Page:Speeches, correspondence and political papers of Carl Schurz, Volume 6.djvu/306

282 altogether right. I remember the debates that took place in the Foreign Relations Committee and in the executive sessions of the Senate. In these debates Sumner was at first entirely respectful to Grant. But Grant insisted that Sumner, at the interview in Sumner's house, had promised to support the San Domingo treaty and then “broken his word.” This was a gross misapprehension on the part of Grant, who had simply so misconstrued Sumner's polite expression of generally friendly feeling. I know this, because Sumner told me every word of the conversation the very next day, and he certainly did not lie. Then came no end of title-tattle and tale-bearing by persons who sought to ingratiate themselves with Grant, whose sharp sayings about Sumner's “treachery” and what not were also intentionally circulated. Sumner's personal attack on Grant was of a much later date.

Nothing could be more unjust than to hold him responsible for that quarrel, the origin of which consisted in nothing but Sumner's perfectly legitimate and for a considerable time certainly respectful opposition to Grant's San Domingo scheme. I remember distinctly that in the Foreign Relations Committee Sumner did not even lead that opposition. During several sessions of that Committee when those matters were under discussion, he maintained as Chairman presiding over the debate an entirely neutral attitude, giving his own opinion only after every other member had had abundant time for consideration and opportunity for expressing himself. In fact, Sumner was so reticent that I became somewhat impatient at his long silence.

His rupture with Fish became final only after the publication of Fish's assault upon him in the dispatch which you have mentioned. And I think Sumner was perfectly right in feeling outraged at this brutal attack upon him in a piece of diplomatic correspondence, and at the man-