The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-01-04
New Phase Of the Sumner Con-
trOVeYsy.

trovcrry.
It would be premature to say that the
controversy which was raised by the well
known interview with ex-President Grant,
cabled to the HERALD several months since,
is settled aud put at rest by the dis
passionate narrative of Mr. D. q. Bancroft
Davis which we print to-day; but Mr..
Davis letter is an important and pertinent
contribution of fresh facts bearing on the
question, and unless those facts shall be
impugned the dispute is virtually closed
| This interesting communication sheds light
into the hithereto dark corners Of the sub
ject, and by lifting the curtain upon
a great deal Of secret history puts
the public in a position to form
an intelligent judgment on tho sub
stantial merits of the controversy. We have
tor some time been convinced that there were
some undisclosed facts which Mr.. Summers
defenders did not know or would not APP
proach, and OF which the gentlemen on the
| other side skirted along the edges without
direct contact. We suppose that we are
now in possession of the whole story
| in the calm and colorlcss narrative OF Mr..
Davis it has yet very important bearing
on the diplomatic history OF General Grants
| administration. There could not be more
competent authority on this subject than
the Assistant Secretary Of State, who was
cognizan. Of all the facts at the time they
occurred II he is n friend of General
L y.
citizen Of the same State in which Mr.. Sum-
ncr and MIR. Motley resided and is an APP
preciating admirer OF their great talents and
accomplishments. He writes in the spirit
of an historian, not of controversialist,
with an air OF perfect candor. 1t is certain
cannot be successfully controvertcd.
The pivotal question which has been dis
cussed in connection with the Grant inter
view is, Why was Sumner displaced from
the craftsmanship of the Committee on For
eign Affairs? Incidental to this and closely
related to it is the question, Why was Motley
removed from the English Mission? The
friends OF these distinguished gentle
men have insisted on giving the
same answer to both questions. as
sorting that they were deposed in
consequence of President Grants resent
ment Of Mr.. Summers vigorous opposition
to the st. Domingo Treaty. Very like this
may have been one of the several motives
for demanding the resignation Of Mr.. Mot
ley, or rather one OF the motives for send
ing the demand on the particular day when
it was cabled. The st. Domingo Treaty was
rejected on the 3Oth of June and Mr. Mot
leys resignation was asked for on the LIST Of
July. This close injunction of dates gave a
seeming plausibility to the assertion that
Motley was removed for his friend Summers
opposition to that treaty But the truth is
that Mr.. Motley's removal had been decided
Oh nearly year before. He had repeatedly
violated his instructions, and he would
have been removed within five months
after his appointment if Secretary Fish had
not persuaded the President to defer the
execution Of his purpose. Long before the
ST. Domingo project was preached Mr.. Mot
ley had been repeatedly censured for dis
regarding his instructions, and the most inn
had been taken out of his hands. All this
is matter Of record and cannot be disputed
No doubt President Grant was nettled by
Mr.. Summers fierce opposition to the st.
Domingo Treaty, and it is supposable enough
that it may have FASTENED an act which had
long before been determined upon.
Mr.. Sumner was not deposed from his
craftsmanship until more than eight months
after the defea. of the ST. Domingo Treaty.
1t was done by the Senate, and for some
reason which must have been deemed i'm
perative. Only nine Senators voted for Mr..
Gratis. Considering his long service and
great experience in that position and his
unequalied qualifications tor discharging
its duties there must have been some very
powerful. objection to him in the minds of
his fellow Senators. What was it? What
could have made the republican Senators SO
nearly unanimous as to the necessity of dis
placing man SO concededly able? This
has always seemed great puzzle, and it
now comes to light that the reason publicly
assigned, though real, masked deeper
reason which was equally real and more
potential.
II must be remembered that the Joint
High Commission had then just begun it's
regular sessions. Whether its labors would
result in success or failure was a question
of vital consequence to President Grants
administration and Of great importance to
the country. But it came to be known about
that time that MI. Sumner was resolutely
opposed to the success of the negotiations.
He did not wish the Alabama claims con-
troversy settled at all except on utterly
impossible and fantastic conditions, which
it would have been an affront to the British
government to propose. When his real