Met and
Answered Seriatim.
ILLUSIONS TO THE LATE Mr.. FISH.
CHARACTERISTIC COMMENTS.

furnished TO HERALD low days since by Mr. Ban.
Davis. This evening Mr.. Philips delivered his
popular lecture Mr. Sumner, in Music Hall, and at
It's conclusion INDUCED in u somewhat lengthy re-
joinder to the letter OF Mr. DAVIS. The lecture Oh
Mr. Sumner II will be remembered, was delivered 10
New York, on the evening OF November 0, and was
fully reported In the HERALD OF the following morn.
ing
BANCROFT
The remarks with which Mr. Phillips supplemented
tho same lecture this evening were follows:-
In finishing my criticism OF Dir. Fish last November
IN Philadelphia said that no doubt he would
be favored with another 'aflerthouRht.n Trus
enough II has come; Mr. Bancroft Davis Is tho attor-
A. lhs stage of tho battle however let US stop ana
take list OF the dead and wounded. General Grant
must be reported as dangerously wounded. 10 az
serted TO the HERALD's reporter that sumner could
never oe got 10 report on treutcs sent his com.
miltce, and SAID no had formerly proved this 10
George William Curtis. AS the senate record shows
that Sumner reported all the treaties referred more
promptly than usual, General Grant must be mercuily
supposed victim OF misin formation TO which
his vol known hatred OF Sumner lod him 10 listen too
readily.
prsH on DATES.
Fish must no reported dead and buried, with q
stake through his breast, where four meet %
all suicides used 10 DO; for he undertook specify
nine treaties with the exact dates, all showing Mr..
summers neglect. VI each one OF these tho daIO was
gwen when u was signed, when sent to
committee and when ratified The most important
date was omitted, that OF Summers report that
Department.
which Fish presided for eight years, had that date.
Its omission IN the circumstances substantial
forgery aud Justification OF a document 70 have
given those dates would have shown That Mr.. Fishs
charge against Sumner false Who islsited that
document? Who maiiciously concealed the most TN
portant dutc in those records? Th8 late Mr.. Fish
died without making any explanation. Until some
one explains for him, his memory Will rest she
grave charge OF having stated what he officially know
was false or ofhavng made grave charge against .
DEAD comrade in regard to which he did not altempt
TO get correct Information.
Forth from the grave OF the late Mr. Fish crawis
who calls himself Bancroft Davis. TINS person
that Mr. fish's charge against Sumner that
tho treaties before the senate had not boon ot
doubt this There is no evidence that tho late Mr.
Fish ever put tho charge IN that form, and II is
proves a false charge, It will, / protest
against loading the memory OF the late Mr. Fsu with
his lie Mr. Fish stated frequently his charge against
Mr. Sumner-twicein the boston Transcript aud Iwico
IN tho NEW YORK HERALD. On all four OCCASIONS his
cnargo was tna Mr. sumner dill report the trsatcs
90 the Sonate--this and only thls Tho statement
Of DAVIS Is an aftcrthought. aud have reason TO
think Mr. Fish disiked "aftert thoughts" during the
latter part Of his lie. IL having been shown by tho
Senate records that sumner reported his treaties
promptly this DAVIS shifts charge by alleging that
his fault that he did push urge tho senate
to ratify them. It's cunning dodge. out will not
Ftrst-T Testimony exists from his own committee
that Mr. sumner more than once reminded the senate
Of the treaties which lay op their table TOR action.
Mr. sumner did not urge upon the ssnstA the conmd.
GRAFTON OF thoro treaties. His misstateinent 10 nor
CUSTOM SENATE
The session from December, 1870, to Marcn, 1871.
II well known custom Of the Senate not 70 push
such times questions that require elaboration ana
debate. Amid the haste and accumulation OF
is overwhelmed day aud night il is
me usual course TO- postpone matters,
known would be held alter Atm March, 1871 Accord.
ingly those treaties wore then disposed OF by Mr..
Cameron exactly as and when Mr. Sumner would have
of In. 10 tuka
possible toward u prompt ratification OF them. Tug
statement by Mr. Davis intended and sure 70 deceive
people familiar with the customs OF he Senate de-.
serves 10 DO characterized by term with winch Will
not soil your columns.
But this DAVIS. n disguised foe to both Grant and
Fish, goes on 70 insult thom still further They bad
said Sumner was removed from the Craftsmanship fhis
Committee because no Jailed 20 report ON treaties re-:
says he was removed Tor wholly different reason.
THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
IL appears that before March, 1871, when tho Brit
ish Commissioners came to Washingt TO franc Q
treaty, Fish bad asked sumner what hts idea was
OF a proper basis Tor a general settlement
between England and ourselves OF all trouble
and all questions ~ ISSUE replied that Eng
land should withdraw Der nag enrey from this Con-
unent. II was statesmaulike reply, aud time will
vindcatc II. Tho hour Is coming when snail do
mand 1t. When rst the flag OF the thirteen COLONIES
roniss, anxious TO have n shelter for fugitive slaves
have opposed tho annexation of Canada Other Amcri-
sumner 1s49, approves H. An statesmanlke minds
see II 10 DO inevitable tending to the per.
TO steal more Mexican territory.
But whether this claim was wso or not is not
the question. Mr. Sumner thought that We should
demand this. What as u practical statesman no was
willing IN the circumstances TO accept Is evident from
his vote. which was 10 accept aud rstiy the treaty
which anerward made. Just as the .s;enevs
case" supposed TO have boen drafted by this
Same DAVIS claimed immense indirect dam
ages on the srosnd ,hA. Ensand pro-
longed the rebellion. When tho Commissioners mot
they soon abandoned that claim. No doubt Mr.. SUM-
ner had, as our Commissioners had good reason tor
asking more than they really expected 10 get. Bus
this man Davis ignorance aud malice toward Mr..
Sumner is shown BY the terms IN which he speaks or
he could not prevent II. Did any man ever hear OF
Charles summers voting Tor anything merely because
other men didy Tho cnarge would be Infamous II is
we're not ridiculous But as to this prctcnce and
aitcrthought OF Davis that Summers stubbornnsss
touching Canada was tho Senators felt ought
not TO continue chairman OF tho Foreign Com.
mttec:--
Frst-This statement OF his views was made In
January, 1871. How could that be the cause why Mr.
Chandler with Conklings approval sought to remove
sumner In December, 1870? The plot TO remove sum-
ner began 10 December 1870, nearly two months be-
Sccond-Davs says this reason was commuui.
Gated TO leading Senators aud formed the real
leading SENATOR But he said March, 1871, he could
SEQ no reason for the removal and II ''was mpotic,
unlustihabio aud unnecessary" wcro not Wilson
aud schurz leading SenatorsS But they never heard
OF II.
7aird--Does Davis think tho public will believe
that Leading or any other Senators have known tnis
secret for the last seven years Kept secret iii
nowf Thcn IL Is the lrst secret that has ever boon
kept by senators since tho foundation OF govern
mont Any reporter would laugh Mt the idea OF scna-
tors Keeping secret, ana especially such secret
Grant could not have known ~. Tor he never
toned II TO the HERALD reporter or to Mr.. Curtis.
Fish could not have known II. for wheD just before
his death, ho stopped In different Journals, no
never even aliudcd TO IT,
II II Is claimed that In the Senate debate OF March,
1871, II could not be safely alluded Ia, why did noe
Conking disclose II In his speech IN July, 1872 Then
the treaty ratified, and thero was no longer any
reason why the true ground Tor the removal sboui
not DO disclosed. Howe, Anthony, Hamiin and
Cameron could not have it, or
they would awe mentioned II when, Ia April,
1874, the whole matter summers removal agar
discussed by them In tho senate. Why, such a pre-
posterous story would not be believed Il FisI
rose from The dead and asserted IT, but whom no 90
sorely needed some such aiterthought 10 get him
OF very ugly and delicate position, and yet failed "a
mako use oi IL, no assertion OF FRIDAY, even
u he call himself DAVIS wili mako It anything bot
ludcrous.
what sad comment American public life! Two
OF her prominent men slanderng the DEAD, and when