Page images

certain important modifications. A distinguished French publicist, Professor Jules Basdevant, states after a careful and minute examination of the contention of the United States under Question 1, that the convention of 1818 established an international servitude, that "after having decided that no servitude was constituted and that the competence of the local sovereign to regulate remains intact, it [the Hague Tribunal] recommends the two Powers to agree to establish that in the future the regulations made by Great Britain shall only become, if they are criticized by the United States, binding upon American fishermen when a mixed commission shall have recognized that they are in conformity with the provisions of the treaty of 1818. That is, after having admitted the competence of Great Britain and its right to exercise this competence independently on its own responsibility, to invite this Power only to exercise this competence under the control of this commission. Practically that is, after having rejected the thesis of the United States, to consecrate it under the form of a recommendation. Professor Basdevant concluded that "after having recognized that the treaty of 1818 did not create an international servitude, but a simple obligation of state to state, recommends the parties to transform it into a servitude."

The agreement of July 20, 1912, negotiated by Mr. Anderson, secures to the United States the advantages to his country which would have followed from a recognition of the principle of law for which the United States contended at the arbitration. To have conducted the negotiations leading to this result and to have achieved it is a sufficient claim to distinction for any one man.


From time to time regret is expressed in the press that the President and Secretary of State are unable to appoint persons to the diplomatic service by reason of the great expense entailed at the larger posts, far in excess of the salaries, and that the government is therefore limited to persons of wealth who are both willing and able to draw upon their private means to meet the expenses properly incurred, but not covered by their salaries, in the successful performance of their missions. There is no doubt much truth in these statements, and it is a matter of regret that the country is deprived of the services of persons otherwise qualified,

Jules Basdevant: L'Affaire des Pêcheries des Côtes septentrionales de l'Atlantique entre les Etats-Unis d'Amérique et la Grande-Bretagne.

who cannot afford to supplement the salaries attached to the positions from their private means.

In his entertaining and instructive volume on the Practice of Diplomacy, General Foster, who has himself had wide diplomatic experience,


The great expense has debarred many prominent Americans from accepting diplomatic posts. Mr. Calhoun, in 1819, was offered the mission at Paris, but he answered that he was well aware that a familiar practical acquaintance with Europe was indispensable to complete the education of an American statesman, and regretted that his fortune would not bear the cost of it. Again, in 1845, he was tendered the mission to England, but declined for the same reason. George William Curtis, Senator Hoar, and other able and cultured public men have likewise been forced to decline our highest diplomatic posts

To this list other and hardly less distinguished names might be added, but it is sufficient for the purposes of this comment.

Various means have been suggested to open the diplomatic service to men of ability instead of confining the highest posts to the favored few. In the first place, it may be suggested that the standard of living might be changed without impairing the usefulness of the diplomat, for it is an open question whether elaborate receptions and luxurious dinners really enable the diplomat to accomplish the purpose for which he is sent to a foreign country, namely, to represent his country abroad, to look after its interests, to carry out the instructions of the Department of State, to negotiate treaties and conventions, and to compose differences that unavoidably arise in the foreign intercourse of nations. On this point Mr. Jefferson expressed his matured views, after having been minister to France and shattered his fortune in living beyond his salary.

"You have doubtless heard," he said in a letter offering General Armstrong the mission to France in succession to Chancellor Livingstone, "of the complaints of our foreign ministers as to the incompetence of their salaries. I believe it would be better were they somewhat enlarged. Yet a moment's reflection will satisfy you that a man may live in any country on any scale he pleases. . . I suspect from what I hear that the Chancellor, having always stood on a line with those of the first expense here, has not had resolution enough to yield place there, and that he has taken up the ambassadorial scale of expense. This procures one some sunshine friends who like to eat of your good things, but has no effect on the men of real business, the only men of use to you, in a place where every man is estimated by what he really is."

The question is not whether an American ambassador or minister shall take part in the social life of the community in which he resides and represents his country, but as to the extent of such participation measured by actual benefits to his country. It is related of the first Napoleon that, in approving the accounts of his ambassador to Russia, composed in large part of enormous outlays for wines and entertainment, he accompanied his approval with the curt comment that the ambassador should remember in the future that he was not sent to St. Petersburg to run a restaurant. It is to be feared that the French ambassador in question is not the only public servant to whom this remark could be applied in the modified form that the diplomatic agent is not expected to keep open house for all comers.

In the next place, it has been suggested that the salaries of diplomatic agents should be materially increased, but this depends in no small part upon the view taken of the social duties properly incumbent upon the diplomat. It will therefore be passed for the present, because it depends in like manner upon a recommendation made in one of President Cleveland's messages to Congress. "I am thoroughly convinced," he said, "that in addition to their salaries our ambassadors and ministers at foreign courts should be provided by the government with official residences. The salaries of these officers are comparatively small and, in most cases, insufficient to pay, with other necessary expenses, the cost of maintaining household establishments in keeping with their important and delicate functions. The usefulness of a nation's diplomatic representative undeniably depends, to a great extent, upon the appropriateness of his surroundings, and a country like ours, while avoiding unnecessary glitter and show, should be certain that it does not suffer in its relations with foreign nations through parsimony and shabbiness in its diplomatic outfit. These considerations, and the other advantages of having fixed and somewhat permanent locations for our embassies, would abundantly justify the moderate expenditure necessary to carry out this suggestion."

There can be no doubt that the purchase of suitable residences for our diplomatic officers would go far to open the service to men of moderate means by enabling them to live upon their salaries without drawing upon their savings, but the residences built or purchased should be modest; otherwise the official salary would be spent in maintaining them and the situation might be worse than before, because the official residence would have to be occupied by the diplomatist whether he

desired to do so or not. This point of view prevailed with the Congress which voted the following act, approved February 17, 1911:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of State be, and he is hereby, authorized to acquire in foreign countries such sites and buildings as may be appropriated for by Congress for the use of the diplomatic and consular establishments of the United States, and to alter, repair, and furnish the said buildings; suitable buildings for this purpose to be either purchased or erected, as to the Secretary of State may seem best, and all buildings so acquired for the diplomatic service shall be used both as the residences of diplomatic officials and for the offices of the diplomatic establishment: Provided, however, That not more than the sum of five hundred thousand dollars shall be expended in any fiscal year under the authorization herein made: And provided further, That in submitting estimates of appropriation to the Secretary of the Treasury for transmission to the House of Representatives, the Secretary of State shall set forth a limit of cost for the acquisition of sites and buildings and for the construction, alteration, repair and furnishing of buildings at each place in which the expenditure is proposed (which limit of cost shall not exceed the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars at any one place) and which limit shall not thereafter be exceeded in any case, except by new and express authorization of Congress.

[ocr errors]

we are

Supposing, however, that the salaries be raised and residences be acquired, so that men of large brain and small purse can be appointed to the service, there is another matter that deserves consideration, namely, the permanency of the service. Our ambassadors and ministers, taken from private life, many of them without previous experience, have been wonderfully successful; but without a diplomatic service permanent in character that is to say, a service which offers a career not always sure of getting the right man, and, when we have got him and he has learned the essentials of his calling, he leaves the service after a few years, thus depriving the country of the experience which he has acquired and the efficiency which he has attained at the country's expense. It is not meant to suggest that ambassadors and ministers shall be chosen exclusively by promotion from lower grades in the service, because nations with a regular and permanent diplomatic service that is to say, in which diplomacy is a career - often make appointments from the outside. A reference to Lord Pauncefote and to the distinguished representative of Great Britain, Mr. Bryce, who is still with us but, to our great regret, will leave us shortly, shows the advantage of strengthening the service by the selection of persons who have not followed the diplomatic career; but it would seem that such appointments should be the exception, not the rule, and that there should be very pressing and cogent reasons for doing so. Young men of ability

should be encouraged to enter the diplomatic service and their salaries should be such as to support them in their positions. The ambassadors and ministers require a trained corps of assistants to enable them to do their work properly. Secretaries of legation should not be chosen from men of means, which will inevitably be the case if their salaries are so small that they must contribute to their own support, and it is to be feared that there will not be sufficient encouragement to people dependent upon their own exertions, unless they can count upon permanency of tenure and promotion as a reward of merit.

The importance of securing able young men as secretaries of embassy or legation and by permanency of appointment offering them a career was often called to the attention of the authorities. In 1905 Secretary Root recommended that President Roosevelt take advantage of Section 1753 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, namely: "The President is authorized to prescribe such regulations for the admission of persons into the civil service of the United States as may best promote the efficiency thereof, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate in respect to age, health, character, knowledge, and ability for the branch of service into which he seeks to enter; and for this purpose he may employ suitable persons to conduct such inquiries, and prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for the conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the civil service."

The President did this by executive order. President Roosevelt's successor continued and enlarged the order, so that since President Roosevelt's administration original appointments as secretary of embassy and of legation have been made only after examination, and secretaries of embassy and legation have for faithful service been promoted to ministries. An efficiency record of the officers of the diplomatic service is kept, so that promotions may be based upon efficiency. A career is thus in process of formation, and it is to be hoped that the present administration will continue the precedents of its immediate predecessors in this regard. But however admirable in theory these executive orders may be, they are defective in practice, because a young man wishing to enter the service cannot present himself in his own right and upon passing the examination be appointed. Political influence plays its part. A young man wishing to take the examination is required to be designated, and designation is a matter of influence. In a Republican administration Republicans would be designated; in a Democratic administration the tendency would be to designate Democrats. But the

« PreviousContinue »