Year: 1877

Pierce Senator Summers biographer. For


reasons, which that gentleman will easily
appreciate, it is written with reserve
which suggests the main facts rather than
states them but he, at least, will see that
we are writing on knowledge, not on sur
misses. 1t often happens that the inside
history of important events are withheld from
public knowledge until generation or two
after oil the actors are in their graves, and
are only brought to light when their private
papers come into other hands, The
Alabama claims negotiation has Sc
cret history, and the recent discussions
relating to Senator Sumner render it proba-
BILE that it will come to the knowledge OF
this generation All this recent furry of
dispute, which was excited by the HERALDs
Edinburgh interview with General Grant,
has as yet dealt with the mere frippery or
the mere outside garments which cover the
body of the subject. It was not the st.
Domingo affair, it was not the imputed neg
ligence and procrastination of Senator
Sumner in relation to various treaties. it
was not his alleged prevarications, but quite
different cause, that led to his displace-
ment as chairman Of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs A little attention to the
chronology and sequence of events will
show that the st. Domingo project had
little to do with it and that it was in
some way SO connected with the
Alabama claims negotiation as to sug-
gest that it grew out of his position on
that question. His public attitude on that
question does not suffice to explain it, but
when the ''true inwardness'' Of his secret
action comes to be known there will be no
longer any mystery on this subject. There
are three and perhaps four men who could
lift the veil and enlighten the public. The
three are Mr.. Pierce (who has possession Of
MI. Summers private papers). General Grant
and Mr.. Fish. The possible fourth is Mr..
Conkling, who, as the spokesman Of the
President in the Senate debate on Mr..
Summers removal, was probably intrusted
with the secret; but his knowledge what
ever it may be, is at second hand.


We have no doubt that the declarations
made by General Grant to correspondent
Of the HERALD in Edinburgh "a few weeks
ago) will have precipitated upon our time
revelation of the real relation Of prominent
official persons to the international adjust
ment Of the Alabama claims which otherwise
might have been concealed from this gene
ration. The subject had been rather OBJ
scurely opened by Mr. John Jay in the
interest of Mr.. Motley, but was dropping
out Of the public mind when General Grant
gave to it new life through the columns Of
the HERALD.


When the chief executive officer Of the
United States, who during the period Of
the negotiation Of the Alabama treaty was
affairs of this country, speaks respecting
the inner history of a transaction such as
the relation Of Mr.. Sumner and MI. Motley
to that negotiation and to himself, an i'm
portant witness comes to the front And
when he testifes that within q few months
after Mr.. Motley entered on the duties
Of his mission to London his con-
duct was SO unsatisfactory that he
contemplated and even directed his
removal, the averment is q serious
one for the friends of Mr.. Motley; and SO
are the illusions of General Grant to Mr..
Sumner. as unwilling to efficiently place
before and ask the action of the Senate on
important matters of foreign concern re-
ferred to the Foreign Affairs Committee of
which the Senator was chairman. Out Of
these remarks of ex-President Grant in the
HERALD have come the publications made
by Mr.. Phillips and Mr. Fish, the removal
of diplomatic covering from certain Senate
proceedings in secret session, and finally
an elaborate reply to Mr.. Fish by Mr..
Pierce, the biographer of Mr.. Sumner. But
all these are evidently only the outer bark
of the true nub of the affair


Every one understands that Mr. Motley
was appointed to London as IN act of def
erence to the earnest wishes Of Mr.. Sumner;
that the critical thing to be dealt with in
England by the former was the Alabama
question, in respect to the management of
which in London General Grant declares
distinctly that he became dissatisfied early
in 1862 Mr.. Fish, the ex-President says,
that time, which appears to have been be-
fore the st. Domingo question had come to
the front The ST. Domingo project was,
however, defeated by the Senate in July,
1870. and within two or three days after the
vote Mr.. Motley was recalled. The
relation of the dates Of these two
events is certainly significant. Mr..
Motley replied to his letter of recall in very
earnest and resentful terms. He evidently
intended to leave the impression on the
reader of his reply that he had been recalled
because Mr.. Sumner resisted or would not
uphold the st. Domingo treaty (Which Mr..
Sumner did finally report from the commit
tee back to the Senate), and thereby dissat-
isfied the President. Mr.. Motley's reply was
Of such character that the President could
not conveniently permit it to 60 into history
without reioinder, and one came in the