Year: 1870

Last night New York crowded to Steinway
Hall to hear the most brilliant Of American
rhetoricians on the most exciting of the day 8
subjects. What shall we say Of Mr.. Sumner? !?
1t is with him very much in American senti-
ment as with Mr.. Gladstone in English opinion
Everybody in each land is proud, In certain
sense, Of SO great an orator. But everybody,
except the dreamers Of dreams, who date their
mental letters two centuries ahead--some-
where about the year 2O7O, let us say--instead
Of in this sober workday nineteenth century
hour, is a little impatient Of both ; so that we
cannot help looking on Mr.. Sumner, as the
English do on Gladstone, with mixture Of
affection, anger and admiration that make
criticism very difficult. But we must do him
justice, and we will strive to do him even
better justice than he does himself For why
will he persist in coupling sentiments Of the
most exalted and heavenly nature, opinions
drawn as 1t were from the celestial fountains,
''who have not the wherewithal to sit down."
with q conventionality and cut and-dried
rhetorical manner that suggests so alarm
ing mixture of the dancing master and the
Apostle? We must put up with spots in the
Sun, of course. We all know that. But
they are very inconvenient. They prevent
our telegraphs working when they are too big
and numerous; and, similarly, Mr.. Summers
heavenly ideas would reach our minds and
hearts more surely if they were delivered
with more of simplicity, less Of that studied
rhetorical drill which suggests that the student
has employed the looking glass at least as
much as the midnight oil in his labors.


We will not linger, however, about Mr..
Summers manner; there is quite enough to
say about his matter. He favored his audience,
ia the first instance, with brilliant resume
OF the immediate causes that led to the war.
He passed In rapid review the Hohenzollern
candidature, and tore to shreds, with all his
skill, the fimsy pretexts on which France
drew the sword. He quoted felicitously from
Frepch memoirs to show on what frivolous
pretexts the minions of the absolute French
crown had in former days deluged Germany
and Europe with blood; and, passing quickly
to the actual hostilities, he described with
eloquence and fire the series of sur
prises at Woerth, Forbach, Gravelotte,
Sedan, Metz and Paris, which over
powered first the French Emperor, then
the French empire, and, last Of all, unhappy
France herself. Nothing could be in better
taste and style for the purposes of a lecture
than this the historical part of his address.
Nothing could be more conclusive than the
elaborate condemnation passed on the diplo-
matte and military action of France from
moral and political point of view. All this
was effective, eloquent and vigorous; for
here Mr.. Sumner was on the ground Of fact
and the facts connected with the war are so
broad and glaring that no perversity of dogma
or temper can possibly lead a man astray In
his estimate of them.


But then comes the moral of the fable. And
the remainder Of the lecture showed only too
plainly that Mr.. Sumner is no hard-headed,
sensible Esop, thinking and speaking to plain
men plain truth, but dweller in the upper
air


A creature far too bright ana good


For human natures daily food.


Indeed, tho very title of Mr.. Summers lee
ture suggests the utter fallacy of the main
doctrine which he applies to the war. In his
eyes it is ''duer between France and Prus-
sia. It is an accursed resort to force on the
part of two staggering bravos, whom public
opinion--or republic opinion, rather-will
disarm hereafter How perilous are
phrases to dreamers If Mr.. Sumner
could think consecutively he would see
how fallacious, even foolish, is this mode
of looking at the NATTER and, even more,
how wholly out Of keeping with his own
eloquent statement Of the facts and their moral
Interpretation. A duel is fought by consent
between two individuals Cartel is sent,
taken up-it used to be at the swords point,
lterally-and the two go out and fight. But
in this great national struggle France notified
Prussia that she would be attacked any how.
No acceptance of challenge, no refusal, was
once, whether she wished it or not, or perish
by the sword.


This falacy at the foundation vitiated all
Mr.. Summers reasoning as to the immediate
duties and responsibilities Of Germany. She
has got her adversary down, and, according
to our lecturer, should gracefully spare his life
and let him rise. The trouble here is that the
adversary on the ground has refused to know
where he is, and with desperate though forlorn
bravery has struck again and again at the vic
torious foe bending over him. Even accord
ing 70 the laws Of the duel the foe on the
ground had to confess himself vanquished, sue
for life, or, if he would not, accept the mortal
stroke. But there is absolutely no analogy
between duel and war between nations.


Surely, on these great subjects, first rate
intellect like Mr.. Sumner might be straighfor-
ward in mind, and walk, not in fallacious