Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-10-29

The London Times says Of the British minis
ter's letter: 1--WE are not prepared to censure
Lord Sackville. A British minister, whether at
Washington or elsewhere, must be an English
gentleman, and may be forgiven If he is not up
to all the dirty tricks Of American politicians"
1t also comments upon ''the undignifed vul-
garity and interested unfairness shown by both
parties" The Daily Neoos declares that he has
blundered, but also finds that he "has done
nothing Of which an honest man need be
ashamed" A very few American papers
echo these London opinions. They pro-
coed on the assumption that the British
minister's blunder consisted merely in per-
hitting himself to be deceived by bogus cor
respondent into an untimely expression of
opinion, and that there would have been no cause
of blame had the correspondent been what he
represented himself to be. They take the
narrow view that the protest against the letter
is entirely political that the indignation of the
republicans is largely assumed to conceal ex-
ultation at the incident, and to give the
greatest publicity and importance to the
letter as campaign document, and
that the evaporation of the demo-
Gratis over the friendly Endorsement
of their candidate is explainable only by the
fact that the letter got into print and promises
to cause loss of more Irish-American voters
than the Anglo-American votes which it was in
tended to influence. They extend their SYM
Pathy to the letter-writer on the ground that
he has been tricked by politicians and see moth
ing in his action to offend the American
people as distinguished from the politicians,
whose selfish interests are affected by the
epistle. They fail to comprehend the American
sentiment on the subject as completely as the
British minister misunderstands the status of
the naturalzed citizen of this republic. If the
minister's correspondent is a man of straw
the tricked letter writer is really in a more de-
feasible position than otherwise, for he has not
really advised an American voter, Who con-
fesses that he became such in order to serve
Great Britain, what presidential candidate will
best advance British interests, but has only
given this confidential advice to republican
politicians upon whom its influence might be
expected TO be slight. II the mere indication of
willingness to play the part of confidential ad-
wiser 70 un-American voters in the American
presidential election is less reprehensible than
the actual performance OF that role
in our politics, then the British min
lister should feel grateful, if he has
been deceived To pronouce his conduct
lrreProachable by Americans, outside of the
disgrace of being taken in by dirty trick
which injuries and is therefore denounced by
one Of the political parties is to say that every
foreign nation may retain control of its people
after they become citizens of the American re-
public, may procure their naturalization in or
der solely to serve the foreign interest, and
may through their representatives at Washing
ton direct these naturalized voters how to cast
their ballots in the local elections in the man
ner which will best serve this foreign interest.
The ex-Englishmen will be organized to vote
for England, the ex-Frenchmen for France,
and the ex-Germans for Germany, upon ques-
tons in respect to which American interests
are in direct opposition. This view of the
status Of the American naturalized citizen is
not believed to prevail to any considerable ex-
tent outside of London.