This request was cabled to Peking, but the answer was returned that though it was possible that some of the newspaper reports had been erroneous, it was an undoubted fact that Mr. Blair had voted for the law known as the Scott exclusion act, which openly violated an existing treaty, and was passed at a time when new negotiations were in progress; and that the state of feeling in China was so bitter it would not be advisable. to receive Mr. Blair as minister. It was added that "the Chinese government has always been anxious to preserve the very best and friendliest relations with the United States, and has always tried to treat its ministers with the greatest consideration and confidence, and it will be very sorry if its conduct in this matter is not agreeable to the President." Mr. Blair was recalled before he had sailed from the Pacific port, and resigned his commission, although contending that he had been misrepresented and was the victim of a personal conspiracy.1

The appointments to the diplomatic service of the United States are by the Constitution vested in the Presi-V

dent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Before the adoption of the Constitution the choice of foreign ministers was made by the Continental Congress, and the election sometimes occasioned long and earnest contests; for instance, the balloting which resulted in the selection of John Adams as commissioner to negotiate peace with Great Britain occupied two sittings of Congress. In the first Congress under the Constitution a question was raised whether or not the

1 For correspondence, Senate Ex. Doc. 98, 52d Cong., 1st Sess.

nominations of the President should be communicated orally, and the advice and consent of the Senate thereto be given in the presence of the President, but this method was never followed.

Justice Story records that in 1813 the Senate appointed a committee to hold a conference with President Madison respecting his nomination of a minister to Sweden, then before it for confirmation. But he declined it, considering that it was incompatible with the due relations between the executive and other departments of the government. It is, however, not unusual for the President, upon receiving an intimation that the Senate is opposed to a nomination, to withdraw the same from the Senate.

Another question early mooted was whether or not under the Constitution the Senate possessed the right to negative the grade of a diplomatic nomination as well as the person named. Mr. Jefferson was of the opinion that the Senate had no such right. In the early history of the country the appropriations by Congress for the diplomatic service were for a lump sum, and the President determined the grade and salary of the representatives sent to the various nations with which we maintained diplomatic intercourse; and it does not appear that the Senate ever questioned his action in this respect. But later the diplomatic appropriation bills fixed both the grade and the salary, and this practice has been uniformly followed for many years.1

1 The first appropriation act of Congress to meet the expense of our foreign intercourse, that of July 1, 1790, was as follows: "That the President of the United States shall be, and is hereby

The posts of ambassadors and ministers to the leading nations stand in political signification next in importance and honor to the cabinet places, and the selections are made matter of careful examination by the President and secretary of state, and are often the subject of cabinet consideration before the nominations are sent to the Senate. The action of President John Adams in sending in the nomination of a minister to France, after diplomatic relations had been broken off, without consulting his cabinet, was severely criticised, and caused a serious breach with his party.1

Unlike its action upon treaties, the confirmation of a diplomatic appointment is made upon a majority vote of the Senate. Diplomatic officials are sometimes appointed during the recess of the Senate, in which case the appointee usually goes without delay to his post, and the nomination is sent to the Senate when it next assembles. In rare instances the nomination has failed of confirmation, which works the recall of the appointee. The most notable instances of this character are the appointments of Messrs. Gallatin and Van Buren.

Albert Gallatin, while holding the post of secretary of the treasury, was appointed by President Madison, in 1813, jointly with John Quincy Adams and James

authorized to draw from the treasury of the United States a sum not exceeding forty thousand dollars annually, to be paid out of the monies arising from the duties on imports and tonnage, for the support of such persons as he shall commission to serve the United States in foreign parts, and for the expense incident to the business in which they may be employed."

...

The growth of the service may be seen from the amount carried in the diplomatic and consular appropriation for the year 1906, to wit, $2,950,000.

1 Nomination of Vans Murray, Foster's American Diplomacy, 178.

Ꮴ

A. Bayard, a commissioner to negotiate at St. Petersburg a treaty of peace with Great Britain and a commercial treaty with Russia. He was given a leave of absence from the treasury, repaired to St. Petersburg, and entered upon the negotiations. When the Senate convened the nomination of the commissioners was submitted for confirmation, and after debate Messrs. Adams and Bayard were confirmed and Mr. Gallatin was rejected. The ground for this action was that, while still holding the office of secretary of the treasury, he could not accept another appointment, although personal partisanship entered largely into the opposition. Mr. Gallatin soon after resigned the treasury portfolio, and was nominated and confirmed one of the commissioners to negotiate peace with Great Britain. He afterwards held the missions to France and to Great Britain.1

Following the break-up in the first cabinet of President Jackson in 1831, Martin Van Buren, secretary of state, was appointed minister to Great Britain during the recess of the Senate. On reassembling the nomination was sent to that body for confirmation, Mr. Van Buren having already entered on his duties in London. The nomination occasioned a lengthy and acrimonious debate, inspired in part by the cabinet dissensions; but the main ground of opposition was the charge that when secretary of state, Mr. Van Buren had given an instruction to the American minister in London to communicate statements to the British foreign secretary of an improper character relative to domestic politics. The nomination was rejected, but Mr. Van Buren returned

1 Life of Albert Gallatin, by Henry Adams (1879), 483 ff.

home to receive the plaudits of his party and to succeed his chief as President of the United States.1

The laws of the United States forbid the appointment of any one other than a citizen of the United States in its diplomatic service. It is also a rule of the Department of State that no citizen of the United States shall be received by it as the diplomatic representative of a foreign government, but this rule is of a flexible character in its application. Anson Burlingame, who for some years had acted as the American minister in China, resigned to accept from the Chinese government the post of special ambassador to the United States and certain European governments. He was received as such in Washington, and Secretary Fish negotiated with him and his colleagues an important treaty.

Mr. Camacho, a native of Venezuela but a naturalized citizen of the United States, was accepted as minister from Venezuela in 1880, on renewal of relations with that country, which had been for some time suspended.2 On the other hand, General O'Bierne, a prominent citizen of New York, was accredited as diplomatic representative of the Transvaal Republic to the United States at the outbreak of hostilities with Great Britain; and the secretary of state, applying the rule, declined to receive him on the ground of his American citizenship, thus avoiding the question of the reception of a representative of a country which the British government claimed was a suzerain state.

1 Martin Van Buren (in Statesmen Series), by Edward M. Shepard, 187, 195; 1 Benton's Thirty Years in the Senate, ch. 59.

? 1 Wharton's Digest, 628.