the extreme of anti-British feeling on the subject of the " Alabama claims," and was looked upon as the chief stumbling-block in the way. of the pacific policy which Grant seemed now bent on pursuing through the medium of the Joint Commission. He was also the chief obstructor of the President's policy regarding St. Domingo. Now Grant was set upon carrying out his own views in these two directions; some said it was because he was desirous, in view of the not distant Presidential election, to have some measure of substantial success to record for his expired term of office. In any case, the removal of Sumner from his vantage-ground of obstruction could not fail to be a great gain to him.

At the opening of each yearly session of the Senate, it is customary at Washington to hold a "caucus," to revise the Committees and fill up vacancies. This is usually a matter of form as regards existing members, the right of displacement being but rarely exercised. Sumner's long tenure of his place, however, proved now no bar to the efforts which the President's friends made to oust him. An adverse vote was recorded against the old senator; and the fiat of the "caucus "" was ratified by an obedient majority in the Senate itself, thirty-three against nine; most of Sumner's friends declining to vote. Mr. Cameron succeeded to his post.

The removal of Sumner from the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations caused a profound political sensation in the States. To the President the victory was an important one, but it contained germs of uneasiness. It revealed the insidious power of the "caucus" system, which could over-ride the wishes of legislative assemblies, and it arrayed against him, on the still contestable ground of the St. Domingo question, the defeated opposition, consisting of Sumner's friends and the Democrats in combination. In fact after a very bitter speech on the question from Sumner on the 27th of March, the Presidential party took alarm, and Grant thought it his best policy to relinquish his pet scheme. When therefore the Commissioners, having returned from St. Domingo, presented their report, he took the "back track," to use an American phrase, and threw the matter over to Congress, requesting that no decision should be made before the winter.

On the 19th Senator Sumner made a long speech upon the subject of the Washington Treaty. He announced that he approached its consideration with perfect fairness, and had no prejudices or preconceived opinions against it. No Senator, he said, was more anxious than he was that all differences existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain should be removed. But at the same time he was in favour of maintaining the national honour, and desired that respect for the American flag abroad which could only result from respect for it at home. In many points this Treaty differed from all the Treaties negotiated by the United States' Government from its foundation. It was not a Treaty of Peace-that is, of a peace following a war between two nations and yet to some extent it was a Treaty of Peace. Upon its ratification or rejection in great measure depended the

character of the relations which in future would exist between the two Governments, and for this reason, if for no other, it ought to receive the most careful consideration of the Senate. It was not such a document as he desired, yet he was not disappointed in it. From the very nature of the Commission that framed the Treaty he knew its labours must result in a compromise. The only question was whether the advantage of the bargain was with or against the United States. Senators would have to judge of this for themselves. Much had been said about the so-called apology in the Treaty coming from the British side. He did not regard the language used as conveying any apology. Her Majesty's Government simply expressed regret for the escape of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports and for the depredations committed by those vessels. There was something behind and beyond this. Every one knew that the Alabama and other rebel cruisers were but the consequences of Great Britain's conduct in recognizing the rebels as belligerents. If there was any apology to be made it should be made for this flagrant disregard of the law of nations. Mr. Sumner argued at length that the great wrong done the United States was in the recognition by Great Britain of the rebels as belligerents before they had formed a Government or had possession of a single port. He did not think the American Commissioners should have consented to allow the English counter-claims to be put upon the same footing as those of citizens of the United States. They were of a different character, and did not originate under the same circumstances. They were the result of Great Britain's own misconduct. The attitude she assumed towards the rebels, as every body knew, prolonged the rebellion at least two years. If the property of her citizens suffered in consequence, nobody was to blame but herself. Hence these claims should not have been admitted. Mr. Sumner reiterated the whole arguments against the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty; but he abstained from explicitly saying whether he would vote for or against ratification.

When the debate came on in the Senate, from the 22nd to the 24th of May, he proposed three amendments; in accordance with his views on the question of neutrality, of belligerent rights, and of the British counter-claims; but these being defeated, he acquiesced, and the "Treaty of Washington" was accepted by the Senate without any alteration, by a majority of fifty to twelve.

On that same day the British Commissioners re-embarked for England, General Schenck in their company. Previously to their quitting New York a splendid banquet was given to them, and to several American notabilities, by Mr. Cyrus W. Field. Long congratulatory speeches were delivered, smooth sayings abounded on all sides. M. Katakazy, the Russian Envoy, unable to attend himself, proposed by letter as a toast the words "Blessed are the peace-makers;" with what sincerity after-revelations of his conduct were to show. Nowhere was the self-content of the British diplomatists more manifest than in the utterance of Lord De Grey. In answering the toast to her Majesty's High Commissioners, that

nobleman expressed his conviction that the Treaty had been the result of an honest endeavour to meet the just claims of both countries. He did not doubt that had it been written exclusively in London, or exclusively in Washington, it would have contained different provisions from those found in it, but Treaties which are not compromises, and represent only the views of one side, can be dictated only under the shadow of a victorious army. These were not the conventions that are made between free and equal people. He believed that the Treaty was marked by great honesty and frankness. He thought it a most important one; one, the effects of which would not be confined to the great race-for it was one race -the names of whose representatives were signed to it. It contained the enunciation of principles of the highest value to the world at large, and which it well became England and America to have offered to the consideration of other nations. He believed that this document embodied a large improvement upon the admitted principles of international law. The principles laid down were conceived, it was true, in the spirit of what had long been established in the municipal law of both countries; but municipal law is not binding internationally, and it was a great thing to have embodied these principles in an International Treaty; a greater thing yet to have bound ourselves to invite the adherence of other countries to them. There was an even more important consideration. Here, in a public instrument between two countries, was the first important consecration, absolutely the first consecration, so far as he knew, in connexion with burning questions that might have led to the worst consequences, of the great principle that nations, like men, are bad judges of their own quarrels. He believed the principles contained in the Treaty would have a large influence on the world in the cause of the greatest earthly blessing, Peace. The last twelve months, the last few days, in Europe, had given an impressive lesson of the horrors of war. Was there a man who did not feel that any thing which would remove international disputes from the fatal arbitrament of the sword is indeed a step in the advance of humanity? He was proud that it came from the two great Anglo-Saxon nations to consecrate this advance. It seemed to him, that should they have the good fortune to bring this question to a settlement, there would arise a golden opportunity for establishing between Englishmen and Americans the interchange of friendly relations, the close alliance which he believed equally desirable for both peoples. After eloquently elaborating this idea, Lord De Grey said, in conclusion, that if by the approval of the great Assembly to which by the American Constitution their work had been submitted they should be able to bring this undertaking to a successful issue, he and his fellow-commissioners would return to England with the deep satisfaction of feeling that they had taken their share in a noble work, and one that would tend more profoundly perhaps than they could now conceive, to maintain, extend, and confirm the happiness of the two great branches of the commou race.

By the definitive arrangements of the Treaty it was settled that five arbitrators should meet at Geneva some months later in the year, one to be chosen by England, one by the United States, and the other three by the neutral Powers of Brazil, Switzerland, and Italy, to decide upon the "Alabama claims." The separate question of the San Juan boundary was to be submitted to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany. Meanwhile a mixed Commission was to sit at Washington and adjudicate on other classes of claims. arising out of the differences between the two countries.

At the close of 1870 a Census had been taken of the whole popu lation of the States. The results, when revised and corrected, were published, as thus :—

Aggregate population of the country, 38,549,987; of whom

Whites

Coloured

Indians (in the organized States, which alone

were included in the Census)

33,581,680

4,879,323

25,733

63,196

55

While on the subject of population we may notice a valuable report which was presented in April by Mr. Edward Young, the chief of the Bureau of Statistics. He calculated the total immigration into the States since 1820 at 7,553,805 persons, of whom more than half, 3,851,850, were of British origin. Germans counted 2,267,500, Scandinavians 153,928, French immigrants 245,812, Asiatic ditto 109,502. We are tempted also to report a curious deduction from the statistics of the Census, relating to the centre of gravity of the population. It is calculated that, if the country could be imagined to be a plane loaded with inhabitants who are distributed over it in the manner shown by the Census, then this centre of gravity would be the point on which the plane would balance. Years ago the population was densest on the eastern coast, but the centre of gravity has steadily progressed westward. In 1840 this point was on the 39th parallel of latitude, and near the eastern foot of the Cumberland mountains, in Virginia. In 1850 it had moved westward 57 miles, to a point near Parkersburg, on the Ohio river, in West Virginia. In 1860 it was 82 miles farther west, at a point south of Chalicothe, Ohio, and near the extremest western verge West Virginia. In 1870 the point was 45 miles farther west, at Wilmington, Clinton county, Ohio. The estimate is made that in 1890 this centre of population will be found near Bloomington, Indiana, about 40 miles south-west of Indianopolis.

of

When we turn from contemplating the progress of the United States' population to considering the state of its trade, we are brought to less satisfactory conclusions by the account which was given of it by the Hon. David A. Wells, formerly Commissioner of Revenue, in an article which he contributed this summer to the North American Review of Boston. Mr. Wells had been converted

U

from its principles of protection to those of free trade by his official experience. He now adduced the following statement of facts to prove the validity of his new faith:

He observed that the population of the States since 1860 had increased by nearly eight millions; that there were 25,000 miles more of railways now than then; that the climate now was not worse than then, nor the soil less fertile, nor the crops decreased; that the debt was only about one-half the British debt; that, exclusive of the interest charge, the Government expenses were considerably less than those of England; and that the interest paid was less per head of the population than that on the British debt. No intelligent man would suppose that the United States were now poorer, less or prosperous, or less able to compete with other nations in the world's markets than in 1860; and besides the increase in population, the improvements in manufacturing processes, the spread of railways, and consequent cheapening of transportation, would, combined, make up all the additional burdens that had to be borne by reason of the late civil war. Nevertheless, he stated the fact to be that the people of the United States use less sugar and coffee per head than they did in 1859, and also fewer boots, shoes, hats, and other articles of necessarily universal consumption, while "it is positively known that the consumption of cotton cloth, measured in pounds, was less in 1870, with 39,000,000 of people, than in 1860, with 30,000,000." The people of the United States, he said, not only buy less at home, but they also send less of these and their other home manufactures abroad than they did formerly, and what they do sell abroad they also send in foreign ships. The falling off in the exports of many American skilled industries is demonstrated in a comparative table showing in gold values the exports for 1860 and 1869. Thus, boots and shoes exported decreased from $782,525 in 1860 to $356,290 in 1869; wool and woollens, from $389,512 to $237,325; carriages, from $816,973 to $299,487; candles, from $760,528 to $324,995; pot and pearl ashes, from $882,820 to $187,004; books and paper, from $564,066 to $290,098; manufactured tobacco, from $3,337,083 to $2,101,335; soap, from $494,405 to $384,950; trunks and valises, from $37,748 to $24,800; paints and varnish, from $223,809 to $91,452; gunpowder, from $467,972 to $122,562; marble and stone manufactures, from $176,239 to $65,515; indiarubber manufactures, from $240,844 to $128,216; beer, ale, and porter, from $53,573 to $9,755; garden and other seeds, from $596,910 to $44,186; hides and skins, from $1,036,260 to $219,918; and animals, from $1,855,091 to $689,508. The decreased exportation is in the foregoing individualized, but, taking a general view, the total exportation of American produce to Great Britain, which was in 1860 in gold value $196,260,000, had decreased in 1869 to a paper currency value of $163,195,000. The exports to the Spanish West Indies in 1860 were $13,713,000 gold, and 15,479,000 currency in 1869; to Sweden and the Swedish West Indies, in 1860, $1,513,876 gold,