INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 203 
come from your side. We have done all we can. Your govern- 
ment sent an envoy with the unanimous assent of the Senate. He 
came avowedly with the object of arranging an existing difficulty. 
He made certain propositions on the part of his government. 
These were considered by our government, and finally were 
adopted and consented to. A convention was signed, including 
everything your minister had asked for, and this convention was 
rejected by your Senate. Who knows that it will not reject any 
other convention? If you have an envoy who has no power to 
negotiate, and an executive government which cannot ratify a 
treaty, where is the security for further negotiation? We cannot 
come to Washington and express our regret that Reverdy John- 
son did not ask for more. We gave him all he asked for, all that 
Mr. Seward asked for, all that the then President asked for. What 
could we have done, what can we now do more? 
It is clearly for your government to explain why the convention 
failed, and what, in their opinion, is now required from us. ‘The 
civilized world, I am quite sure, will say that we are on a certain 
vantage-ground, having consented to all that was asked from us, 
the convention not having failed through our default. 
I could easily suggest a mode of settlement which all mankind, 
outside the two countries, would approve of; but how do I know 
what your government can do? If there is passion enough for 
Mr. Sumner to appeal to, or believers in his wild theories of in- 
ternational obligation, how can any settlement be looked for? 
There is abundant good feeling here to enable our government 
to do what is just, but no feeling that will permit of any volun- 
tary humiliation of the country. 
Until something is known of what will content the powers that 
will meet in Washington in December next, I do not see what any 
mission from this to you would be likely to effect. I have read the 
article in the New Englander. It is moderate, and written in a 
good spirit. I do not know that there is anything in it that I could 
not freely indorse. Upon the basis of its argument there could be 
no difficulty in terminating all that is in dispute between the two 
countries. But the article is in answer to Mr. Sumner; and the 
question is, does your government, and will your Congress, go 
with Mr. Sumner or with the review article? And what view will 
your people take? 
I write all this privately to you. It is not from a Cabinet min- 
ister, but from an old friend of yours, who is a member of the 
