(Ex. order)

"The tenure of office, too, is so brief and uncertain that there can be but little esprit de corps in the service. The effort necessary to acquire professional excellence or to complete difficult and protracted public service will rarely be made without stronger motives. Continuance is necessary to usefulness in office under our present system of appointments. No man can pass from other pursuits directly into the higher grades of diplomatic and consular service and comprehend clearly the nature and scope of his duties."

The bill which accompanied the report provided for admission to the diplomatic as well as consular service, by means of a competitive examination, and made the tenure of office permanent. The committee argued that thus "a man who, after having passed his examination, begins his diplomatic career as attaché, rises to be secretary of legation, and is gradually advanced until he reaches the office of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, has passed through a system of probation, of labor, and experience, which will naturally enable him to exercise a far-reaching and transcendent influence abroad and at home.' 99 1

No definite action was taken upon this report, and notwithstanding various similar efforts in later times, Congress has failed to adopt any measures providing for either an examination or a permanent tenure of office. A recent executive order, however, has been issued by the President, prescribing that vacancies in the office of secretary of embassies or legations shall here

1 Senator Patterson's Report, July 2, 1868, S. Rep. No. 154, 40th Cong., 2d Sess.

after be filled (a) by transfer or promotion from some branch of the foreign service, or (b) by the appointment of a person selected by the President, if, upon examination, he be found qualified for the position.

The examination prescribed is to be conducted by one of the assistant secretaries of state, the solicitor of the department of state, and the chief of the diplomatic bureau. The subjects to which the examination shall relate are to be international law, diplomatic usage, and modern languages; and familiarity with at least one foreign language will be required.1

This executive order is an advance over any previous method of filling the lowest grade of diplomatic offices, but it has a serious defect. It does not remove admission into the service from the baneful influence of political favoritism, and hence offers the young men of the country little encouragement to prepare themselves for the diplomatic career. Besides, this executive order is not binding upon a succeeding President, and without legislation it cannot establish a permanent reform.

In recent years some of the American universities have established schools of diplomacy and politics to enable young men to equip themselves for the foreign service, as also to make them better fitted to discharge the duties of citizens at home. They are useful adjuncts to a university curriculum, but will not be largely patronized until the doors of access to the public service are thrown open by law to competitive examination.

1 President's order for appointment of secretaries of embassies and legations, November 10, 1905.

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

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

1

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

1 The Century Magazine, January, 1906, 448.

friends in a remote section of the Rocky Mountains, on a Sunday we attended service in a Canadian Presbyterian Church. The minister in illustrating his text — "We are ambassadors for Christ"-stated that the United States had at one time an ambassador in Germany who was almost constantly in a state of intoxication. This, he said, created in the minds of the Germans the impression that the Americans must be a nation of drunkards. One of the successors of this representative at the court of Berlin has recorded that his countrymen at that capital even failed to keep him sober for his first presentation to the king.1

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

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

The diplomatic corps at Washington is usually composed of gentlemen of ability, of culture, and of a high 1 2 Autobiography of Andrew Dickson White (1905), 356.

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

nature.

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