CHAPTER IX

THE TERMINATION OF MISSIONS

A DIPLOMATIC official terminates his mission by resig nation, by his transfer to another post, by his dismissal, or by his recall. A change of parties in the United States by popular election brings about an almost complete change in the diplomatic service. Ambassadors and ministers are expected to tender their resignations on a change of the home government, and the resignations usually reach Washington in time to be in the hands of the new secretary of state when or very soon after he assumes office. If in any case a resignation is not so tendered, when a new appointment is determined upon the delinquent incumbent is informed of the proposed change, and, if his resignation is not then tendered, he is usually summarily recalled.

Likewise changes often occur during the same administration by removal. In the case of an envoy against whom no charges are brought, when a change is determined upon, the incumbent should be notified in advance of the intended change and an opportunity afforded him to tender his resignation. Instances have occurred where grave injustice has been done to faithful representatives by allowing them to learn of their removal through the public press. Such occurrences bring the American diplomatic service into disrepute.

The commission of an American diplomatic officer runs without limit as to time. At the beginning of the government, appointments were made for a given period, usually three years; for instance, Franklin and Jefferson, ministers to France, and John Adams, to England, were appointed for the specified period of three years. Mr. Jefferson was of the opinion that no American minister ought ever to be absent from home at European courts more than five or six years at a time. When secretary of state, he declined to support the application for appointment of Mr. Short, his successor at Paris, an intimate friend and neighbor, because he had already been too long out of the country.1

It was the early practice of American officials to return their commissions on the expiration of their term of service. A notable instance was that of Washington, who at the close of the War of Independence returned his commission as general-in-chief to Congress in open session in 1783. The archives of the Department of State show similar instances. But in 1831 President Jackson, when John Branch resigned as secretary of the navy, returned to him his commission, saying, "It is your own private property, and by no means to be considered part of the archives of the government." Since that date the practice of returning commissions has been

1 September 30, 1790, Secretary Jefferson wrote Mr. Short at Paris, as follows: "I think it possible that it will be established into a maxim of the new government to discontinue its foreign servants after a certain time of absence from their own country, because they lose in time that sufficient degree of intimacy with its circumstances which alone can enable them to know and pursue its interests. Seven years have been talked of. Be assured it is for your happiness and success to return."-5 Jefferson's Writings, 242.

abandoned, and American diplomatic as well as other officers retain in their own possession their commissions.

There has existed a custom in Europe, rather more infrequent now than a century ago, of the sovereign expressing a desire for the retention of an acceptable or favorite envoy from a foreign nation. Instances have occurred where the monarch has manifested such a wish to the President of the United States, but it has rarely had any other effect than to delay for a short time the new appointment, if brought about by a change of parties in this country.

An envoy, if retired in regular order, is furnished a letter of recall, signed by the President and addressed to the chief of the state, and for the delivery of the letter an audience is granted similar to that at his presentation. John Adams, on the expiration of his term of service as minister to England and his recall by Congress, was greatly embarrassed because of the failure of the receipt of the customary letter of recall, which Congress omitted to send him. He was likewise accredited to Holland, and in order to take leave of that government he resorted to the expedient of addressing a letter to the Prince of Orange and to Their High Mightinesses the States General, inclosing the resolution of Congress which terminated his mission, and, informing them of his intended return to the United States, sent them his message of farewell. The Dutch minister for foreign affairs returned these documents to Mr. Adams, stating that they could not be delivered to their destination, as the heads of the States should be addressed directly by Congress, the same as had been the case when his letter

of credence was delivered; or, as Mr. Adams expressed it, it was the rule of all courts that "sovereign should always speak to sovereign."

Mr. Adams, being in London, was more fortunate in securing an audience of George III; but, having no letter of recall to deliver, he made a brief formal address of farewell. As the king's speech on presentation of his letter of credence has already been quoted, his reply should be here given. Because of the troubles which had arisen over the enforcement of the treaty of peace, the king's reply on this occasion was in marked contrast with the former one. He said: "Mr. Adams, you may, with great truth, assure the United States that whenever they shall fulfill the treaty on their part, I, on my part, will fulfill it in all its particulars. As to yourself, I am sure I wish you a safe and pleasant voyage, and much comfort with your family and friends.” After this curt farewell, Mr. Adams proceeded to take leave, as he reports to Secretary Jay, "of the Queen and Princesses, the Cabinet Ministers and corps diplomatique-a species of slavery, more of which, I believe, has fallen to my share than ever happened before to a son of liberty."1

An envoy should, if possible, remain at his post till his successor arrives, in which case his farewell audience usually immediately precedes the presentation audience of the new minister. It often happens that the envoy's retirement occurs when the chief of the state is absent from the capital and not readily accessible. In that case the letter of recall is usually delivered by his successor. 12 U. S. Dip. Cor. (1783-89) 827–832.

An instance, however, is noted where a representative to Austria, after having left his post, sent his letter of recall to the United States consul at Vienna, by whom it was delivered. John Randolph resigned his post as minister at St. Petersburg, and en route home delivered his letter of recall to the Russian ambassador in London. The recall for cause of a minister is made either at the request of the government to which he is accredited, or by his own government upon his own motion. In the first case, it is because his conduct has made him persona non grata. The first and most notable instance of this as applied to American representatives was the recall of Gouverneur Morris from Paris at the instance of the French government. He entered upon his duties in January, 1792, and was a witness of the exciting period which marked the overthrow of the monarchy, the execution of the king, the rapid succession of republican governments, and the bloody reign of terror. No minister could have so conducted himself as to be persona grata to all these rapidly succeeding governments, but Mr. Morris was especially unfortunate, and far from circumspect in his conduct. He had warm sympathy for Louis XVI, and allowed his feelings to lead him into a plot for the king's escape; he counseled with the monarchists and did not conceal his disgust at the bloody excesses of the Republicans, by whom he was regarded as hostile. Finally, in 1794, when Washington was forced to ask for the recall of the intemperate French minister Genet, the French Directory requested the recall of Morris, and he was forced to leave France. The state of politics at the time made it very difficult