"ROCHDALE, _August 24, 1869_. "_My dear Mr. Field_,--I am glad to have your letter, and note its contents with much interest. I do not see how your suggestion can be adopted at present. "Whatever is done now towards a settlement must necessarily come from your side. We have done all we can. Your government 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 Johnson 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? [Illustration: ARDSLEY, IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON (Home of Cyrus W. Field)] "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 international 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 voluntary 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?