The failure of Congress to legislate respecting the diplomatic service is, in part at least, based upon what is claimed to be the success of our present system. It is pointed out that in the history of the country the solid achievements of American diplomacy equal those of any European nation, and that we do not suffer by comparison in the personnel of the corps. It is contended that the American representatives at the European courts have, as a rule, been men of first ability and culture, many of them subsequently filling the posts of president, chief justice, secretary of state, and other cabinet offices, and highly distinguished at home and abroad; while the European diplomats sent to Washington have scarcely equaled them in attainments and distinction.

The fact is not to be disguised, however, that the evil practice of rewarding politicians with prominent offices is attended with consequences demoralizing to the service. Secretary Hay, referring to the custom of appointing to foreign missions members of Congress who had been defeated for reëlection, in one of those sallies of wit for which he was famous, said: "A quiet legation is the stuffed mattress which the political acrobat wants always to see ready under him in case of a slip."1 Favors bestowed solely for party service have resulted occasionally in sending abroad as diplomatic representatives men of bad manners and dissolute habits, who have brought the service into ill repute, and caused Americans to blush for their country.

Some years ago, while I was touring with a party of

1 The Century Magazine, January, 1906, 448.

friends in a remote section of the Rocky Mountains, on a Sunday we attended service in a Canadian Presbyterian Church. The minister in illustrating his text— "We are ambassadors for Christ" stated that the

United States had at one time an ambassador in Germany who was almost constantly in a state of intoxication. This, he said, created in the minds of the Germans the impression that the Americans must be a nation of drunkards. One of the successors of this representative at the court of Berlin has recorded that his countrymen at that capital even failed to keep him sober for his first presentation to the king.1

An anecdote is told of Secretary Seward that to a citizen who was remonstrating with him against continuing in the service a minister who was disgracing his country and wondering how such an appointment could be made, he replied: "Sir, some persons are sent abroad because they are needed abroad, and some are sent because they are not wanted at home."

Such appointments were more frequently made before the Civil War, and it is gratifying to note that greater care has been exercised in this regard of late years, and a higher standard of culture and morality is preserved. While it does not palliate the disreputable conduct of American representatives abroad, it may be said that the permanent diplomatic service which is maintained by other governments has not resulted in excluding entirely unworthy persons.

The diplomatic corps at Washington is usually composed of gentlemen of ability, of culture, and of a high 12 Autobiography of Andrew Dickson White (1905), 356.

standard of personal character; but there have been notable exceptions. The government of the United States has been compelled to summarily dismiss or ask for the recall of ministers for flagrant violations of the established usages of diplomacy or the rules of international law; others have resorted to their diplomatic immunity to escape the payment of honest debts; and still others have offended respectable society by immoral relations. Neither the one method nor the other can entirely eradicate the frailties of our weak human

nature.

The system followed by the United States exposes the government to mistakes and sometimes to mortification and ridicule because of the inexperience of its representative. But appointments to the higher posts are generally of persons who have served and gained distinction in legislative bodies or in the professions, and, though not experienced in the arts of diplomacy and court etiquette, they are usually able to cope with their colleagues on all subjects where great principles are involved. It will probably be many years before Congress will adopt the European system in full, but it is not too much to hope that provision shall be made by law whereby admission to the post of secretaries shall be regulated by competitive examinations, that branch of the service made permanent, and that it shall be largely drawn upon to fill the place of ministers.

L

CHAPTER II

RANK OF DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES

THE grade or rank of diplomatic representatives has been the subject of discussion and fierce controversy from the date of the first establishment of permanent missions, four centuries ago, and although it was finally and definitely settled at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and that settlement was accepted and has been followed by the United States, it has recently been a new source of discussion and embarrassment even in Washington. Hence it may be germane to our topic to make some reference to this controversy in the past.

A diplomatic envoy is the representative of his government or sovereign, and his claim of rank is for his country and not for himself; so that the controversy in the past has been one of nations rather than of persons. During the medieval period the struggle of the European nations for preeminence in rank was the special feature of the era, and it gave rise often to the most absurd pretensions. It was sought to be maintained for various reasons, such as: the title of the sovereign, the size of the dominions, the antiquity of the royal family or date of independence of the country, the nature of the government (whether monarchy or republic), the population, its achievements in arms, the date of the conversion of the people to Christianity, and

even the services rendered to the Pope or the church. Up to the time of the reformation the Pope was universally recognized in christendom as having precedence over all other sovereigns; next in order was the emperor of Germany as the successor of the Roman emperor, and below them a constant strife existed among the nations. For a time the republics were refused what were termed "royal honors," but finally Venice, the United Netherlands, and Switzerland were accorded recognition in the order of precedence here named. The title of emperor was sought to be made exclusive to the old German Empire, and Russia was forced to wait several generations after its ruler assumed that title before he was accorded recognition as such.

Four centuries ago the Pope of Rome, by virtue of his conceded preeminence and ecclesiastical authority, sought to settle the vexed question by issuing an order fixing the relative rank of the then existing nations of Christendom. It illustrates the intensity of feeling which the question had aroused to state that, notwithstanding the high papal authority of that day, this arbitrary settlement was not accepted generally, and was observed in Rome only, and even there merely for a brief period. It also illustrates the evanescent character of the honor and the changes of the governments of the world to note that, of the score and a half of nations enumerated in the papal order, only three (England, Spain, and Portugal) exist to-day with the royal titles then accorded them. It is also curious to note that in this table of precedence England stood eighth in order, and Russia does not appear in the list.