« PreviousContinue »
At page 40, line 13, strike out the words “at the same time.” The proposed treaty was in fact published in the United States before it was acted upon by the Senate: doubtless through the delinquency of some clerk in the Government Office.
An apology is due to the publisher for the numerous errors of orthography and punctuation which appear in the text. From motives of convenience the essay was put into type and stereotyped at Paris ; but was either in whole or in part put into the hands of French compositors, who did not understand English, and the revision of the proofs was therefore necessarily confided to persons who understood the French technical terms of the printing office, and was executed in a most unsatisfactory manner. The press work, done in London, is as good as the state of the plates permitted.
which had also destroyed our unity of nationaltý; that although we had a free press ourselves, we approved oppressive restrictions upon the press in France and Germany; that our public men were corrupt, and our judges venal; that mob-law prevailed unchecked and unpunished in our country; that we had organized a
The author of the following pages has just completed a long tour of several months' duration in Great Britain and Ireland, and in most of the countries of Europe. Among his many chance companions of travel, his country and its institutions became the frequent topic of conversation. Various grave charges were brought against the people of the United States, and these charges were not always consistent with each other. It was said that we were not content with being Republicans ourselves, but were political propagandists, always waging a crusade of opinion upon other peoples' institutions; that being Republicans we ought never give the support of opinion to Imperialism in France or to monarchy anywhere; that we had unjustly aided to overthrow the late Mexican Empire; that we ought to condemn what was denounced as the tyrannous despotism of Prussia; that we ought to sustain by opinion the efforts to attain to German unity of nationality under the lead of Count Von Bismark; that our originally pure republican institutions had been corrupted by foreign immigration, which had also destroyed our unity of nationaltý; that although we had a free press ourselves, we approved oppressive restrictions
in France and Germany; that our public men were corrupt, and our judges venal; that mob-law prevailed unchecked and unpunished in our country ; that we had organized a
legislative war of labour upon capital, and yet wished to exclude the poor labourers of China from our country; and that our Government, having itself proposed a Treaty with the British Government by which all claims for violation of international neutrality during the late Civil War in America could have been amicably settled, had itself with bad faith repudiated the treaty. Almost everywhere it was taken for granted that the Government of the United States was a pure democracy, with machinery of the most simple sort, and in which the will of the majority received at once a free, unchecked, and absolute expression. To these charges and representations, the writer made such answers as seemed fitting, upon each occasion, and with such success, that the gentlemen to whom they were addressed, were pleased to say that a large class of readers in Europe would be glad to see the substance of them set forth in a succinct publication. Hence the origin of this essay, which was begun and carried forward to a point where it exacted demands beyond the leisure and strength of the writer. Its further preparation was then intermitted, and it would probably never have been published, except for the following considerations.
After all that has been said on the so-called Alabama question, two facts are very evident to a careful observer. -First: that the sentiments of the people of the United States on the subject have never fully reached the British Public. Senator Summer's speech on the proposed Treaty has been criticised, reviewed, and triumphantly answered, it is said, but it is believed that it has never been published in Great Britair. in any mode so as effectively to reach the public, either in full or in a satisfactory epitome. While of the other arguments used on each side of the
question in the People's Great Debate, there has been but little or no expression. Secondly: the British Public seem to honestly entertain impressions which are wholly unfounded, as to the nature of the proposed Treaty, the condition of the controversy, and the present attitude of the United States. Journalists, and other gentlemen, of undoubted candour and veracity, frequently say that " the British Government has done all it could to settle the controversy, and has failed.” But it will be seen, by an examination of the Treaty itself, and from the declarations of the eminent British Statesman who assisted in preparing it, that it does not embrace, nor was it intended to embrace, any claim whatsoever of the Government of the United States upon the British Government, for its violation of international neutrality during our late Civil War. It is also said, that in the recent diplomatic correspondence between Mr. Fish, Secretary of State of the United States, and Lord Clarendon, the latter has presented “a complete refutation” of all the propositions of the American Secretary. Now, the principal proposition of Mr. Fish, and one which lies at the bottom of the whole controversy, is this: that the British Government cannot defend its violation of international neutrality, on the ground that its own municipal laws were defective: that it was bound to have domestic laws equal to its international duties. But to this proposition, Lord Clarendon, in his able forensic despatch, which is said to be a “complete refutation,” makes no reply, nor even the slightest allusion. And, finally, it is commonly supposed that the demands for reparation by the United States commence with, and include, the consequences of a premature acknowledgement by the British Government