The policy of our Government in sending representatives to foreign countries is to prohibit their taking part in any way in the political concerns of the country to which they are accredited. They are instructed that "it is forbidden to diplomatic agents abroad to participate in any manner in the political concerns of the country of their residence, and they are directed especially to refrain from public expression of opinion upon local, political, or other questions arising within their jurisdiction. The plain duty of the diplomatic agents of the United States is scrupulously to abstain from interfering in the domestic politics of the countries where they reside. This duty is especially incumbent on those who are accredited to Governments mutable in form and in the persons by whom they are administered. By taking any open part in the domestic affairs of such a foreign country they must, sooner or later, render themselves obnoxious to the executive authority, which can not fail to impair their usefulness." The State Department, as far as possible, impresses upon all foreign ministers accredited to the United States the propriety of following the explicit instructions given our own diplomatic agents abroad. It is very seldom that a minister resident in Washington will give an opinion on any political question, and never for publication.

A POLITICAL TRICK.

In the present instance, it is the opinion of those who have carefully read Minister West's letter that the writer of the letter, to which his is a reply, was instigated by political motives in trying to draw him into saying something that could be used in the Presidential campaign to the injury of the Democratic party.

I went this evening to the British legation for the purpose of receiving the expla nation that Lord Sackville had expressed himself willing to make to the Herald of the circumstances under which he had written the letter.

An English-born citizen of California had sought from him an approval of his expressed desire to vote for the re-election of President Cleveland.

The minister first confirmed the accuracy of the copy of his letter that I had taken to him for verification, and then producing from his cabinet the original of the letter addressed to him by his unknown correspondent at Pomona, Cal., asked me to read it and tell him, if I could, what reasonable objection had been or could be raised to his anwering it, or to the matter and quality of his answer.

I informed Lord Sackville that certain gentlemen, prominent in the Republican party, deemed his letter of sufficient importance to their cause to make use of it for the purpose of creating a prejudice against the candidacy of Mr. Cleveland in the closing weeks of the campaign, and that those who took that view and made that use of the letter considered that its publication had put him so far on the defensive as to require him to justify or excuse the writing of the letter.

HIS POINT OF VIEW.

Lord Sackville declined to accept that view, or to say anything to placate, help, or hinder any partisan interest connected with the pending contest for the Presidency, adding that he did not write letters, nor refrain from writing them, out of regard to political exigencies within the United States, which were matters that in no way concerned him otherwise than as a friendly and impartial spectator, but solely with reference to what was courteous and proper between himself and those that saw fit to honor him with their communications. He was aware that the native ingenuity of the American people was apt to come out strongly at the time of their national elections, and he thought the enthusiasm and enterprise that they threw into such struggles were indications of a sound political constitution, but he would like to know how any of the present contestants are to gain an advantage from the publi cation of his letter, which contained nothing but statements of well known and indisputable facts.

He had stated "that any political party which openly favored the mother country at the present moment would lose popularity." Does anybody dispute this attribution of fervid patriotism to the American people? He had added that "the party in power is fully aware of this fact." He reads all the leading journals, and knows whereof he speaks on this point.

He had expressed the belief that the party in power was "desirous of maintaining friendly relations with Great Britain," and still as desirous of settling all questions with Canada, and he might say the same of all parties in the United States upon the authority of all the recognized party leaders and organs. His knowledge that the Republican majority in the Senate had rejected the fisheries treaty was derived from the official report of the proceedings of the Senate, published by order of that chamber itself.

THE MINISTER NO PROPHET.

He had written that it was "impossible to predict the course which President. Cleveland may pursue in the matter of retaliation should he be elected," and if anybody can make any authoritative prediction on that point in advance of the situation or circumstances requiring the President to act, the person so enabled is in possession of a valuable piece of information which it is impossible he should long Feep to himself. He had told his correspondent that "there is every reason to believe that while upholding the position he has taken, he (the President) will manifest a spirit of conciliation in dealing with the question involved in his message" (meaning the so-called retaliation message). His authority for that expression of belief is to be found in the American press at large, and he (the minister) can not conceive how he could have justified his words to himself, or have escaped the just censure of the people of this country at large, had he presumed to tell anybody that the President would not uphold any position he has taken on a grave question, or that he would approach such a question in any other than a becoming spirit.

The letter of his correspondent, while professing to see in the past conduct of President Cleveland much to commend him to the suffrages of an elector holding the views and opinions set out in the letter, expressed a fear that partisan exigency might lead the President, in case of his re-election, to do certain things that the writer could not approve, and inasmuch as Lord Sackville was not in possession of a commission to tell anybody, or even to learn for himself whether the Pesident would or would not do the things reprobated by his correspondent, he deemed it proper and sufficient to remind the latter that "allowances must, therefore, be made for the political situation" in estimating the meaning and value of the rhetoric of campaign editors and orators.

The minister does not understand that popular leaders in America, any more than elsewhere, are in the habit or are willing to be held strictly to an account or performance of all they may happen to say in the heat of a political canvass, and hence his soothing reminder to his anxious correspondent.

POSSIBLY ENTRAPPED.

The letter to Lord Sackville, which elicited his much discussed reply, covers four closely written pages of note-paper, and I could not refrain from imparting to the minister my suspicion, based upon the matter and form of the letter, that it was a fraudulent and deceptive communication intended to entrap him into some unguarded expression that could be turned to the disadvantage of one of the candidates for the Presidency. It had not occurred to him that there could be any such purpose in the letter, but he admitted the plausibility of the suggestion, though he declined to take it into serious consideration in the absence of any proof that his correspondent was other than the sincere and conscientious person he held himself out to be in his letter. He declined to permit me to take the letter for publication unless and until the consent of the writer can be obtained.

IN HIS PRIVATE CHARACTER.

The inscription of the word "private" upon Lord Sackville's letter was explained by him to be the ordinary mode of distinguishing letters written in his personal character from those written or signed by him on the business of the legation.

He would cheerfully have given his consent to the publication of the letter if the formality of asking his consent had occurred to those concerned in its publication. He understood, from what was said in the letter to which he was replying, that his answer would be shown to other people than the recipient of it. Consequently, it was advised that he use the term "private" to distinguish the letter from those that he had occasion to write on the public business of his office.

The suggestion that a foreign ambassador should not write unofficial letters on the domestic politics of the country to which he is accredited was dismissed by Lord Sackville in a summary fashion. It happens constantly, he says, in his intercourse with people, that statements are made to him, and information, opinion, and advice asked of him touching matters beyond his sphere and duty as a diplomatic agent of Her Majesty, and in all such instances he acts as any rational and considerate person would. What he would say in a personal interview he would, of course, not hesitate to write to an absent informant or inquirer, and he wrote to the gentleman at Pomona substantially what he should have told him at Beverly had he been called upon

there.

In thanking Lord Sackville for his patience and courtesy, I told him that because of the supposed interests of one of our political parties he would probably be severely attacked in the papers for a few days on account of his letter. He replied,· laughingly: "Indeed! Well, let them come on. I read all the papers, you know, and I shall enjoy it greatly, I assure you."

No. 874.]

No. 15.

Mr. Phelps to Mr. Bayard.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, December 29, 1888. (Received January 10.)

SIR: I have the honor to inclose a copy of a note received from Lord Salisbury on the 27th instant, relative to the case of Lord Sackville. I have acknowledged the reception of it, and said that I had transmitted it to my Government for its consideration. This leaves it open to such reply as you may deem it advisable to make.

It will be observed that in my note to Lord Salisbury of the 4th instant, to which his note is an answer, I merely stated the view that I conceive to be the correct one, in respect to the obligation of a Governmont to withdraw its minister at the request of the Government to which he is accredited, without attempting to support it by argument or citation, or expressing any anticipation that it would be thought open to question. I inclose a copy of a telegram sent you this morning. I have, etc.,

E. J. PHELPS.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 874.]

The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Phelps.

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 24, 1888. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, inclosing the reported conversations upon which, on the 27th October last, you principally based the request preferred by the President of the United States that Lord Sackville, Her Majesty's minister at Washington, should be recalled. That letter. with its inclosures, has been referred to Lord Sackville, and I have now the honor to transmit to you a copy of his reply so far as it relates to them.

The request in answer to which you have been good enough to forward these papers was made in order that Her Majesty's Government might be enabled to form a judgment on the complaint against Lord Sackville which was based upon them. But it has ceased to be of any practical importance, inasmuch as on the following Tuesday morning, the 30th October, the President of the United States terminated all diplomatic intercourse with Lord Sackville and forwarded his passports to him. In your letter under reply you explain the course thus pursued by observing: "In asking from Her Majesty's Government the recall or withdrawal of its minister, upon a representation of the general purport of the letter and statements above mentioned, the Government of the United States assumed that such request would be sufficient for that purpose, whatever consideration the reasons for it might afterwards demand or receive.

"It was believed that the acceptance or retention of a minister was a question solely to be determined, either with or without the assignment of reasons, by the Government to which he was accredited."

The general principles admitted by the practice of nations upon this matter are of more importance than the particular case in reference to which the above doctrine is laid down. Her Majesty's Government are unable to assent to the view of international usage which you have here laid down. It is, of course, open to any gov ernment, on its own responsibility, suddenly to terminate its diplomatic relations with any other state, or with any particular minister of any other state. But it has no claim to demand that the other state shall make itself the instrument of that proceeding, or concur in it, unless that state is satisfied by reasons, duly produced, of the justice of the grounds on which the demand is made.

The principles which govern international relations on this subject appear to Her Majesty's Government to have been accurately laid down by Lord Palmerston on the occasion of Sir Henry Bulwer's sudden dismissal from the Court of Madrid in 1848: "The Duke of Sotomayor, in treating of that matter, seems to argue as if every Government was entitled to obtain the recall of any foreign minister whenever, for reasons of its own, it might wish that he should be removed; but this is a doctrine to which I can by no means assent.

"It is quite true, as said by the Duke of Sotomayor, that the law of nations and international usage may permit a Government to make such a demand; but the law of

ations and international usage also entitle the Government to whom such a request aay be preferred to decline to comply with it. I do not mean to say that if a foreign overnment is able to state to the Government of Her Majesty grave and weighty easons why the British minister accredited to such Government should be removed, Her Majesty's Government would not feel it to be their duty to take such representaions into their serious consideration, and to weigh them with all the attention which hey might deserve. But it must rest with the British Government in such a case to tetermine whether there is or is not any just cause of complaint against the British liplomatic agent, and whether the dignity and interests of Great Britain would be best consulted by withdrawing him, or by maintaining him at his post." (Viscount Palmerston to Señor Isturiz, 12th June, 1848.)

What view Her Majesty's Government would have taken of Lord Sackville's action f the President of the United States had laid before them "grave and weighty reasons" for his removal, it would be superfluous now to consider. Private communiations made by an embassador in good faith have never, I believe, before been made he subject of international complaints; and considerable doubt seems to rest upon the precise purport of the more public statements made by Lord Sackville to the newspaper reporters. But these were fair matters for examination and discussion, if any such discussion had been desired. It is sufficient under existing circumstances to say that there was nothing in Lord Sackville's conduct to justify so striking a departure from the circumspect and deliberate procedure by which in such cases it is the usage of friendly states to mark their consideration for each other.

I will abstain from comment upon the considerations, not of an international character, to which you refer as having dictated the action of the President; I will only join with the Government of the United States in expressing my regret that a personal incident of this character should have in any degree qualified the harmony which for a long time past the enduring sympathy of the two nations has impressed upon the mutual relations of their Governments.

MY LORD: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lordship's dispatch of the 8th instant, inclosing a copy of a letter from Mr. Phelps explaining the views of the United States Government on the subject of the termination of my mission, and requesting me to furnish your lordship with any observations I may have to make thereon. I have the honor, therefore, to submit to your lordship:

1. That it is manifest that my reply to the Murchison letter, marked "Private," was never intended for publication, and that I never anticipated that it would be published and used for the political purposes described.

2. That the reply in question contained no imputations against the integrity of the President in his action upon important questions of foreign policy.

3. That the assertion that such insinuations had been made by me rests entirely upon the distorted statements of newspaper reporters under the influence of strong political partisanship.

4. That it is these distorted statements which are dwelt upon as the chief cause of my dismissal.

5. That the statement, that no contradiction or explanation of them had ever been published by me, is true, but that all mention of my letter to Mr. Bayard, copy of which was inclosed in my dispatch of the 31st of October, is omitted; and in this connection I beg to refer your lordship to my statement forwarded in Mr. Herbert's dispatch of the 9th November.

6. That any contradiction to statements made by newspaper reporters in the United States through the press could only lead to unseemly and undignified controversy. 7. That Mr. Bayard was, as Secretary of State, in possession of my disclaimer of any intention of impugning the action of the Executive, and that he could have given such publicity to it as he thought fit under the circumstances.

8. That never in my intercourse with Mr. Bayard after the publication of my letter did he give me to understand that the correspondence and the "Tribune" interview was regarded by the Government of the United States as "a grave and unprovoked affront."

9. That, therefore, it was made to assume such a character only in consequence of political exigencies, upon which I may be permitted to say further comment is unnecessary, and would certainly be unpleasant.

I have, etc.,

SACKVILLE.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 874.-Telegram.]

Mr. Phelps to Mr. Bayard.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, December 29, 1888.

Mr. Phelps informs Mr. Bayard of the reception of a reply from Lord Salisbury in the Sackville case.

No. 893.]

No. 16.

Mr. Phelps to Mr. Bayard.

[Extract.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, January 12, 1889. (Received January 22.) SIR Referring to previous correspondence with respect to the dis missal of Lord Sackville, the late British minister at Washington, I have the honor to inclose herewith the official correspondence* on the subject issued by Her Majesty's Government to Parliament, and a copy of an article in this day's Morning Post.

I have, etc.,

E. J. PHELPS.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 893.]

LORD SACKVILLE AND THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.

[From the London Morning Post, Saturday, January 12, 1889.J

Further correspondence respecting the demand of the United States Government for the recall of Lord Sackville was issued yesterday. The facts of the case are already well known, but the principle claimed by the Government of the United States is controverted by the Marquis of Salisbury in his dispatch of the 24th ultimo. He observes that the judgment of Her Majesty's Government on the conduct of Lord Sackville has ceased to be of any importance, as the President has already sent to him his passports, and adds:

"In your letter under reply you explain the course thus pursued by observing: 'In asking from Her Majesty's Government the recall or withdrawal of its minister upon a representation of the general purport of the letter and statements above mentioned, the Government of the United States assumed that such request would be sufficient for that purpose, whatever consideration the reasons for it might afterwards demand or receive. It was believed that the acceptance or retention of a minister was a question solely to be determined either with or without the assignment of reasons by the government to which he was accredited.' The general principles admitted by the practice of nations upon this matter are of more importance than the particular case in reference to which the above doctrine is laid down. Her Majesty's Government are unable to assent to the view of international usage which you have here expressed. It is, of course, open to any government, on its own responsibility, suddenly to terminate its diplomatic relations with any other state, or with any particular minister of any other state. But it has no claim to demand that the other state shall make itself the instrument of that proceeding, or concur in it, unless that state is satisfied by reasons duly produced of the justice of the grounds on which the demand is made. The principles which govern international relations on this subject appear to Her Majesty's Government to have been accurately laid down by Lord Palmerston on the occasion of Sir Henry Bulwer's sudden dismissal from the court of Madrid in 1848:

"The Duke of Sotomayor, in treating of that matter, seems to argue as if every government was entitled to obtain the recall of any foreign minister whenever, for reasons of its own, it might wish that he should be removed; but this is a doctrine to which I can by no means assent. It is quite true, as said by the Duke of Soto

* See Appendix.