The very voluminous correspondence in which Mr. Fish has reopened
the subject of the Alabama claims appeared in Mon- day's papers, as well as Lord Clarendon's able criticisms. Neither the general complaint of Mr. Fish, nor Lord Clarendon's reply, is completely satisfactory ; the former is, as we have elsewhere shown, fanciful, susceptible, a matter of feeling ; the latter, on the other hand, is even too sharp and critical. We should like to see less dispOsition in the English Government to stick by Lord Russell's old and very indefensible assertion that we will not be responsible for the escape of the Alabama. If diplomatists would only place themselves occasionally in the position of their anta- gonists and also not deem it a sin to let it be seen that they have done so, we might have shorter quarrels and heartier reconciliations. Mr. Fish is just a little weak and dismal. Lord Clarendon is just a little contemptuous and hard. As we should unquestionably have treated America as utterly in the wrong had our positions been reversed, it would be better to suppress the sarcastic vein.
Previous page
