massacre of the marines on the "Hitochi," where a thousand Japanese soldiers on an unarmed vessel were cut to pieces by a machine-gun fire lasting for three hours, was in strange contrast with the saving of the crew of the "Rurik," which had itself taken part in that murderous affair. Through his refusal to permit the burial of the dead around Port Arthur, the Russian commander is surrounding himself with a wall of horror which must dismay the bravest of the Japanese assailants and burn itself forever into their memories. The Russian government has encouraged the idea that it is engaged in a holy crusade against pagans; even the generals are loaded down with amulets, and the religious imagination of the soldiers is assiduously worked upon. By thus appealing to the stolid masses, the Russian leaders are stirring up the bitterest and deepest feelings of race hatred.

Thus when we look for the real source of the yellow peril, we shall probably find it in the Russian absolutist party, who are looking for an indefinite lease of power from Oriental sources; we shall find it in the imperialistic imagination of Kaiser Wilhelm, who is trembling for Kiao-Chao while he makes himself believe that he is trembling for Europe; we shall find it in the French desire to expand the Indo-Chinese sphere; in the capitalistic system, which is ready to destroy the character of Oriental life and industry and transform the patient masses of the Orient into competitors to our own laborers. It is to be expected that these forces will attempt to annihilate the effects of a Japanese victory by preparing an international interference for the "peace of Asia." But woe to the peace of the world if such an arrangement were again concluded, with the clear purpose to deny the right of the Orient to live its own life and to protect its own ideals. The last vestige of belief in international justice would be killed in the Japanese, and the entire Oriental world would be forced to realize that its safety lay alone in stubborn, fierce resistance. The real yellow peril would then arise, though even then the forces thus evoked might confine themselves to a purely defensive action. It is the present duty of British and American diplomacy to prevent such an injustice to Japan and the consequent danger to the peace of the world. Japan is fighting our battle. This is so well understood that in Germany and France it is popularly believed that our governments are setting her on. The very least that the Anglo-Saxon races can do for the repre

sentative of their policy in the Orient, is to counteract the diplomatic influence that would by roundabout means again deprive the Japanese of the fruits of their unexampled self-sacrifice. We do not mean to indicate that the Japanese will demand Manchuria. They are undoubtedly sincere in their promise to restore this province to China, but they have a right to demand that Russian intrigue shall forever be shut out from that country.

The yellow peril is of our own making. There is no irrepressible conflict between Oriental and Western civilization. On the contrary, they are complementary to each other, not competitive. During the last century our own civilization, torn by internal conflicts and troubled by uncertainties, has sought for broader views in Oriental thought; Japanese art has shown our artists a new way of beauty, in which, by painting light in all its splendid manifestations, a new vista of artistic possibilities has been opened up. The monistic thought of Oriental philosophy has been more and more approached and assimilated by our scientific system. Only narrow-mindedness can see in this civilization a danger which we must subdue; only ignorance can consider it as worthless and vicious. We can imagine no greater political crime, not only against the Orient, but against ourselves, than the attempt to turn Oriental civilization from its natural course of development into alien channels, to destroy its broad and noble ideals, its peaceful industrial life, in order to force it into a sham similitude with our system, with the result that its millions will be doomed to a new slavery to alien capital, or to the warlike ambitions of a victorious Czardom. Nor has there ever appeared in political discussion a greater folly than the effort to conjure up the phantom of a great warlike movement on the part of these essentially peaceful societies, and to preach the Machiavellian doctrine, "Destroy them before they can destroy us."

PAUL S. REINSCH.

THE PROPER GRADE
GRADE OF DIPLOMATIC

REPRESENTATION,

BY JULIEN GORDON (MRS. VAN RENSSELAER CRUGER).

UNDER that title, the Hon. John W. Foster, veteran diplomat and statesman, presented to the International Congress of Arts and Sciences which met at St. Louis in September last a notable paper, valuable to those who take a special interest in our diplomatic affairs. It points out the inconveniences resulting to nations in general, and to the United States in particular, from the ancient system of graded diplomatic rank, as definitely settled at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The gravamen of the paper, so far as the United States is concerned, lies embodied in the following statement: "The most serious embarrassment resulting from this difference in grade of diplomatic representation is furnished by the relations at present existing between the United States and Turkey. For a number of years past, these relations have been in a most unsatisfactory condition. In no country of the western world could the old fiction of the ambassador as the personal representative of the sovereign to-day approach so nearly a reality as in Turkey, as the Sultan is more fully than any other monarch the personal ruler of the state. All the great Powers of Europe, and even the Shah of Persia, are represented at Constantinople by ambassadors, and they exercise the right of access to the Sultan at will, to discuss official matters. The American ministers plenipotentiary have represented to their country that it is very difficult to get any just and proper consideration and despatch of their business, because of the irresponsible character of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs or even of the Grand Vizier, as all important matters are determined by the Sultan; and that, as they do not possess the ambassadorial character, they cannot without great difficulty have audience with him to discuss official business. To

remedy this embarrassment, President McKinley caused application to be made to the Turkish government for the appointment by the two governments respectively of ambassadors; but the proposition was not accepted by Turkey. The condition of the interests of American citizens in that empire continuing to be very unsatisfactory, President Roosevelt renewed the application for the appointment of ambassadors; but it was again rejected."

That an evil, rising far above the level of mere inconvenience, now exists to the detriment of the interests of American citizens, because there is no diplomatic representative of the United States of ambassadorial rank at Constantinople, is beyond question. How shall it be remedied? Mr. Foster's only suggestion is that relief can only come when "all distinctions and special privileges are abolished and a single grade is established in all the capitals of the world." Certainly, no such radical change could be hoped for in the ancient forms of diplomatic intercourse, except through a general agreement to be made at an international congress, in which it would be necessary to overcome the settled and persistent prejudices of monarchical European nations in favor of the existing system. It is hardly reasonable to believe that such a conversion could be worked, if at all, within the span of a single generation. Does it not, therefore, behoove the United States to resort to a more prompt and promising expedient? The Act of Congress of March 1st, 1893, authorizing the grade of ambassador, is as follows: "Whenever the President shall be advised that any foreign government is represented, or is about to be represented, in the United States by an ambassador, envoy extraordinary, minister plenipotentiary, minister resident, special envoy, or chargé d'affaires, he is authorized, at his discretion, to direct that the representative of the United States to such government shall bear the same designation. This provision shall in no wise affect the duties, powers or salary of such representative." It thus appears that, whatever be the urgent need of this country for an envoy of ambassadorial rank, at a particular time or place, the President is powerless to take the initiative in appointing him. Not until the government to which he is to be accredited has actually taken the first step, does the law in question become operative. Here is the primary difficulty to be dealt with, which seems to have escaped Mr. Foster's attention. Foreign governments, far older than our own, are naturally sensitive on that

point. They feel that their dignity requires that, in the appointment of ambassadors, we should take the initiative in the full sense of the term. As Mr. Foster well says: "Reciprocity of grade is not always observed. A representative of a lower grade is sometimes received from a country to which one of a higher grade is sent." If we saw fit to send an ambassador to Constantinople while the Sultan is represented at Washington by a minister plenipotentiary, certainly he should regard it officially only as a compliment. Is it not then far more practicable for Congress to so change our laws as to authorize the President to appoint ambassadors, regardless of the prior act of any other nation, whenever one is specially needed at a particular capital, than to call an international congress for the purpose of abolishing an ancient and deep-rooted institution?

But to this suggestion Mr. Foster would, no doubt, reply that the failure of Congress to provide additional and adequate pay for ambassadors renders it undesirable that their number should be increased. On that subject he has said, with force and feeling, that: "An envoy who is sent abroad to represent his country ought not to be expected to maintain a more expensive establishment than is warranted by the salary paid him, and yet every American ambassador accredited to the capitals of Europe, who in any degree meets the expectations of his countrymen, spends annually much more than he receives from the National Treasury. The change of the American legations to embassies in the European capitals seems to have called for the maintenance of large houses or palaces and a much more lavish style of living, which have so greatly increased their expenditures that only persons of wealth can afford to accept these posts. It is a sad day for any country, but more especially for a republic, when its highest offices cease to be rewards of merit and fitness, and when they can only be filled by rich men." Here Mr. Foster has put his finger upon the sore spot which demands prompt and complete remedy, as it involves the dignity of a great nation. Certainly, there was a day in this country when, regardless of the pomp and state which they could maintain from their private purses, men of real distinction were sent to foreign courts as specimens of the genius of the American people. Money made is a brevet of brains, but inherited is an accident. It is a tradition that when Washington Irving, who had already published "The Conquest of Granada" and