Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

Transcriber Notes

Obvious typos corrected. Inconsistencies in punctuation kept as in
original.
Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation made consistent, e.g.: handbook,
shipboard, to-day, chargé(s) d’affaires.
Spelling of Quebec and Colombia made consistent, but otherwise
spellings of city and country names left as printed in the original.
Unclear name suffix in the original was confirmed as Jacob Meyer Jr.
elsewhere.
Page number in Table of Contents for Lecture III—Consular
Service—Duties changed to 83 to match actual start of chapter.
The Diplomatic Service and Consular Service tables in the Appendix have
footnotes that are referenced in multiple entries across the original
pages in the text. Rather than retain multiple footnotes with
identical content, multiple anchors in the text may refer to a single
note.
P. 208 in the original indicates a footnote * that has no corresponding
anchor on that page, so it does not appear here.
The column headers with vertical text in the Synopsis of Commercial
Treaties table on pp. 212-213 have been moved to a Key.
The Synopsis of Commercial Treaties table uses Unicode characters
dagger (U+2020) and double dagger (U+2021). If the device font does
not support these characters, † and ‡, they may not appear correctly.
Indent of Lethbridge, Alberta in table on p. 226 made to match
surrounding entries since it falls in alphabetical order of those.
If the device allows, some full page images can be clicked on to view a
larger version.
Italic text indicated by underscores surrounding _italic text_.
Small capitals have been converted to ALL CAPS.
Some descriptions of illustrations have been added.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNCLE SAM ABROAD.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uncle Sam
Abroad
By J. E. Conner

_Illustrated by
Clyde J. Newman_

Chicago and New York
Rand, McNally & Company

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright, 1900, by J. E. Conner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS.

The Professor Has an Idea Page 7

Lecture I—The State Department 11

Lecture II—Consular Service—Officers 43

Lecture III—Consular Service—Duties 83

Lecture IV—Diplomatic Service 121

Lecture V—Uncle Sam and Expansion 159

Appendix 197

------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNCLE SAM ABROAD.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Professor

Has

An Idea.

It is the opinion of Professor Loyal of the University of ---- that the average American, to put it bluntly, knows little or nothing about Uncle Sam’s foreign service.

He is also of the opinion that the time is at hand when the aforesaid average American _must_ know more about it, owing to the growth in importance of our foreign relations, both politically and commercially.

Now if the good Professor could only work miracles he would take the dry details which he has in mind upon this subject, and make them as interesting as fiction. Instead, however, he chose a method to which he was more accustomed, the “university extension” plan, aiming primarily to stimulate interest in his subject, and secondarily, in some small measure to gratify it.

The reader is indebted to the notes of a shorthand reporter who happened to hear the entire course, both for the text here given and for the illustrations with which it is adorned. If he thinks that the latter are not always in harmony with the text he must remember that the Professor and the Scribe did not see things from the same standpoint. Moreover he must not hold the Professor too strictly to account for his language, for it is not to be wondered at if he occasionally forgets himself and uses large words, which might be considered out of place in a popular lecture; and again, in his effort to impart life and present-day interest to his subject he at times introduces a levity which he hopes will not too seriously offend the sober-minded, or make them distrust his statements of fact.

On the evening of the first lecture the speaker, having been presented with the usual complimentary remarks, first spoke briefly in explanation of the nature of the course and of such courses in general. He mentioned among other matters that syllabi or leaflets containing outlines of the lectures, together with copies of the “Diplomatic and Consular Register,” would be distributed to all in attendance. He also announced that opportunity would be given at the close of each lecture for questions from the audience, and he promised to attempt to answer the same. Then he turned to the subject of the evening.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

LECTURE I

THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:

What is the attitude of Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia or the United States upon this or that question?

Such a query you often hear, and perhaps you stop to wonder how it is when the collective opinion of any one country cannot be known in a short time, that there can be such a thing as a German attitude, an English or an American attitude, or who has a right to determine upon this or that as our attitude.

Well, it is evident that in domestic affairs, that is to say in national affairs, we as a people can take time to deliberate and choose our path; and it is just as evident that in international affairs we cannot always do so. “It is the unexpected that happens”, and we must have some means of meeting emergencies that will not wait. Hence a free people is least free, theoretically, when it has to do with the claims of treaties and international law, for it cannot take time to consider and decide upon all the facts; nay, even legislatures may interfere seriously with the proper discharge of such duties; so that in actual practice, even the most democratic nations have found it best to entrust the management of foreign affairs, or in other words, the preservation of their national equilibrium, to a Premier, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary, who is generally the ablest statesman that the country can afford.

This officer, with slightly differing functions, is known in our country as the Secretary of State, and he presides over the State Department. Probably there is no office under our Constitution that requires greater sagacity, greater breadth of intellectual grasp and practical training than this one of Secretary of State, and the fact that it has been held by such men as Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, William H. Seward and James G. Blaine is sufficient evidence of its importance.

It was intended at first that the cabinet officers should be as nearly equal as possible, and the salaries were fixed and remain the same to this day; but in the nature of the case they could not remain of equal importance, for the Department of State is more intimately associated with the President than any other. Washington would not allow foreign ministers to address him—they must reach him properly through the State Department,—hence, if for no other reason, it is easy to see how the Secretary of State assumed an official dignity that does not belong to the other cabinet officers.

Let us see how he stands related to the general government. Suppose we assume the attitude of an intelligent foreigner, looking at the “Great Republic” from the outside, and trying to discover into whose hands the logical working out of the Constitution has placed the real power.

It has been said[1] that we will at length discover that in all ordinary times of peace the government is practically in the hands of six men, namely,—

the President and two men whom he appoints—
the Secretary of State, and
the Secretary of the Treasury;
the Speaker and two men whom he appoints—
the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and
the Chairman of the Committee of Appropriations.

Of these six, one-half are concerned with the finances of the government; and of the other half, one is the Chief Executive, another may be called the chief legislative factor, while the third is our official representative to the rest of the world. This practical division of the functions of government does not seem to agree very well with the more theoretical division into legislative, executive and judicial. In other words, finance has assumed an importance it was not intended to have, just as was observed concerning the Secretary of State.

Footnote 1:

See “American Diplomacy,” by Eugene Schuyler.

* * * * *

It may seem rather strange to speak of one of our officials as the chief _social_ functionary in our governmental machinery, but we have such a one, and he is no other than the Secretary of State. The office of functionary host for the government might be supposed to belong naturally to the President, who is spared this duty, however, owing to the multiplicity of others that are unavoidable. Consequently the Secretary of State, because of the breadth of the field of his operations, bringing him into touch with representatives of other nations as well as the principal statesmen of our own, and because, moreover, diplomacy’s natural atmosphere has always been that of society, must “keep open house”, as it were, for the Republic. This alone would be a sufficient burden for any one man, but it is expected that the Assistant Secretaries of State shall share it with him. Thus our Secretary maintains the only semblance of a court that will be tolerated by our “fierce democracie”, and even for this we do not contribute a cent of support, though around it and through it operate vast interests, both national and international. It is a manifest injustice to these officials that we do not provide for such legitimate expenses as must necessarily occur on these semi-official, semi-social occasions.

* * * * *

Now let us see what is the scope of the State Department, for it is much more than a foreign office, though that is its principle function. It embraces the duties which in other countries are given to the Keeper of the Seal, the Minister of Justice, etc., such as—

(1) keeping, promulgating and publishing the laws,
(2) custody of the Great Seal,
(3) preservation of the Government Archives, and
(4) charge of all official relations between the general Government
and the several States.

Its scope is more particularly indicated by the bureaus into which it is divided, namely,—

the Bureau of Indexes and Archives;
the Bureau of Accounts of the State Department;
the Bureau of Rolls and Library;
the Bureau of Appointments;
the Bureau of Statistics, or Foreign Commerce;
the Consular Bureau;
the Diplomatic Bureau.

Each of these bureaus is presided over by a chief, and at the head of them all is the chief clerk, who is “the executive officer of the Department of State under the direction of the Secretary.”

* * * * *

The Bureau of Indexes and Archives is a sort of postoffice and recorder’s office combined, for it receives the incoming mail, opens it and classifies it as either diplomatic, consular or miscellaneous, then indexes it so that if necessary it can be readily traced, and then turns over to the Chief Clerk the diplomatic correspondence and the more important consular and miscellaneous correspondence. This the Chief Clerk reads, and the most important is submitted to the Assistant Secretaries of State, while the remainder is turned over to the various bureaus for their attention. Likewise after the Secretary and his Assistants have signified the replies which are to be made to the most important of the mail and have examined and signed the same, it is collected from all the bureaus, and the out-going mail is indexed in another set of books.

* * * * *

The Bureau of Accounts of the State Department classifies its business as follows:

(1) International indemnities, or trust funds. If you are an American citizen living abroad and suffer a loss of property unlawfully, you may expect the loss to be made good through this Bureau of Accounts; that is unless you happen to be a missionary, for Uncle Sam doesn’t always extend, or try to extend, to missionaries the same protection that is enjoyed by other citizens living abroad.

(2) Diplomatic and consular accounts, i. e., the salaries paid to these officers, together with all expenses incidental to the service.

(3) Accounts of the Department proper.

(4) Passports. If you wish to secure passports before going abroad, it must be done through the State Department, as they are issued nowhere else in the United States.

The telegraphic correspondence of the State Department, mostly in cipher, is conducted by this bureau.

* * * * *

The Bureau of Rolls and Library has the custody of the laws and treaties of the United States, together with the Revolutionary archives, etc. Its chief business is the “publication of the laws, treaties, proclamations and executive orders, work which must be performed with the utmost attainable promptness, speed and accuracy”, and its busy time is just after the adjournment of Congress. It is this Bureau that is honored with the custody of the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States. It also has charge of the following:

The records and papers of the Continental Congress,
The Washington papers,
The Madison papers,
The Jefferson papers,
The Hamilton papers,
The Monroe papers,
The Franklin papers,
The papers of the Quartermaster General’s Department during the
Revolutionary period.

* * * * *

The Bureau of Appointments receives applications and recommendations for office. It issues commissions, exequaturs and warrants of extradition—terms to be explained in connection with the consular service.

It also has charge of the Great Seal of the United States, a symbol of authority which has been carefully guarded by one faithful man for nearly fifty-three years.

* * * * *

The Bureau of Statistics, or of Foreign Commerce as it is now called, takes charge of the data gathered all over the world by the consular service. Whatever is of immediate importance is published without delay in the “Advance Sheets” of the Consular Reports, and these are distributed to boards of trade, the press and elsewhere. This prompt distribution of valuable information was begun in January, 1898, and since that time the American system of Consular Reports is freely acknowledged the best in the world.

* * * * *

The Consular Bureau is charged with correspondence with the consular service. The variety of this correspondence cannot be guessed by those unfamiliar with the Consular Reports, but its extent may be inferred from the fact that out of 1,000 officers in this service, perhaps half of them correspond with the Department. In addition to the above, this bureau has much to do by way of interview with consular officers coming and going. Moreover, this bureau has charge of examinations of applicants, and after a candidate is appointed it furnishes the particular instructions for the position in view. This Bureau must keep itself informed as to the personnel of the service, and must even send inspectors to the various consulates and report thereupon. “Recently”, we are told, “the Chief of the Bureau personally visited over one hundred consulates in Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Europe, India, China, and Japan”.

* * * * *

Last and most important of all, politically, is the Diplomatic Bureau. Its dealings are with our own diplomatic officials at foreign capitals, and with foreign diplomats at Washington. It is chiefly concerned, as we are told, with the “examination, consideration and discussion of diplomatic subjects, such as treaties, claims, questions of international law, and policy, etc.”

So this last sentence is the only tantalizing peep we are allowed to have within the sanctuary of the State Department. This Bureau with which the Secretary and his three Assistants are chiefly concerned shares its secrets with very few. The expediency of observing secrecy in international politics was noticed before; but there is another side to the question which most of us see and perhaps some of us talk about, and that is the point in negotiations at which the government may take the public into its confidence.

For the public feels, and has a right to feel, that it has a proprietary interest in public affairs. More than this, it is in an unhealthy state when it doesn’t feel such an interest. The public, at least the enlightened public, knows that secrecy is apt to be troublesome anywhere, especially in government. It knows of many a historic instance of corruption fostered by secrecy, of intrigue, cabal, plot and counterplot, until the whole fabric of the state became vitiated. The public,—that is, the American public,—may have some reason to dread secrecy in local government, for many an alderman wants nothing better than to be let alone, and many a “convention boss” with a few “ring” associates would prefer to “fix the ticket” without any inspection by the public whom he expects in a few days to browbeat into supporting it.

Granting that we haven’t been watchful enough as to local politics, how is it nationally? How about the Department of State—for that alone is the place where secrecy is justifiable?

It was said by an authority on American diplomacy about fifteen years ago that “there is scarcely a country, even Russia or Germany, where so little is known by the public of the negotiations carried on at any one time by the Secretary of State”. What did this indicate? the efficiency of our government as a negotiating machine? Did it indicate an indifference of our people to their welfare? Well, however it may have been at that time, it is certain that there has been a growing and insistent demand during the present decade that negotiations shall be revealed at the earliest possible moment. Public opinion has even been known to dictate foreign policy—nay, more, to reverse it after it had once been determined upon by the State Department, as in the case of the notorious “Queen Lil”. Indeed, this instance in our diplomatic history shows very satisfactorily that no administration can stand or ought to stand against the overwhelming volume of enlightened public opinion raised against an unpopular measure or a distrusted service. The public is bound to know whenever it can, and when it can not it is bound to guess, and its guessing may be more disturbing to foreign negotiations than a knowledge of the facts. Thus, while it may not always be able to determine the course of negotiations, it is always in its power to seriously affect them and ultimately to overthrow them.

But such cases as that of the Hawaiian queen are rare, and the American public fortunately has seldom had reason to apprehend that state affairs were being grossly mismanaged. Perhaps, on the other hand, it has needed at times to be cautioned against over-insistence upon its right to news—a vulgar itching for a sensational stimulant. Perhaps it has needed the reminder that it “had its say”, directly or indirectly, in the choice of officers, and that having chosen them, it should, as a rule, reserve criticism until election time returns; for between an eternal “nagging” of public officials and a profound indifference to public affairs there isn’t much to choose. The New England town-meeting has often been justly commended for cultivating an interest in public affairs; but, on the other hand, it frequently sets up its select-men merely to be targets of abuse. No nation and no community can have, or deserves to have, the best possible government when its officials are subjected to a perpetual cross fire of criticism.

The Secretary of State should have as free a hand as possible in the great game of world politics, for the state being a gigantic business firm, must, like all such firms, keep its business to itself.

It has long been a standing objection to federal governments such as ours that they are “weak in the conduct of foreign affairs”, the imputation being that they are weak because the Secretary of State lacks the initiative afforded by a more centralized government. But, as a matter of fact, the same official in England, France, Italy, or Spain, is more likely to be called upon for the progress of foreign negotiations than in our own country.

But the Constitution does not grant the Secretary, that is to say, the Executive, entire freedom in foreign affairs, for it explicitly states that “_the President shall have power, by and with the consent and advice of the Senate_, to make treaties ... to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,” etc. However, this restraint is not always irksome, and it may sometimes prove salutary. It is always a measure of assurance to the people that the administration will not commit the government to an unwise policy; and more than this, it is an assurance to a power with which we may be dealing that the result of the negotiations is not likely to be repudiated by the people when the chief executive is backed by the legislature.

The Senate entrusts its diplomatic functions, except in the ratification of treaties and the approval of the appointments of ambassadors, to its Committee on Foreign Affairs. This Committee leaves the initiative in diplomacy to the State Department, taking care, nevertheless, to keep track of any negotiations that may be pending. Whenever the Senate wishes to know the progress of negotiations it passes resolutions calling for them, the Chief Clerk of the Department gets them ready, and the Senate then meets in closed session during their consideration. Thus diplomatic business is fairly well guarded and at the same time a reassuring degree of legislative oversight is maintained. To be sure, we hear more or less criticism of Senate control, which in the nature of the case must mean a sacrifice of expediency, yet it remains to be seen whether or not our system is too cumbersome for prompt, prudent and adroit statesmanship when brought into closer rivalry with Europe.

For there is no doubt that for good or for ill we are entering upon a degree of activity in world politics such as we have never known heretofore. Consequently it becomes a matter of the highest necessity that our whole diplomatic machinery be in a condition to afford the greatest utility. Diplomacy in these modern times is said to be the art of maintaining peace; but it sometimes implies a rivalry, nevertheless, which is far from pacific. We should remember, therefore, that European diplomats have behind them the advantage of many years of study of their great problems from their own standpoint and the judgment of men of the greatest sagacity upon intricacies of long standing, and that most of them have governments more centralized than our own. It means a great deal to be able to quote in support of a position the weight of an authority like Metternich, Cavour, Bismarck, Gortschakoff, Richelieu, Grotius or Canning. But if anyone thinks that America is putting herself in a fair way to be worsted in this greatest of fields of intellectual battle, let him read the history of American diplomacy and let him study the part she has recently played in the world drama. If he thinks she is taking this greater part without adequate prestige, let him but observe the flattering attention she is now receiving, the coquetry for her favor and the dread of her rivalry to be observed in every quarter.

The State Department, therefore, may be expected to meet its new obligation successfully, provided it is allowed to act without too much interruption by people or legislature, and provided that the same wise discretion is observed in the choice of its chief officer that has usually been exercised.

* * * * *

It may not be out of place to mention here another provision which lies outside of the province of the State Department but affects its usefulness, nevertheless. A well-known case which occurred in Louisiana a few years ago, illustrates the point. A number of Italians, members of a band called the Mafia, were killed by a mob, and as a consequence loud complaints came from the Italian people, and many bitter criticisms were urged against a government which must needs leave the administration of justice for aliens within its borders to any locality where prejudice was evidently high. Our government could only give assurances of a satisfactory settlement of the matter; but it was humiliating to feel the powerlessness of the United States to take the administration of justice in a case involving foreigners out of the hands of the State of Louisiana and into its own. Such cases have happened more than once in our history, and the fact that they are liable to occur at any time is a standing menace to our peace, and will be so until the proper legislation is enacted. This is an acknowledged weakness in our government, a source of annoyance and humiliation to every patriotic American, and of embarrassment to the State Department. One cannot do better in view of such a defect and our comparative indifference to it, than to quote the warning comment of James Bryce: “As it is, that which might prove to a European nation a mortal disease is here nothing worse than a teasing ailment. This is why Americans submit, not merely patiently but hopefully, to the defects of their government. The vessel may not be any better built or formed or rigged than are those which carry the fortunes of the great nations of Europe. She is certainly not better navigated. But for the present at least,—it may not always be so,—she sails upon a summer sea.”

* * * * *

We have been considering the State Department thus far with respect to its relation to the general government, its chief officer, its division into the various bureaus and some general remarks upon its most distinctive feature, the Diplomatic Bureau. There remain several minor topics to be briefly presented, leaving until the next lecture the method of choosing men for the consular and diplomatic service, a subject which might profitably be considered here.

The Department has varied in its scope somewhat from time to time, now enlarging its domain as the country grew, and greater needs developed, and now surrendering some of its functions to other departments, mainly the Department of the Interior. It was first known before the outbreak of the Revolution as the “Committee of Secret Correspondence”, with Benjamin Franklin at its head. Next it was known (1777) as the “Committee for Foreign Affairs”, and its first Secretary, Thomas Paine, was dismissed for making an official matter public. Next (1789) it was known as the Department for Foreign Affairs, and finally as the Department of State, with Thomas Jefferson as the Secretary. The Patent Office originated under this Department, but in 1849, when the Department of the Interior was organized, it was formally transferred to that department. In the same way the Census Bureau was transferred to the Department of the Interior in 1850. Likewise, until the organization of the Department of the Interior, the affairs of the Territories remained under the Department of State.

One important functionary not mentioned among the bureaus is the Solicitor. This officer is detailed from the Department of Justice to “examine claims by or against foreign governments” and to advise upon points of international law involved in treaties, protocols, etc. The Solicitor is not subject, in the discharge of his duties, to the direction of the Attorney General.

Besides the regular business of this department, and in addition to the work of the Diplomatic Service, there are a number of bureaus and foreign commissions appointed for purposes more or less temporary, many of which require diplomatic ability of the highest order and others technical skill and knowledge. There are at present under commission the following:

(1) Bureau of the American Republics, with a Director, a Secretary, five translators, an Editor of the Monthly Bulletin, a Chief Clerk and a Chief of the Division of Information.

(2) Intercontinental Railway Commission, four members.

(3) United States and Mexican Water Boundary Commission, three American and three Mexican members.

(4) Nicaragua Canal Commission, three members.

(5) Commission to the Paris Exposition of 1900, three members.

(6) Reciprocity Commission, a special Commissioner, a Secretary, an Assistant Secretary and a Messenger.

(7) Consular Board of Examiners, under Executive Order of Sept. 20, 1895, three members.

(8) Joint High Commission, six members besides a Secretary and a Messenger.

(9) International Tribunal of Egypt, three members.

(10) Dispatch Agents, three; at New York, San Francisco and London, England, respectively.

* * * * *

Such, then, is the State Department to-day. Is it likely to assume a greater importance in the future? That may well be, for though it may lose still other functions besides those it has already parted with, there will always remain the one characteristic class of business known as foreign relations, and this seems likely to increase in volume and interest. It is possible that it may yet become the department through which the influence of the Executive shall reach the dependencies, when the necessity for military occupation shall have gone by.

Now, before throwing the subject open for discussion, I wish to refer you for further information to the publications with which the State Department has kindly furnished me and from which I have gathered most of the data that I have given you. Among the most interesting and instructive of its publications are the “Historical Papers”, previously mentioned, its works on “international law, diplomacy, and the laws of foreign nations”, the “Consular Regulations”, “Consular Reports” and various editions of “State Papers”, “Messages and Documents” and the “Report of the Committee on the Conduct of Business in the Executive Departments”. The subject is now open for question or discussion.

* * * * *

After some moments’ silence the Professor remarked—“I should have said at the proper time that there is a House Committee for Foreign Affairs, as well as a Senate Committee. However, it has no diplomatic functions—it merely serves as an auditing committee.”

Q. “How much does the Secretary of State get a year?”

A. “$8,000. It was once raised to $10,000 and the very next year it was reduced to $8,000.”

Q. “And on that salary he ‘keeps open house’, as you say, for the Republic?”

“Just so.”

“Humph!”

“But, Professor”, said a wise-looking man near the platform, “I suppose you think it is good policy to stick to our traditional simplicity? What’s the use of so much entertaining? Is that a necessary part of government?”

“Well”, said the Professor, “I would say that our traditional simplicity is all right as an ideal, provided we don’t make a religion out of it. Hospitality is also a good ideal to keep before the people,—international courtesy, if you please,—and perhaps there is as much virtue in the one as in the other. At any rate, if there were no other reason, no self-respecting nation would allow its representatives abroad to receive every courtesy and not make an equal endeavor to return the courtesy. Now, entertaining costs money, and there is no government appropriation for any such purpose, thanks to our democratic ideals, and as was shown before, the burden of it falls on the Secretary of State, which is unjust; for it is well known that the salaries we pay our national officers are ridiculously small when compared with those of other nations. Some measures should be taken, apparently, to meet this legitimate expenditure. Have I answered your question?”

“Yes, but I think just the same as I did before.”

“Exactly.”

“Professor,” said another man, “you have spoken of the Secretary of State as if he were responsible for our foreign policy; but do you not mean that the President is responsible?”

“The Secretary is responsible to the President and the President to the people”, said the Professor; “that is to say, the Secretary is responsible potentially and the President officially. If they were to differ in opinion, why, of course, that of the President would prevail.”

“Do you not think that our Secretary of State should be elected by Congress, in some such way as the Premier and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is elected in England?”

“No, not by any means. Foreign affairs belong essentially to the executive, not the legislative branch of government. France, in my opinion, is particularly unfortunate in that its Foreign Secretary is chosen by the President and the Premier, but is responsible to the legislature. In Germany, according to the constitution, ‘the Emperor represents the Empire internationally’. He can even ‘declare war if it is defensive, make peace, enter into treaties with other nations, and appoint and receive ambassadors’. Hence, you see, as between Germany and the rest of the world, the Kaiser can almost say, ‘I am the State’; which, if the Kaiser is infallible, is a very fine thing. But to return to your question, it is not quite exact to say that in Great Britain the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is elected by and responsible to Parliament. He is not always the Premier as he is at present; besides, you must remember that with us the Cabinet is an advisory board to the executive, while in Great Britain, the Cabinet virtually _is_ the executive. Hence, no good analogy can be drawn.”

“Do I understand, Professor, that in your opinion, our system compares favorably with the corresponding systems of other countries?”

“That is certainly my opinion. The Senate oversight—the only feature that is severely criticized—may at times be troublesome and costly, but it is a valuable check and can not be dispensed with safely. After all, the great advantage enjoyed by American diplomacy is that we are more able than any other nation to act the part of the umpire, or peacemaker. This follows not only from our geographical position, but from the fact that at the very beginning we were free to choose advanced ethical positions because we were not tied to precedents.”

As there seemed to be no further questions, the audience was dismissed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

LECTURE
II

THE CONSULAR SERVICE—OFFICERS.

I shall speak more particularly this evening, said the Professor, upon facts associated with the persons employed in the consular service; the selection, preparation and such other matter as may be of interest, leaving the duties of the service until the next lecture. Of course, this division is arbitrary, and is adopted merely as a matter of convenience. The data which I shall adduce may be found for the most part in the “Consular Regulations”, which anyone may purchase from the Superintendent of Documents in Washington.

The Consular Service, as was said before, makes a small army of about 1,000 men. These men are chosen from all parts of the United States (aside from the foreigners in the service), and are sent to all parts of the world. They are above all things else, agents of trade—messengers of commerce. Yet they stand in so many relations to our government and people that it is doubtful if any other position in our modern civilization calls into service a greater versatility—a wider exercise of intellectual capacity.

We shall consider the method by which these officers are chosen, then some reforms in that method which should have been adopted long ago, and which, it is hoped, we shall soon see in operation. But before describing these methods and reforms, let us notice briefly the _grade_, _rank_ and _classification_ of the service, likewise the definition of a few technical terms, in order that we may know exactly what we are talking about.

There are three principal grades in the consular service, namely:

(1) Consul General.
(2) Consul.
(3) Commercial Agent.

These three are “full, principal and permanent consular officers as distinguished from subordinates and substitutes”. These latter include Vice Consuls General, Deputy Consuls General, Vice Consuls, Deputy Consuls, Vice Commercial Agents, Consular Agents, Consular Clerks, Interpreters, Marshals and Clerks at Consulate.

The term consul, as applied to the second grade, has also a common, generic meaning, including every consular officer, and it is in the latter sense that we shall generally use it.

In the same way the word consulate seems to waver in meaning, sometimes covering the entire region over which a consul has jurisdiction, i. e., the consular district, and sometimes implying only the official residence—the room or building in which the consul does business. The boundaries of the consulate—using the term in its broadest sense—are prescribed by the President, and are usually defined in the consul’s commission. The general rule is that all places nearer to the official residence than to any other consulate within the same country are to be included in a consulate just forming. These boundaries in most cases have long since been determined.

Now as to the difference in power between these three principal grades there is little to say, for there is very little difference except that of grade. Their functions as consuls are quite the same. The only difference is that the Consul General, except in three cases, Calcutta, Dresden and Mexico, has limited supervision over consuls within his jurisdiction. This supervision is confined to such as “can be exercised by correspondence” and is intended to insure that the Consular Regulations are complied with and the Consular Reports prepared for the State Department. The Consuls General are “in no sense auditing officers”.

A Consulate General usually includes all the consulates within any one country, though in a large or important country there may be several consulates general. In some cases also there are no Consuls General whatever, and the Consuls are then subordinated to the Diplomatic Service.

The Commercial Agent is simply a consul of a lower grade and under another name. The title is quite unfortunately chosen, especially since the same term is used in other countries to designate an officer quite inferior in rank and privileges.

As to subordinate officers and substitutes, a word may be said in passing.

Vice Consuls General, Vice Consuls and Vice Commercial Agents are just what might be inferred from their titles—appointees to take the place of their principals whenever the latter are absent.

The deputy officers, on the other hand, may discharge the duties of their superiors while the latter are at their posts, though they may never “assume the responsible charge of the office”.

Consular Agents represent their principals in places throughout the consulate where the latter do not reside; but their functions are limited. In certain cases citizens of the country may be appointed to this office.

As to Consular Clerks, the President is authorized to appoint as many as thirteen who may be assigned to duty as the Secretary of State may choose. They may not be removed from office “except for cause, stated in writing, which shall be submitted to Congress”. This is a peculiar freak of legislation, but it has some valuable suggestions.

Interpreters are stationed only at certain consulates in China, Japan, Korea, the Turkish domains, and Zanzibar. They are usually natives of the country. Marshals are appointed only for certain consular courts in the less civilized countries.

Lastly Clerks at Consulates are such as attend to the routine clerical work of the office.

For all these subordinate positions it is recommended that American citizens be employed whenever possible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Showing
Off

See page 50
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

RANK.

Since a consular officer generally holds office such a short time, one would not expect him to rank with Navy and Army officers, but such is the case. Here are the equivalents in rank:

Consuls General
rank with
Commodores in the Navy or
Brigadier Generals in the Army.

Consuls and
Commercial Agents
rank with
Captains in the Navy or
Colonels in the Army.

Vice Consular officers,
Deputy Consular officers,
Consular Clerks and
Consular Agents
rank with
Lieutenants in the Navy or
Captains in the Army.

It is an event of some consequence when a United States naval squadron, or even a lone cruiser, enters a foreign port where an American consular officer is stationed; for the time to “put on airs” and “show off”, if you ever do such things, is when you are away from home. On such an occasion a commander of a squadron sends an officer ashore to visit the consular officer and to invite him on board the flag-ship. Or, in case it is but a single war-vessel, the commander thereof first goes ashore, visits the consul and invites him on board. In either case the consul accepts the invitation, as in duty bound, goes on board and “tenders his official services to the commander”. Usually upon his return to the shore a salute is fired in his honor—nine guns if a consul general, seven if a consul or five if a commercial agent. While it is being fired he faces the vessel and at the end of the salute lifts his hat in token of acknowledgment and the formalities are over.

Consular officers are expected to advance the interests of the Navy socially and otherwise whenever they can do so without expense to the Government. One cannot but smile at the frequency with which these words or their equivalent occur throughout the “Regulations”.

CLASSIFICATION.

Thus far we have considered the grade and the rank of consular officers. Turning now to classification, we find that it is merely a matter of convenience to the State Department—an arrangement according to salary. Again there are three classes, or schedules, namely:

(1) Schedule B. This includes 38 consuls general, 196 consuls and 10 commercial agents. It embraces all those who “receive a fixed salary and are not allowed to transact (private) business”. These, of course, occupy the more responsible positions and receive the highest salaries, ranging from $5,000 down.

(2) Schedule C. This includes only 10 consuls. It embraces those who “receive a fixed salary and are allowed to transact (private) business”. The salaries of these ten consuls are lower than those in the first schedule, but they may make it up if they can by going into business for themselves.

(3) The third schedule (which apparently ought to be D), comprises all others who receive no salary, but who are allowed to retain the fees of their respective offices and to engage in business. Of these there are 48 consuls and 20 commercial agents.

SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF CONSULAR OFFICERS.

The time has been when our consular service was simply a plaything for politicians, and the diplomatic service was not essentially different. The improvement has been very slow for the reason that it has been at the mercy of Congress for the annual appropriation which enables it to live, and to politicians everywhere for the frequent changes in its personnel. Or to go farther back for causes, its improvement has been delayed because the people have had more interest in the home market than in the foreign market. When our merchants send bales of advertising matter printed in English to a country where English is unknown, what can you expect of our people?

But there has been some improvement; so that notwithstanding the present weaknesses of the system there are some reasons for congratulation that it is as good as it is. There was an executive order issued in September, 1895, which recognized the justice of some of the complaints made against the service and provided for some measures of reform. Among these we notice that consulates or commercial agencies paying between $1,000 and $2,500 per year shall be filled in one of three ways—

(1) “By transfer or promotion from some other position under the Department of State of a character tending to qualify the incumbent for the position to be filled.”

This enables the Department to be something of a training school for the service, in a small way.

(2) “By appointment of some one not under the Department of State, but having served thereunder to its satisfaction in a capacity tending to qualify him for the position to be filled”.

This gives second preference to those who may have been discharged for political reasons.

(3) “By the appointment of a person who, having furnished the customary evidence of character, responsibility and capacity, and being thereupon selected by the President for examination, is found upon such examination to be qualified for the position.”

The order of preference given above seems to be very judicious and thoroughly in harmony with the spirit of civil service reform. The President further stated that “a vacancy in a consulate will be filled at discretion only when a suitable appointment cannot be made in any of the modes indicated”.

It will be observed, however, that this order makes provision for filling only the less important consular positions, that is, those paying between $1,000 and $2,500 per annum. As to the method of filling the others it is silent.

In pursuance of this order the Secretary of State added a list of the subjects to which the examination should relate, namely—

(1) General education, knowledge of languages, business training and experience.

(2) The country in which the consul or commercial agent is to reside, its government, chief magistrate, geographical features, principal cities, chief production and its commercial intercourse and relations with the United States.

(3) The exequatur, its nature and use.

(4) Functions of a consul or commercial agent as compared with those of a vice consul or consular agent; relation of former to latter, also to the United States minister or ambassador at the capital of the country.

(5) Duties of a consul or commercial agent as regards:

(a) Correspondence with the State Department and the form thereof.
(b) Passports, granting and visaing.
(c) United States merchant vessels in a foreign port, and their
crews, whether seeking discharge, deserting or destitute.
(d) Wrecks within jurisdiction.
(e) Wrongs to United States citizens within jurisdiction.
(f) Invoices.
(g) Official fees and accounts.

(6) Treaties between the United States and the foreign country.

(7) Relation of ambassador and minister to laws of the country to which they are accredited, as compared with those of consul or commercial agent to those of the countries where they reside.

(8) Acts of ambassador or minister, how far binding upon his country.

(9) Diplomatic, judicial, and commercial functions of consuls or commercial agents.

(10) Piracy, what it is and where punishable.

(11) Consular Regulations of the United States—copy of which (to be returned to the Department) will be supplied to each candidate upon application.

(12) Such other subject or subjects as the Board may deem important and appropriate in any particular case.

One might suppose that a man who could pass a good examination on the above subjects would be pretty well qualified for the service, with one glaring exception, namely, that nothing is said about _requiring_ an acquaintance with modern languages, especially that of the country where the consul is to be located.

Moreover, complaints are still coming in as before, so that, although it is somewhat the fashion to condemn our consular system as the “worst in the world”, it is evident that we haven’t got to the bottom of the difficulty yet.

It needs no argument to show that the “spoils system”, pure and simple, is the most suicidal policy possible. The logic of history—our own history—upon this very point, is conclusive. But to throw the consular and diplomatic service into the “classified list”, or, in other words, to decide upon the fitness of a candidate merely upon the merits of a civil service examination would make but small improvement. It would tinker the old machine instead of replacing it with a new one. Such a process may determine upon a candidate’s preparation—if an examination may be said to determine anything—but it can not reach his personality—what he is,—nor can it reveal his capacity for work—what he can do.

Now these three points are to be considered in determining a candidate’s fitness for any position whatever—what he is, what he knows, and what he can do. The practical problems for the State Department are how to determine what a man is when in the majority of cases he is an entire stranger, how to discover what he can do when he has never been tested by experience, and how to expect him to know much about the business when there is not a school anywhere prepared to give the needed instruction.

Suppose you want to prepare for this service, how would you go about it? How would you find what was needed, what you should study and where to look for it? The government provides no means whatever of preparing men for foreign service. They simply get into it somehow—always, of course, through political influence—and then learn it necessarily at government expense. Just about the time they have mastered the language and are prepared to do their best work, along comes a change of administration and turns them out of office, and then the government begins again the expensive task of training a new set of men. This is not a hypothetical case. It is the rule rather than the exception.

Well, what ought to be done?

Why, establish some means of instruction for one thing. No one will doubt the wisdom of maintaining the academies at West Point and Annapolis for the Army and Navy, and are not the needs of the foreign service, Diplomatic, Consular, and lately Colonial, as urgent and important as the others? We have often heard the need of a great national university urged, and we occasionally hear a timid plea for a national school at Washington for the training of consuls and diplomats, but it is gratifying to notice the declaration in favor of the latter by such an eminent body of educators as those university presidents constituting the committee chosen by the National Educational Association to consider this very subject.

The need of a school of political science, economics, and modern languages, and the need of its location at the capital of the nation and under national control, is all the more urgent and unmistakable now that questions in colonial government are coming up for solution; and when one considers the multitude of problems afforded by the work of the consular service, together with the statecraft of the diplomatic, it is easy to see that there should be such an institution. A government which has provided so liberally for general education ought not to neglect that wise provision where its own efficient service demands it and nothing else can well supply it.

But the school cannot do it all, and its work must be supplemented by experience—say a year or more of residence for successful candidates at a foreign consulate or legation. And whenever a new man is appointed it should evidently be to one of the lower positions, leaving the higher ones to be filled by promotion.

It is gratifying to notice that an honest and intelligent effort is being made in Congress to bring about some needed reforms in the consular service. A bill[2] is before the present House of Representatives which provides that “appointments shall be made to grades and not to specific places”. “A consul’s station”, says one authority[3] commenting upon the bill, “should depend on the exigencies of the service, and should not necessarily be permanent. Good consuls may thus be obtained for undesirable places, a thing which is now well nigh impossible”. “It provides also”, says the same authority, that “removals shall not be made by caprice or for other than specified cause. To put a check upon appointments only or removals only is to leave at either end a loophole for evasion of the spirit of the reform. By crowding one man in, another may be crowded out”.

Footnote 2:

H. R. 1026, 56th Congress. A Bill to increase the efficiency of the
foreign service of the U. S. and to provide for the reorganization of
the consular service, by Mr. Adams of Pennsylvania.

Footnote 3:

See article by Mr. Gaillard Hunt, Independent, Oct. 26, ’99.

One would be astonished that such common-sense measures as these have not been in operation this long time, were it not for the power of “practical politics”. The “practical politician” is discovered easily and in every precinct. You have only to speak of efficiency or merit as the chief test of a candidate’s fitness for office, and he will have something to say about “giving every man a chance”, “changing around”, “getting out of the ruts”, etc. Should a consul’s station depend upon the “exigencies of the service”? Certainly; what is the service for? May he not be “removed by caprice”? Certainly not; for again, what is the service for?