American Diplomacy AND THE FURTHERANCE OF COMMERCE EUGENE SCHUYLER, PH.D., LL.D. Corresponding Member of the Roumanian Academy, etc., etc., etc. Lately Minister o/ the United States to Greece, Roumania and Serbia UNIVERSITY NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1886 5f^^.^ Copyright, 1886, by CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS PRINTINQ AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY, NEW YORK. TO THE HONORABLE J. S. BANCROFT DAVIS DIPLOMATIST, STATESMAN, AND JURIST Digitized by the Internet Arciiive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/americandiplomacOOschurich PREFACE This book Is based on two courses of lectures. The first series, on our Consular and Diplomatic Ser- vice, was given at Johns Hopkins University, and also at Cornell University, in the winter of 1885. My object then was to explain the actual workings of one department of our Government, about which there seems to be much ignorance and misunderstand- ing. My desire was to set forth the usefulness and the needs of these services to young men who were shortly to be jcalled unon to perform the duties of citizens. My only qualification was a deep interest in the welfare of my country and in a service in which I had spent seventeen years.* * I may, perhaps, be pardoned for stating in detail my official experience. I entered on my duties as consul at Moscow in August, 1867; as consul at Reval in November, 1869; as secretary of legation, at St. Petersburg in April, 1870 (remain- ing there nearly six years, and being charge d'affaires in the absence of a minister for thirty out of seventy months, or nearly one-half the time) ; as secretary of legation and con- sul-general at Constantinople in July, 1876 ; as consul at Bir- mingham in October, 1878 ; as consul-general at Rome in August, 1879 ; as charge d'affaires and consul-general at Bucarest in July, 1880 ; and as minister resident and consul- general to Greece, Roumania, and Serbia in July, 1882. This VI PREFACE. These lectures were so favorably received that in the autumn of 1885 I gave another course at Cornell University, with the intention of showing how our diplomacy had been practically useful in furthering^ our commerce and navigation. The examples given from our diplomatic history are by no means all. My endeavor was to show only how we asserted our rights to freedom of navigation, freedom from tribute such as was paid to the Barbary pirates, freedom from the police supervision of the Ocean which Great Britain at one time wished to obtain, and freedom from the restrictions on the free navigation of rivers and seas, about which we had disputes with powers so remote as Spain, Great Britain, Russia, Denmark, and Brazil. At that time we had a mercantile marine and a carry- ing trade worth caring for, and therefore our efforts to assert the rights of neutrals in time of war followed naturally in the development of the subject. A chap- ter has been devoted to the fishery question, which has occupied the attention of our statesmen from the beginning of our Government to the present time. The concluding chapter considers the efforts of our Government to conclude commercial treaties with foreign powers. It was impossible to speak of the purely political ends which our diplomacy has had in view at different times, without reviewing the whole of our diplomatic history. But even within the limits to which I had restricted myself there are many im- last mission terminated in July, 1884, owing to the failure of an appropriation. During my residence at Bucarest I negoti- ated and signed three treaties with Roumania and two with Serbia. PRE FA CE. VI 1 portant topics which it has been necessary to pass by. Such is the question of neutral duties, as distinguished from neutral rights ; such is the whole subject of our commercial relations with Japan, China, and the East of Asia ; such is the formation of the postal union, with uniform postage, which is due to the initiative of the United States ; such are the extradition of criminals, the protection of patents, trademarks, copy- right, and submarine telegraphic cables ; the unity of weights and measures, and the question of a bimetallic currency. I desire to express my sincere thanks to the officials of the State Department for their courtesy and assist- ance in allowing me access to the archives and the library of the Department ; and to the authorities of Johns Hopkins and Cornell Universities for allowing me to print these lectures. Eugene Schuyler. Washington, February 8, 1886. CONTENTS I.— THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. PAGB Constitutional Theory and Practice. — The Secretary of State. — His Duties. — Assistant Secretaries. — Bureaux. —Law Officer. — Ceremonial. — Knowledge of French. — Secrecy. — Efficiency. — Economy. — Salaries. — So- cial Duties of the Secretary. — The .Senate. — Treaty- making Power. — Questions about Rights of Lower House. — Powers of Committees. — Appropriations. — How passed. — Evil System. — Change of Rules. — Re- lations of the Secretary to Congress.— Publications. — Consular Reports. — Diplomatic Despatches. — Ar- chives 3 n.— OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. Origin of Consuls. — History of our System. — Law of 1856. — Consular Duties. — Invoices. — Accounts. — Reports. — Consular Jurisdiction, Civil and Criminal. — Need of Reorganizing Consular Courts. — Examples of Hard- working Consulates. — Consular Privileges. — Qualifica- tions for Consuls. — Examinations. — Consuls should not be Merchants or Foreigners. — Grades of Consular Officers. — Salaries.— Fees.— Allowances. — British and ^ French Systems. — Need of Reform 41 IIL— DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. Diplomacy, its Significance and Intention. — Rank of Rep- resentatives.— Rules of Vienna. — Ambassadors and CONTENTS. Ministers. — Reasons for Sending Ambassadors. — Eti- quette at Foreign Offices. — Detrimental Custom at Constantinople. — Ministers Plenipotentiary and Min- - isters Resident. — Objections to our Practice. — A Sin- gle Class of Ministers Preferable. — Suggested Change in the Rules of Vienna. — Commissioners. — Diplomatic Agents. — Secretaries and Attaches. — Qualifications for Diplomatists. — French the Language of Diplomacy. — Naturalized Citizens. — Negroes. — Clerical Diploma- tists. — Appointments. — Letters of Credence. — Request for Acceptance. — Etiquette of Reception. — The Ques- tion of Diplomatic Uniform. — Social Duties. — Their Advantages. — Hospitality to Americans. — Lord Pal- merston's Views. — Mr. Monroe. — Mr. Schroeder. — Effect of the Social Isolation of a Minister. — Duties at a Legation. — Despatches.— Complaints. — Natural- ized Citizens. — Commercial Questions. — Requests for Presentation at Court. — Necessity of Resident Min- isters. — Lord Palmerston's Opinion. — Union of Diplo- matic and Consular Functions. — Relative Importance of Missions. — Salaries. — Allowances. — Outfits 105 IV.— THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. Necessity of Protecting Merchant Vessels in the Mediter- ranean. — Our Situation after the Revolution. — Appli- cation to France. — Mr. Adams and the Tripoline Ambassador. — Adams for Tribute, Jefferson for War. — Treaty with Morocco. — Lamb at Algiers. — The Mathurins. — Effect upon us of the Peace between Portugal and Algiers. — The American Captives. — Donaldson's Treaty with Algiers in 1795. — Its Cost. — The Dey. — Treaty with Tripoli. — Eaton's Negotia- tions with Tunis. — War with Tripoli. — Lear's Treaty. — War with Algiers. — Decatur. — Lord Exmouth. — New Treaty with the United States in 18 16 193 CONTENTS, xi v.— THE RIGHT OF SEARCH AND THE SLAVE-TRADE. PAGE Negro Slavery. — Prohibition of the Slave-trade. — English Feeling and English Interests. — The Right of Search. — English Treaties. — The Police of the Seas. — Treaty of Ghent. — Lord Castlereagh's Propositions. — Mr. Adams' Reply. — The Slave-trade Piracy. — Rush's Treaty. — Canning's Objections to the Amendments. — Mr. Adams' Explanation. — Attempt to Execute Treaties by a British Statute. — The British Claim to Search American Vessels. — Lord Aberdeen. — Tyler's Message. — The Quintuple Treaty. — General Cass. — Lord Brougham. — The Ashburton Treaty. — Cass and Webster. — Opinions of Publicists. — Brazil. — Renewed Vigor. — General Cass and Lord Napier. — British Out- rages in 1858. — Debate in Parliament. — The English Claim Withdrawn. — Mr. Seward's Treaty of 1862. — Additional Treaty of 1870 233 VI.— THE FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS AND SEAS. ^.— THE MISSISSIPPI. Mr. Jay's Negotiations in Spain in 1780. — Our Claim. — Gardoqui in America. — Different Views of the North- ern and Southern States about the Importance of the Mississippi. — Carmichael and Short at Madrid. — Ob- jections to them. — Thomas Pinckney sent to Madrid. — Treaty of 1795. — Godoy's Opinion. — Spanish Protest against our Treaty with Great Britain. — Incident of 1802. — Final Settlement by the Acquisition of Louisi- ana and the Floridas 265 Z?.— THE ST. LAWRENCE. Petition from New York. — Instructions to Mr. Rush. — Reply of Great Britain to our Claim of Free Navi- gation. — Mr. Clay's Arguments. — Mr. Gallatin's Opin- XI 1 CONTENTS. PAGE ions. — Suspension of Negotiations. — Treaty of 1854. — Treaty of 1871, Granting the Right Forever 282 C— THE NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN. American Enterprise in the Pacific. — The Russian-Amer- ican Company. — The Russian Ukase of 1821. — Nego- tiations. — Treaty of 1824. — Further Proposals. — Pub- lic Opinion. —Negotiations of 1834. — Treaty of 1867 ceding Russian America 292 Z>.— THE SOUND DUES. Origin of these Dues. — Tariff of Christianople. — Clay. — Wheaton. — Webster's Report. — Burden upon Trade. — Upshur's Report. — Buchanan's Instructions to Flen- niken— Our Proposition for Compensation. — Its With- drawal by Mr. Marcy. — Our Notice to Terminate our Treaty. — Danish Proposition for Capitalization. — President Pierce's Message. — European Congress. — Treaty of Capitalization. — Our Separate Treaty 306 ^.— THE BOSPHORUS AND THE DARDANELLES. The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles 317 /^.— THE RIVER PLATE. River Systems of South America. — European Intervention at Buenos Ayres. — Decree of Urquiza. — Treaty of San Jos6 de Flores. — Difficulties. — Solution of Mr. Schenck. — Opposition of Brazil. — The Water Witch. — Trouble with Paraguay 319 G.— THE AMAZON. Our Treaty with Peru of 1 851.— Brazilian Intrigues. — Mr. Randolph Clay's Negotiations. — Bolivian Decree. — Peruvian River Ports Opened. — Intrigues at Lima.— England and France. — Mr. Marcy 's Reply to the Bra- CONTENTS. xiii PACE zilian Minister. — His Instructions to Mr. Trousdale. — President Pierce's Message. — Peru Changes Face and Accepts Brazilian Doctrines, — Abrogation of Treaty with Peru. — Treaty with Bolivia. — Trousdale at Rio Janeiro. — Brazilian Decree of 1866, Opening the Ama- zon. — Peruvian Decree 329 A^.— EUROPEAN RIVERS. The Scheldt. — French Efforts for Free Navigation. — Trea- ties of Paris and Vienna. — The Rhine. — The Scheldt. — The Elbe. — The Danube. — Congress of Paris. — Ri- parian Commission. —The European Commission. — Treaties of 1871 and 1878. — Proposed Mixed Com- mission. — Roumanian Objections. — The Barrere Pro- posal. — Course of Russia. — Conference of London of 1883. — Results 345 /—THE CONGO AND THE NIGER. The Congo and the Niger 364 VII.— NEUTRAL RIGHTS. Subjection of Neutrals. — Our Treaty with France of 1778. — Armed Neutrality of 1780.— Its Origin.— Our Trea- ties with the Netherlands, Sweden, and Prussia. — Franklin's Ideas.— John Quincy Adams and the Re- newal of the Prussian Treaty. — Our Negotiations of 1823 to Preserve Private Property from Capture at Sea. — Letters of Marque. — Privateering. — Declara- tions of 1854.— Our Reply.— Treaty with Russia.— President Pierce's Message. — Declaration of Paris of 1856. — The Marcy Amendment. — Opinions of other Powers. — English Opposition. — Cessation of Negotia- tions under President Buchanan. — Proposal of Mr. Seward. — Its Rejection. — European Wars. — Our Treaty with Italy of 187 1 » 367 XIV CONTENTS. VIII.— THE FISHERIES. PAGE Treaty of 1783.— Treaty of Ghent.— Our Contention. — Treaty of 181 8. — Difficulties, Complaints, and Seiz- ures. — Diplomatic Correspondence. — Treaty of 1854. — Its Abrogation. — New Difficulties. — Treaty of 187 1. — The Halifax Award. — Abrogation of Treaty. — Tem- porary Prolongation of Privileges. — Present State of the Question 404 IX.— COMMERCIAL TREATIES. General Commercial Treaties. — The Most Favored Na- tion. — Special Commercial Treaties. — Changes in Commerce. — Our Earliest Treaties. — Commercial Re- lations and Negotiations with Great Britain. — Treat- ies of 1794, 1806, and 181 5. — Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. — Mr. Wheaton's Negotiations with the German Zollverein. — Advantageous Treaty Rejected by the Senate.— The Mexican Treaty of 1859.— That of 1883. — The Hawaiian Treaty. — The recent Treaty with Spain. — Postal Conventions 421 Index 459 PART 1. # Our Consular and Diplomatic Service. , "^ or THE ^■. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Constitutional Theory and Practice. — The Secretary of State. — His Duties. — Assistant Secretaries. — Bureaux. — Law Of- ficer. — Ceremonial. — Knowledge of French. — Secrecy. — Efficiency. — Economy. — Salaries. — Social Duties of the Secretary. — The Senate. — Treaty-making Power.— Ques- tions about Rights of Lower House. — Powers of Commit- tees. — Appropriations. — How passed. — Evil System. — Change of Rules. — Relations of the Secretary to Con- gress. — Publications. — Consular Reports. — Diplomatic De- spatches — Archives. If we were to put ourselves in the place of an in- telligent foreign diplomatist, anxious to discover for his own purposes who were the real depositaries of power in the United States ; if we could lay aside for a while the " literary theory " of our Constitution and of its working, which has been taught to us from childhood, and look only at the practice of our repre- sentative institutions, as they have been modified, and, as it were, solidified during the last twenty-five years ; if we should study the facts alone, as if there were no written Constitution, we should find that, in the last analysis, the Government of the United States, in ordinary peaceful and uneventful times, is 4 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. a nearly irresponsible despotism, composed of five or }^x''men,'',woirI^/?it J^nder and through constitutional .fprin^^,, ape},, Subject cmly to the penalty which is al- .'w^ays'' exacted "ioWeiy grave mistakes. These six men are the President of the United States, who is, it is true, elected by the people, but only from two or three candidates proposed by partisan conventions as the result of intrigue or of the failure of intrigue ; the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, named by the President as his colleagues and asso- ciates, rather than his advisers and servants, con- firmed by the Senate, which never refuses its ap- proval except for cause of the most scandalous nature, or for reasons of extreme partisan feeling ; the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is elected as such by his fellow-Congressmen at the dic- tation of a clique or as the result of a compromise be- tween the factions and the personal ambitions of the dominant party ; the Chairman of the Standing Com- mittee on Appropriations, and the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ways and Means in the House of Representatives, both appointed by the Speaker, leading men in Congress, and generally his rivals for the Speakership. In time of war or internal disorder additions would necessarily be made to this list, both from the Cabinet officers and the chairmen of committees, for other branches of the service would necessarily rise to THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 5 prominence. I do not mean to say that no other persons have power or importance, but these are the chief depositaries of power, and without the consent of one, two, or three of these men no important step in public affairs can be taken. There may be times when, through fear of derang- ing the revenue system, or for other reasons, the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means may voluntarily abdicate, as it were, and give up any active power ; and although in the last fortnight of a Con- gressional session the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is virtually dictator, yet he may, and sometimes does, meet with a sharp and sudden check. It is impossible here to explain the causes which have brought about this state of things and have pro- duced this grave conflict between actual practice and constitutional theory, except to say in brief that it is chiefly due to the operation of the rules of Congress reg- ulating the transaction of public business in that body.^" * These causes have been excellently and clearly set forth in the recent book of Mr. Woodrow Wilson on Congressional Government. Mr. Wilson's views in the main coincide with my own, which were derived from study and some per- sonal experience of the working of our Government during a residence at Washington in 1882 and 1885. As it is disagree- able to mention names, I recommend to the unprejudiced reader a careful study from this point of view of all the pro- ceedings of the last two Congresses, especially the reports of committees. Unfortunately the real work, and the methods employed, but rarely appear in the printed reports. * 6 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury are the only Cabinet officers who, in ordi- nary times, can influence not only the policy of the Government, but also the welfare of the country, with- out the permission of Congress, nay, even without, it may be, the knowledge of the President. The pres- ent delicate relations of the currency question, the silver coinage, the position taken up at times by the Clearing House at New York, the state of the gold market — the mere mention of these is enough to show how a sudden emergency may induce, if not compel the Secretary of the Treasury to adopt a course of action which may strongly affect for good or for bad the most vital interests of the nation. So with the Secretary of State. By hasty action, by an intemperate or ill-timed insistence on national or individual rights, by even a want of tact or a hasty word, he, or the agents under his control, may cause an irritation hard to be appeased, may embroil us with other powers, may involve us in the political complications of other continents, or may bring upon us all the evils of a foreign war. By an ignorance of precedent, by an unguarded admission, by an act of good nature, or in an impulsive moment, he may give up rights that we have jealously claimed for a century, or which we hold in reserve for future use. By the negotiation of a treaty he may, if the mo- ment be well chosen, draw the country into a scheme THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. J of annexation, saddle us with a colony or the protec- torate of a distant country, or begin a new, and per- haps beneficial course of commercial policy. In all probability, if we may judge by the past, the Secretary of State will do none of these things. He has been more carefully selected than any other public officer. Generally a statesman of high rank or of long experience, frequently a shrewd and cautious lawyer into the bargain, he has been too prudent to go a step further than where he has felt the ground entirely sure. Sometimes he has not learned that it was possible or useful for the United States to have a foreign policy, or that we had interests beyond the bounds of our own domain, until the expiring months of his administration warned him that it was too late to begin a new line of policy. So far we have erred more from extreme prudence than from rashness. Still the possibilities of what an enterprising and inexperienced Secretary, ignorant of foreign countries, might do for us, unless he were surrounded by thor- oughly trained and skilled subordinates, are such as to make this branch of our Government worthy of special study. The Department of State was among the earliest of the great divisions of the administration created by Congress in 1789, for facilitating public business, and during the first forty years of our national existence was in reality, as it still is in rank, the leading depart- 8 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ment of the Government. Our foreign policy was at that time of far more consequence to the country than our domestic policy. We still had to struggle, if not for our existence, at least for our position and our na- tional rights. The Secretary of State was, therefore, the leading statesman of the party, and he was almost sure of succeeding to the Presidency. Our foreign re- lations were, on the whole, well managed, and while we did not carry all the points we tried to win, we gained some great successes then and since. Several of our earlier and best Secretaries of State had had the benefit of personal experience in the diplomatic service abroad, such as Jefferson, Marshall, Monroe, . John Quincy Adams, and Clay. This has happened ''since only in the cases of Buchanan, Everett, and Cass. Probably the worst Secretary we have ever had, was the one who remained the shortest time in office ; but who, in the course of six days removed the greater number of consular and diplomatic officers, filled their places with new and inexperienced men, appointed solely for partisan political services, and did harm that it took his successor nearly eight years to remedy.* * The following list of Secretaries of State may be con- venient : Secretaries of State. Presidents. 1789, Sept. 26. Thomas Jefferson, Virginia. Geo. Washington 1794. Jan. 2. Edmund Randolph, Virginia. Geo. Washington 1795, Dec. 10. Timothy Pickering, Pa. j ^q'^hn YdIms'''''^'''' 1800, May 13. John Marshall, Virginia. John Adams THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. The Secretary of State is charged not only with the supervision and management of all the foreign rela- tions of the United States, but he has, in addition, duties which in other countries are generally given to the Keeper of the Seals or to the Minister of Justice, such as the keeping, promulgation, and publication of the laws, the custody of the Great Seal, and the pres- I80I, Mar. S- 1809, Mar. 6. i8ii, April 2. 1817, Mar. 5- 1825, Mar. 7. 1829, Mar. 6. 1831, May 24. 1833, May 29. 1834, June 27. 1841, Mar. 5. 1843. May 24. 1843. July 24. . 1844. Feb, 29. 1844, Mar. 6. 1845, Mar. 6. 1849. Mar. 7- 1850, July 22. * 1852, Nov. 6. 1853, Mar. 7- 1857, Mar. 6. i860, Dec. 17. j86i, Mar. 5. . -» * 1869, Mar. 5. 1869, Mar. II. 1877, Mar. 12. 1881, Mar. 5- 1881, Dec. T2. 1885, Mar. 6. Secretaries of State. James Madison, Virginia. Robert Smith, Maryland. James Monroe, Virginia. John Quincy Adams, Mass. Henry Clay, Kentucky. Martin Van Buren, N. Y. Edward Livingston, La. Louis McLane, Delaware. John Forsyth, Georgia. Daniel Webster, Mass. Hugh S. Legar:6, S. C. ud int. Abel P. Upshur, Virginia John Nelson, Md. ad interium. John Tyler Presidents. Thomas Jefferson James Madison James Madison James Monroe John Quincy Adams Andrew Jackson Andrew Jackson Andrew Jackson Andrew Jackson Martin Van Buren Wm. H. Harrison'*' John Tyler John Tyler John Tyler John C. Calhoun, S. C. James Buchanan, Pa. John M. Clayton, Delaware Daniel Webster, Mass. Edward Everett, Mass. William L. Marcy, N. Y. Lewis Cass, Michigan. Jeremiah S. Black, Pa. William H. Seward, N. Y. John Tyler James K. Polk ( Zachary Taylor ( Millard Fillmore Millard Fillmore Millard Fillmore Franklin Pierce James Buchanan James Buchanan j Abraham Lincoln I Andrew Johnson U. S. Grant U. S. Grant R. B. Hayes j J. A. Garfield ( Chester A. Arthur Fred. T. Frelinghuysen, N. J. Chester A. Arthur ThomasJ?. Bayard, Delaware. Grover Cleveland Elihu B. Washburne, Illinois. Hamilton Fish, New York. William M. Evarts, N. Y. James G. Blaine, Maine. 10 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, ervatlon of the Government archives, as well as the charge of all official relations between the general Government and the several States. Of the three Assistant Secretaries, the first is con- sidered as a political officer, in the full confidence of his chief, able to advise with him, and even at times to replace him ; the other two, by custom and necessity, have become permanent officials. Even in our chang- ing service the need of experience and special knowl- edge has at times more force than the demands of politicians.* These Assistant Secretaries take charge of special branches of the foreign correspondence, under the gen- eral supervision of the Secretary, although the rela- tions with foreign ministers resident in Washington are conducted by the Secretary in person, if he be able to converse with them, for not all foreign min- isters come to America knowing English, and those from South America do not always speak French, and not all Secretaries of State understand any other language than English. For the convenient despatch of business the De- partment is divided into several bureaux — the Di- plomatic Bureau ; the Consular Bureau ; that charged* with the accounts of the Department and of all the * Mr. William Hunter, the present Second Assistant Secre- tary, has been in continuous service in the State Department for more than fifty- five years. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, II subordinate officials, which also takes care of the build- ing and property of the Department and of all in- demnity funds, bonds, and other money ; the Bureau of Rolls and of the Library, charged with the keep- ing and preservation of all the archives of the Depart- ment, among which are included the revolutionary archives, some of which were formerly kept in other departments, the laws as they come from Congress, and other documents ; the Bureau of Statistics, which devotes itself chiefly to the preparation of the con- sular, commercial, and statistical reports in a form for publication. Another very important Bureau is that of Law, lich is under the charge of an official nominally de- taHed from the Department of Justice, and which ex- aftiinfes, when directed by the Secretary, all pending questions of international law submitted by the Sec- retary, and all international claims. It corresponds to whit is known in most Foreign Offices as the Bureau de- Contentieux, In England the head of this depart- ment, isl o'^e of the permanent Under-Secretaries of State-; and in th^re organization of our Stat6 Depart- ment, which must come sooner or later, it would be well if the functions of the Solicitor, or Examiner of Claims, his technical title, could be combined with those of Assistant Secretary. In the past this bureau has sometimes been negligently managed ; its incum- bent should not only be an able international lawyer, university] 12 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. like the learned gentleman who has consented to take charge of this work now ; but he should hold a per- manent position, so as to enable him to keep the track of claims, sometimes ill-founded, which after being re- jected under one administration are sure to be brought forward under another; and he should have salary and position enough to keep him from the temptations sometimes offered by suitors who have large claims against foreign governments. The Index Bureau has charge of the current records of the Department. Every despatch received is sent there as soon as opened, and before it is acted upon, in order to be registered, indexed, and cross-indexed, and so marked that it may be found with ease and cannot be lost or mislaid. Letters and despatches from the Department are, in the same way, press- copied, registered, and indexed before being sent out. In one way this bureau is the key to the whole sys- tem, for without it all would be confusion. As to the Passport Clerk, the Pardons and Commissions Clerk, the Translator, the Telegraph and Mail Clerks, it is sufficient to mention their names to understand their duties. The routine of business is carried on much in the same way as in other departments of the Govern- ment, or as in the Foreign Offices of other countries. But eminently conservative as the State Depart- ment is in its forms of communication, and especially in "the addresses of its letters— an American Minister, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. I3 for instance, being never styled " Honorable," but only , Esq., etc., — we may notice the absence of any bureau specially charged with questions of cere- monial and precedence, an important subject in inter- national dealings, diplomatic privileges, and etiquette, such as exists in the Foreign Offices of England, France, and other countries. Since the Republic has been established in France, one of the officials of this department (which is called Service du Protocole) is also introducer of ambassadors and has charge of the presentation of their credentials by all foreign minis- ters accredited to the Elysee, thus taking the place of the former Masters of Ceremonies. Now if there were one person charged with this duty at Washington, the State Department would make fewer mistakes of etiquette in dealing with foreign representatives — though on the whole it makes few — and there would be no errors of title in the ceremonial letters which it is so often necessary to send to foreign sovereigns, or the credentials or full powers. It is manifestly wrong, for example, in a letter intended for the King of the Hellenes to style him the " King of Greece," and a minister already duly accredited to His Majesty the King of Serbia cannot present his letters of recall ad- dressed to " His Highness the Prince." Such letters have to be returned for correction, thus causing awk- ward delay. There are many small questions of eti- quette coming up every season in Washington — invi- 14 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. tations to public ceremonies, the propriety of uniform on certain occasions, places, precedence — which now have to be decided by the Chief Clerk, who has too much else on his hands always, to think about these petty details, unless they are referred to him. I have heard ofificials of the State Department say that it would be far more difBcult for us to receive than to send ambassadors, on account of the complications of etiquette which would arise, and with which no one now could deal. An officer of the kind here sug- gested would solve these difficulties, and would save all the rest from the responsibility which seems to oppress them when anything goes wrong. He would, however, lead a dog's life, unless he had tact as well as experience. If I might make one more criticism upon the State Department, it would be to note the slight impor- tance given to a knowledge of French in the selection of clerks and officials. A fair proportion of the clerks understand French, and some Spanish, also a very use- ful language to us ; but this knowledge is not a require- ment for their appointment. Ignorance of French, which is of prime importance in our intercourse with foreign nations, forces also our consuls and ministers abroad to do much useless work in the way of trans- lating documents, which need never be translated at all, unless communicated to some other department, sent in to Congress or otherwise published. In THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 1 5 nearly every Foreign Office in the world a thorough knowledge of French is required of every clerk, as a preliminary to his appointment. The clerks in the British Foreign Office must, besides a thorough knowl- edge of French, have a good knowledge of German. What is most to be remarked here is the secrecy with which everything in the State Department is managed. This is not only because the officials are usually careful and trustworthy persons, but because the general public is, as a rule, slightly interested in what concerns our foreign relations. It is only when some great subject is in dispute that the community at large is curious to know what is going on. In countries like England, France, or Italy, where the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or his immediate subordi- nate, has a place in Parliament and can be Interro- gated at any time with regard to particular questions arising with foreign countries, the public is more or less informed as to the state of foreign relations, even though the progress of negotiations be kept secret. Here the only method for obtaining information on such topics is for either House of Congress, by a reso- lution, to ask from the President the papers on the question, and make an investigation, if considered necessary, by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Such papers can, however, be always refused if it be thought that their publication would be disadvan- tageous to the interests of the Government. It may 1 6 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. be safely asserted 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. This has very great advantages, as it enables the Government to conduct with tranquillity a negotiation which may be ex- tremely necessary, and often to settle disputes which, if public opinion were excited, might result in a breach of friendly relations. This country was prob- ably never so near a war with England, since the time of the Trent affair in 1861, as it was about three years ago with regard to arbitrary arrests in Ireland. But owing to the secrecy, as well as the skill, with which negotiations were conducted the newspapers and the public knew little about it until it was all over. It is just this noiseless and quiet despatch of busi- ness which deceives many persons as to the amount of work transacted by the State Department. Be- cause little is said it is thought that little is done. Besides the ordinary routine work, a question asked in Congress frequently causes a month of hard labor in preparing digested commercial or statistical infor- mation, or in copying hundreds of pages of docu- ments. Clerks not rarely work till late at night, and all day on Sunday. The hardest work of all, in one sense, falls on that much-abused official, the Chief Clerk, who has to sit in a public room, accessible to every one ; must inspect every paper that comes in THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. \J or goes out ; must carry in his head the whole business of the Department in all its details ; must see every one who calls, assist those who have legitimate busi- ness, listen to the others and give them a soft answer but no information, and withal be patient and keep his temper. Indeed the efficiency of the State Department is, to those who know it, as remarkable as its economy. Hampered as it is by niggardly appropriations, all the expenses within its control are reduced to the lowest possible figure, and every penny spent, and every fee received, are rigorously accounted for. Probably since the war no other department of the Govern- ment has been so economically and so honestly ad- ministered as this. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, the total expense of the Diplomatic and Consular Service was nominally $1,288,355.28; but as the fees received amounted to $899,652.67, the real expense to the nation was only $388,702.61, or less than $400,000. About as much more was ex- pended in the Alabama and French Claims Com- missions, the Bimetallic, etc., Commissions, various Foreign Expositions, Electric and other ; while the salaries of all the officials in the Department, even in- cluding the watchmen and laborers, amounted to only $127,290. The expenses of the British Foreign office and Foreign Service amounted, in the same year, to $3,205,748, and of the French to $2,883,362. 1 8 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. The salary of the Secretary of State is $8,000, that of the Assistant Secretary, $4,500, and that of the Second and Third Assistant Secretaries, $3,500. In the present conditions of life at Washington these salaries are all too small. Owing to the climate, and to the pleasantness of the capital, there has been recently a great influx of strangers, and it has become fashion- able to pass the winter there. This has naturally brought about a great increase in rents, in prices, and in the general cost of living. For a long time it has been impossible for a man to accept the office of Sec- retary of State, unless he should have an independent fortune. His salary has been barely sufficient to cover the additional expenses necessitated by his position. There is no use of blinking at the truth. Whatever our theory, whatever our desires may be, the fact re- mains that " society," with the tastes, amusements, and expensive habits of "society," exists in Wash- ington ; that the Secretary of State, as the natural representative of the President, who in our theory is relegated to the White House, is called upon to play, and actually does play, a considerable part in " society." If the other members of the Cabinet entertain, they do it at their good pleasure ; but it is to the Secretary of State that Washington — and in the winter Wash- ington now represents the nation — looks for entertain- ments. He may possibly try to avoid these duties thrust upon him ; but most men would rather borrow THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 1 9 or beg, than go down to posterity with the reputa- tion of parsimony and meanness. To come down to details, the President, except at state dinners, gives nothing but spectacles, and does not offer his guests even a glass of water. There may be substantial reasons for this, and yet when these reasons come to be examined they may turn out merely superficial excuses for bad management and bad manners. The whole burden of entertaining — for food and drink, as we all know, cost money — falls upon the Secretary of State as the President's representative. But apart from domestic considerations, there are what might be called international obligations ; and, whatever may be our faults, we do not like to be deficient in hospitality. Even reciprocity is sometimes a virtue. In European capitals, where the society is generally so large that a foreign minister makes his way solely through his agreeable qualities, and not through his official position, which merely gives him an entry to the society, the house of the Minister of Foreign Af- fairs is pre-eminently the place where foreign diplomats can meet the local society and can become acquainted with the ministers and chief officials of the country ; and where also, for there is a mutuality in the case, the officials, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs him- self, can get better acquainted with the diplomatists than is possible in formal official interviews. To transact business well, it is necessary to have a knowl- 20 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, edge of the man you are talking to ; and this can be gained only by social intercourse. It must be ad- mitted that there is less necessity of this in Wash- ington than in most capitals, for there are few places, if any, where diplomats receive so much social atten- tion as with us. Still, it is necessary and proper for us, in the person of the Secretary of State, officially to reciprocate the courtesies shown to our representa- tives abroad. These considerations apply also, though in a less degree, to the Assistant Secretaries. They should be able to take some of the social burden off the back of their chief. It is just this representative character toward foreign nations which renders it necessary to select the chief officials of the State De- partment with more care, and to remunerate them more highly than is necessary for the corresponding functionaries of other departments, whose duties are purely domestic. Other governments have generally recognized this by fixing the salaries of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and their chief subordinates on a much higher scale than for other officials. Their Min- isters often have official residences, with every conven- ience for entertaining largely, and an addition to their salaries in the shape of " expenses of representation." The Department of State is not the sole authority for the administration of foreign affairs, for here comes in the Senate, in certain capacities, not only for the confirmation of the nominations to diplomatic and THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 21 consular posts made by the President, but also for the consideration and approval of treaties made with foreign powers before they can be ratified. Most con- stitutional countries nowadays have a similar pro- viso, that treaties must be approved by Parliament before ratification. In some countries even, as Spain, Italy, Roumania, and others, both houses are con- sulted on the subject, and discussions are public. Fortunately they can only affirm or reject a treaty ; but owing to the wording of the article of our Consti- tution, which says that " the President, with the con- sent and advice of the Senate, shall conclude treaties," the Senate considers that it has a right to amend a treaty already negotiated, a practice which causes great difficulty, as frequently a senator, to whom the subject under discussion is not quite clear, insists on the addi- tion of two or three words to an instrument, which produces a long delay, and frequently protracted ne- gotiations. The practice, as we all know, is, that treaties are discussed in secret session, the theory being, partly, that the Senate in this case is acting as a privy council to the President, and partly that, if the debates were open, things might be said which would be offensive to foreign governments. As to this latter point, I can only observe that the practice of debating a treaty in open session has not been found to work badly in those countries in which it is the habit. There was from the beginning a feeling of jealousy 22 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. between the House of Representatives and the Sen- ate, on the subject of the treaty power, which has manifested itself at various times and has become very- evident during the last year, the House maintaining that as it alone is empowered to initiate measures touching the revenue, the President has no right to negotiate a commercial treaty without previously consulting that body. It does not seem that this contention can be supported by the text of the Consti- tution ; but at the same time the practice of our Gov- ernment has so much changed of recent years, in giving continually larger and larger powers to the lower House, that it is not without some reason that such a view should be supported. A commercial treaty concluded with the German Zollverein was rejected by the Senate in 1844 by a strict party vote of twenty-six to eighteen, on the ostensible ground that " the Legislature is the department of Govern- ment by which commerce should be regulated and laws of revenue passed." The true cause, according to Mr. Calhoun, was " the bearing which it was feared it would have on the Presidential election." * No such objections were made to the ratification of the Cana- dian Reciprocity Treaty in 1854, nor to similar subse- quent treaties, and, until the Spanish treaty came up, it was thought that this feeling had died out. * See Lawrence's Wheaton, edition of 1863, Introductory Remarks, p. cvii. Letters of Calhoun of June 28, 1844. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 23 Such disputes, however, could always be obviated if the State Department, before making a commercial treaty, and engaging the country in a new commercial system, should, as was done in the negotiation of the last Mexican treaty, ask Congress for authority to corkclude it. In all recent treaties a clause has been inserted covering this point, that the treaty is to be inoperative until Congress has passed such laws as may be necessary to carry it into effect ; otherwise there would be the disputed point that, according to the Constitution, a treaty is superior to all laws then in force, and the actual practice that the 7nunicipal operation of a treaty may be abrogated by a law. Cases have already occurred, for instance, with regard to duties on works of art coming from Italy, where it is claimed that the treaty is infringed, but where Congress has been unwilling to pass a law removing » the duties. The powers allowed by the Senate to its Standing Committees form another obstacle to the ratification of treaties, as it is impossible, except by an actual vote of the Senate, to compel the Committee to report back to the full Senate a treaty which has been al- ready referred to it for consideration. I cite at ran- dom one notorious case of this kind, where the United States made a treaty with Denmark for the annexa- tion of the islands of Santa Cruz and St. Thomas. Denmark had no particular desire to sell to the United 24 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. States, but was persuaded to do so. The inhabitants of the islands had already voted to accept the United States as their sovereign. The late Mr. Charles Sumner, then Chairman of the Committee on For- eign Relations of the Senate, who was engaged in a personal quarrel with the administration, simply Te- fused to report back the treaty to the Senate, and he was supported by a sufficient number of his commit- tee and of Senators to enable the matter to be left in this position. It required new negotiations to pro- long the term of ratification, and it was with great difficulty that in a subsequent session the treaty was finally brought before the Senate and rejected. As may be imagined, our friendly relations with Den- mark were considerably impaired by this method of doing business. Both the Senate and the House have Committees on Foreign Affairs. Practically these committees have lately had little to do, except as to treaties, with the conduct of our foreign relations, although formerly the Secretary of State consulted with them. Ques- tions arising with regard to foreign affairs in either House of Congress are generally, though not always, referred to these committees. The House Commit- tee on the Expenditure of the State Department acts in theory simply as auditor of the accounts ; in reality it does nothing. Of late years, and until the 49th Congress, the Senate and House have practically THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 25 given up all control of the appropriations, and of the salaries paid to diplomatic and consular officers to the Committees on Appropriations, or rather to subcom- mittees of those committees, composed of three per- sons in each body. By law the Secretary of State is bound to send to the Secretary of the Treasury de- tailed estimates of the amount of money required for the conduct of his Department during the ensuing fis- cal year. These estimates are printed in a thin quarto volume, together with those of the other Depart- ments, under the title of " A Letter from the Secre- tary of the Treasury containing the Estimates," copies of which are sent to the several Committees on Ap- propriations, on or before the beginning of each ses- sion. In the Senate all the committees are elected ; in the House they are named by the Speaker. The subcommittee of three which had charge of the ap- propriations for the diplomatic and consular service was generally named by the chairman of the commit- tee. The chairmanships of the Standing Commit- tees are almost the only honors which it is possible to obtain in Congress, and these only by long ser- vice. They have their rights to the floor and their little perquisites in the shape of clerks and commit- tee-rooms, and they are therefore much sought after. As the Speaker must make up his committees, ac- cording to custom, pretty equally among the various sections of the Union, and must, according to prac- 26 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, tice, put on them a certain number of the minor- ity, he finds himself obliged to place the best men in the House at the heads of the various committees, and, therefore, it is impossible for him to make up any one committee, no matter how important of it- self, wholly of those persons who are the most experi- enced, or who have a special knowledge of the subject. It would, therefore, be an almost impossible thing that the Committee on Appropriations should be com- posed wholly of good men ; and unless the chairman were a man particularly interested in foreign affairs, in nine cases out of ten the Subcommittee on Appro- priations for the Consular and Diplomatic Service would be composed of persons possessing no previous acquaintance with the subject. The subcommittee of the House, then took up the estimates presented by the Secretary of State and prepared a bill. It was not content with the present establishment, and re- fused to be governed by the General Law or the Re- vised Statutes. It raised a grade here, established a consul there, pared down a salary in one place, abol- ished a mission in another, made an important change in a third, and so on. Some of these changes were often excellent and even necessary, but the principle of new legislation in an appropriation bill was, according to the rules, wrong, unless it were " in the interest of economy." The main idea of the subcommittee seemed to be to reduce the appropriation to the low- I THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 2/ est limit, from motives of economy^ they said ; not that the nation at large cared for, or even knew of, this saving of ten or twenty thousand dollars to the detriment of its interests, but because the reputation of being economical, and " watchdogs of the Treas- ury," would possibly help them in their district, and their constituents might believe them worthy of a new election. The bill was then reported to the House ; the party strength was drilled to support the commit- tee. Every amendment was voted down, for the men whose salaries were sometimes retroactively abolished were too far away to be heard ; no changes were made save of one kind ; some objector invoked the rules of the House against every slight increase of pay or grade as " new legislation," but any diminution was passed without notice, because although it had evi- dently the same character, it was " in the interest of economy." From the House the bill went to the Senate. The general theory of the Senate committee is to reject every change made by the House, and to return pretty closely to the Law of the last Congress, restoring what has been omitted, and adding a few largish appropriations for unforeseen expenses, secret service money, or, as it is technically expressed, for " expenses in carrying out the Neutrality Act," and the like. These are necessary to bargain with. The Senate passes the amended bill with slight debate, except in unusual cases. We have now reached the 28 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. last days of the session, when there is no time for the detailed consideration of any measure. The House, on motion of the member in charge of the bill, rejects, without debate, all the Senate amendments, and sug- gests a Committee of Conference ; the Senate in like way refuses to recede, and accepts the conference. The two committees, or as many as choose to attend, then meet in secret conference, bargain with each other, give and take, each yield in part, and report the result back to their respective houses in such a technical form that it is impossible to understand it without a careful examination of all the papers ; it is read hastily by the clerk, and it is passed without debate. It may, and frequently does, contain new matters never before proposed in the open House. And thus six men have secretly decided upon an important law and have forced it through Congress.* * As a specimen of the Report of a Conference Committee, here is that agreed to at the end of the last Congress, from the Congressional Record. " The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 7,857) making appropriations for the consular and diplo- matic services of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1886, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do recom- mend, to their respective Houses as follows : " That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 12, 13, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 43, 48, 51, 52, 62, 63, and 64. " That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered i, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 29 I am not blaming either Republicans or Democrats — both do the same thing — I am only explaining the system which is getting to be the habitual way of passing all appropriation bills. We can see how de- bate is stifled, and what a chance there is for jobs in some bills. We must see also the disastrous effects of this sys- tem upon the public interests, vacillation in our foreign policy and disorganization in our foreign ser- vice. How can an already underpaid consul per- il, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 49, 5°, 53, 54, 55, 5^, 57, 5^, 60, 61, and 65, and agree to the same. " That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 2, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows : In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment insert the following : " * For salary of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo- tentiary to Turkey, $10,000. ** ' For salary of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo- tentiary to the United States of Colombia $7,500.' *' And the Senate agree to the same. " That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 34, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows : In lieu of the sum pro- posed, insert * $319,000 ; ' and the Senate agree to the same. " That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 40, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows : In lieu of the sum proposed insert ' $48,880; ' and the Senate agree to the same. " That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment to the Senate numbered 44, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows : Restore the word stricken out by said amendment ; and the Senate agree to the same." 30 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, form his duties properly and vigorously when every few months he has to consider the chances of having his salary cut down, or, when engaged in an impor- tant investigation by order of his Goyernment, he is quietly informed that his salary ceased a month or six weeks before ? The interests of the country demand that our diplo- matic and consular service should be fixed by a gen- eral law, subject of course to necessary changes, to be recommended by the Department, and not undergo this annual tinkering, to which no other branch of the Government and no other class of officials are sub- jected. Since the above was written the rujes of the House have been so changed as to take away from the Com- mittee of Appropriations the control of the appropria- tions for several branches of the Government, among them those for the consular and diplomatic service, which are given to the committee on Foreign Affairs. This important step will be greatly to the benefit of that service, and therefore for the best interests of the country. It has, however, still more important con- sequences, in reducing the tyrannical and unconstitu- tional powers of the governing junto. What has been written is nevertheless allowed to remain, in order to show to what point our Government had come when this salutary measure was taken. In countries where Parliamentary rather than Con- THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE:. 3 1 gressional government prevails, either the Minister of Foreign Affairs or one of his assistants is present at the debates, and is able to show cogent reasons in support of the estimates of the government. Even under our system there is no reason why one of the Assistant Secretaries of State should not go before the committee and support the propositions of the Department and the plan already adopted by Con- gress and in operation. Unfortunately there seems generally to reign a misunderstanding between the State Department and the House of Representatives. Whether it be that the Secretary wishes to empha- size the fact that the Senate is in a way associated with him in the conduct of foreign affairs, or whether, acting on old rigid notions of Constitutional theory, he may wish to assert the divorce between the execu- tive and the legislative branches of the Government, he is not generally quite so accessible, nor so ready with explanations to the committees of the House as to those of the Senate. At least the members of the subcommittee have often complained that when they have visited the State Department for the pur- pose of consulting the Secretary on the estimates great reticence has been shown, and explanations have been delayed. This has wrongly impressed them as exaggerated secrecy, unwillingness to explain, and desire for concealment, if not rudeness, when it was probably merely owing to an imperfect acquaint- 32 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ance with small details on the part of the Secretary. The Chiefs of the Diplomatic and Consular Bureaux, who have, in the end, furnished the committees with information, have not had the power to accept sug- gestions in behalf of the Secretary. Indeed, instead of accepting changes, the Department has generally looked to the Senate to undo those made by the House. . To such an extent has this distrust been sometimes carried, that (as I have the best authority for saying) recently a large appropriation, which was thought very desirable by the Secretary, failed simply because he refused to take the House committee into his confidence in the matter. The feeling of official dignity was stronger than the desire to for- ward his political views. The State Department is charged with the publi- cation of various information, especially of a commer- cial nature, sent by its agents abroad. It was the practice for many years to publish nothing sent by the consuls except their annual reports, which were transmitted to Congress, at each session, either with or without a general view of the whole subject of our commercial relations. Owing to delays in print- ing, these reports, which were published in one or two large volumes, were generally a year or two be- hind their date, and were of no practical service to merchants engaged in the export trade or desirous of obtaining information with regard to the commerce of THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. • 33 other countries. When Mr. Evarts was Secretary of State a new system was introduced, by which the chief reports of consuls were published every month, and copies were not only widely distributed, but were sold. At the same time the consuls were encour- aged, by circulars and direct requests, to furnish far more commercial information than before. This sys- tem has worked very well ; and it is to be hoped that the practice of publishing the annual reports in a separate volume will be given up, and that they will be published as fast as they come in. It has also been the custom to send annually to Congress, and ultimately to print, a selection from the reports and despatches of the ministers of the United States abroad. Up to 1 86 1 our Government published no regular collection of the correspondence between the Depart- ment of State and our ministers abroad. Sometimes a few documents, relating to an important negotiation or to a disputed question, accompanied the President's annual message. More often such papers were sent to Congress in answer to a special resolution, and were printed under the title of " Executive Documents." Such special publications still continue;* but in 1861, to satisfy the natural curiosity about our foreign rela- tions, which at times during the civil war were very * A list of these special publications is printed from time to time in the Register of the State Department. 3 34 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. critical, Mr. Seward began printing thick volumes of " Diplomatic Correspondence," which, besides impor- tant papers, contained much that was trivial and un- interesting, even historically. In 1869 no papers were published. In 1870 Mr. Fish began again the publi- cation of annual volumes under the name of " Foreign Relations," which from their red binding came to be known as the " Red Book." This publication still continues. Such publications exist in many countries. In France we have the " Yellow Book," in Italy the " Green Book," and even during the last year a se- lection of diplomatic despatches has been published by Germany. The English never publish their de- spatches exactly in this form. They wait until some particular subject arises and some question comes up in Parliament, when all the papers relating to that point are collected together and published in the form of a " Blue Book." This seems to be the only proper way for publication, as it would be wrong to print, simply for the general information of the public, any- thing more than the routine despatches telling of negotiations which had finished, or of the state of the government, changes of administration, the economical and political situation, etc., in the countries where the ministers are accredited. Even with all the care that can be exercised despatches are not infrequently pub- lished which get their writers into trouble. It may THE DEPARTxMENT OF STATE. 35 be remembered, for instance, that the late Mr. Marsh became involved in an annoying difficulty in Italy on account of the publication of a sentence (which he had even written in cipher) in one of his confidential de- spatches, questioning the sanity of the king. Of still more recent date is the difficulty with Germany, aris- ing from the publication of a despatch of our minister on the pork question, which resulted ultimately in his recall, disguised under the name of transfer. Numer- ous other instances might be mentioned. It would be much better to cease printing diplo- matic despatches, unless Congress ask for information on special subjects. Even then great caution should be observed. Foreign governments sometimes make confidential communications, and in such cases it would be improper to print these communications without the consent of those governments. At present our ministers do not feel free to express to the Secre- tary their real opinions, for they have always in view the possibility that their despatches may be published. They must therefore have recourse to confidential personal letters, when they wish to say anything they do not wish to come back on their heads. This practice is useful, but it has the disadvantage that such letters are carried away by each Secretary and are not in the archives for the information of his successor. Even confidential letters do not always tell the whole truth. It has been said about the 36 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. papers of a celebrated Frenchman, a plenipotentiary at the Congress of Verona, that they were of four kinds ; first, his despatches to the Minister of For- eign Affairs, which might if necessary be commu- nicated or published, showing how it was desirable that matters and transactions should appear ; second, his confidential letters to the minister, showing how Jie wished matters to appear officially ; third, his letters to an intimate friend, giving an unofificial view of affairs which he wished to be regarded as the true one ; and, lastly, his diary giving the naked facts and the exact truth. There are, besides the Statutes at Large, some pub- lications of the Government which, from their con- tents, pertain to the State Department, but which have been omitted in our enumeration, because these are publications of archives rather than of contemporary documents. Such are: i. The "Diplomatic Corre- spondence of the American Revolution from 1776 to 1783," edited by Jared Sparks, originally printed in Boston in 1 829-30 in twelve volumes, and subsequently reprinted in Washington in 1857 in six volumes. 2. " The Diplomatic Correspondence from 1783 to 1789," printed at Washington in 1 833-34 in seven volumes and reprinted in 1837 in three volumes. 3. " The Diplo- matic Correspondence from 1789 to 1828," entitled " American State Papers, Class I., Foreign Relations," published in six volumes folio, at Washington, 1832-59, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 37 part of a large series. 4. The collection of " Ameri- can Archives," edited by the late Peter Force, of which only nine volumes were published at Washington, 1837-48. This was intended to be a complete docu- mentary history of the colonial and revolutionary periods. Such are also the papers of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, and Franklin, the expenses of printing which were paid either in whole or in part by the Government." The Department of State has the custody of many important collections of papers relating to the early history of the United States. Besides the papers just mentioned, most of which were bought by the Gov- ernment, and are therefore the property of the nation, its archives contain a large mass of papers relating to our Revolutionary history, and other important col- lections, such as the journals, logbooks, etc., of the Russian-American Company, which are very valuable for the history of our Pacific coast. The latest great acquisition comprised the Franklin papers found in England. * The cost of printing the proceedings of the Convention which formed the Constitution and the secret journals of the old Congress, was $10,542 ; of the first edition of Spark's Dip- lomatic Correspondence, $50,881 ; of the Diplomatic Corre- spondence, 1783-89, $16,142 ; of the American Archives, $236,605. There were paid for the papers of Washington, $45,000 ; for the papers of Monroe, $20,000 ; and for the papers of Hamilton, including the expenses, of publication, $26,000. SS . A M ERIC A N DIPL DMA C V. There exist still in European archives many series of papers of the highest importance to our early his- tory, free access to which is not easy to the American historian, and of which very few have ever been copied or printed. Such are the military and diplo- matic documents, the reports and private letters dur- ing the whole of the Revolution, the papers relating to the peace negotiations, and the very curious diplo- matic correspondence preceding the War of 1812, which are preserved in the English State Paper Office, the British Museum, the Royal Institution, and the great private collections of England. Such are the important papers in the French, Dutch, and Spanish archives. The detailed reports of the Hessian offi- cers are kept in Germany, and even the Russian ar- chives at Moscow contain reports from a secret agent at Philadelphia, during the Revolutionary War, as well as correspondence from Paris, London, and the Hague, relating to American affairs. It is safe to say that with the help of these documents many parts of our Revolutionary history could be rewritten. It would seem to be the duty of our Government to pro- cure copies of all these papers, of whatever character they may be, to calendar them, and to print those of importance. In so doing, we should be only perform- ing our share of the work undertaken by most other governments. Nearly every country of Europe is now engaged in completing its archives from the THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 39 stores of other countries, and in making them acces- sible to the public. In this respect — of the accessibility of our archives — we are far behind other nations. Owing to the small clerical force at the disposal of the State Department, and to the illiberal ideas which, until recently, pre- vailed there, not only official documents, but papers which had been purchased by the nation, and were intended for use, were kept secret, and guarded with the most jealous care. The late Friedrich Kapp tells in an amusing way, in some of his prefaces, of how his requests for information were treated by Mr. Seward. Although there is now much more freedom, yet the rules with regard to the access to our archives are exceedingly strict when compared to the practice in most European State Paper Offices. The rules now in force are briefly these : 1. General searches are not permitted. 2. Facts concerning Revolutionary soldiers are com- municated only to the heirs of such soldiers who give the Department satisfactory proof of their right to information. 3. Students and writers of history properly made known to the Department, are permitted to see and examine particular documents specified by them. 4. So far as other official duties will permit, ab- stracts of papers are prepared for the assistance of 40 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. those who desire information about events of which there are no piiblisJicd authorities. 5. Ail transcripts are made by the employees in the bureau in which the originals are preserved. If the Secretary of State would study the rules which now govern the archives of France, Prussia, and even Russia, he would probably see that he could be still more liberal, and could greatly facilitate histori- cal research by relaxing some of these restrictions. It must be admitted, however, that in times past our archives have been very carelessly treated, and many papers are torn and mutilated. They should all be carefully indexed and bound, and many of them copied, so that the original papers need not be handled except on special occasions. An " Historical Register of the Department of State," published a few years ago, gave valuable infor- mation about the history of our diplomatic service. It would be well to complete and republish it, or better still to print the thorough and careful record prepared by Mr. John H. Haswell, the Chief of the Bureau of Indexes and Archives, which gives the official history of every one ever connected with the foreign relations of the United States. II. OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. Origin of Consuls. — History of our System. — Law of 1856.-^ Consular Duties — Invoices. — Accounts. — Reports. — Con- sular Jurisdiction, Civil and Criminal. — Need of Reorgan- izing Consular Courts. — Examples of Hard-working Con- sulates. — Consular Privileges. — Qualifications for Consuls. — E.xaminations. — Consuls should not be Merchants or Foreigners. — Grades of Consular Officers. — Salaries. — Fees. — Allowances. — British and French Systems. — Need of Reform. So far we have considered only the central office, the home management of our foreign relations. We now find resident at various capitals and ports abroad agents of the Government, under the control of the State Department, belonging to two classes, those in the consular and those in the diplomatic service. Consuls differ from diplomatic agents (by what- ever name they may be known) that the latter are the representatives of one State or Government to an- other, while consuls are the representatives of the individuals of the nation sending them, empowered to protect individual interests, and to procure for 42 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. their fellow-citizens, so far as possible, the same pro- tection to their rights that they enjoy at home. They represent commercial interests only, and while they can address themselves directly to the local authori- ties, when the rights of their fellow-citizens are in- fringed, if redress be not given they cannot apply to the supreme government except in cases specially provided for by treaty. They must refer the matter to their legation or their own government. In other words, they have no diplomatic or representative rights, powers, or privileges. It is unnecessary to enter into any detail about the origin or history of consular establishments. That forms a part of the history of international law. It is sufficient to say that they began, in somewhat near the present form, after the Crusades and the decay of the Eastern Empire, when the Venetians and other Italian peoples began to establish themselves in the East for the purposes of trade. An officer was ap- pointed, generally from among the number of mer- chants, to decide the disputes between the members of these little foreign colonies on an infidel shore. From the East this institution came back to the commercial towns of Southern Europe, where the merchants took up the habit of electing one of their number to decide their commercial disputes, accord- ing to custom and usage, without the formalities of a regular court of law. These judges or arbitrators OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 43 received the name of Juges-Consuls^ Judge-Consuls or Consul-Judges, and their tribunals were the origin of the present commercial or consular courts in France, Italy, and Spain. The name was natural enough, for in those towns that had formerly been Roman col- onies, such as Cologne, Lyons, and Marseilles, the title of the great officers of the Roman Republic had de- scended to the municipal magistrates, such as, indeed, the Roman consuls really were, and in some cases was kept up to the French Revolution and Code Na- poleon."^ Consul-Judge was therefore a natural term, and the transition to Foreign Consul was easy. The right of appointing foreign consuls soon passed from the merchant communities to their govern- ments ; the Hanse Towns and England saw the advantage of these officers, and before long it be- came a regular practice for one government to ap- point' consuls to act in the dominions of another. The first English consul that we know of was Leo- nardo Strozzi, an Italian by birth, appointed to Pisa in 1175. The powers of consuls were by degrees enlarged, restricted, and defined. Gradually the legal jurisdic- tion over disputes was withdrawn in nearly all ex- cept non-Christian countries, although for questions * Other civic appellations were also in Roman style, and the inscription S. P. O. L. appears on many of the public build- ings in Lyons. 44 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. of wills and intestate property this jurisdiction has been still in some measure kept. With regard to maritime matters the case is different, and here, for the purpose of avoiding protracted disputes in the courts of the country, the consuls are still allowed large jurisdiction. This is nowadays in most cases regulated by special treaties. Our own country, by means of consular treaties and conventions, has had the greatest influence in settling and determining the rights, powers, and im- munities of consuls, and as nearly all existing treaties, whether made by the United States or by foreign powers, are subsequent to the first publication of Wheaton's " Elements of International Law," the pres- ent status of consuls is very different from that laid down by Wheaton. Perhaps the best exposition of the subject will be found in the " Commentary on Wheaton " by the late William Beach Lawrence."^ Nevertheless our Government has always main- tained that consuls had rights and powers coming to them from the common law of nations, though sub- ject to abridgment by Congress and to enlargement by treaties. Consuls were recognized as existing of- * Commentaire stir les EMmeiits dii droit international et sur Vhistoire des pr ogres du droit, des gens de Henry Wheaton, par William Beach Lawrence. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1868- 1880. This excellent work was based on the author's notes to his edi- tion of Wheaton, greatly expanded. Unfortunately it extends only to the end of Part II., Chap. ii. OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM, 45 ficers by the Constitution ; the first detailed law re- garding them was in 1792, and before this Washing- ton had appointed and commissioned seventeen con- suls and five vice-consuls. The law of 1792, which was to carry into effect our Consular Treaty with France, did not create or even regulate the consular system, it merely recognized its existence, in imposing certain specified duties upon consular officers. Two previous and several subse- quent statutes did nothing more. The consular ser- vice was left entirely to the discretion of the State Department, which in 18 16 made a fruitless effort to have fixed salaries, at least for the chief consular officers. There was another similar attempt in 1833, but nothing was done in this way until the law of 1856, by which our consular system is still in the main regulated, though various changes of minor impor- tance have been made since that time. A similar law had already been passed in 1855; but as by this the President was ordered to make new appointments to all the consulates, which were thereby declared vacant, this brought about a constitutional ques- tion of the President's prerogative, which was set forth in two opinions of Attorney-General Caleb Cushing, of May 25, and June 2, 1855. The objec- tions were obviated in the law of the following year. A similar conflict arose about the Appropriations Act of 1876, between President Grant and Congress. In 46 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. the law of 1856 there was the first attempt to estab- lish a regular consular corps, by the appointment of consular pupils, but this section was abrogated by the Appropriations Act of the same year. The matter was again brought to the attention of Congress in 1864 by Mr. Seward, and the President was author- ized to appoint thirteen consular clerks, not remov- able except for cause to be stated to Congress. This has never gone further. The main provisions of the act of 1856 were to give many of the consuls fixed salaries, and to classify them so that those embraced in a certain schedule, known as Schedule B, receive a fixed salary and are not al- lowed to transact business ; those in another schedule, known as Schedule C, receive a small fixed salary and are allowed to transact business for their own profit ; and all other consuls (some of them now important ones), who are compensated by the fees they receive are also allowed to do business. Since then, by the law of 1874, the salaried consulates have been ar- ranged in seven classes, according to the amount of salary, from $4,000 to $1,000; but so long as there is no fixed rule of promotion from one grade to another this classification is meaningless. It in no way corre- sponds to the importance of the posts. --- In 1868 the Joint Select Committee on Retrench- ment proposed a regular graded consular system, based upon competitive examinations, and the report OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 47 of Senator Patterson presents strong reasons for this plan.^ Still more lately, in pursuance of a provision in the Appropriations Act for 1882-3, ^^f^- Frelinghuysen took the opinions of the consular officers on the sub- ject of reform, and made a report proposing various changes, and asking for a commission to study the subject with a view to remodelling the whole system.t Consuls are in a certain way charged with watch- ing over the execution of treaties, for they must pro- tect any of their countrymen whose rights are invaded and must immediately bring to the attention of their government any such infringement. In general, they observe the movements of naval forces of all nations on the coast near the port in which they are placed ; and it is their duty also to watch over the dignity of their own country in maintaining the rights of their flag. Not only are they obliged to give aid, advice, and assistance to the ships of their commercial marine; but they should, in their correspondence with their Government, report all events touching the navigation, the various changes in the commerce of the countries where they-live, and especially anything touching the special commerce with the. country * Senate Report, No. 154, 40th Congress, 2d Session. fThe report is dated March 20, 1884, with a supplement of January 5, 1885, 48th Congress, ist Session, H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 121 ; 48th Congress, 2d Session, H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 65. 48 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. which sends them. In fine, they are bound to keep pace with. the state and progress of manufactures, the rise of new branches of industry, and, in general, the increase or diminution of the public wealth, taking especial care to be well acquainted with all matters where other countries may gain advantage over their own. They are given a sort of police jurisdiction over the commercial vessels of their own country ; they are generally charged with the duty of investigat- ing shipwrecks and saving property from the wrecked or stranded vessels, with all disputes between cap- tains and sailors, with arresting deserters, and with sending back shipwrecked or discharged seamen. In time of war their duties in these respects are still more important, for they are obliged, so far as either in- ternational law, special treaties, or the laws of the country will permit them, to protect at all hazard the commercial and naval interests of their country against arbitrary acts, whether committed by the country to which they are sent or by the nation at war with it. On the death of one of their countrymen they, in general, take possession of his effects, and in case of property left in the country, manage, keep, and dispose of it for the benefit of the heirs. They are authorized, besides, to perform notarial duties of all kinds, and in most cases they are the only authorities who can validate legal instruments between citizens of their country or others to be used at home. OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 49 In addition to the general duties of a consul va- rious special duties are imposed on American consuls by our tariff system, which do not generally exist in the services of other countries. It is necessary for our consuls to verify in triplicate every invoice of goods sent to the United States. Not only is the consul obliged to take the oath or statement of the manufacturer! or exporter, but he is expected to have a special knowledge of the trade of the place and of the actual value of the goods, so that he can control the statements made to him ; for our system does not ac- cept the valuations of goods always at the actual price paid for them, but at the market value of the place where they are manufactured or chiefly sold. The consul is in many cases expected to have in his office samples of the merchandise generally shipped, and to be in a position to discover any undervaluation, fraud, or collusion. These duties are by no means light ones. In a large commercial centre many thousand invoices are signed every year. For each of these he must ap- pose his signature in triplicate to two papers, with his official seal, must fasten the papers together in such a way as to prevent fraud, and in case of depreciation of currency must add still another certificate as to the value of money. Of these triplicate invoices one is given to the shipper, one is retained in the consulate as proof, and the third is sent to the collector of the port to which the goods are forwarded, marked also 4 r J^. 50 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. in an explanatory list. This is not all. The consul must keep an accurate register of all these invoices, with date, number, fee, and the value of the goods, called an " Invoice Book ; " he must keep another separate register of fees, and, in some cases still a third. While each invoice imposes on the consul such a duty, the amount of fees received, in general $2.50 for each invoice, does not in all cases correctly show the value of the commerce or the importance of the consulate ; for while in many places there is a very great number of small invoices, in others whole car- goes are sent under a single invoice, and the amount of fees taken in is, therefore, no exact measure of the importance of the consul's services to the Treasury. Besides this, in certain cases he is bound to take no- tice and prepare official papers with regard to the im- ports from the United States to the place where he is stationed ; for certain articles, such as petroleum casks, shooks, or pieces of wood used for orange-boxes, and grain bags, are allowed to return free to the United States on proof of their once being exported thence. Besides keeping a number of official records, regis- ters, and fee-books, carrying on his ordinary corre- spondence with the Department of State, in carefully prescribed forms, refeting^o the-business of -his office, and reporting anything of interest of a commercial na- ture to the Government, the consul is obliged to make quarterly, semi-annual, and annual returns both to the OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. ^ 5 1 State Department and to the Treasury. He must, for instance, at the end of each quarter, give a digest of the invoices verified by him during that period, a record of the arrivals and departures of American ves- sels — a return nowadays exceedingly simple — a reg- ister of deceased American citizens, a record of his notarial services or unofficial fees, a summary of the whole consular business, and, in case the consul has extra-territorial jurisdiction, a return of the business of the consular court, and also a record of his official fees. The semi-annual and annual returns embrace besides that a list of passports issued or visaed, a list of persons to whom protection may have been given in non-Chris- tian countries, reports of the estates of deceased citi- zens, names of persons married in the consulate, a cor- rect list of fees received, a list of despatches written to the Department during the year, a list of marriages of American citizens within his jurisdiction, and a register of American residents. He must send to the Treasury, at the end of every quarter, a record of the Treasury fees, to which he is obliged to take an oath before some magistrate, for, although a person of confi- dence, his word or official statement is not believed by the Treasury without an oath ; a list of seamen shipped, discharged, or deceased at the consulate ; a statement of all relief given to seamen ; a summary of consular busi- ness; and three other reports, relative to seamen, extra wages, and hospital dues. He must send also to the 52 ^AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. Treasury an account current of the receipts and expen- ditures of the consulate; and his salary account, in all cases in duplicate and accompanied by various certifi- cates and vouchers. His account for rent and miscel- laneous expenses goes not to the Treasury but to the Department of State. The consular accounts, after passing through the Bureau of Accounts at the De- partment of State, are, with marks of approval or dis- approval, forwarded to the Fifth Auditor of the Treas- ury Department, where they are subjected to a careful examination, the least error or overcharge of any kind being noted, and are then passed on to the First Comptroller of the Treasury, who finally decides whether they are to be admitted. Although nearly all other ofificers of the Government may receive their pay at the expiration of every month, a consul can- not be paid before the termination of his quarter, and he may then, in case he has not received of- ficial fees sufificient, draw upon the Secretary of the Treasury for the amount due him. It is a little dififi- to see what other system could be adopted, al- though diplomatic ofificials draw, not on the Secretary of the Treasury, but on an account opened to their credit with the bankers of the State Department in London. The system of drawing drafts on the Sec- retary of the Treasury perhaps prevents loss to the Government in one way ; but as in very many cases in drawing upon the United States there is a loss OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 53 on exchange, this loss, in some cases a large one, falls fortunately on the Government and not on the consul. This makes an addition to the general estimates, and is especially provided for in the appropriations. At the same time a consul who, although his duties may be very important to the interests of the Government, verifies few invoices, and therefore receives few fees, is, unless he has private means, obliged to live upon credit for the first three months after his arrival at his post, and even then may sometimes find it difficult to meet with a banker or merchant willing to cash his drafts at any moderate rate. In shipping-ports consuls of the United States have to inspect the manifests of vessels leaving for the United States, to see that they are in accordance with the tariff laws. They must send frequent reports as to the state of health in their district, especially if there be any epidemic disease ; must inspect vessels in such cases, and issue or countersign bills of health. They must prevent, by every means in their powe/, the shipment of paupers or criminals as emigrants to tiic United States, and promptly report such cases ; must in like way obstruct the emigration of Mormon con- verts, and must report all violations of the passenger laws. Consuls must report, besides, all new inventions and discoveries, all improvements in agriculture and manufactures, all information relative to .new light- houses, buoys, beacons and shoals, and must be vigi- 54 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. lant with regard to the importation of neat cattle and hides, as well as of rags, lest disease may be introduced into the United States. Consuls are obliged to send annual reports through the Consul-General, containing full statistics and state- ments respecting the trade and navigation in their ^ districts, arranged in tabulated forms, and from these each Consul-General must send '' in duplicate, each year, a full report upon the trade and in- dustry of the country under his supervision, arranged and systematized so as to show, ist, its agriculture ; 2d, its manu- factures ; 3d, the condition of its mines ; 4th, its fisheries ; 5th, the products of its forests ; 6th, its commerce, showing {a) the number of vessels, domestic and foreign, entered and cleared, and the amount of tonnage, {b) the amount and value of imports and duties thereon, {c) the amount and value of exports, [d) its trade with the United States ; 7th, its revenues, separating customs from other sources of revenue ; 8th, such miscellaneous subjects as may appear of importance, such as new commercial treaties, statements of population, emigration, price of food, wages of labor, conditions of the people, pe- culiarities in business and habits, and all points of interest that may serve to further American trade and general information. '' All consuls will transmit, as soon as they are published, statements of all changes in the commercial systems of the governments to which they are accredited, copies of all com- mercial treaties, regulations, light-house notices, revenue laws, acts and regulations respecting warehouses, tonnage duties, and port dues ; all tariffs and modifications thereof, and all enactments, decrees, royal orders, or proclamations which in any manner affect the commercial, agricultural, mining, or other important interests of the United States. OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 55 "The trade reports of consular officers should specify the articles of import and export, the countries which supply the former and receive the latter, the comparative increase or decrease in the amounts of the same, and the causes in both cases for either ; the general regulations of trade and their effects, the average market prices within the year of the staples of export, and the average rates or freight to the United States. They should also designate the articles, if any, prohibited from importation into their consular districts, whether from the place of their growth or production or from other places, speci- fying what changes have occurred since their last reports ; and also all privileges or restrictions thereon, if any, and to what vessels and in what manner they apply, and all differences in duties on articles imported in foreign or national vessels ; all tonnage duties and other port dues, and all port, warehouse, and sanitary regulations, and those relating to entry and clear- ance, where such exist and have been modified or enlarged since their last reports. They should also communicate de- tailed information in regard to the employment in their con- sular districts of the capital, if any, of citizens of the United States, whether employed in industrial, agricultural, scientific, or commercial pursuits. They should also transmit tabular or other statements touching the consumption of the products of the United States as well as of other countries ; the amount of these articles imported Into their districts in American vessels, and the amount of foreign tonnaj,e employed in the trade. '' Consular officers should from time to time communicate any useful and interesting information relating to agriculture, manufactures, labor, wages,^ population, and public works. In all that relates to scientific discoveries, to progress in the useful arts, and to general statistics in foreign countries, they should communicate freely and frequently with the Depart- ment. They should be careful to note all events occurring 56 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. within their several districts which affect, favorably or other- wise, the navigation and commerce of the United States ; the establishment of new branches of industry, the increase or decline of those before established, and the demands for new articles of the products or manufactures of the United States. They should also promptly advise the Department in all mat- ters calculated to benefit our commerce or other interests, and as to all means for removing any impediments that obstruct their development. • "Consular officers will transmit, quarterly, information on the following points to the Secretary of State, not only in reference to the trade of the place of their residence, but that of the neighboring country or towns with which it may be con- nected commercially, or through which their merchandise may be shipped to the United States : ist. The usual terms on which merchandise is bought and sold, whether on credit or for cash. The usual discounts allowed, either from custom or in consideration of cash payment, or from other cause ; whether such discounts are uniform, and, if not, whether they vary in the same, or only on different descriptions of merchandise ; and whether such discounts, or any of them, are regarded as a bonus or gratuity to the buyer for his benefit ; whether he purchases for himself or ships merchandise to order and for account of others. 2d. The bounties allowed on articles ex- ported, and for what reason, and under what circumstances ; whether they are the same on exports by national or foreign vessels ; if not, the difference ; the rates of su^b bounties, and how estimated, whether on weight, measure, gauge, price, or value. 3d. The customary charge of commissions for pur- chasing and shipping goods of different descriptions ; the usual brokerage on the purchase or sale of merchandise ; whether it is paid by the buyer or seller, or by both. 4th. The usual and customary expenses in detail attending the purchase and shipment of merchandise, including commissions, brokerage, OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 57 export duty, dock, trade, or city dues, lighterage, porterage, labor, cost of packages, covering or embaling, cooperage, gauging, weighing, wharfage, and local imposts or taxes of any kind ; which of the foregoing, or other items, are usually included in the price of the article, or become a separate charge to be paid by the shipper or purchaser. *' In the case of merchandise purchased at the interior places, or in other countries having no shipping ports of their own, for shipment to foreign countries, through the ports of the consulate, consuls will report the customary expenses attend- ing the transportation from such interior places or countries to the port of shipment, including all transits, exports, or im- port frontier duty, and every other charge up to the arrival at such port, and the ordinary expenses attending the shipment thereof. ''The duties of consular officers in respect to the develop- ment of trade with the United States are of special interest and importance. The condition of the products and manufac- tures of this country is such that very many articles of growth and manufacture can be exported in largely increased quan- tities, and the Department of State has taken particular inter- est in all efforts and measures for the promotion of our export trade. The agency of consular officers in this direction is of the highest value, and their efficient services hitherto have met with deserved recognition. It is expected that they should devote special attention to the methods by which trade with the United States can be most effectively fostered and en- larged, and by which new branches of industry can be intro- duced within their districts. To this end they should from time to time advise the Department of the demand for differ- ent kinds of products and manufactured articles, and whether they are of the character which it is probable the industries of the United States can supply ; and also of any products of the country in which trade with the United States may be acquired i^ 58 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. or increased, either by legislation, executive action, or by commercial enterprise." * I have preferred to quote the exact text of the " Consular Regulations," as further condensation seems difficult. Reports of a similar character have to be made also to the Secretary of the Treasury. " It is the duty of every consular officer to furnish to the Secretary of the Treasury, as often as shall be required, the prices-current of all articles of merchandise usually exported to the United States from the port or place in which he shall be located. They are also requested to transmit, at least once a month, if opportunity offers, to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller of the Treasury, the rates of exchange, and also a statement of the rates at which any depreciated currency of the country in which they reside is computed in United States or Spanish dollars, or in silver or gold coins of other countries, observing in all cases of an estimate of the value of the currency in such foreign coins that their weight and stand- ard should be made known to the Department. '' Consular officers will also report monthly to the Treasury Department the rates of exchange prevailing between the ports or places at which they reside and the following places, to wit, London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Hamburg ; also New York and other principal ports in the United States ; and they will keep the Department regularly and fully advised of the course and progress of trade from the several ports of their consulates to the United States. " Consular officers will forward regularly, and as often as practicable, directly to the general appraisers residing at New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and San Francisco, such prices-current, manufacturers' statements of prices, or * United States Consular Regulation, par. 556, 559-563- OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 59 merchants' printed circulars of prices, and such other general information as may be useful to appraisers in the discharge of their duties. They will include in their several reports, in detail, information on any other points which they may think proper, in order to an ascertainment of the value of merchan- dise forwarded to the United States, and the assessment of the legal duties, forwarding any printed or other documents which they may think desirable that the Department should possess." * The relations of consuls to the Treasury have sev- eral times led that Department to claim a jurisdiction over the consular system. In 1872, Mr. Keim, who had been sent out as a Treasury agent for the exam- ination of consular affairs, recommended the with- drawal of all control over consular officers from the State Department and its transfer to the Treasury, and even prepared a bill for that purpose. Many of his judgments and minor suggestions were very sensi- ble.t But besides all these purely commercial and cleri- cal duties, consuls have, in non-Christian countries, where it would be unsafe to leave the lives and the property of foreigners to the discretion of a native tribunal, a civil and criminal jurisdiction, which it is necessary to explain in some detail. After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks * U. S. Consular Regulations, 571-573. ''^ fA Report to the Hon. George S. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treasury, upon the Condition of the Consular Service. 1872. Co AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. in 1453, owing to the ignorance of Christian usages, and because it was found more convenient that the Christians should in a measure govern themselves, and that their governors should be held responsible for their conduct, various privileges of self-government were granted to the native Christians. Genoa and Venice having at that time mercantile establishments on the Bosphorus, such privileges were extended also to them. Subsequently, by a treaty made in 1535 between King Francis I. and the Sultan Suleiman I., similar privileges were given to the French, and through them to all the Franks. These privileges were subsequently enlarged and confirmed, especially by the "-reaty of Mahmud I. with Louis XV., in 1740, which is the basis of all the present arrangements. The English, from whom we in part derived our rights, secured their privileges by a treaty in 1675 be- tween Mahmud IV. and Charles II. Other nations gradually followed these examples. These privileges are in general called Capitulations ; not in the sense now usual of a surrender of right, for they were a free grant, but in the old sense of an agreement under heads and articles, " Capitula." The word was not unusual in such a sense in old French treaties and conventions, for we read of a " Capitula- tion and contract of marriage " between Dom Pedro of Portugal and the Princess Marie of Savoy. The basis of these privileges was what is now commonly OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 6 1 termed Extra-territoriality, that is, that the citizens and subjects of foreign powers shall between them- selves have the same rights and privileges, especially in the settlement of their disputes, as though they were in their own country ; and that this distinction shall be so far observed in case of criminal procedure, where they have offended the laws of the land or have disputes with the subjects of the country, that they shall not be treated differently {i.e., more unfavor- ably) from the subjects of the country, and shall al- ways have the protection of their representatives to see that absolute justice is done. The United States acquired these rights of extra- territoriality partly from having enjoyed them while still British colonies, but mainly from our treaty con- cluded with Turkey in 1830. By the first article it was agreed that the merchants of both countries should be placed on an equality with those of all powers in the country respectively ; and by the fourth article it was agreed that, ** If litigations and disputes should arise between the sub- jects of the supreme power and citizens of the United States, the parties shall not be held, nor shall judgment be pro- nounced unless the American dragoman be present. Citizens of the United States of America, even when they may have committed some offence, shall not be arrested and put in prison by the local authorities, but they shall be tried by their min- ister or consul, and punished according to their offence, fol- lowing in this respect the usage observed toward other Franks." 62 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. A dispute arose between Turkey and the United States as to the proper meaning of this article. As several of the treaties between Turkey and foreign powers permitted foreign subjects to be tried by a mixed court, or even by a Turkish court in the pres- ence of a foreign representative, the Porte held that the United States should conform to this. The Turks also insisted that our translation of the treaty was incorrect ; and it seems that Captain Porter, our first minister at Constantinople, had signed an agree- ment by which he recognized the Turkish text of the treaty as the binding one. They said that the phrase *' they shall not be arrested and put into prison by the local authorities, but they shall be tried by their min- ister or consul," was not in the original treaty. Our Government maintained the contrary view ; and a number of independent translations from the text of the original proved that we were in the right. In addition to this, similar stipulations to those of this fourth article had been put in the Turkish treaties with Greece, the Hanse Towns, Belgium, Portugal, and Sweden. We, therefore, insisted on our interpre- tation, and the result was that in one or two cases per- sons escaped trial. Both Governments still maintain their ground, and this dispute has never been settled. The United States have similar treaties granting extra-territorial rights with Borneo, China, Japan, Madagascar, Morocco, Muscat, Persia, Samoa, Siam, OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 63 and Tripoli ; that is, in general with all non-Christian countries. We have treaties of the same nature with Algeria and Tunis, but these countries being now occupied by France, and we having agreed to give up our extra-territorial rights since the establishment of fair tribunals, they are no longer of effect. There was for a long time a question whether these rights existed in Roumania. As to Serbia there was no doubt. But in both these countries such rights have been given up through the conclusion of consular treaties. Many of these treaties for jurisdiction are far more full and explicit than our treaty with Turkey. There was, however, no law of Congress permitting the exercise by consuls of these powers conferred by treaty until the act of August 11, 1848, which was subsequently extended and amended by those of June 22, i860, and July i, 1870. By these laws consuls are authorized to arraign and try all citizens of the United States charged with offences committed in such countries, to sentence them to fine, imprison- ment, and even death, and to execute such sentences. They have authority also to try and determine all civil causes arising between citizens of the United States, or between Americans and other foreigners, sitting in some cases alone, and in others with asses- sors. They are given many other judicial powers, in- cluding marriage, divorce, the custody of property, the probate of wills, etc. Similar powers are vested 64 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. in ministers, who can also hear appeals from the con- sular courts ; and it is only in Japan and China, when the matter in dispute exceeds two thousand five hun- dred dollars, that there can be a further appeal to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California. These courts are governed by the laws of the United States, but as the Federal legislation will by no means cover all the questions presented, the common law and the provisions of equity and admir- alty have been extended to supplement it. Different regulations for procedure have been drawn up in the different countries, and our whole system is in a con- fused and contradictory condition, by no means fur- nishing the same safeguards for the administration of justice as are afforded by the French, English, or Ital- ian systems. The English have regularly constituted courts, both of original and appellate jurisdiction, and jury trial, whenever possible, in criminal cases. The French have besides, an appeal to the court of Aix in Provence, the judgment of which may be again re- viewed by the Cour de Cassation. Some recent cases of failure of justice, and espe- cially two trials, one in Japan and one in Egypt, where men were condemned to death, without a jury, under peculiar circumstances, drew public attention to the defects of our legislation. A report was made on the subject by the Secretary of State in 1882, and an excellent and carefully drafted bill for the reorgan- OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 6$ ization of the whole system of consular courts was passed by the Senate, mainly through the efforts of Mr. Pendleton, who devoted to the subject much care and attention. This bill failed to pass in the House of Representatives at the last session (1884-85), chiefly jDecause it provided for a number of new ap- pointments, which the dominant party did not wish to have made by a Republican administration ; no one seemed to read it through and to notice that it was only to take effect six months after a code of practice had been prepared by the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General, and had been approved by the President. This bill provided, in brief, for the reor- ganization and limitation of the consular courts, for the establishment of district courts, and of a supreme court, in China and Japan, and for a right of appeal in other countries to the Supreme Court in Japan, or to the United States Court for the Eastern District of New York. In order to supply proper clerks, the number of consular clerks was increased to twenty- five. Measures were taken for the introduction of the jury system, and sentences of death must be ap- proved by the President. The need of some such reform is urgent, and Presi- dent Cleveland directed the attention of Congress to it again, in his message of December 8, 1885." * The whole subject of consular jurisdiction is set forth in Lawrence's Commcntairc sur IVhcaton, vol. iv. See also the 66 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. Of course, not all consuls have to perform all the duties which have just been enumerated. The cir- cumstances of each post are different. The following examples will, however, show that the work of con- sular officers has not been exaggerated. Take, for in- stance, the duties of the Consul-General at Sl\anghai. '' I St. He has supervisory control over all consulates in China. 2d. Because of the distance from the legation at Pe- king, the insufficient means of communication, especially in winter, and the peculiar powers of the local government, he has often important semi-diplomatic duties to perform, requir- ing delicacy and tact. 3d. With the other consular represen- tatives he p^l'ticipates in the municipal government of the foreign settlemtsit with a very considerable population, and containing much valuable property, both real and personal. 4th. He is a judge trying civil causes in which Americans ar*e defendants, and trying them for crimes sometimes carrying the extreme penalty of the law. He also has charge of the jail in which American prisoners are confined. In his judicial capacity he is judge of a criminal court, of a court of probate and divorce, of an equity and of a nisi-prius court. 5th. He is United States postmaster, handling all the mails arriving at Shanghai for citizens of this country, either officials or private individuals. 6th. He performs the duties of a seaport consu- late, viz., has care of American shipping, guarding the interests of master, crew, and owners ; he protects the revenue of his Letter of Mr. Frelinghuysen to Senator Windom, of April 29, 1882, Senatp Mis. Doc, No. 89, 47th Congress, ist Session ; and especially, .r the Turkish Capitulations, the excellent re- port of Mr. Edward A. Vandyck, Senate Ex. Doc, No. 3, Special Session (1881), and Senate Ex. Doc, No. 87, 47th Con- gress, 1st Session. OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 6/ Government and watches and strives to increase the export trade." * At Matamoras the Consul-General, in addition to the ordinary consular duties, has to try to prevent smuggling along the line of the Rio Grande, and therefore to exercise a supervision of the bonded im- ports, and to maintain local diplomatic relations in order to secure mutual good-will, and the better en- forcement of the laws on the frontier. His subordin- ates to the north have to watch not only smuggling, but the movements of the Indians, and to report promptly on this subject. The work of th*^, Consul- General at Matamoras, like that of mos' of the con- suls in Mexico, has greatly increased during the last few years, owing to the millions of American capital now invested in Mexico, and to the number of Ameri- can citizens resident there. It is necessary to protect American interests not only by watching against any injustice to them, but by giving reasonable aid and advice to persons intending to engage in Mexican enterprises. The persons of Americans have to be protected, unfortunately too frequently, from the sus- picious and ignorant local authorities, who arrest and imprison them on very slight pretexts. To accom- plish this the consular ofificer at Matamor^^- should have a good knowledge of international Lw, and the * Report of the Secretary of State, April 26, 1884, H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 146, 48th Congress, ist Session. 68 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. rules of extradition, as well as of the municipal law of the United States, Mexico, and of the State of Texas. And all this is expected for an annual salary of $2,000, and an allowance of $400, for office rent ! At Pale_rmo, a city of over two hundred thousand inhabitants, our consul receives a salary of $2,000, with an allowance of $400 for rent and $400 for clork hire. The fees of the office in the fiscal year of 1883-84, amounted to over eleven thousand dollars, which, with the exception of $839, for ships' paper, etc., and $214 for miscellaneous, was all for the verification of invoices, of which there were nearly four thousand, averaging about thirty a day during the busy season. The ex- ports, which amount to about five million dollars, con- sist chiefly of oranges and lemons, with a considerable amount of sulphur, salt, and wine. Here the work of the consul is especially difficult, because the small dealers 'frequently combine to send one large instead of several smaller invoices — a practice forbidden by our revenue laws ; and owing to the system of secrecy and terrorism prevalent in business circles in Sicily, and to the refusal to give information, it is very hard to ascertain and prevent this. The four agencies of the consulate, at Carini, Girgenti, Marsala, and Trapani, cause additional labor, and a single case of injustice, or of a dispute between master and men of an American vessel in any of these ports, has required a journey and the loss of several days to adjust. Dur- OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 69 ing the last two years the consul has had to be very vigilant with regard to bills of health, lest cholera might be imported into America. In 1884 there were two hundred and twenty-eight American travellers who visited the consulate (and the number is yearly increasing) ; that is, more than one a day during the travelling season ; and as brigandage is still of occa- sional occurrence, and a passport law is at times en- forced to hinder emigration, each of these travellers required a certain amount of attention. The frequent visits of American ships-of-war add greatly to the consul's social duties, as well as to his actual official work, for he must then receive the mail for these ships and take measures to arrest deserters. His British colleague, who has no duties with regard to invoices, has a salary of $3,000, allowances to the amount of $1,000, and a paid vice-consul as well as clerks. Consular officers are allowed by international law in general, and by special treaties with most coun- tries, except England, certain privileges ; for example, the inviolability of the archives and papers of the consulate, as well as of the consular office and dwell- ing ; freedom from arrest ; exemption from any obliga- tion to appear as a witness — a consul's testimony being usually taken at his office ; exemption from tax- ation, from the quartering of soldiers, from military or other public service ; the privilege of corresponding with the local authorities in case of infraction of 70 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. treaties ; the use of the national arms and flag on offices and dwellings; the power of taking deposi- tions ; jurisdiction over disputes between masters, officers, and crews of commercial ships ; the right to reclaim deserters; the power to adjust damages suf- fered at sea and in matters of wrecks and salvage ; the power of administering the estates of deceased fellow-citizens ; the right of applying for the extradi- tion of fugitive criminals. I have excepted England in order to mark a noteworthy fact, that the English ^government, while willing, under the " most-favored- nation " clause, to accept all privileges and immuni- ties given in such matters to the consuls of the most favored nation in other countries, has never been willing to make a special consular treaty, on the ground that Parliament has never conferred upon the government the authority to make such a treaty, and that a special act of Parliament would be neces- sary to except foreign consuls from British jurisdic- tion. Promises have been made to most countries at various times that a bill to this effect would speedily be introduced into Parliament ; but the proper or convenient time has never seemed to come. Foreign consuls, therefore, in Great Britain, are treated exactly as British subjects, and have no privileges whatever except such as the courtesy of the Foreign Office and of the Board of Trade chooses temporarily to permit them. It required even a strong represen- OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 7 1 tation to the British government to secure American consuls from paying an income tax to the British treasury on their official salaries. The property and archives of the French Consulate-General at Lon- don were at one time sold at public auction for a house tax which had not been paid by the propri- etor of the house which contained the consular office. At Manchester, in 1857, the consular archives were seized for a debt of the American consul, who was absent at the time, and Mr. Dallas, the American minister, paid the amount claimed in order to avoid a sale. With all the duties which have been enumerated, and with their corresponding privileges, we may easily see what should be the qualifications of a con- sular officer. Allow me to quote in this connection the words of Prince Talleyrand in speaking of Count Reinhard, who, after having been French Minister Plenipotentiary at Hamburg and Florence, subse- quently filled the office of Consul-General at Milan, of Commissary General of Commercial Relations in Moldavia, and again of Minister at Cassel, Frankfort, and at Dresden. He said : *' After having been a skilful minister how many things one has to know besides to be a good consul ; for the duties of a consul are infinitely varied. They q.re of a kind very different from those of other agents of foreign affairs ; they demand a mass of practical knowledge for whigh a special education is necessary." 72 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. Under our existing laws no qualifications whatever are required except the good-will of the appointing power. It is not even necessary to know how to write good English. Let us see for a moment what is required in other countries. According to existing regulations any one appointed to the British consular service must be subjected to an examination showing that he has an accurate knowledge of the English language ; that he can write and speak French cor- rectly and fluently, that he has a sufficient knowledge of the current language, as far as commerce is con- cerned, at the port to which he is to be appointed to reside, so as to enable him to communicate directly with the authorities and natives of the place, a knowl- edge of the German language being taken to meet this requirement for the ports of Northern Europe, of the Spanish or Portuguese language, as may be determined, for ports in Spain, Portugal, Mexico, Central and South America, and of the Italian lan- guage for the ports in Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, and the Black Sea and Mediterranean ; a sufficient knowledge of British mercantile and commercial law to enable him to deal with questions arising between British shipowners and shipmasters and seamen ; a sufficient knowledge of arithmetic for the nature of the duties which he will be required to perform in drawing up commercial tables and reports. He is also required, if practicable, to remain in the Foreign OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 73 Office for at least three months, to become acquainted with the forms of business as carried on there. These are only the scholastic qualifications, and he should possess, in addition, various special qualifications and attainments. He should be courteous and prudent, free from passion, and firm without prejudice, with a well-balanced mind, versed in the law of nations, and should, subsequently, make himself thoroughly ac- quainted with the laws, municipal ordinances, and tariffs of the place to which he is appointed.* The requirements in France for admission to the consular service are that the candidate must be French, between twenty and twenty-five years of age ; must have a diploma as bachelor of arts, science, or laws, or must have graduated at the Ecole des Chartes, the Superior Normal School, the Polytechnic School, the School of Mines, the Ecole des Fonts et Chaussees, the School of Arts and Manufactures, the School of Forestry, or at the Special Military School, or the Naval School ; or must hold the commission of an officer in the active army or navy. He must then pass an examination on : i. The constitutional, judi- cial, and administrative organization of France and of foreign countries ; 2, general principles of public and * Specimens of the English examination papers for the Con- sular and Diplomatic Services and the Foreign Office are printed at the end of the Foreign Office List, and show the thorough nature of the test. 74 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. private international law ; 3, commercial and mari- time law; 4, the history of treaties from the Con- gress of Westphalia to the Congress of Berlin, and political and commercial geography; 5, the elements of political economy ; 6, in English or German. The examination is both written and oral, and includes the writing of a thesis. After three years' service either in the Foreign OfBce or abroad, the candidate must pass another examination, both written and oral ; if for the diplomatic career, in English, German, and contemporary diplomatic history ; if for the consular career, in English, German, or Spanish, commercial geography, and the customs legislation of France and other countries. On passing this examination he is appointed either Third Secretary of Legation or As- sistant Consul (Consul Suppleant)."^ The Belgian, the Italian, and indeed the systems of nearly all nations require special examinations and special knowledge on the part of persons appointed to consular posts. In most cases these begin at the very bottom of the ladder as clerks, or even consular pupils, and are only promoted after years of service and ex- perience. The Austrian consular service in the East is remarkably good, and in that nearly every member has passed through the school for Oriental languages at Vi- * The most recent French regulations will be found in the Appendix to vol. ii. of the Cours de Droit diplomatique of P. Pradier-Fodere. Paris, 1881. OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 75 cnna, and knows two or three of the languages spoken in the country to which he is sent, always Turkish, generally Greek, and sometimes Persian in addition. There are three other important qualifications — of a negative character — for a good consul, which the actual experience of all nations has shown to be very necessary. Consuls should not be merchants ; they should not be unpaid ; and they should not be sub- jects, or even natives, of the country where they offi- cially reside. At the beginning of our Government we, like most other nations, started by appointing unpaid consuls from among American merchants resident abroad ; or, if they were sent from America, by allowing them to enter into business as an equivalent for salary. This was found to work badly ; and even as far back as 1816, the State Department proposed to Congress to pay the more important consular officers in Europe fixed salaries. No change of any importance was made, however, for many years. The consuls received the fees of their office, and in places where there was much to do these fees amounted to a large sum. In the consular reorganization in 1856, fixed salaries were given to a large number of consuls, while others were allowed to retain, in lieu of salaries, the fees of their offices. This having given rise to abuses, the fees in certain places amounting to $10,000, $25,000, and even higher, a law was passed requiring consuls to account ^6 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. for all their fees to the Treasury, retaining not more than $2,500. Where there were consular agents a certain additional sum was allowed from the receipts of each agent, besides the payments of the agent him- self. Thus the matter stands now. Some consuls receive a salary, others receive their salaries by means of fees. One objection to the fee system is that while the feed consul is perhaps more careful of the busi- ness of his office, in order to receive his pay, the fees are oppressive upon commerce and navigation. In order to guard against the latter, a law has recently been passed remitting all fees upon navigation, al- though a round-about system has been adopted, by which the fees are charged against the Treasury, so that an account of them is taken. As far as trade it- self is concerned, the Protectionists seem to approve of the exactions of fees, because it adds so much more to the cost of imported goods. The general tendency in our Government has been, where the fees of a con- sulate amount regularly to more than three thou- sand dollars, to fix a salary for the post. There is one bad result from estimating the importance of a con- sulate in this way. The more agreeable places are as a rule better paid ; and disagreeable and unhealthy posts, where few fees are taken, but where the protec- tion given to Americans is worth far more to us as a nation, than a saving in the collection of duties, are left with trifling fees. Other countries which have OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 7/ carefully studied the needs of the consular service, and the use which this service is of to the merchants of the country, have, for the most part, adopted the system of salaried consulates. When the consul is a merchant, he is more apt to look out for his own interests than either for the in- terests of the Government or for those of his fellow- citizens for whose protection he is appointed. He is likely to be engaged in that business which has the chief export trade to the United States ; and as con- sul he has the power of becoming acquainted with the trade of other merchants exporting similar goods. In that way he generally uses his consular position and the knowledge derived in consequence of it, to benefit his own business, sometimes to the detriment of his countrymen who have embarked in similar en- terprises. In 1884 the Secretary of State made a re- port to Congress on consular matters, and took strong grounds against the use of merchants as consuls.* Our laws have now so far forbidden this practice that it is only in the small posts where the fees are not enough to pay the salary of a consul that it is al- lowed. The English consular service was reorgan- ized by Mr. Canning, when Foreign Minister, in 1825; and the more important consulates were filled by persons sent especially from England for that purpose. In 1835, an economically disposed * H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 121, 48th Congress, ist Session. 78 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. Parliament wishing to return to the old system, an inquiry was made, and the evidence was taken of many consuls, and of many persons formerly consuls, as well as of the leading merchants and chambers of commerce. The evidence was very strong against the practice of allowing consuls to engage in trade ; and Mr. Canning's system was therefore retained. Similar inquiries were made by Belgium not many years ago, with the result that the privilege of en- gaging in trade was taken away from the chief con- sulates. This has worked so well that there is not the slightest disposition to return to the old system. Nevertheless, an opinion seems to be gaining ground in this country that it would be greatly to the inter- ests of our export trade if our consuls were merchants in active business. Before any change in a retro- grade sense should be made, it would be important for us to take the evidence not only of our consuls but of our merchants and chambers of commerce on this subject, as well as to study the results of the practice on other nations. It should be remarked that by usage in most coun- tries merchant consuls, " commercial consuls," hold a distinctively lower rank than co7isules missi, consuls envoyh^ or " diplomatic consuls," as they are often called. They are not held in the same respect or esteem, nor do they by treaty enjoy the same privi- leges as those not engaged in trade. OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 79 The inconveniences arising from having consular officers subjects or citizens of the country where they officially reside have been so great, that most countries, that admit the importance of the consular service, appoint no one but their own subjects in places of the slightest importance. The allegiance of a consul to his native government, and the duties following from it, constantly conflict with the duties which he owes to the country which has appointed him. Our laws now forbid a foreigner to be appointed consul of the United States, or at all events to be a salaried con- sul ; and in our service there are very few exceptions to this rule. Very much the same objections which apply to a foreigner apply to a naturalized citizen of the United States, especially if he should be ap- pointed consul in the place of his nativity. Among the foreigners who come to make their home in the United States there are many excellent and eminent men ; but it cannot be denied that the majority of them come here in order to obtain better conditions of life than they have had at home. If they have gained sufficient position in this country to be ap- pointed consuls, it shows that they have profited by their opportunities ; but it by no means proves that they will be of service to the United States in an official position in the country of their birth. Old habits and connections, family relations, perhaps even the causes which led them to emigrate, bring them 80 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. back to the society which was once familiar to them ; and this, as a general rule, is not the society which a consul should cultivate. Much as we disregard the prejudices of class distinction here, we are bound to regard them when we send persons abroad in an of- ficial position, not for the purpose of giving them a good place, but to render service to the United States. The complaint has not been unfrequently made by merchants in European towns, " Have you no Amer- icans who are fit to be consuls here ? Send any one you like, and we shall be glad to be polite to him and of service to him ; but you cannot expect us, with our habits and traditions, to introduce to our families So and So, whom we have all known as occu- pying such and such a position in life." Apart from that, a naturalized citizen going back to the place of his birth is far more apt, owing to European laws, customs, and prejudices, to become involved in dififi- culties with the government of the country to which he is appointed, perhaps even for reasons preceding his emigration. It cannot be expected that a govern- ment will cheerfully accept as consul a man, no matter what his abilities may be, who has emigrated on account of political difficulties, or who has gone away in order to escape the conscription. Besides this, falling back, as has been said, into their old and accustomed family circle, consuls are apt in such cases to be surrounded with a set of persons who render it OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 8 1 disagreeable for an American even to go to the office on business. Of late years, especially since the end of the war, when it has been considered necessary by politicians to cultivate the foreign-born voters, there has been a great tendency to appoint naturalized citizens as con- suls ; partly in order to please the body to which they belong, and partly because, speaking the lan- guage of the country, and presumably acquainted with its habits, they are thought to be more capable. In this way we have very recently seen a number of naturalized Germans appointed to the chief consu- lates of Germany and Austria, a Bohemian to Prague, an Italian to Leghorn, a Canadian to To- ronto, a Nova Scotian to Halifax, Irishmen to Ireland, Scotchmen to Scotland, Frenchmen to France, etc. No person who has lived abroad or has had to do with consular business, whether as an official or a client, can for a moment doubt that the interests of the United States would be far better served had native-born citizens been appointed to these posts. The accepted consular hierarchy in most countries is, beginning at the highest, Consul-General, Consul, Vice-Consul, and Consular-Agent. The American system varies somewhat from this. Our consuls-gen- eral are not only given that title to notice superiority in rank, but are charged with the supervision of all our consulates in the country in which they are es- 82 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. tablished. They have, however, within their own special jurisdiction, to perform exactly the same duties as a consul. With us vice-consuls are never independent officers subordinate to a consul, but simply persons who take the place of a consul when he is absent or ill, and who at other times exercise no functions. What corresponds to the vice-consuls in other countries is by us called a consular-agent, who does not have as complete powers as a vice-consul, and is generally appointed by, and is immediately under the control of, a consul, for places where busi- ness may have to be done but which he cannot him- self attend to. For their conduct the consul is himself personally responsible. We have also deputy- consuls, appointed in places where much business is to be done, with all the powers of a consul for signing papers. The term commercial-agent is somewhat an anomaly. He is not recognized by international law as having any consular privileges, although the State Department has at times made an effort to secure such recognition in certain places where the govern- ments were unwilling to allow the appointment of consuls and yet where the exportation to the United States was so great as to necessitate the presence of some one who could sign invoices. An officer of this kind was appointed simply as an agent for the Treas- ury. Few, if any, such places now exist ; but the practice has grown on the Government of appointing OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 83 commercial-agents in places where a consul or vice- consul would be received, because such an appoint- ment does not need confirmation by the Senate, and it enables the President to establish positions for a few years, and place in them persons whose names it might be awkward to send in for confirmation. In a bill for the reorganization of the consular ser- vice which was proposed to Congress in 1884 by the State Department, consular-agents are generally abolished, and those officers are styled vice-consuls, as in other countries. This is easier for the Government, as in many places well-to-do merchants would be will- ing to accept the position of honorary unpaid vice- consul on account of the dignity, who refuse that of consular-agent as directly marking them as officers of inferior grade. In the manufacturing districts of Germany and Great Britain it would perhaps be difficult to find either honorary vice-consuls or consular-agents willing to perform the work of certifying to invoices without pay. In these countries consular agencies are often multiplied without real necessity, except to increase the perquisites of the consuls, who are permitted to receive fees amounting to $1,000 from the agencies under their control. This brings our service into dis- repute. There can, for instance, be no real need of a consular agent at Burtscheid, which practically forms part of Aix-la-Chapelle. 84 AMERICAN DirLOMACY. In 1864 Mr. Seward succeeded in inducing Con- gress to authorize the appointment of thirteen con- sular clerks, who " can be removed only for cause stated in writing and submitted to Congress." The idea that these clerks would form the nucleus of a consular service has proved illusory. These excellent and praiseworthy officials have generally refused pro- motion. They prefer a position of low rank and low pay ($1,000 per annum, and $1,200 after five years of continuous service), because it is permanent, knowing that if they were promoted to be consuls they could immediately be removed without cause, to make room for others. The number of consular clerks has never been increased above the original thirteen, and the necessary clerical assistance at most consulates is given by temporary hired clerks, who are in the ser- vice of the consulate but have no official position. The money to pay them is voted by Congress, but the points at which it is to be used are not left to the dis- cretion of the Secretary of State, as should properly be the case, but are fixed in the law. In this way clerk-hire has been provided for places where it was quite unnecessary, because the consuls at these posts could bring political influence to bear in Congress, and other more important places have been left with- out allowances. The consular service has grown greatly since 1856, ♦ because with the heavier customs duties imposed at OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 85 the beginning of our war, and the general increase of the commerce of our country, it has been necessary for the protection of the revenue to establish consulates in many inland manufacturing towns, rarely visited by Americans, where otherwise there would be no need of consular officers. This increase in number has been greater among feed than among salaried con- sulates, 2>., among those which are maintained by the fees received, and for which no appropriations have to be asked from Congress. The salaries are in the main still fixed on the basis of the law of 1856, modified by that of 1874, which divided them into seven grades or classes. It may be safely said that in most of the large, and especially the commercial towns of Europe, the cost of living has doubled, if not trebled, within the last thirty years. A very careful investigation on this subject was made by the British consuls, by order of their government, in 1873. Notwithstanding this ad- vance of prices, the scale of salaries of American con- suls has scarcely been changed in these thirty years, when men are still sent to Florence and Naples, ex- pected to be competent to perform all the duties of the office, hold a respectable position in society, and pay proper attention to the numerous Americans visit- ing those places, on the sum of $1,500 a year, scarcely more than is paid to the subordinate employees of Congress. 86 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. We have, therefore, 20 consuls-general, with salaries varying from $2,CXX) up to $6,000, besides 14 diplo- matic ofificials who have the functions of consuls-gen- eral ; 146 salaried consuls, who are not allowed to engage in business, divided into six grades, according to the salary, from $1,500 to $4,000, with two excep- tional cases at Liverpool and Hongkong, where the salary is $6,000 and $5,000 respectively; 22 consuls, with a salary of $1,000 only, who are allowed to en- gage in business ; and 74 feed consuls, who are not prohibited from engaging in trade, and whose remu- neration varies, but cannot exceed $2,500 per annum. As there is but one consul of Class I. at $4,000, and as all the consuls of Class II. at $3,500 are in China, except one at Callao, it may be presumed that $2,500 is considered by Congress high salary. The experi- ence of every one who has ever been in the consular service, or who has lived abroad in a private ca- pacity, shows that in most cases this is utterly insuf- ficient. We have also 40 commercial agents, of whom 37 are paid by fees ; 378 consular agents, also paid by fees to the amount of $1,000; and 13 consular clerks, a total of 707, without counting vice-consuls and dep- uty consuls, who act only in the absence or incapacity of their chief. It is impossible, however, to judge of the receipts of a consul solely by his salary, or even by adding to that the sum of $1,000, which he is allowed to retain OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 8/ from the receipts of the consular agencies under his control. He receives fees. These fees are of two kinds, official and non-official. The official fees, for all acts which he is required to do in his capacity as consul for governmental purposes, have to be strictly accounted for and paid back to the Government. The unofficial or notarial fees which he may receive for drawing papers or for witnessing signatures, as he may do from the notarial powers granted to his office, are retained by him. So also he retains his fees for taking testimony under a special rogatory commission of some American court. The amount of such fees is variable and can scarcely be estimated. In three or four places, where there are many resident Americans, or many persons who have property interests in America, which require the preparation and signature of legal papers, they are much greater than in smaller places. In London, Liverpool, Paris, Dresden, and Florence, for example, these fees add greatly to the consul's income as well as to his duties. In Rome they amounted in one year to about one thousand dollars, and in the next to not one hundred dollars. In very many consulates they would not average ten dollars a year. There being no fixed tariff for these notarial fees, they are irregular, and it is said that £ome consuls have charged as much as $5 for the ac- knowledgment of a signature, the fee for which in most of our States is only twenty-five cents. It would 88 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. be better for every one, and certainly better for the good repute of our service, if notarial duties were made, not permissive as at present, but obligatory upon consuls, and the fees were made ofilicial and all paid into the Treasury. Such a regulation should not, however, affect the remuneration for personal services rendered in drawing papers, wills, etc., and for taking testimony, which should, as now, remain to the con- sul personally. In many cases the consul is the only person who could render such services. Most of the illegitimate, semi-legitimate, or irregular fees, by which consuls have sometimes added to their income, have been in one way or another abolished. The habit had grown up to regard as official fees only those which were set down in the official table sent from the State Department. For all new duties, whether imposed by the regulations of our own cus- toms service, by the laws of individual states, or by the usages of a foreign country, the fees were fixed by the consul and were collected by him for his indi- vidual profit, because he was performing work entirely outside of his regular duties. Such were, for instance, immigrant certificates, certificates of the American origin of petroleum barrels, or grain-bags, cooperage certificates, etc. But most of these have either been abolished or made purely official, and the abolition of fees in connection with ships' papers has removed the temptation to collect illicit fees for expediting them. OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 89 Almost the only remnant of irregular fees seems to be a practice, prevalent in some consulates in England, with regard to the commissioner's fee for adminis- tering the oath to invoices, which is thought to be in some measure authorized by the words of the Con- sular Regulations, par. 467. It is customary in Great Britain to require the shipper to swear to the correct- ness of his invoices before a commissioner authorized to administer oaths, the consul himself having no such power. As the consul must be acquainted with the commissioner, in order to recognize his signature, and certify to his qualification, the necessities of business, and the convenience of merchants at large consulates, have compelled consuls to have a commissioner in at- tendance at the consulate during certain hours. As the legal fees of the commissioner are rather large, being generally three shillings and sixpence for each triplicate, or ten shillings and sixpence for each in- voice, some consuls have, where it has been practica- ble, employed these commissioners on a fixed salary, and have thus been able to reduce the fees paid by the merchants by over one-half. If business should fall off below the estimate, the consul is personally bound to pay to the commissioner the difference between the fees taken in and the salary, and in the contrary case the consul himself pockets the difference. This prac- tice is certainly an advantage and an economy for the merchants, but it is also at times a source of large 90 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. gain to the consuls. It has been several times pro- posed to put an end to this practice, either by abolish- ing the oath, which is not generally required in other countries (in fact, such oaths are forbidden in Germany by the German authorities, and are practically impos- sible in many other countries on account of the for- mality and expense), or by making the commissioner's fees official ones, to be returned to the Treasury, in which case the responsibility for the commissioner's salary should fall upon the Government. This last course was practically that proposed by the State De- partment in the draft of a bill submitted to Congress in 1884,* but in that case salaries should be increased, as it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find com- petent men to do the work on the derisory salaries now granted. The question of the necessity of the oath, and in- deed of the advantage even of consular certificates to invoices, is one which belongs not so much to the State Department as to the Treasury and the collec- tion of the customs revenue. The fact that there are fewer undervaluations in British goods is ascribed by some to the peculiar British regard for the sanctity of an oath ; by others to the innate truthfulness of the Anglo-Saxon character. Where goods are sold on consignment, especially goods manufactured expressly for America, and for which there is no market else- * H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 121, 48th Congress, ist Session. OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 9I where, invoices are often only a matter of form, and are frequently false. The consuls at Lyons, Zurich, and Horgen were therefore, in the autumn of 1884, authorized to employ experts to examine and report the cost of labor and materials used in producing the goods shipped from their districts. This system has proved very successful, and has already saved to the revenue millions of dollars. It would, however, be difficult, if not impossible, to apply this system every- where.* The various extra-official fees not only bring our consulates into disrepute abroad, as has already been remarked, but they have had at home a deleterious and debauching influence upon public opinion, in in- ducing the belief that our consulates are in general lucrative positions, in which a man may get rich without work. The number of applicants for these offices has therefore greatly increased. When it is known that consuls receive absolutely nothing more than their petty salaries, it is to be hoped that the pressure for office will be so diminished as to allow the reorganization of the consular service on a perma- nent basis. The allowances to consuls are very moderate. They are given for office-rent an amount never more than \ * For some interesting details on all these points, see the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Collection of Duties, of December 7, it'85. 92 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. twenty per cent, of their salary ; clerk-hire in certain cases in very sparing sums, generally fixed in the Ap- propriations Act for each consulate, and not, as it should be, at the discretion of the Department ; and purely official expenses, in moderate amounts, for postage, stationery, blanks, and printing. " It is expected of consular officers that their offices should be suitably and respectably furnished. For this purpose they are allowed for furniture " a book-case, and other cases capable of containing the archives, a suitable desk and table, and the necessary chairs," if the sanction in each case of the Department has been previously obtained. But the keeping up of the Government office is entirely at the personal charge of the consul, for " carpets, matting, curtains, gas-fixtures, and like articles of fur- niture, as well as fire, light, and servants, will not be provided by the Government, and will not be allowed in the consular accounts." "^ As matters now stand, with the small salaries paid, the consular system was, up to last year, entirely self- supporting ; that is to say, the official fees received by the consuls far more than paid all the outlay. In the fiscal year 1883, for example, the total expense of the consular service was $870,290.60, and the total re- ceipts were $926,054.95, leaving a surplus in the Treasury of $55,744.35. In 1884 the surplus was $36,587.24. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, * Consular Regulations, par. 517. OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 93 the total expenses were $870,183.10, and the receipts $791,345.43. This deficit of $78,837.67 is to be ex- plained partly by a falling off of fees for invoices, some of which are still unaccounted for, but chiefly by the abolition (law of June 26, 1884) of the fees for ser- vices to American vessels, which in 1884 amounted to $91,031.86. Now, there is no reason in the world why offices so important as consulates should be expected to pay for the expense of the system, like the Post-Oflfice De- partment. It would in the end be more advanta- geous to the Government if even this amount were spent on the consuls, irrespective of fees received. Of course, if the revenue system should be materially changed, many consulates would become useless, and the returns for fees received (and they chiefly are for the verification of invoices) would be materially di- minished. The expenses of the British consular service for the financial year of 1883-84 were ^^254, 124, or $1,- 235,334, or only about three hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars more than our own. But for this sum, owing to better salaries, more permanent tenure of ofifice, the insistence on qualifications for ofHce, pro- motion for good service, and the hope of a pension, Great Britain obtained a remarkably efficient service, including 42 consuls-general, 145 consuls, 458 vice- consuls, and 56 consular agents, besides deputies. 94 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. clerks, and chaplains. Few posts are without salary, chiefly such places as Berlin, Frankfort, Leipzig, Gen- eva, and Rome, where English consuls have very little to do, and where the offices are honorary ones, which have existed for many years. The salaries of consuls- general vary from $5,000 to $12,500, as at New York ; and the salaries of consuls are sometimes as high as $7,500, as at Astrabad, and $6,000, as at Boston. The French consular system has been an excellent one ever since it was reorganized in 1836 ; and it has improved since the reforms of M. Freycinet in 1880. France, in 1884, had in active service 28 consuls-gen- eral ; 46 consuls of the first class, 48 consuls of the second class ; 1 2 assistant consuls \consuls suppliants, a title substituted for the old clcve consul^ or consular pupil) ; 10 candidates for the rank of assistant con- suls; 103 vice-consuls; 24 chancellors of the first class, 36 of the second class, 62 of the third class; 53 drago- mans and interpreters, and 113 clerks, making in all 535 persons. The salaries of the consuls-general vary from $4,000, as at Antwerp, to $10,000, as at Cairo and Calcutta, and $12,000, as at New York and Shang- hai. The highest salaries of consuls are $9,000 at Batavia, and $8,000 at San Francisco, while the low- est vary from $2,400 to $3,000. The highest vice- consular salaries are at Hang-kow $3,000, and Gal- veston $2,800 ; the lowest are $600 and $700. The assistant consuls are each paid $600 ; the interpreters OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 95 from $i,ooo to $4,000; the chancellors from $1,000 to $2,400, and the clerks from $300 to $1,100, making the total expended for the one hundred and thirteen clerks $66,640. The total cost of consular salaries, including clerks, etc., in 1884, was about $943,000. The other expenses were about $340,000 more. A consul is appointed, as we have seen, without preliminary examination, on the nomination of the President, and is confirmed by the Senate. It is im- possible, therefore, to change him from one post to another, even though his special abilities or a sudden emergency might make this desirable, without a new appointment and a new confirmation. If the consular system should ever be made a permanent one, it would be very desirable that, even if Congress should fix the salaries to be paid at certain posts, consuls should be appointed only to the grade, leaving the posts to which they might be sent at the discretion of the Department. The consul, after his appointment, is generally al- lowed thirty days, during which, by law, he may re- ceive salary, for the purpose of receiving his instruc- tions and making himself in some slight way familiar with his duties by personal instruction at the State Department. This, however, is, in practice, a mere formality. He is then allowed a certain number of days, fixed by regulation for different places, for arriv- ing at his post. After arriving there he cannot, how- 96 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, * ever, enter upon his dutiest^until he has received what is called an exequatur^ or recognition from the govern- ment in whose countr)^ he is to reside. This exe- quatur is sometimes a document given to him signed by the chief of the government ; in others simply a publication in the official journal of the country that he has permission to perform his functions.^ In some countries, like Turkey, the consul is obliged to pay a ^y very heavy fee for this document, there called a berat. [ The object of the exequatur is very simple ; for it is a rule of international law that a public officer of one state cannot perform his duties in the territory of another state unless he be acceptable to its govern- ment. This enables a foreign government to inquire into the antecedents of a consul, and to decide whether his presence be accompanied by no disadvan- tage. Refusals to grant the exequatur are not un- common. ' An English consul was refused by Russia, in the Caucasus, because it was alleged that he was hostile to the Russian government, and had expressed strong opinions about Russian movements in Asia. In our own history, without going further back, a consul recently appointed to Beirut was rejected by Turkey, because he was a clergyman and might be too much connected with the missionaries ; another was rejected by Austria on account of his political opinions, he having previously been an Austrian sub- ject.'^ Exequaturs of consuls are sometimes withdrawn, OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 97 though an opportunity is usually afforded to the gov- ernment of the offending consul to withdraw them before this measure is adopted. After the consul has received his permission to act, whether permanent in the shape of an exequatur, or temporary until his ^;ir^^/^^/z^r shouki be demanded, his first duty is to take possession of the archives and property of the consulate, until then kept by his pre- decessor or his representative, and sign jointly with him an inventory thereof. One copy of this is kept in the consular office and another is sent to the home Government. He then proceeds to notify the other American consuls in the country, and those immedi- ately neighboring, of his entrance on duty, because occasionally there are questions and disputes causing correspondence. He also makes official calls, for the same purpose of notification, as well as from courtesy, on the chief authorities of the town as well as the province, if those be resident there, such as the gov- ernor, the prefect, the mayor, the commandant of the troops, the director of the police, the captain of the port, the postmaster, the head of the chamber of com- merce, and indeed upon all more or less official per- sons with whom he may be brought into contact, or from whom he may find it necessary to ask favors. He also makes personal official calls on all the other foreign consuls resident in the place. This is not only a matter of courtesy, but of advantage ; for he 98 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. may be at any time brought into relations with them through a dispute between an American citizen and the subject of some foreign country. On the whole our consuls, in spite of the low sala- ries which sometimes compel them to live in a man- ner unbecoming* their position, and disagreeable to themselves, have performed their duties remarkably well. Even the worst of consuls, finding themselves with an official responsibility put upon them, and with the duty of representing their country, have behaved with far more credit to us than could have been ex- pected before their appointment. Unfortunately our Government has too frequently sent uneducated, un- polished, and utterly inexperienced men to take the positions of consuls in places of great responsibility, where experience, ability, and tact are prime requi- sites. Sometimes they are broken down in health, really unfit to work, and have been sent to a foreign climate in order to recuperate. Sometimes they have been unfortunate in business ; and with the ignorance too widely prevalent of the cost of living abroad, they have been sent to gain a livelihood or to revive their fortunes. This class of appointments is especially un- fortunate and discreditable to us, because such per- sons, anxious to make money, are sometimes too un- scrupulous as to the methods they take. They not only contravene the laws and regulations, and involve themselves in debt, but do acts which no person, and OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. 99 especially an official, should be guilty of. Indeed, there can be nothing worse, unless, possibly, men who have sometimes been sent to important places in order to reform them. Can it be expected that a man, who has been a drunkard at home, will, when he finds himself alone in a foreign country, ignorant of the language, unacquainted with society, and without re- sources within himself, should suddenly improve ? On the contrary, he generally grows worse ; and such men have at times brought our consular service into great disrepute. While saying that our consuls have generally done well, we must admit that they do not do as well as they would if they were properly paid, and if the ser- vice were permanent. They have naturally to keep within their income, and generally their official in- come is all they have to rely upon. They try to in- crease it by all lawful means, and are therefore obliged to live in a mean way, which is not only unbecoming the representative of a great country, but which also prevents them from reciprocating the courtesies ten- dered to them by their colleagues and the citizens of the place ; and thus hinders them from making those acquaintances which are absolutely necessary to the fulfilment of their duties or the proper understanding of their business. At the same time one must always take the accounts of travellers about our consuls with a few grains of allowance ; for they are very apt to 100 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, give importance to seeming breaches of politeness and hospitality without taking into consideration the pe- culiar circumstances in which the consuls are situ- ated. Still, much stress should be laid on the neces- sity imposed on consuls to enter into pleasant, and even intimate, relations with the authorities and chief merchants of their place of residence. In this way they cannot only more easily become informed on commercial matters, but can better perform one of their chief duties, the protection of American citizens. Many a vexation to travellers could have been re- moved, if the consul, in the first instance, without intervening officials, had been in a position to repre- sent the case properly in a personal and friendly way to the authorities. The need of a reform and reorganization of our consular system has long been evident. Our Secre- taries of State have frequently expressed their opin- ions on this subject, and Mr. Frelinghuysen, in 1884, presented to Congress the draught of a bill, with rec- ommendations about salaries. Although this was in answer to a wish of Congress expressed in the Appro-, priations Act of 1883, no attention was paid to it. President Cleveland has as^ain recommended this subject to Congress in his message of December 8, 1885. Such a reform should have in view the requirement of higher qualifications for office, more permanent OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. lOI tenure, the promotion of efficient and experienced officers, higher salaries, the abolition of extra-official fees, and a better system of consular inspection. As consuls are in no sense political officers, there is no reason in the nature of things why the principles of Civil Service Reform should not beappficd to fiiei consular system. But in order to accomplish this, vacancies in the higher posts should be filled generally by promotion ; appointments of new men should be made only to the lower grades ; and the number of consular clerks should be greatly increased, so as to form a nucleus of young men acquainted with consu- lar duties, from which promotions could be made. The experience of other countries shows us that two of the strongest incentives to good official work are a tenure of office permanent during good behavior, and the hope of promotion and reward. If these be as- sured him, a consul will do efficient service for years with a scanty salary, and in an uncomfortable and even unhealthy post. There is one objection to long tenure, which it seems almost absurd to mention, — that a consul would become denationalized and un-Americanized by a long residence abroad. Englishmen always re- main Englishm.en wherever they may be; but as Americans have a more receptive and more assimila- tive nature, it is possible that, if living abroad as pri- vate persons, either for the necessities of their business I02 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. or for their own ease and comfort, Americans might, in length of time, come ahnost to identify themselves in feeling with the people among whom they dwell. , But this x:ould scarcely be the case with American of- ficials, whose sole duty is to care for American interests ancj -tp^prot^t Anierican rights, who read American newspapers, who are in constant relations with Amer- ica and Americans, and whose daily work is with in- terests counter to those of the people of the country where he lives. On the contrary, with every year of his stay in the service he becomes more patriotic and more truly American. What has been sometimes mistaken for a want of American feeling is the neces- sary conformity to the social usages of the country, the adoption of new modes of life, which with ad- vancing years becomes a second nature ; and the right feeling of every sensible man which induces him to look at the good rather than the bad points of a peo- ple among whom he has long lived. But all coun- tries differ, and it is to be hoped that no reform of the service would compel a consul to live always at the same post or in the same country. There seems to be current an exaggerated notion of what consuls can do for trade. In reality they can do little more than furnish information, or be in a condition to procure it, give advice, and see that the merchant in foreign lands stands in no worse position than those of other countries. English commerce OUR CONSULAR SYSTEM. IO3 was not built up by the consuls. The shipping agent, who wished a return cargo, has been a much more important factor. The English consular service, how- ever, keeps pace with commerce. Owing to the rapid development of manufactures on the European continent, and the consequent commercial rivalry with England, it was thought best to have someone abroad who could take in the whole subject, and the English consul at Diisseldorf was, a few years ago, sent to join the English Embassy at Berlin, as com- mercial attache for Germany. Subsequently his func- tions were extended over the whole of Europe, and he was transferred, in the same capacity, to Paris. The best results, as concerns the increase of foreign trade, have, probably, been obtained by the consular service of Belgium. Owing to the efforts of M. Lion d'Audrimont in 1879 and 1880, there was a reform and an increase of this service. Voyages of commer- cial exploration were undertaken in Spain, Italy, and Southeastern Europe. One consequence was the formation of a museum of samples of the products of each country, and of the styles and kinds of goods preferred and most readily purchased in foreign coun- tries, in order to familiarize manufactures with what was desired. Belgian ministers were instructed to conclude conventions for the mutual execution of judgments of tribunals, for the collection of debts, for the recognition of stock companies, and for the extra- 104 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. dition of criminals. The result has been that Belgian enterprise has greatly prospered, and that Belgian goods and Belgian companies are rapidly taking the lead in Southeastern Europe. American manufac- turers and merchants are generally careless about foreign trade, except when the home market is small, and, even when they have made successful beginnings in foreign trade, they are apt to neglect them if the home market revives. (We may trace here, perhaps, the influence of protection or particularism.) They are also apt to insist on their own modes of credit and of doing business, without regard to the usages of other countries ; and, paying no regard to the pre- judice of other people as to shapes, sizes, weight, width and style, they insist that whatever suits America, is intrinsically right and best, and should be accepted in other countries. Do what he may to make an opening for American manufactures abroad, a consul cannot overcome in this respect the inertia and obstinacy of American manufacturers. ^ * It should be remarked, before leaving this subject, that almost the first book (one by a Russian was published almost simultaneously) on the consular system, was by an American. D. B. Warden, our consul general for France, published at Paris in 1813, entitled *' On the Origin, Nature, Progress and Influence of Consular Establishments." III. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. Diplomacy, its Significance and Intention. — Rank of Repre- sentatives. — Rules of Vienna. — Ambassadors and Minis- ters.— Reasons for Sending Ambassadors. — Etiquette at Foreign Offices. — Detrimental Custom at Constantinople. — Ministers Plenipotentiary and Ministers Resident. — Ob- jections to our Practice. — A Single Class of Ministers Preferable. — Suggested Change in the Rules of Vienna. — Commissioners. — Diplomatic Agents. — Secretaries and Attaches. — Qualifications for Diplomatists. — French the Language of Diplomacy. — Naturalized Citizens. — Negroes. — Clerical Diplomatists. — Appointments. — Letters of Cre- dence. — Request for Acceptance. — Etiquette of Recep- tion. — The Question of Diplomatic Uniform. — Social Duties. — Their Advantages. — Hospitality to Americans. — Lord Palmerston's Views. — Mr. Monroe. — Mr. Schroeder. — Effect of the Social Isolation of a Minister. — Duties at a Legation. — Despatches. — Complaints. — Naturalized Citi- zens. — Commercial Questions. — Requests for Presenta- tion at Court. — Necessity of Resident Ministers. — Lord Palmerston's Opinion, — Union of Diplomatic and Consu- lar Functions. — Relative Importance of Missions. — Sala- ries. — Allowances. — Outfits. While consuls, as we have seen, are charged pri- marily with the commercial interests of their country and with the protection of individual rights, the maintenance of friendly relations between states and I06 AMERICAN- DIPLOMACY. the settlement of disputes which may arise between them are entrusted to agents of another, of a higher class and with different functions, under the gen- eral name of diplomatic agents or, more briefly, diplomats.* The word diplomacy itself occurs in its modern sense only toward the end of the eighteenth century. In French it is said to be first used by Count Ver- gennes, and in English, I believe, was employed for the first time by Burke, although not exactly in its present sense. The word has had a long history to reach its present meaning. The science of diplo- matics, the study of ancient charters, documents, and diplomas, is a very different thing from the science of diplomacy. According to Calvo, who is now generally accepted as the best modern writer of international law,t " Diplomacy is the science of the relations existing between different states, such as result from their reciprocal interests, the principles of international law and the stipulations of trea- ties or conventions. The knowledge of the rules and of the usages resulting from them is indispensable to conduct public affairs properly and to carry on political negotiations. There- fore, we may say, in more concise terms, that diplomacy is the science of relations, or simply the art of negotiations. . . . The essential nature of diplomacy is to assure the * This convenient word, which is borrowed from the French diplomate^ is now commonly used for every diplomatic official. t Calvo (Carlos), like Wheaton, is an American, though from the Ar- gentine Republic. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS, lO/ well-being of peoples, to maintain between them peace and good harmony, while guaranteeing the safety, the tranquiUity, and the dignity of each of them. The part played by diplo- matic agents consists principally in conducting negotiations relative to these important objects, in watching over the exe- cution of the treaties which follow from them, in preventing anything which might injure the interests of their fellow- citizens in the countries where they reside, and in protecting those of them who may be obliged to ask for their assistance."* Every nation, as the result of its independence, has the theoretical right of being represented by agents of whatever rank it may choose, and of receiving or not the agents of other countries. According to princi- ples now universally accepted, every nation is in this way equal with every other ; but formerly so many disputes arose from personal considerations, from the rank of the agents, and from the real or assumed im- portance of the countries which sent them, that the Congress at Vienna, in 1815, which regulated for the time being the affairs of Europe, felt it necessary to lay down certain rules, which have since then been followed by all civilized countries, and which the United States have formally accepted.t According *Le Droit International, third edition, i., 455, 457. t It would take too long to tell here of the constant and ridiculous disputes for precedence at the Congresses of Nyme- gen, Ryswyk, and Utrecht. The footmen's quarrel at Utrecht forms the subject of an amusing article in the Spectator. Many interesting details on this and similar subjects may be found in Four Lectures on Subjects connected with Diplo- macy, by the late Montague Bernard ; in a very entertaining I08 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. to these rules diplomatic agents were divided into three classes : First, Ambassadors, Legates, or Nuncios, these latter two being sent by the Pope only ; second, Envoys, Ministers Plenipotentiary, or other persons accredited to a sovereign or a sovereign state ; third, Charges d 'Affaires, who are accredited only to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Congress at Aix-la- Chapelle, in 1 8 1 8, completed this classification by allow- ing another class called Ministers Resident, who were to take rank between envoys and charges d'affaires.* though light book, Embassies and Foreign Courts, by " The Roving Englishman," the late E. C. Grenville Murray ; and in International Vanities, by E. Marshall. * The rules on this subject which have been prescribed by the Department, are the same as those contained in the seven rules of the Congress of Vienna found in the protocol of the session of March 9, 181 5, and in the supplementary or eighth rule of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle of November 21, 1818. They are as follows : Article I. Diplomatic agents are divided into three classes : That of ambassadors, legates, or nuncios ; that of envoys, ministers, or other persons accredited to sovereigns ; that of charges d'affaires accredited to ministers for foreign affairs. Art. II. Ambassadors, legates, or nuncios only have the representative character. Art. III. Diplomatic agents on an extraordinary mission have not, on that account, any superiority of rank. Art. IV. Diplomatic agents shall take precedence in their respective classes according to the date of the official notifica- tion of their arrival. The present regulation shall not cause any innovation with regard to the representative of the Pope. Art. V. A uniform mode shall be determined in each state for the reception of diplomatic agents of each class. Art. VI. Relations of consanguinity or of family alliance DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 109 According to the old system, ambassadors were supposed to represent not only the country but the person of the sovereign, and were, therefore, given various higher ceremonial honors than those accorded to other diplomatic agents. They had also the right to address themselves personally to the sovereign or chief magistrate of the country to which they were sent, for matters of business, instead of going through the usual routine of negotiating with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In actual practice ambassadors now- adays have no rights of representation superior to ministers, and differ from them only in rank and precedence. The sovereign of a country is now gen- erally so merged in the government of the country, that it is practically impossible for an ambassador to conduct any business except through the interven- betvveen courts, confer no precedence on their diplomatic agents. The same rule also applies to political alliances. Art. VII. In acts or treaties between several powers which grant alternate precedence, the order which is to be observed in the signatures shall be decided by lot between the min- isters. Art. VIII. . . . It is agreed that ministers resident accredited to them shall form, with respect to their prece- dence, an intermediate class between ministers of the second class and charges d'affaires. These rules have been formally or tacitly accepted by all Governments except the Ottoman Porte, which divides diplo- matic representatives into three classes only — ambassadors, ministers, and charges d'affaires. — Register of the Department of State, 1884, p. 14. no A ME RICA N DIPL OMA C V. tion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The personal interests of the sovereign are looked after by some private agent, or by some one specially sent on occa- sions of grand ceremony. The whole theory of the particular rights of ambassadors seems to turn in a vicious circle. Ambassadors are accorded higher privi- leges, because they are supposed to represent person- ally the sovereign, and they represent the sovereign personally only because they have higher privileges. It is, however, in great part owing to this theory that the United States have never sent ambassadors, al- though expressly allowed to do so by the terms of the Constitution* There has been a feeling that as there is no sovereign to represent, it would be improper to send ambassadors. This, however, has not been the case with other republics. In olden times Venice, as well as the States-General of Holland, sent am- bassadors, although they had no sovereign to represent ; and in our own days the French republic continues to send ambassadors, as has been the practice of that country under all its various forms of government. The French even send an ambassador to Switzerland, the only one accredited to that republic. Calvo, in speaking of this, says : *' The difference between agents of the second class — that is, ministers and envoys — and those of the first— =-that • is, ambas- sadors—is rather hard to state. Several publicists have main- tained that the latter have a formal right of treating directly DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. Ill with the sovereigns, of which the others are deprived. But this is a distinction without meaning, especially since the or- ganization of modern nations no longer rests exclusively upon the monarchical principle, and therefore renders it impossi- ble for sovereigns personally to conduct international negotia- tions. The only rational distinction that can be established between the first two classes of diplomatic agents ought to have for a basis some essential difference in their attributes. Hence the subtleties imagined by certain authors, who at- tribute to agents of the first class a permanent and general representation of the person of their sovereign, while those of the second class have this character only in a transitory way and for a special object, clash with the reality of things. In our eyes the agents of the first two classes are exactly on the same line from the point of view of their character as of their duties and powers, and are distinguished from each other only hierarchically by the difference of the title by which they are designated.* " Professor Martens says : '' Considered from the point of view of international law, all diplomatic agents, without regard to their class, are equal. This equality is shown by their all possessing, in like degree, all diplomatic rights. . . . Many writers have tried to in- fer from the rules of Vienna that ambassadors, as representing the person of their sovereign, have, in distinction from other diplomatic agents, the formal right of treating with the sov- ereign to whom they are sent, and of being received in au- dience by him at any time. We cannot admit this inference. As Prince Bismarck opportunely remarked, no ambassador has a right to demand a personal interview with the sovereign. The constitutional government of west-European monarchies compels ambassadors to treat with the Minister of Foreign * Droit International, i. , p. 474. 112 A M ERIC A N DIFL OMA C V. Affairs. Finally, it is untrue that ambassadors always repre- sent the personality of the monarch ; France, for example, appoints ambassadors, though its form of government is re- publican. . . According to the text of Art. II. of the Vienna rules envoys are deprived of the representative character. In point of fact they could not perform their duties, if they did not represent their state. They really differ from ambassadors only in the title and in their lower salaries." * Baron de Neumann says : " The four classes have the diplomatic character, for they all represent the sovereign, and mere charges d'affaires often have to treat about interests as important, if not more so, than ambassadors themselves. "f • Our system in this respect is a bad one, and contrary to our interests. We have no ambassadors, we have comparatively few envoys extraordinary and minis- ters plenipotentiary, but seem to prefer ministers res- ident, and even in the case of Paraguay and Uruguay retain the lowest rank, with its un-English name of charge d'affaires. Our interests certainly demand that in every country we should be represented by * Vdlkerrecht. Das Internationale Recht der civilisirter na- tionen, von Friedrich von Martens. Berlin, 1886. Vol. ii. pp. 32-34. As Martens, besides being Professor in the Uni- versity of St. Petersburg, and member of the Institut du droit international, is a councillor of the Russian Foreign Office, his views may be taken to represent the opinions of the Russian government. f Elements die droit desgens moderne Europeen par Le Baron Leopold de Neumann, p. 240. Paris, 1886. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. I13 agents of the highest title known or accepted there. The ministers of the United States should be able to take rank on equal terms with those of all other countries. This is not simply a question of rank and precedence, it has practical sides. At very many Foreign Offices the rule " first come, first served " is not observed ; but an envoy or a minister, though he may have been waiting hours in the ante-chamber for an important affair, must give place to an ambassador who has come in at the moment ; and at Constanti- nople it is even expected that, should a minister be in conversation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Grand Vizier, he should withdraw and wait whenever an ambassador may be announced. In some countries a different rule is observed. In Russia it has been for many years the custom for the minister to receive the foreign representatives in the order in which they arrive at his office, without regard to their rank. This rule was brought into force at Berlin, owing to a personal dispute between Mr. Bancroft, our minister, and the British ambassador. Mr. Ban- croft, after having waited a long time for an audience, was on one occasion obliged to yield to the British ambassador, who had that moment arrived. As the ambassador was personally disagreeable to the Chan- cellor, and Mr. Bancroft was a friend of his, a repre- sentation of the injustice done to the United States and its representative brought about a change of rule. 1 1 4 AMERICAN DIPL OMA C F. Nor are mere questions of rank and precedence to be entirely disregarded. The United States has every right to hold one of the first ranks among nations ; but according to the present system, by which the ambassador longest in service becomes the doyen of the diplomatic body, and therefore its president and spokesman on extraordinary occasions, which may make necessary a consultation or even a protest of that body in order to protect the rights of all for- eigners, the representative of the United States must always hold a subordinate position. If his opinions have weight, it is more through his personal influence, or the respect paid to his tact, discretion, and learning, than from the importance of the country he repre- sents. In many, perhaps in most cases of a diplomatic reunion, this is of slight consequence. But there are other cases where the minister of the United States, if he had more official authority, could manage to have matters arranged which ultimately affect our in- terests. At Constantinople, for instance, where there is an effort to undermine the treaty rights of all for- eigners, the ambassadors have of late taken up the habit of meeting one another in an unofficial way and in laying down rules, and in taking action on extra- territorial questions, which are then proposed to the rest of the diplomatic body ; i.e., in general the repre- tatives of the smaller states are asked for their ap- proval or rejection, but are given no chance to suggest DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. II5 or argue. • Our government found it necessary, three or four years ago, to protest against this course, for it was beginning to be tacitly understood that only the ambassadors of what were called the Signatory Powers — that is, of those which had signed the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 — should have any voice in matters which affected the interests of all foreigners in Tur- key. Our protest had the theoretical result of bring- ing about occasional conferences of all foreign repre- sentatives; but the practice has remained much as before. There is, I am aware, another objection, more theo- retical than real, to the appointment of ambassadors, that as they are expected to represent the country socially in a far finer and grander style than minis- ters, very much larger salaries would be required. This objection, however, is more apparent than real ; for while a certain amount of expense is necessary, it is just as necessary to a minister as to an ambassador who wishes to represent properly his country or carry on his business. Our ministers should in any case receive pay sufficient to enable them to live in the style becoming their rank, and not be obliged always to study how to make two ends meet, in countries where expenses are great and where a foreign representative is compelled to pay higher prices than those usually paid by the natives of the country. But of this later. Between the two classes of Envoy Extraordinary Il6 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. and Minister Plenipotentiary and of Minister Resident there is absolutely no difference of duties, functions, J' or privileges, scarcely even of ceremonial. The'^^sole difference is one of rank and precedence. The social duties are exactly the same, and the increase in rank of the representatives in jio way implies an increase of salary or expenditure. The question of mere rank is, however, not without importance. At the capitals of the smaller states of Europe, all the great powers, and nearly all the small ones, keep ministers pleni- potentiary ; the United States maintain merely minis- ters resident, who take rank after most of their col- leagues, and at times after the representatives of petty principalities. Not only is the position of our min- ister a false one, but he is not as well regarded by the court to which he is sent, which resents the implica- tion that it is regarded as of too slight consequence to be treated as it prefers, and as it claims to be treated, even where the politeness would not add a cent to our budget. To the countries of South and Central America, unless perhaps Brazil, ambassadors have never been sent ; it is therefore easy for us, the preponderating power in this hemisphere, to be so rep- resented as to have a predominating influence. Un- fortunately we do not always do this, but we keep ministers resident and charges d'affaires in capitals where other states have envoys. The case is much the same in Asia. We were the first to open com- DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 11/ mercial relations with Corea, and after a treaty had been made by Admiral Shufeldt, we sent an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. As the first representative and of the highest rank, he took the lead of his colleagues, who arrived subsequently, in arranging the terms of diplomatic and consular intercourse. His counsels were respected and his ad- vice followed both by his colleagues and by the Co- rean government, inexperienced in dealing with for- eigners. A year or two afterward, through some freak of the subcommittee on appropriations, his rank was reduced to minister resident. From the head of the diplomatic body he went to the foot, and the Corean government, supposing naturally that his official con- duct had been disapproved, treated him accordingly. American influence in Corea was temporarily extin- guished. There is one simple solution for all such difficulties, to give the same title to all our chief representatives, — i.e., if we still refuse to appoint ambassadors, to abolish ministers resident and charges d'affaires, and have none but envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary. Questions of rank ought not to be complicated by questions of pay, which should be fixed according to the expenses incidental and neces- sary to the different posts, and it would be wise to appoint a man simply to the rank or office without specifying the particular place at which he is to re- i' 1 1 8 . A M ERIC A N DIPL OMA C V. side.* This would be assimilating his appointment to that of an army or a naval officer, and would allow the Department to assign him to any post where he might at the time do the best service, without the necessity of a new confirmation. It would then re- quire only a tenure of office during good behavior, and the possession of the necessary qualifications as a preliminary to appointment, to make our diplomatic system comply with all the requisites of the best civil service. It would seem that the time had come when the rules of Vienna might properly and profitably be re- vised. Useful as they have been in some ways, they were imposed on the world by the great powers of Europe seventy years ago, when the state of things was very different from now.f The United States was then a small and insignificant power ; there was no other independent state on this continent ; no diplomatic relations had been begun with the coun- tries of Asia. For such a revision it is, however, nec- essary to have the general consent of nations. We could not carry it through alone, but we might take the lead in proposing it. The change should be a very simple one : that there should be but one class * A recommendation to this effect was contained in Presi- dent Arthur's annual message of December, 1884, f Even at the Congress of Vienna, Lord Castlereagh objected to the classification on general principles. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. II9 of diplomatic agents instead of four classes, or, in other words, that all chief diplomatic representatives, or heads of missions, should be equal among themselves, both officially and ceremonially, no matter by what title their governments should choose to call them. This would make an actual instead of a fictitious equality between sovereign states, would simplify cere- monial, and would at the same time allow each state to use for domestic purposes such a hierarchy as seemed good to it. Such a proposal, if properly and cautiously presented, would probably be sure of the support of all the world, except some of the great powers of Europe ; but even they would not be slow to see its advantages. Among subordinate diplomatic representatives are commissioners and diplomatic agents, strictly so styled. Commissioners or commissaries are frequently sent for the settlement of special questions, as, for instance, indemnities to be paid after a war for losses incurred, or boundary disputes. They are not generally given either the rank or the privilege of diplomatic agents, even though they be in the diplomatic service. An- other class of commissioners, who are strictly political agents, are occasionally sent out without its being thought desirable to define exactly their rank, but they are usually received as ministers. Such are com- missioners to conclude a treaty, such as we have our- selves sent to China and Mexico on different occa- I20 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. sions, and of this character is the English commissioner on the Hawaiian Islands, who ranks as a minister resident. In certain cases, with countries which are only semi-independent, such as Roumania and Ser- bia before the last war between Russia and Turkey, such as Bulgaria and Egypt now, it has been thought advisable to send persons empowered to perform dip- lomatic functions, but who, on account of the peculiar relations of the country to its suzerain, can be given no special title, and are therefore called simply " dip- lomatic agents." The consul-general is usually ap- pointed to this post. The only diplomatic agent we have at present is in Egypt. One in Bulgaria is very necessary, for there are a number of resident Ameri- cans who need protection, and there is no one to af- ford it. There is not even a consul or consular agent of the United States anywhere in Bulgaria or Eastern Roumelia. These countries are still nominally in the jurisdiction of the minister and consul-general at Constantinople ; but, as every one knows, the state of relations are such that these officials would have no way of communicating effectively with the Bulgarian government. Americans are therefore placed under the kindly care of the English diplomatic agent. In some cases it has been necessaiy to have recourse to Americans outside of Bulgaria, who happened to have influence there. Even in the lesser diplomatic posts our Government DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 121 has been as careless of the proprieties as in greater ones. An example may be given of our hap-hazard way of proceeding. In 1880 it was decided to ap- point a diplomatic representative at Bucarest, and the title chosen by Congress was " Diplomatic Agent and Consul-General." The person appointed to that post suggested to the State Department all the diffi- culties that might arise, as Roumania, being then in- dependent both in fact and by treaty, would insist on having a diplomatic representative called by one of the titles agreed to by the rules of the Congress of Vienna. He was, therefore, accredited directly to the sovereign, with the expectation that he might come in under the general clause of " other persons accredited to sovereigns." * This, however, the Roumanians refused to permit, and for some months he was re- fused any official recognition. They agreed to recog- nize him as consul-general, and unofficially as diplo- matic " representative " of the United States until a change could be made. It became necessary, there- fore, to alter his title to^ that of Charge d'Affaires ; and it was only when he received his commission as such, accredited not to the Prince but to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that he was considered to belong to the diplomatic body and allowed to treat officially with the government. A legation or embassy comprises, in most cases, be- * Rules of Vienna, Art. I. 122 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. sides the minister, one or more persons, known either as counsellors of embassy, secretaries of legation, or attaches. Of these only secretaries of legation are recognized by our system, and for many of our lega- tions none are appointed. At Paris, London, Berlin, Tokio, and Pekin there is a first and a second secre- tary. Attaches were formerly allowed, though they were appointed by the minister and not by the Gov- ernment. They received no pay, but were expected to assist in all the work of the legation. This has now been forbidden by act of Congress. In order prop- erly to do the work of the legation, it is frequently necessary to appoint more persons, but they are con- sidered only as clerks, without any diplomatic privi- lege or rank. In Spain, where there is a great deal of business, only one secretary is allowed, and it is nec- essary to employ a clerk. If we are ever to have any system in our management of foreign affairs it will be wise to have a number of young men, more even than would be absolutely necessary, who, by becoming ac- quainted with various countries, and with various languages, and by obtaining experience of diplomatic life, would be fit persons to be sent as agents, either regularly in the career or in any case of emergency. It would be we\l even for the Government to appoint several secretaries of legation at large, and in certain cases attaches, who should receive little or no salary until they became secretaries of legation. There are DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 23 always young men of independent means desirous of such positions, and perfectly able and willing to do the necessary work. Such appointments, however, should be regulated by the Department of State, and not by the minister alone, and the necessary qualifications should be rigorously demanded. During the absence of a minister, the senior secre- tary of legation acts as charge d'affaires ad interim, without special credentials ; and by our laws he is en- titled to an allowance equal to half the salary of the minister, which is paid separately and not deducted from the minister's salary. His salary as secretary of legation ceases for that time. In the English service, and in some others, the secretary of legation receives, in addition to his own salary, an allowance, paid out of the minister's salary, varying from five to thirty dollars per day. As a special exception the English secretary in Paris, when acting as charge d'affaires, is accredited with the title of minister resident. The qualifications for employment in the diplo- matic service consist in most other countries of a knowledge of French, and, generally, of at least one other language ; a good acquaintance with history, treaties, public and international law. One other qualification is absolutely necessary, at all events in civilized countries, that the person appointed should be a gentleman, that is, acquainted with the ways of the world and the usages and manners of the best so- 124 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ciety in each capital in which he will be expected to move — that of the governing classes. 1 do not mean that what is called good birth, or belonging to a well- known family should be essential, although the son or grandson of a President of the United States, for example, would always have more credit and influence in the place to which he was sent than one of whom nothing was known. Considerations of this kind make it difficult to recommend the results of a simple examination as showing the qualifications necessary for a diplomatic agent. Temper, manners, position, tact, shrewdness must all enter into the composition of the agent best qualified to do his country service. I remember a Russian diplomat saying to me that after they had all passed the diplomatic examination, each candidate was in turn received by Prince Gort- chakof, who, all other things being equal, judged a great deal of his fitness for the post by the manner in which he entered the room and addressed him. I have mentioned a knowledge of French as being absolutely necessary. This is certainly true in all European countries. It might be sufficient for a dip- lomat to have a good knowledge of the language of the country to which he is sent, especially in South America, but as other foreigners and colleagues will often know nothing but French, and as it is necessary to keep on friendly relations with them, this is also essential. French is the generally received language DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 25 of diplomacy in Europe. In China and Japan Eng- lish is more usually the language. In South Amer- ica Spanish is used in all countries except Brazil. It is the habit of both England and the United States, however, to use English as the official language, and for their ministers to write in that tongue all notes and despatches sent to the government to which they are accredited. In most cases it is found convenient to accompany the official English notes with an un- official French translation, in order to save time and to obtain speedy answers, as not all Foreign Offices have an English translator at hand. French is also the general language of treaties, but it has become common for a treaty to be drawn up in the two lan- guages of the two countries which make it, either text being considered as official. For this, of course, very careful translations and accurate knowledge of the language are necessary. Just after the Franco-Ger- man war an attempt was made to introduce German as a diplomatic language, and the German ambassador at St. Petersburg stated his intention to Prince Gort- chakof to write to him in the future in that language. " Certainly," said the Prince, " we all understand Ger^ man. Of course you must expect our replies to be in Russian." Nothing more was heard of the proposition. Among other things a minister, should be a man who has already lived in foreign countries, and is to some degree acquainted with their usages and cus- 126 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. tomSj even if he has not already been in the service and acquired a knowledge of the rules of diplomacy. It would be better that he should be a native of America than a naturalized citizen, and in any case he should not be sent back to the country of his birth. Persons of foreign birth have been at times in the diplomatic service of all countries, owing to certain special qualifications or to peculiar circum- stances. St. Saphorin, who was the Hanoverian and English envoy to Vienna at the beginning of the last century, was of Swiss origin ; so is also Baron Jomini, the son of the celebrated writer on war, who, although not holding a diplomatic position, has been for a long time one of the high officials of the Russian Foreign Office. Owing to the inter-connections of the German States it has not been uncommon for a na- tive of one to be an official in the service of another ; and in this way, after the war of 1866, Count Beust, who had been Minister of Foreign Affairs in Saxony, was taken to Vienna in the same capacity. Still, it is better to avoid this. A native citizen always knows the interests of his own country better than a foreign- born citizen can, unless the latter has come there in his early youth. There are, of course, exceptions ; but no man should ever be appointed minister abroad who has left his own country for political reasons. We are too apt-to think that all countries should pattern themselves after our model, and are either unable or DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 127 unwilling to take note of their prejudices. But what should we have thought if, after the close of the War of the Rebellion, Mr. Benjamin had been sent to Washington as the English minister ? It is doubtful whether our Government would have received him ; and even had he been received, he would scarcely have been treated with politeness. We should never forget, much as we may sympathize with a political exile, that he may be treated in the same way should he be sent back as minister to the country of his birth. It is not so much a question as to what is considered proper by us, as to what is agreeable to the country where the minister is sent ; for he is not sent to repre- sent us in the sense of being in any way a typical American, but in order to transact successfully such business as we may have to do. For that reason there are serious objections to the appointment of negroes. To Liberia it does not matter much ; although there is not the slightest need of a mission to that petty state. But the government of Hayti, although com- posed generally of mulattoes or negroes, prefers a white representative from other countries. Hayti wishes to be considered of importance in the world, and thinks that we are treating her with contempt in sending a minister of her own race. Other foreign powers who have relations with Hayti send white persons, why, therefore, should not the United States do so, they argue. . 128 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. There is but one profession that is generally agreed as disqualifying men from holding these offices ; that is the clerical profession. In old times the govern- ments of various countries were much in the hands of the clergy. Very many ministers of state as well as ambassadors were prelates, or at least clergymen. Nowadays this is not so, except in the case of the nuncios of the Pope, who is a spiritual sovereign. Clerical diplomatists have probably not been sent from any country except the United States since the French Revolution. The last English clergyman ap- pointed to diplomatic office was Mr. Robinson, who after holding several preferments became Bishop of London. His career, however, was a peculiar one. He had been domestic chaplain to the British min- ister at Stockholm at a time when domestic chaplains were considered of such low rank that they generally married the lady's maids. At one time, in the absence of the minister and of any secretary of legation, he was the only man who could be left as the charge d'affaires. He displayed much ability and tact, and succeeded in ingratiating himself with King Charles XII. to such a degree that he was finally appointed minister ; and as such accompanied the king on several campaigns. His last appearance in diplomatic life was as one of plenipotentiaries who signed the treaty of Utrecht. With the exception of a few Catholic countries and England, even the higher clergy do not generally ap- DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 29 pear in society ; and a clerical diplomatist would be an anomaly. It might be that under special circum- stances a clerical diplomatist would be of use in affect- ing public opinion ; and such was the case at the out- break of our war, when Bishop Mcllvaine, of Ohio, was sent to England in order to conciliate the church sentiment of that country ; and Archbishop Hughes, of New York, was despatched on a like errand to the Catholics of England and France. Neither of them, however, had any credentials or diplomatic powers. Similar cases might occur when it would be proper to send a high Catholic clerical dignitary on a special mission to some Catholic country where the church still maintains much power. But it cannot be expected that to send a Protestant clergyman, as minister to a Catholic country, where he is regarded as a heretic, would have a good effect. Apart from the disabilities which attend him simply because he is a clergyman, he has, moreover, the great temptations of his status — to preach, to hold prayer-meetings, and to appear in his capacity of clergyman in a way dis- liked by the authorities to whom he is accredited. So also at times women have been given secret polit- ical missions, but they have not yet been publicly or usually employed. A diplomatic official is in no way a political one in the ordinary sense. The politics of every country are governed almost entirely by internal considerations. 9 1 30 AMERICAN DIPL OMA C V. That is especially the case with us. We ought to consider foreign ministers in the light of lawyers en- trusted with a brief to uphold all the interests of the country apart from those of any political party, and ready to receive instructions from their clients, of whatever political opinion or religion they may be. In employing a lawyer, no one, other things being equal, would think of inquiring where he went to church, or for whom he had voted ; one would only ask what his capacity was for the case with which he was to be intrusted, and how he was likely to impress the court before which he was to argue. So it should be with governments. Even in countries where the foreign policy makes a dividing line between parties, it has been found advantageous to keep in office trained and experienced diplomatic officials, without re- gard to their personal political preferences. They are found in practice to serve as well, and generally much better. An English minister will carry out the instruc- tions of his government with equal vigor whether he belongs to the party in office or not. There may be exceptions in the case of countries which waver between two or three different forms of government. It was very natural that France, after obtaining a republican government, should not wish to be repre- sented abroad by men who were prominent Impe- rialists, because the republic was desirous of concil- iating the good opinion of European sovereigns, and . DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 131 wished its representatives to be thoroughly in accord with it. But in our own case, where the Government is well established, and where the questions with which a minister has to deal are diplomatic and not dynastic or governmental ones, it should make no difference whether a minister abroad is a Democrat or a Repub- lican. If he be fit to represent us under the rule of one party, he is fit to do so under the rule of another. There is no reason in the nature of things why, when a new party or a new administration comes into power, the ministers appointed by the preceding one should be recalled. They represent the Government and the interests of the United States, not the Presi- dent, nor the interests of any political party. Even in ordinary business a man selects as his agent, especially in delicate matters, a man of tact, knowledge, and discretion, who will be well received by those with whom he has to deal. How much more should this be the case in public affairs ! The only proper way of regarding our diplomatic posts is that so tersely expressed by President Cleveland : " Public office is a public trust." In speaking of the true purposes of diplomacy, F. von Martens well says : ** As organs of international administration in the sphere of the political interests of^States, diplomatists can only reach the high aim set before them when they learn to recognize and understand thoroughly the cultural and political aspirations 132 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. of the people whom they serve and of the people where they exercise their functions. Insight into these aspirations and a just appreciation of them can alone secure the peaceful de- velopment of the external relations of States, and can alone guarantee the success and enduring results of diplomatic work." * Our diplomatic are appointed in the same way as our consular officials ; that is, by the President, with the consent of the Senate. After he has accepted the appointment, and has taken the oath of allegiance, a minister is given by law not more than thirty days, with salary, for the purpose of receiving his instruc- tions. These instructions are, for the most part, con- tained in a pamphlet printed by the State Depart- ment, containing only the general rules which regulate the conduct of a minister, and especially his relations to the State Department and the Treasury. This pam- phlet is considered secret, though it has nothing in it that could not be public to all the world ; and indeed so secret have these personal instructions been thought at various times by the State Department, that when a new edition is published the old copies are destroyed, and not even the Department has a complete series of them from the beginning. In case important and intricate business should await a minister at his post he would be expected to familiarize himself with the history and affairs of the legation before leaving this * Volkerrecht, ii., p. 65. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 33 country, and might possibly receive definite instruc- tions in writing. In the early times of the Govern- ment such written instructions for specific cases were the rule ; but they are now rarely given. The min- ister is furnished with credentials — that is, a letter from the President to the sovereign or head of the government to which he is going, to the effect that the President, reposing perfect confidence in the zeal, ability, and discretion of A B , has appointed him as minister of the United States at such a place ; and that he hopes all faith and credit will be given him when he speaks for the United States ; and especially when he reiterates the assurance of respect, sympathy, etc. These letters are always addressed, when coming from a republic, to " Great and Good Friend," and are signed " Your good friend," followed by the Presi- dent's name and countersigned by the Secretary of State. No extra compensation is allowed to a minister for his journey, but he is allowed to receive his salary during his transit to his post for a certain number of days, fixed by the State Department, varying from seventy days for Pekin to fifteen days for Hayti. The general rule in other countries is, that before the actual appointment of a minister, the government to which it is proposed to send him should be pri- vately asked whether it is willing to accept him. There are often personal or political reasons why a 134 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. minister is not acceptable in a particular country, while he might be perfectly acceptable in many others. This gives the foreign government the op- portunity of refusing him without publicity, and therefore does not work harm to the minister himself. Such refusals are not uncommon. Recently, for ex- ample, the German government, it is stated on good authority, refused three English ambassadors who were proposed before the present one was accepted. Had they been publicly rejected it might, and prob- ably would, have interfered with their usefulness else- where. Among other well-known examples, the King of Sardinia, in 1820, refused to receive Baron de Mar- tens as Prussian Minister, alleging that his wife was the daughter of a French regicide; and, in 1847, the King of Hanover refused to receive as Prussian Min- ister, Count von Westphalen, because he was a Cath- olic. Even with our own ministers, one was refused at Vienna because he had publicly sympathized with the Hungarians before they had made a success- ful revolution. Another was refused by Italy because, in arguing for the maintenance of the temporal power of the Pope, he had said disagreeable things against the Italian government. If the acceptance of these ministers had been privately asked beforehand, the refusal would have been much easier and less disagree- able to the gentlemen in question. There is probably an historical reason why our Government did not at DIPLOMATIC OFFICIA-LS. 1 35 first ask for the acceptance of its representatives. The first ministers whom we sent abroad were sent while we were still considered as rebels, and had not actually- gained our independence. After that, before the days of steam and electricity, the communications between America and Europe, owing to wars, were so slow and uncertain that it might have required six months to obtain an answer. Foreign governments, in treating with us, have naturally followed our system. If we do not ask for the acceptance of a minister, neither do they. But in earlier times they always conformed to their own usage, so far as to inform our ministers abroad of the intention of appointing certain persons as ministers here, and expressing the hope that they would be agreeable to us. Our government has more than once done the same thing. It is stated that a formal application was made to the French govern- ment in 1869 to receive Mr. Washburne as our Minis- ter at Paris ; but there seem to be no proofs of this on file in the State Department. It is, however, certain that in 1871 or 1872, the French government officially asked for the acceptance, as Minister in Washington, of Mr. Jules Ferry, who was agreed to by Mr. Fish. His nomination being changed, the name of the Mar- quis de Noailles was officially proposed and accepted in the same way. Now that rapid communication has been established between America and Europe, the reasons once valid have ceased, and there is no 136 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. excuse for our not conforming to the general usage in this respect, at least so far as to communicate the nomination confidentially, a sufficient time before its promulgation to allow of objection.* It may be mentioned here that our government has never been slow to use its right of asking for the re- call of, or of sending away a foreign minister who be- comes in any way obnoxious. The recall of Mr. Genet, the French Minister, was asked in 1 793 ; that of Mr. Jackson, the British Minister, in 1809; that of Mr. Poussin, the French Minister, in 1849; Mr. Crampton, the British Minister, was given his pass- ports in 1856; and intercourse ceased with Mr. Cata- cazy, the Russian Minister in 187 1. There are, per- haps, other cases, where a mere hint was sufificient to effect the minister's recall, without publicity. On arriving at his post the minister's first duty is to inform the Minister for Foreign AfTairs of his ar- rival, and of his character, and to request an interview for the purpose of asking an audience for the purpose of presenting his credentials to the head of the state. He is usually received at once by the minister, and by the sovereign as soon as an interview can be ar- ranged, though in case of absence or illness there may be a delay of weeks, if not of months. Etiquette, however, demands that the audience for presenting * On this subject see Cours de Droit Diplomatique^ by P. Pradier-Fodere, I., pp. 347-354. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 37 credentials should take place as early as possible. These audiences are either public or private. In the first the minister is accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, generally followed by his own secretaries, and goes to the palace in more or less state, according to the customs of the place ; for these vary greatly in different capitals. For an ambassador a state carriage is always sent. This is not always the case with the minister in a capital where ambas- sadors also reside, it being considered desirable to draw distinctions of ceremony between the two. In small countries, where there are no ambassadors, a state carriage is usually sent for the minister, in some cases accompanied by an escort. At a formal audi- ence all parties are standing : the minister enters, is introduced to the sovereign by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, addresses a few words to him stating his char- acter, and presents his letters of credence. These the sovereign takes, sometimes goes through the for- mality of reading them, and replies briefly to the minister. After the formal part of the audience is over, there is generally a friendly conversation of a few moments, and the ceremony ends in much the same way as it began. In some countries it is ex- pected that a formal speech will be made by the min- ister to the sovereign, and a formal reply made. In such cases the speech is written out in advance and given to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who returns 138 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. a copy of the reply before the audience takes place. This is in order to prevent embarrassment, as well as to see that nothing unpleasant be said. In some countries, as in Russia, a minister is nearly always re- ceived in private audience. He goes to the palace alone, is met by the Grand Master of Ceremonies, conducted to the Emperor, introduced into his room, and is left alone with him. After a word or two the Emperor requests the minister to be seated ; and the conversation is informal. Mr. John Quincy Adams remarked in 1809, after one of these ceremonies : " The formalities of these court presentations are so trifling and insignificant in themselves, and so important in the eyes of princes and courtiers, that they are much more embarrassing to an American, than business of real importance. It is not safe or prudent to despise them, nor practica- ble for a person of rational understanding to value them." After the presentation of his letters of t:redence it is then the duty of a minister, if accredited to a sov- ereign, to ask for presentation to the Queen or Em- press and to the Princes and Princesses. Such pres- entations, where the royal family is numerous, may be scattered over a long series of months. Immedi- ately after presenting his credentials the minister makes ceremonial calls on the various ministers of the country to which he is accredited, and to other DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 39 high officials, of whom a list is generally given him by the Master of Ceremonies. He also makes formal visits to all of his colleagues, when ffe is expected not simply to leave a card, but to go in if they are at home. It is generally the rule that a minister or an envoy should not call for the first time upon any am- bassador unless he has first written a note asking when he can be received. We mention this formal part of the minister's business because slight breaches of eti- quette at the beginning are often ascribed to ignorance and create anlmlavorable impression. Etiquette dif- fers very greatly in the different capitals of Europe in small particulars; and it would be unsafe for a diplomat of even great experience to appear at a new court without informing himself exactly of the usages of the place. In case the secretary of legation be not thoroughly acquainted with such usages, they can always be learned from experienced colleagues, gen- erally from the one who has been there the longest, and therefore the dean of the diplomatic body, who is always ready to welcome a new-comer. The diplomatic officials of nearly all countries wear a uniform, generally consisting of a coat more or less richly embroidered with gold, a cocked hat, and sword. By a resolution of Congress passed in 1867 the diplomatic officials of the United States are for- bidden to wear " any uniform or official costume not previously authorized by Congress;" and although 140 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, the wording of the resolution is ambiguous, and might be held to prevent a minister's wearing any clothes at all, he appears in ordinary evening dress, unless, hav- ing been a military or naval officer, he wear the uni- form prescribed for his rank. The history of this resolution is somewhat curious. At the beginning of our Government the costume worn by men in society admitted of much greater variety than at present in color, cut, and ornament ; and therefore there was no special distinction, except in point of richness, between dress worn at court and on ordinary occasions. When our mission went to Ghent in 1814, for the conclusion of the treaty with Great Britain, a change had come over European usages ; and it was found to be advisable to adopt some uniform to mark the rank of the members of the mission. They agreed to wear a blue coat, slightly embroidered with gold, with white breeches, white silk stockings, and gold knee-buckles and shoe-buckles, a sword, and a small cocked hat with a black cockade. For grand occa- sions this uniform was made somewhat richer. In 1823 Mr. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, wrote to our ministers abroad recommending the use of the uniform worn by the mission of Ghent, sending a formal description of it as well as an engraved plate. During the administration of General Jackson, in 1829, this uniform was changed. It was made simpler and cheaper, consisting of a black DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 141 coat with a gold star on each side of the collar, black or white knee-breeches, a three cornered chapeau-bras with a black cockade and a gold eagle, and a steel- mounted sword with a white scabbard. This dress was not prescribed by the President, but was sug- gested as an appropriate and convenient uniform dress for the diplomatic agents of the United States. It is said that not all ministers conformed to this recommendation, and that some of them appeared in more brilliant uniforms suited to their respective tastes. Son\e suggestions were made on this subject to the Department of State ; and Mr. Marcy, on June I, 1853, issued a circular withdrawing all previ- ous instructions, and recommending the appearance cit court of our ministers in the simple dress of an Ameri- can citizen, " whenever it could be done without detriment to the public interest." Mr. Marcy cited the example of Dr. Franklin, who had appeared at the French court in very simple dress ; but it is now well known that this was not owing to any love of simplicity on the part of Franklin, but merely that on a certain occasion his presence was so much desired at court, when he had no clothes in which he considered it fit to appear, that he was requested to come in what- ever he happened to be wearing at the moment. In compliance with these instructions, several of our ministers attempted to go to court in plain evening dress. To Mr. Belmont, at The Hague, no objection 142 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. was made, although it was evidently preferred that he should comply with the usages of the place. Mr. Mason presented his credentials to the Emperor Napoleon in civil dress, but subsequently adopted a simple uniform, which he always wore on ceremonial occasions. At Stockholm, while the King expressed his perfect willingness personally to receive Mr. Schroeder in plain dress, he said, " The etiquette of my house is subject to regulations which cannot be waived for one in preference to others. In audience for business I will receive him in any dress his Govern- ment may prescribe ; but in the society of my family and on occasions of court no one can be received but in court dress, in conformity with the established cus- toms." Mr. Vroom, at Berlin, was told that " his Majesty would not consider an appearance before him without costume as respectful." Mr. Buchanan was excluded from the diplomatic tribune at the opening of Parliament, because he refused to wear court dress; and when subsequently he insisted on wearing civilian dress. Sir Edward Cust told him V that he hoped he would not appear at court in the dress he wore upon the street, but would wear something indicating his official position." He therefore appeared at court in ordinary evening dress, with a plain black sword and a cocked hat. Mr. H. S. Sanford, who had been act- ing as charge d'affaires at Paris, until the arrival of Mr. Mason, carried out Mr. Marcy's instructions lit- DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 143 erally, and adopted an evening dress. When Mr. Mason, as has just been mentioned, returned to the use of uniform, Mr. Sanford complained of this to the Department of State, and offered his resignation. His conduct in the matter was approved by Mr. Marcy, but his resignation was accepted. Six years afterward, in January, i860, when Mr. Faulkner was about proceeding to Paris, Mr. Sanford wrote to Gen- eral Cass referring to the previous correspondence, ridiculing Mr. Mason's course, and asking that Mr. Faulkner should be instructed to wear civilian dress. Mr. Sanford in this letter confounded two things, court dress and diplomatic uniform ; for even in coun- tries where court dress is required, there is a diplo- matic uniform different from that worn by other offi- cials; and the example of the Turkish ambassador, brought up by him, was by no means to the point. Turkish diplomats always wear a diplomatic uniform, and by no means the ordinary Turkish dress, which can be worn in the presence of the Sultan. In com- pliance with a resolution of the Senate, the papers on this subject were printed shortly afterward."^ No further action was taken until March, 1867, when by the joint efforts of Senator Sumner and General Banks, the resolution in question was forced through Congress. The debate was remarkable chiefly for * Senate Ex. Poc, No. 31, 36th Congress, ist Session, April 2, i860. 144 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. those crude expressions of Chauvinism in which dem- agogues delight to indulge, except for the very sensi- ble and practical remarks of General Schenck, who, in conjunction with Mr. Pruyn, attempted to amend the resolution so as to give the State Department power to fix the exact dress to be worn. The resolu- tion, in point of fact, does not accomplish what was intended by it — to prevent the wearing of court dress in London, almost the only place where it is worn ; for court dress is neither a " uniform " nor an " official costume." The objection to plain evening dress is not its sim- plicity, but because being the only persons, as a gen- eral rule, at any court ceremony in evening dress, ex- cept the waiters and servants, our representatives are unpleasantly conspicuous. They are much more comfortable in a hot and crowded room than if they wore a heavy, closely buttoned uniform ; but they are the subject of remark, not so much on the part of their colleagues, who profess to envy theqj their ease, but from other persons unaccustomed with our usages ; so that when at court they generally feel in an awk- ward and false position, much as a private gentle- man would, who by some accident found himself at a dinner or evening party in a morning .dress. It is said that the gentleman who is chiefly responsible for this rule experienced himself the discomfort of it ; and that, although he wore civilian dress on his first DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 45 appearance as minister at Brussels, he subsequently- obtained a commission as major-general of militia in Minnesota, which allowed him to appear in uni- form. All that is desirable is some plain and incon- spicuous mark of the official character. The blue dress-coat with brass buttons, formerly in vogue, and so well known to iis from Daniel Webster, would be amply sufficient. The next duty of a minister, after he has complied with the formalities of his reception, is, of course, to acquaint himself with the affairs of his legation ; to learn their actual situation, and to be ready to pro- ceed to business. He should then begin to inform himself about the country in which he is to live ; its history, laws, usages, manners, and customs; to make acquaintances not only among officials, but even among private persons ; and to endeavor, as far as is in his power, to become a component part of the society of the place. As to political personages, he should, so far as the feeling and prejudices of persons in power allow, become acquainted also with statesmen who are out of office, and with members of the opposition. He should not, however, fall into the other extreme, and cultivate solely the opposition. There are capi- tals, and Paris and Bucarest might be mentioned as two extremes, where the members of the government are not generally people in the highest society ; and it is a great mistake, although ministers sometimes fall lO 146 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. into it, to cultivate the best society of the place, use- ful as that may be, to the exclusion of the political leaders ; and to espouse the prejudices and quarrels of the opposition against the government. One of the great duties of a minister is hospitality ; and this is not a question of display ; but for a minis- ter to be useful he must make acquaintance with the leading persons of the country, receive them at his house, be on good terms with them, and prepare him- self for the time when he has some important end to gain. Much more is done by private conversations, amiable talks over a dinner-table, or after, than can be done by official despatches. Where very great princi- ples are at stake, it is necessary to write formal notes and to put the whole negotiations into permanent form ; but for all the ordinary incidents arising be- tween two countries, a few frank words between peo- ple who know, appreciate, and understand each other, are worth far more than formal documents. A good diplomatist will always seek to avoid issues, by ar- ranging a satisfactory settlement without a formal discussion. For such informal proceedings mutual confidence, and secrecy are absolutely necessary. A written despatch must be replied to, and, if expressed in anything but the most suave language, is apt to call out a reply. Each side feels it a duty to main- tain his own case. Take an example : A ship-captain arriving at a port of Spain, having endeavored to DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 14/ conform to all the regulations, and supposing that he was correct in his action, was fined, for some supposed infraction of the customs rules, a sum sufficient to confiscate his vessel and to ruin him. The whole proceeding was illegal on the part of the Spanish authorities, and it required only a few words from the Charge d'Affaires, in a conversation with the Minister of Finance, to arrange the matter with- out publicity and without a word in writing. If the official formalities had been observed, and a note had been written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, which would then have been referred to the Minister of Finance, and then to the officials of the customs department, the afifair would have lasted for months, and very possibly the Spanish officials would have discovered some technical means for justifying their conduct. Take a contrary case : One of our recent ministers was unsuccessful and unhappy in his mission at Berlin. It may be that in no case would the Ger- man government have entirely met the wishes of the United States. But the minister, ignorant of diplo- matic usage, had not felt the necessity of forming an intimate acquaintance with German statesmen, and when he received an instruction from our Government, considered that he had done all that was necessary when he had put that in the form of a note to the Min- ister of Foreign Affairs, and had sent it by his messen- ger. In the case of the Lasker resolution, a few words 148 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. would have removed all difficulties, have prevented two governments from coming almost to the verge of hostilities, and have kept our relations with Germany in that friendly state where they had always before been. There is an interesting instance of this kind much earlier in our history. The relations of the minister, General Armstrong, to the French Govern- ment, were in 1810 very cool, and hints were given to some of our other ministers abroad, with the hope that they would be repeated and he would be re- called, as indeed he eventually was. " C'est d'abord un tres-galant homme," said the ambassador : " but he never shows himself, and upon every little occa- sion, when by a verbal explanation with the minister he might obtain anything, he presents peevish notes." " They did not impeach his integrity, but he was morose, and captious and petulant." ^ A minister should also be hospitable to his own countrymen. It is often said that no American min- ister is bound by his instructions or by the laws to be hospitable to travelling or resident Americans; but usage and even policy require this. It is much better for the minister personally that he should conciliate the good-will of travelling Americans, no matter what rank in society they may hold ; and it is also better among the people to whom he is sent, that he is known to treat his own countrymen well, and not to •Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, ii., p. 151. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS, 1 49 be ashamed of them. If, therefore, a minister have sufficient private means, for his salary would never be enough to keep an open house, he will find it to the advantage not only of the Government but of himself in every way. Where attempts are made to do this, they should not be by halves. I have known a legation in a European capital where the minister's wife received the calls of Americans on one day, and those of diplomats and the society of the place on another day ; and while many dinners were given, care was taken not to mix the society. The result was that no one cared for the hospitality. The Americans felt vexed at their being not thought good enough to meet the society of the place ; and the diplomats and young men of society often regretted that they were deprived of meeting pretty and charm- ing American girls. The minister defended this course on the ground that the society of the capital was exclusive, and did not care to meet Americans. Whatever they might be in their own houses, they certainly did expect to see Americans at the Ameri- can legation ; and never, in an experience of many countries, have I witnessed this separation of the sheep and goats in any but an American legation. If great stress seems to be laid upon the social duties of a minister, it is because the experience of all countries has shown the very great value of social in- tercourse for the political ends which a minister has I50 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. in view. Lord Palmerston expressed this very well when he was examined by a committee of the House • of Commons with regard to diplomatic salaries. He said : " Now in order to preserve good relations with a country, it is not sufficient simply to have a person Uving in town as cheaply as he can afford to exist, because the social position of your representative is a very important element in his power to be useful. In regard to his intercourse with the ministers of the country, great facilities and great means of good under- standing are afforded by easy social intercourse, which can only possibly be obtained by his being able to receive them, as well as also being received by them. Again, it is of great importance that your ambassador should be in habits of social intercourse with the public men not in office ; that he should have the means of receiving them, becoming acquainted with their views, and explaining to them the views and policy of his own country. Therefore I think that it is of great importance to this country that your representative should be in such an easy position with regard to money affairs as may enable him to receive hospitably persons of all kinds, and I may say also of different nations." * Mr. Monroe, when Secretary of State, had used much the same language thirty years before. " Is it necessary that the United States should be represented with foreign Powers ? That has long ceased to be a question. Shall they maintain a proper station there, not assuming, but dignified, such as the general expectation and common opinion of mankind have given them ? That has never been a question. The character of the country, if not its rank, is in some degree * Senate Ex. Doc, No, 93, 32d Congress, ist Session, p. 8.* DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 151 affected by that which . is maintained by its ministers abroad. Their utility in all the great objects of their mission is essentially dependent on it. A minister can be useful only by filling his place with credit in the diplomatic corps, and in the corre- sponding circle of society in the country in which he resides, which is the best in every country. By taking the proper ground, if he possesses the necessary qualifications and is fur- nished with adequate means, he will become acquainted with all that passes, and from the highest and most authentic sources. Inspiring confidence by reposing it in those who deserve it, and by an honorable deportment in other respects, he will have much influence, especially in what relate to his own country. Deprive him of the necessary means to sustain this ground, separate him from the circle to which he belongs, and he is reduced to a cipher. He may collect intelligence from adven- turers and spies, but it will be of comparatively little value ; and in other respects he had as well not be there." * An investigation of the salaries needful to diplo- matic officers was made by our own Government in 185 1. Among the replies from our ministers abroad was one from Mr. Schroeder, then charge d'affaires at Stockholm, who said : " In the late examinations ordered by the British House of Commons concerning diplomatic salaries, it was stoutly, al- though somewhat ludicrously, urged by several of the witnesses who had served as ministers on the continent of Europe, that the giving of dinners was really an important branch of their duties. The diplomatic corps at this place would certainly have given similar testimony ; and viewing the matter seriously, "* James Monroe to William Lowndes, Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means, April 5, 1816, Annals of Congress, 14th Congress, ist Session, p. 1735. 1 52 AMERICAN DIPL OMA C V. my own observation and experience are, that no address or management could perhaps so readily obtain information, pro- cure a rare copy of statistical record, or perhaps achieve other and more diplomatic ends, as that part of the diplomatic duty to the importance of which the English witnesses testified. Consideration and a certain kind of influence are measured by appearances ; and although, generally speaking, it is a sort of importance little desirable for an American, a certain degree of it must in this manner be purchased, in order to have occa- sional access to what in many cases may be indispensable — the ear of the king. In corroboration of this I take the liberty to say that I believe a conversation which I had an opportunity to hold with his Majesty upon the subject of Swedish taxes and American commerce, has had, and will have, more effect in the amelioration of the Swedish tariff than all the arguments which I had employed during the preceding six months at the Foreign Office, and with other members of the government and of the diet."* Of course there are ways and ways of entertaining, and one minister of social experience and tact can ac- complish far more by a small expenditure than an- other could obtain by lavishness. Balls and recep- tions are useful, because they ingratiate the minister with the local society ; and they are as much expected from a foreign minister in Washington as from a for- eign minister abroad. Large formal dinners are some- times a necessity ; but at a dinner of this kind, where every one's place is marked out for him by etiquette and official rank, little can be accomplished. Such * Senate Ex. Doc, No. 93, 32d Congress, ist Session, pp. 25, 26. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. I 53 dinners only lead to intimacy. But when a minister has arrived at the point where he can invite the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs to a small dinner of six or eight persons, where conversation is free and unreserved, he may then feel that he is on a footing which will enable him easily to accomplish his diplomatic business. We may see, therefore, that if for any reason, though it may be from an absurd prejudice, a minister is socially unpleasant to the government or to the so- ciety of the place, he is unfit to be a minister in that particular capital. It is partly for that reason that all governments have maintained their right to refuse to receive a particular person as minister, without giving any reasons ; for these reasons may be as often on ac- count of his lack of social qualification as on account of any political grievance against him. When a minister is for any reason disagreeable, while he may be received with all the formal politeness due to him whenever he appears in an ofHcial capacity ; while he may be invited to court when the invitation could not be omitted with- out offence to the country which he represents, he may be entirely ignored in every other way ; and in this state of social isolation he is certainly incapable either of properly representing his country of of giving proper protection to its interests. Take a recent case, which has excited some comment. A gentleman was ap- pointed minister to Austria. The hints first given by 154 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. the Austrian government were not regarded, and his ac- ceptance was urged ; so that the Austrian government was finally obliged to decline peremptorily to receive him. One objection to him was a social one — that his wife was by birth a Jewess. However absurd such a race prejudice may seem, it is found that any attempt to go counter to it would result in the social isolation of the minister ; and we might as well have no minister at all as a minister so placed. The court of Vienna is bound by very strict rules of etiquette, which not even the Emperor feels at liberty to overstep. And the society of Vienna has adopted still stricter ones. Al- though Hebrews have been received at the Austrian court, they have been received only officially^ for there are now many persons of Hebrew race in the Austrian service, and their wives have not come within the official category. In order for an Austrian lady to be able to appear at court, she must show at least four generations of nobility. It is said that some years ago, when the first bourgeois ministers were ap- pointed in Austria, while they were officially invited to a; court ball their wives were omitted. The ladies were indignant, and brought a sufficient pressure to bear upon their husbands to induce them to resign their offices if their wives were not invited to the ball. The Emperor was in a dilemma, for he could not dis- pense with such useful ministers, neither could he override the rules of court etiquette. He adopted. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS, I 55 however, a very simple expedient — he ennobled the long-deceased great-grandfathers of the ladies in ques- tion, which thus gave them the personal right to ap- pear. Such things have been done before ; for Lord Malmesbury in his " Correspondence " mentions the fact that Potemkin, the favorite of the Empress Catharine II., was made a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire for three generations back.* It is not only at Vienna that a similar spirit is shown. One of the present rules of the English court is that ladies who have been divorced, no matter whether innocent or guilty, cannot appear there. And for this reason the ambassador of a great power, still in service in another country, was rejected not long ago by the Queen, because he had married a lady divorced from a former husband. On account of the social complica- tions often caused by imprudent marriages, it is a rule with some governments that no diplomatic official can marry, without the preliminary consent of his superi- ors; and it is known that Prince Bismarck strongly objects to German diplomatists marrying foreigners. Ceremonial and social duties take up a large part of a minister's time ; but those who have been noted as our best and ablest representatives have always been most punctilious in their performance. No one has ever served us better than Mr. John Quincy Adams ; * Lord Malmesbury's Diaries and Correspondence, i., p. 527. Senate Ex. Doc, No. 4, 49th Congress, ist Session. 156 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. and yet we may see from his " Diary " that night after night he went into society, danced, played cards, talked, and ingratiated himself with the people about him. In spite of certain peculiarities derived from his Puritan ancestry, peculiarities which were some- times disagreeable when they showed themselves, Mr. Adams was a man not only fond of society, but very popular in society ; and, in a word, combined the most useful external diplomatic qualities with those of in- tellect, study, and experience. It might be asked, then, what time has a minister left to attend to his particular diplomatic duties ; and what duties in general does he have to perform ? It is not everywhere and on all occasions that great diplomatic questions arise which require study or rea- soning. In fact we might almost say that ministers are sent abroad in order to do nothing ; i.e., that by perceiving the drift of little things, watching for any slight event which may grow into a huge difficulty if uncared for, he may prevent great questions from aris- ing. Ministers are, as it were, sentinels or outposts to prevent difficulties between nations. Naturally dif- ficulties may arise which by no possibility could be prevented by a minister ; and he is then called upon to do his best to settle them. We may have peaceful and tranquil relations with a country for thirty or even fifty years, with slight expectations of these rela- tions being in any way disturbed, when suddenly, DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 5/ owing to the fault or misunderstanding of a subordi- nate official, some question may arise which, in a cer- tain state of public opinion, may almost bring about a war. Who, for instance, could have expected the out- burst of popular feeling which nearly produced a war between Spain and Germany on account of the occu- pation of the Caroline Islands ? Who can tell whether the sudden death of the King of Spain may not ulti- mately produce complications in that country which may extend to Cuba and cause us serious embarrass- ment, and new difficulties, hard to be solved without great tact and discretion on the part of our representa- tives ? The suddenness with which an incident may arise is one reason why it is far better to have a repre- sentative on the spot than to trust to sending a special commissioner after the difficulty has arisen. A little tact may put to rest wounded feeling, and soothe na- tional honor at the very beginning ; while, if free play were left to party newspapers and home politicians in both countries, the quarrel might be so augmented that even a special commissioner would be unable to settle it. But in the absence of great questions there are routine duties at most legations sufficient to occupy a good portion of a minister's time, if he understands his business. Naturally, where the minister, as too frequently happens, goes abroad with no knowledge of history, of foreign politics, or of languages, he is 158 A M ERIC A N DIPL OMA C Y. unable to see a hundred little ways in which he may be of use to the United States, either by giving in- formation or noting down precedents. There is a certain amount of daily work always to be done, either by the secretary of the legation, or by the minister, if there be no secretary. Despatches have to be written in certain specified forms ; these despatches have to be copied regularly into books, and must be, in addition, registered. The despatches and letters received at the legation must also be registered, care- fully filed, bound, and indexed, and a daily journal kept of business of any kind which maybe transacted ; memoranda must be written out and filed of conver- sations on public business with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or with other persons. As to despatches, a minister should write neither too much nor too little. If his pen be too facile, if he allow himself to comment too much on general politics, whether of Europe or of America, if his de- spatches be too long, they are apt to be left unread in the files of the Department, and the valuable infor- mation which he may send, being lost in a heap of rubbish, is unnoticed. At the same time he should not in general communicate to his government long accounts of unimportant events that may as well be learned from the newspapers. He should endeavor to fill his despatches only with what Q.2iX\not be learned from the newspapers as to the intentions, feelings, DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. I 59 and wishes of the government to which he is accred- ited, the springs of their action, and accounts of ne- gotiations in which they are engaged, especially if in any manner they may concern his own country. He should neglect nothing, however seemingly trifling at the moment, which may in any possible way affect the interests of his own country, whether in its policy or its commerce. There is no need to describe at length the opening of the legislative cham- ber, and certainly not court balls and other ceremonies, unless from some incident they derive unusual impor- tance; but as it is always convenient for the State Department that the series of despatches from each capital should show in some way the political history of the country, it is of benefit to send printed copies of the royal speeches at the opening of Parliament, and notices of any change of ministry or of high offi- cials, with accounts of the new persons coming into power. Complaints of all kinds will continually be brought to a legation of acts of injustice toward American citizens, and the settlement of these is one of the minister's most important duties. Such complaints are naturally most frequent in countries which have not reached the highest stage of civilization, or where the laws are not regularly and impartially adminis- tered. A minister will generally try to arrange such little difficulties by personal conversation and appli- l60 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. cation to the proper officials, without making a written complaint to the Foreign Office, and thus making a formal business of them, except where they are very grave violations of our rights, and where a principle is involved that a minister himself is unable to settle unofficially. In such minor cases he would generally do well not to report his action to the Secretary of State until his unofficial applications have been acted upon; for when such a case is reported home, the State Department is naturally very cautious, and desires a thorough investigation of the matter before taking steps which might bind the Government, and the minister does not then feel authorized to. act un- less specially instructed from home. A man may suffer great injustice for a long time in a very simple matter, which might have been remedied at once while the minister was waiting for instructions. This is pure red tape, and giving too much importance to minor things. The greater part of the complaints presented to our legations come from naturalized citizens, on account of supposed interferences with their rights. Certainly a naturalized citizen should be protected in the same manner as one of native birth ; but unfortunately most of these complaints arise from the naturalized citizen having returned to the place of his birth, hav- ing got into difficulties with the government to which he formerly owed allegiance, and using his certificate DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. l6l of naturalization simply as a means of evading his ob- ligations to both governments. In Germany, for in- stance, this is very frequently the case. Young Ger- mans are continually coming to the United States, getting naturalized, and then returning to Germany to pass the rest of their lives, having by this process escaped the obligations of military service. We have a treaty with Germany on the subject of naturaliza- tion, and our experience has been that the German government has always been ready to satisfy the re- quest of the legation as a matter of courtesy, even when the equity of the complaint might be disputed. In fact, I think any one of our recent ministers to Germany would admit — when speaking privately — that nine-tenths of the complaints brought before them are on their face without equity and justice, though coming under the letter of the treaty, and should not really be attended to. Unfortunately our legal authorities maintain that a certificate of natural- ization is in the nature of a judgment pronounced by a court ; and that therefore it cannot be set aside ex- cept by the court itself, no matter how evident may be the fraud by which, or the fraudulent purpose for which, it was obtained. Commercial difficulties are now those which are most frequent, and which give most work to our lega- tions. In the year 1883 the United States exported to foreign countries six hundred and twenty-nine and II 1 62 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. a quarter million dollars' worth of raw material, and one hundred and seventy-five million dollars' worth of manufactured goods. This is an amount sufficient to make a disturbance in the markets of the world ; and with the protectionist policy which is growing in nearly all countries that are endeavoring to develop their manufactures, efforts of various kinds are being made by foreign governments to hinder this too great commercial rivalry of the United States. These efforts take different forms ; sometimes by increase of the tariff ; sometimes in more insidious ways by rais- ing the freight tariff on railways for foreign goods, or by excluding certain articles on account of their being injurious to health. A minister should keep a watch- ful eye on all measures relating to commerce which may in any way affect our interests. He should not confine himself solely to dealings with the Foreign Office. That is his official mode of communication. But he should use the social position which he has been able to acquire for impressing upon deputies, statesmen, and even members of mercantile bodies, the dangers of such a course and the difficulties which might arise with his Government. In other words, he should endeavor to stifle these difficulties at the outset. Perhaps the greatest annoyances which American ministers abroad have to endure are those caused by their travelling countrymen, who desire social assist- DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 163 ance and information. Many Americans suppose the legation and consulate to be offices of information for their own special benefit, to receive ^heir letters and parcels, obtain tickets for them to galleries and mu- seums, to act both as guide-book and courier, and ask and obtain invitations for them into general society and presentations at court. Many things are asked which could be obtained with perfect ease elsewhere ; and it will depend on the tact and good-nature of the official himself as to how far he will allow such re- quests to annoy him. By compliance as far as possi- ble with requests that are reasonable, by receiving let- ters, and having on hand a store of tickets, he will probably get throiigh more easily than if he stood on his dignity and sent the applicants away disappointed and snubbed. As to introductions into society, the minister certainly should not be called to do any- thing of this kind. The only way in which he could reasonably present a travelling American to the social world in which he moved would be at his own house ; and he should be allowed to choose the per- sons to whom he extends his hospitality. As to pres- entations at court, there is even still more difficulty. In some countries, where there are large numbers of persons to be invited to state balls and concerts, a minister is soon given to understand that it is pre- ferred that he should not make requests for presenta- tions. Other courts, where the society is more re- 1 64 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. stricted, are often very glad to receive foreigners ; and there it is comparatively easy to obtain the presenta- tion of a reputj^ble and agreeable person. So great, however, has sometimes been the demand for presen- tations, that at some courts restrictive rules have been made in consequence. It has been frequently maintained that the rapidity of communications and the general dissemination of news render the system of resident diplomatic agents useless ; and it has been suggested that a secretary or a consul would be able to perform all the necessary work, unless some important question arose, when some one could be sent on a special mission to ar- range the matter ; or that the respective Ministers of Foreign Affairs could communicate directly with each other by telegraph, without the intervention of a third person. Even if this were the case, it would be impossible for us to inaugurate such a system with- out the consent of all the world. " There is (as Wheaton says) no legal obligation to receive or send public ministers ; but international assent to the system for a long period of time has given to the custom the force of an obligation upon all civilized powers, and it cannot be aban- doned without the assent of nations. Diplomatic representa- tion is a definite factor in the political economy of the world ; and no better scheme has yet been devised for the despatch of international affairs, or for the preservation of friendly rela- tions between governments.*" * Report of Mr. Frelinghuysen, April 26, 1884, H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 146, 48th Congress, ist Session. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 65 Lord Palmerston expresses the present importance of diplomacy very well in the examination which has been before referred to. He was asked : " Is not the necessity for a man of great talent and experi- ence residing at a place to act for the government at home, much diminished since you have been enabled to communicate in the course of a day, and especially with the prospect of hav- ing by the end of this year the electric telegraph, by which you will be enabled to communicate with Paris in a quarter of an hour ? " Lord Palmerston replied : " No, I do not think it is. I think it is equally important to have an able agent to represent you, whether he is one day or four or more days off ; perhaps it is less at a great distance ; events may occur which may, beyond doubt, either compel him to take great responsibility, or may subject him to delay in acting, unless he can get instructions. There is great ad- vantage in having rapid communication. I apprehend that there is a very important difference between communications carried on by writing and communications" carried on by per- sonal intercourse. I should fear that communications carried on by writing would be more likely to end ill than communi- cations carried on by personal intercourse. I should be very sorry to have to rely upon the accounts of '■ our own corre- spondent.' The news of public events that have happened, no doubt comes as quickly by newspaper accounts as by offi- cial despatches ; and it is for this obvious reason, that the newspapers find it for their interest to make very expensive arrangements for obtaining the earliest information of public events that occur. But the despatch of your minister or am- bassador is not so much to tell you what has happened, as to inform you of the disposition and intentions of the government 1 66 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. with which he is in relation. That information you cannot receive from the correspondents in the newspapers." Mr. Bright asked '* Whether it would not be practicable to transact the ordinary business by means of written communications between the two Foreign Offices, and when anything arose requiring particular attention to have a special mission of some member of the cabinet for the purpose of arranging whatever might be re- quired to be arranged." Said Lord Palmerston : " I do not think it would : there are daily and weekly mat- ters that require personal communication. Everybody must know the extreme difference there is between personal com- munication between men who are in the habit of intercourse, and the exchange of letters written by men who, perhaps, never saw each other. The practice at present existing in diplomacy combines the two, because it frequently happens that a despatch is written by a government to its diplomatic agent at a foreign court, which despatch he is to communicate to the court just as it is written, accompanying it with such verbal explanations as he may be instructed also to give." Subsequently Mr. Cobden said : " If you go back two or three hundred years ago, when there were no newspapers ; when there was scarcely such a thing as international postal communication, when affairs of State turned upon a court intrigue, or the caprice of a mis- tress, or a Pope's bull, or a marriage, was it not of a great deal more consequence at that time to have ministers at for- eign courts, who, in the first place could furnish you with all necessary information of what was going on, and who could, DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. l6y in the next place, influence those individuals upon whose will the destinies of Europe so greatly depended ? Was it not of much more importance to have highly paid ministers of Eng- land at foreign courts than it is in these constitutional times, when all affairs of state are discussed in the public newspapers and in the legislative assemblies, and when every incident that occurs is reported in T^e Times newspaper sooner even than you can have it in the Foreign Office by your ambassadors or couriers ? Under these circumstances are not the functions of an ambassador less important now than they were two or three hundred years ago ? " Lord Palmerston replied : " I should humbly conceive that they are more important on account of the very circumstances which have just been stated ; because when the affairs of a country were decided by the ca- price of a mistress, by a back-stairs intrigue, or by a Pope's bull, it is obvious that your ambassador could have very little influence in directing any of these operating causes ; and there- fore all he could do would be to let you know, if he could find it out, how those secret causes were acting. But in proportion as those causes were secret, it was more difficult for him to arrive at a knowledge of these. In these days, as is well stated in the question, the conduct of governments is influenced by public opinion, by what passes in deliberative assemblies, and by in- ternational considerations, rather than by personal caprices and passions ; and it is precisely that kind of consideration which an ambassador can bring under the notice and press upon the attention of another government. Your ambassador can tell the minister of a foreign country that your interests are so and so ; that the public opinion of your country runs in a certain direction, and has obtained a certain height ; that there are certain things that your government can do, and certain things that it can not do ; and by making the minister of that country 1 68 A xM ERIC AN DIPLOMACY. aware of what are considered the interests of England, and what is the prevalent public opinion of England, and what are the in- fluences which control, direct, or interfere with the English government, he places under the consideration of the govern- ment to which he is accredited matters which may greatly in- fluence the conduct of that government with regard to things which may involve questions of peace and war ; which, at all events, may involve questions deeply affecting the commercial interests of the country, and therefore, I should think that the change which has taken place with regard to the transaction of public affairs in Europe tends to make diplomatic agents of more importance rather than of less importance." * Among the various efforts to reduce the expendi- ture- of our foreign service, and, as some have thought,, to increase its efficiQncy, it has been proposed that we might have two or three great missions on each conti- nent, the chiefs of which could go from one country to another as special business arose. This proposal is not impossible to carry into effect, in spite of long dis- tances. In Europe, for instance, the countries might be grouped together in such a way that four or five ministers could do the whole of the work. But here a difficulty would arise which would destroy the ex- pected advantage. These ministers would necessarily have to travel from one country to another, residing for a few months in each country to which they are accredited, in order to become acquainted with the leading men and the run of public affairs. For that * Senate Ex. Doc, No. 93, 32d Congress, ist Session. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 69 purpose they should be paid large salaries. It would also be necessary to have on the spot in each capital a secretary of legation, who could act as charge d'af- faires and inform the minister when it was necessary to have his personal presence. The resultant of all these expenditures could not be less than the amount now spent ; although it would enable us to pay our ministers much better than they are now paid. There would perhaps be the disadvantage that none of the countries to which our minister was accredited would feel quite as well disposed to the United States as if a special minister were kept at each capital. They would reason, perhaps rather loosely, but with a show of argument on their side : " The United States is a very great and a very rich country. What difference does a few thousand dollars more or less make-to you ? You waste far more than that sum on public buildings and river and harbor bills. If you show politeness to us at all — and you seem to put it in that way rather than from any advantage it is to yourselves — it would be better to show politeness in the way that we appre- ciate, and not with a niggard hand." After all, it is for each country to choose the way in which it shall be served ; and if, for the purposes of efficiency, for reducing the number of officials, for increasing salaries, or for economy, or even for mak- ing a concession to a strong — though I maintain wrong and uninformed — public opinion as to the use 170 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. and necessity of a diplomatic service, it is a question simply of policy and expediency. But there are many examples of such combinations. We now com- bine the missions to Greece, Roumania, and Serbia. We have one envoy accredited to the five republics of Central America ; so do Germany, Great Britain, France, and Spain. We have a charg6 d'affaires to Uruguay and Paraguay, though those two countries are many hundred miles apart. Other countries do the same thing, Great Britain and France accrediting each an envoy to the Argentine Republic and Para- guay — a more natural combination ; Chili to Uruguay and the Argentine ; and Austria, Germany, Peru, Portugal, and Sweden having each one representative accredited to the three countries, the Argentine Re- public, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The English minister and the Italian charge d'affaires to Peru are accred- ited also to Bolivia. Italy combines China and Japan ; Austria and Portugal combine China, Japan, and Siam ; Great Britain combines China and Corea. Even in Europe this practice is not unknown. Bel- gium, Holland, Spain, and Portugal each combine Sweden and Denmark into one mission ; Roumania and Sweden have each one minister accredited to Bel- gium and Holland ; Turkey accredits the same min- ister to Sweden and Holland ; Greece to England and Holland ; Serbia to France and Belgium ; Mex- ico to Spain and Portugal; and Great Britain has DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS, I7I accredited the consul-general at Scutari in Albania as minister to Montenegro.^' It has been also suggested that we entirely dis- pense with the diplomatic service, and confide diplo- matic functions to the consular officers at the various capitals. Now this proposition has an appearance of reason. In many cities there is not so much business, consular and diplomatic together, that it could not be done by the same person, or at least by the same of- fice. There can be no reason why in most of the capitals of the world the minister could not be charged with consular duties, or at least one of the secretaries. Those duties are generally distinct from diplomatic ones but they might ezisily be combined in one person. But between charging a minister with consular duties and a consul with diplomatic duties, there is a great difference. A minister would have only so much added to his daily work ; a consul would, as may be seen from what has already been said, be placed in a very different situation from that of an ordinary con- sul. According to rules now recognized by all the world, including the United States, a consul thus charged with diplomatic duties would be recognized as a charge d'affaires, and would be subject to all the official and social burdens of diplomatic life, with- out receiving proper compensation, and possibly with- * These examples are all taken from the last edition of the official Almanack de Gotha* 1 72 AMERICAN DIPL OMA C Y. out proper preparation. We would expect our diplo- matic representatives always to be in subordinate position, and in most countries a consul-general charg6 d'affaires ranks below charges d'affaires proper; and yet demand from them results which can be achieved only by men who stand in the highest positions. They would neither have power nor dignity, but would be saddled with all the duties of ministers, with, of course, less pay. In deference to this feeling of simplifying our rep- resentation abroad, there have been various cases where consular and diplomatic powers have been united in the same person. Our ministers to several countries — Switzerland, Portugal, Denmark, Greece, Roumania, and Serbia, and some of the South Amer- ican countries — are consuls-general as well ; and this has not been found to work badly.* Their consular duties have not hindered their diplomatic work, nor injured their social position. Their diplomatic posi- tion, in small capitals, by no means prevents their knowing the heads of the mercantile world ; on the contrary, it assists in it, and they have every oppor- tunity to understand our commercial needs in those countries, and the peculiar conditions under which our *They have, indeed, one natural advantage over those who are exclusively ministers. They receive their allowances for office-rent and contingent expenses according to consular and not according to diplomatic rules. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. I73 trade is carried on. In the same way, in some other cities, such as Madrid, Rome, Vienna, Constantinople, the office of consul-general has been at times united with that of secretary of legation. In Constantinople, and this I may say from personal experience, there was a decided gain to our service from the union of the two offices, making one head instead of two. In Mad- rid, where the consular business is small, this was equally the case. It would have been true also in all of the small capitals of Europe, and even in St. Peters- burg and Rome. In Vienna the consul-general had too much business to allow him to perform the duties of secretary of legation also, and neither here nor in capitals like Paris, London, or Berlin, could this union have been effected unless there were one or two other secretaries of legation to perform the necessary work. The diplomatic title would in that case be given to the consul-general simply for social reasons, as it would obtain for him a higher standing in the society of the place. At Rome alone, of all places where this union was tried, were there objections from the government of the country : the Italian government refused to ac- cept the consul-general as secretary of legation. It is impossible to judge of the action of the Italian gov- ernment in this case without knowing exactly in what manner the proposition was put to them. If, when it was proposed, it was hinted in any way that such a union would be disagreeable to the legation, the Ital- 174 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ian government, out of regard to the legation, might have refused. It certainly could not have done so on principle ; for in several of the states of South America the Italian government unites its chief diplomatic and consular functions in the same person ; and it could hardly have maintained that what was good for Amer- ica was not good also for Rome.* Perhaps it might have been different if the case had been reversed, and the secretary named consul-general. Such unions, are however, no novelty ; for while in most countries the consular and diplomatic services are kept in a measure distinct, in all countries persons not unfrequently pass from one to the other. Some of the most distinguished men in the diplomatic ser- vice of all countries have been originally subordinates in the consular service. There was a time in St. Peters- burg when both the English and the German consuls were secretaries of legation. Even now the Austrian consuls-general at London and Paris have the rank of minister resident, and are directors of the Commercial Chancery of the embassy. In Paris the English con- sul is a member of the embassy. In Morocco, Persia, China, and Japan the English envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary is at the same time consul- * Italy maintains in Morocco a minister resident, who is also consul-general ; in Chili, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Uru- guay consuls-general, who are also charge d'affaires, and in Paraguay a consul and charge d'affaires. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1/5 general. In Peru, New Grenada, Ecuador, Chili, Hayti, Central America, and Uruguay, the English ministers resident are also consuls-general, and the commissioner to the Sandwich Islands also performs consular duties. In Washington, the Danish and Swe- dish ministers are also consuls-general ; in Central America, Ecuador, Siam and Uruguay, the French charge d'affaires is consul-general ; in the Argentine Republic, the Austrian minister and the Belgian charge d'affaires, are consuls-general; in Bolivia and Uruguay, the Spanish charge d'affaires is consul-gen- eral ; in Brazil, the Venezuelan charge d'affaires is consul-general, though Venezuela has refused to ac- cept the minister of the United States in a dual capacity ; in China, the Dutch minister is consul-gen- eral ; in Corea, the Russian minister is consul-general ; in Hawaii, the French and Portuguese commission- ers are consuls-general ; in Japan the Portuguese charge d'affaires is consul-general ; and in Portugal, the Swedish minister is also consul-general. In sev- eral other countries, ministers or some members of the legation perform the duties of consuls-general without bearing the title. Owing to the habit of considering our missions abroad simply as convenient places to dispose of po- litical partisans who are desirous of obtaining a good sinecure, or who have failed of re-election by their constituents, our legations have generally been classi- 176 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. fied according to the amount of salary paid to them, although this should be considered simply as an equivalent for the various expenses necessary in dif- ferent places. I should be disposed to arrange our missions abroad very differently, according to their relative importance. In the first place naturally comes England, not only because England is the country nearest allied to us by blood and by commer- cial interests, but because along our whole northern frontier extends an English possession, and English colonies surround us on every side. We have com- mercial difficulties, difficulties with fisheries, difficul- ties with Indians on the frontier, and difficulties with our own citizens of Irish birth who naturally sympa- thize with their native country. Next to this, for a similar reason, should come Spain, on account of the Spanish colonies of Cuba and Porto Rico lying near us, of the commercial restrictions which we are under with those colonies, and of the danger of annexation which every disturbance there brings nearer us. After this come Mexico, the countries of Central and South America, where we wish to preserve a political as well as a commercial predominance, and to prevent enterprises of European powers ; the Hawaiian Isl- ands, which we are bound to regard always as an out- lying part of America ; Eastern Asia, China, Japan, and Siam, where we have large commercial interests capable of being greatly increased. After these only DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 177 should come Germany, the first of all European states not mentioned, on account of the number of Germans naturalized or domiciled in this country, the great commerce, and the difficulties arising from both. After Germany are France, the rest of Euro- pean countries, Africa, and Persia. There are at present in the diplomatic service of the United States fifteen envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, sixteen ministers resident, twelve of whom are also consuls-general, one charge d'affaires (to Paraguay and Uruguay), and one diplo- matic agent and consul-general (to Egypt). We have representatives in every independent and semi-inde- pendent country of Europe, except Montenegro and Bulgaria ; in every country of South America, except Ecuador; and in all those parts of Asia and Africa with which we have any relations. Why Ecuador should be omitted is very hard to say. We have re- cently had a difficulty with that country, which was aggravated by the lack of a diplomatic representative on our side, for Ecuador maintains one here. We finally settled the dispute by a display of naval force, and thus set a very bad precedent for other countries to follow in dealing with the American republics. In Bulgaria the presence of a consular officer possessing diplomatic powers, i.e., a diplomatic agent and con- sul-general (the form usual in semi-independent coun- tries), is necessary for the interests of our commerce 178 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, and for the protection of Americans and their prop- erty ; for there are more Americans established in Bulgaria than in Roumania and Serbia combined. Now that Montenegro has a port on the Adriatic, the minister to Greece could also be accredited to that country, without adding greatly to his duties. The total cost of our diplomatic service during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, was $410,246.66. The sum of $3,834 was taken in for passport fees. The cost of the British diplomatic service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1884, was $1,205,654. The following comparative table will show the rank and salaries of the chief diplomatic officers of the United States, Great Britain, and France. These salaries do not, however, represent entirely the differences, for while the allowances to our min- isters for office-rent and for the contingent expenses are very small, those in the English and French ser- vices are very liberal. Their ministers either have an allowance large enough to enable them to hire a com- fortable and convenient house (not office), or have the use of a house belonging to the government. In Constantinople, for example, the English government owns two large houses, almost palaces, one in town and one in the country on the Bosphorus. So also do France, Germany, Russia, and Italy. Nearly every other government but our own has at least one. So in many capitals of Europe ; and in the extreme East Great Britain France Germany Russia Austria- Hungary . Italy Spain Turkey Belgium Netherlands Sweden Denmark Portugal Switzerland Greece Roumania Serbia Bulgaria Hayti San Domingo .... Mexico Central America . . Colombia Venezuela Brazil Uruguay Paraguay Argentine Chili Peru Bolivia Ecuador The United States Sandwich Islands Japan China , Corea Siam , Persia , Liberia. . Morocco . Egypt... Congo . . . MAT IC OF. FICIALS. 179 United States. England. France. e. 117,500 17,500 a. $40,000 e. a. $50,000 e. 17,500 a. 35,000 a. 28,000 e. 17,500 a. 39,oco a. 50,000 e. 12,000 a. 40,000 a. 34,000 e. 12,000 a. 35,000 a. 22,000 e. 12,000 e. 30,000 a. 24,000 e. 10,000 a. 40,000 a. 26,000 m. 7,500 e. 17,400 e. 12,000 m. 7,500 e. 18,000 e. 12,000 m. 7,500 e. 15,000 e. 10,000 m.c. 5,000 e. 15,000 e. 10,000 m. c. 5,000 e. 20,000 e. 12,000 m.c. 5,000 e. 6,250 a. I2,OCO ) e. 17,500 e. 12,000 V m. c. 6, 500 e. 10,000 e. 10,000 \ m. 6,000 e. 7,000 ag. c. m.c. 6,000 6,000 ag.c. e. 6,000 6,000 )■ m.( e. :. 5,000 12,000 e. 15,000 e. 16,000 e. 10,000 m.c. 10,000 ch.c 6,000 e. 7,500 m.c. 10,000 ch.c 6,000 m.c. 7,500 m. 10,000 c. 6,000 e. 12,000 e. 20,000 e. 16,000 m.c. 5,000 m.c 8,000 ch.c 6,800 7,500 15,000 V 14,000 e. 10,000 m.c. 10,000 e. 10,000 e. 10,000 m.c. 10,000 I. 10,000 m.c. 5,000 ch.c! e. m.c. e. 7,000 30,000 c. 5,500 5,200 m. 7,500 com. com. c. 4,200 e. 12,000 e.c. 30,000 e. 16,000 e. m.c. 12,000 5,000 V- 30,000 e. 17,000 m.c. 5,000 ag.c. 8,000 com. c. 5,000 m.c. 5,000 e.c. 25,000 e. 12,000 m.c. 5,000 2,000 e. c. e.c. 10,000 6,400 ag.c. 5,000 ag.c. 12,500 ag.c. 10,000 ag. 5,000 .... NoTK. — In the above table a. = ambassador ; e. = envoy extraordinary and minis- ter plenipotentiary ; m. = minister resident ; c. = consul-general ; ag. = diplomatic agent ; ch. = charg^ d'affaires ; com. = commissioner. The salaries are calculated, for convenience, at the rate of five dollars to the pound sterling, and five francs to the dollar. l8o AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. this practice is universal, there being no other way of providing for the legation. Our Government owns houses only in Siam and Morocco, but the need of them is urgent in China and Japan. Owing to the constant rise of property in all large cities the pur- chase of legation-houses would not be bad simply as an investment. English ministers also have an outfit in order to enable them to install themselves properly at their posts. This is calculated on a liberal scale, being, for example, $20,000 for Paris; $12,500 for Vienna, Berlin, and St. Petersburg; $10,000, for China, Japan, and Persia, Madrid and Washington, and never being less than $2,000. These are the figures for the outfit in case of an original appointment. On pro- motion the outfits are only two-thirds of these amounts, and only one-half on a mere transfer. In the early part of our Revolution the salary of a minister plenipotentiary was ;^2,500, equal to $11,100, besides which he sometimes had an allowance for house-rent. This was reduced on account of the em- barrassed state of our finances, and subsequently the salary of a full minister was generally $9,000 ; that of a minister resident or charge d'affaires was $4,500. Each was allowed one-half of a year's salary as outfit on going to his post, and one-quarter of a year's salary as return allowance on coming home. Although these were necessary and very proper allowances, they were productive of abuses, owing to the want of a DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. l8l fixed tenure of office. It was possible for an admin- istration to reward a partisan by appointing him to a foreign mission, and by recalling him, or allowing him to resign after a year's nominal service, or even less, during which he was often absent from his post, or lived cheaply in a hotel or boarding-house. In this way, with considerable time spent in going and coming, by not resigning until he had reached Amer- ica, and had enjoyed his leave of absence, with his outfit and infit, a minister might have the salary of two years for what was really a pleasure trip, with but a few weeks spent at his post of duty. The mis- sion to St. Petersburg of John Randolph of Roanoke is a notorious instance of this abuse. It was custom- ary, also, to allow about a year's salary to a minister sent for special reasons, as to negotiate a treaty, to a country to which he was not originally accredited, in addition to his expenses. In this way a charge d'affaires at Buenos Ayres, with a salary of $4,500, re- ceived for special services in making treaties with Paraguay and Uruguay, the whole work of which was done by his colleagues or friends, the sum of $14,- 3 ; and a minister at Constantinople, with a salary of $6,000, received $9,000 for a few weeks ' services in Greece, whither he -had been sent to arrange for the payment .of an unjust claim of a missionary who had acted as consul. A consul-general to Japan, in 1856, was allowed $10,000 for concluding a treaty with l82 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. Siam. The law of 1856 abolished outfits, and in- creased the salaries of the ministers to about the point at which they are now fixed. In some cases, as at Copenhagen, Lisbon, and Berne, these salaries have been reduced since that time by a third. Such, how- ever, is the traditional power of an ancient abuse that many people still believe that a minister holds a sin- ecure, and that the position is one without responsi- bility, which is to be sought for the opportunity of making money, or for taking a pleasure trip at the expense of the Government. There appear to have been no appropriations for the salaries of secretaries of legation before the year 1 83 1. Up to that time each minister was supposed to pay his own secretary, and he therefore considered the copies of his despatches, as well as his instructions, to be his personal property, and took them away on leaving his post. From reports made in 1832 we find that there were no records in the legation at London prior to 1826, nor in that at Paris prior to 1 8 10, nor in that in St. Petersburg before 1823.^' By the law of 1856 the salaries of secretaries of legation were fixed at fifteen per cent, of the salaries of the ministers, that is, from $1,500 to $2,625. The salaries of second secretaries of legation,- or assistant secre- taries, as they were at first called, are $2,000 each. Secretaries have no outfit nor allowances of any kind, * H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 94, 22d Congress, 2d Session. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 83 and must pay their own travelling expenses. When acting as charge d'affaires ad interim, they receive an amount equal to one-half of the minister's salary for that time, during which, however, their own pay ceases. In the English service the secretaries are divided into four classes, and receive from $725 to $5,000 yearly, besides an outfit varying from $725 to $2,000 to the two higher grades, and an allowance to secretaries of embassy at from $500 to $1,000 for house-rent. Their travelling expenses are paid on their appoint- ment, transfer, or promotion. When acting as charge d'affaires a secretary receives in addition from $5 to $30 a day, which is deducted from the salary of the minister. Besides this, a secretary of legation, after ten years' service as such, receives an additional $1,250 a year. Secretaries also have an additional allowance of $500 yearly if they have passed a satisfactory ex- amination in Public Law, and the same amount for a knowledge of Russian, Turkish, Persian, Japanese, or Chinese, when serving in the countries where any of those languages are used. One result of a regular service is that in most coun- tries diplomatic and consular functionaries who be- come incapacitated by age or illness, are entitled to pensions, regulated partly by the positions they have held and the length of time they have served. In the English service the age for retirement is fixed at seventy. In England these pensions are paid out of 1 84 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. the Treasury ; but in some other countries they are of slight cost to the government, because paid from a pension-fund, which is made up in great part by the retention of a certain percentage of the salary of each official. The British diplomatic pensions are of four classes— at $8,500, $6,500, $4,500, and $3,500 annually ; but, as there are not very many persons who are on the lists, the amount now being paid for diplomatic pensions is only $132,250, and for con-- sular pensions $145,500. Enough has been said to show the utter inadequacy of the present salaries paid in our diplomatic service ; but it may be interesting to quote the opinions of some eminent men, who lived at a time when ex- penses were less, and the purchasing power of money was greater, and who were all above questions of per- sonal interest. In a report made to President Jackson in 1833, by Edward Livingston, then Secretary of State, the whole of which is worth attentive study,^" it is said : *' Ministers are considered as favorites, selected to enjoy the pleasures of foreign travel at the expense of the people ; their places as sinecures ; and their residence abroad as a continued scene of luxurious enjoyment. Their exertions, their embarrassments, their laborious intercourse with the governments to which they are sent, their anxious care to avoid anything that might, on the one hand, give just cause of offence, or to neglect or to abandon the rights of their * H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 94, 22d Congress, 2d Session. DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 85 country or its citizens, on the other, are all unknown at home. Even the merit of their correspondence, from which, at least the reward of honor might be derived, is hid in the archives of the Department and rarely sees the light ; and, except in the instances of a successful negotiation for claims, a minister returns to his country, after years of the most laborious ex- ertion of the highest talent, with an injured, if not a broken fortune, his countrymen ignorant of his exertions, and under- valuing them, perhaps, if known. On the whole, there is scarcely an office, of which the duties, properly performed, are more arduous, more responsible, and less fairly appre- ciated than that of minister to a country with which we have important commercial relations. Yet there is some reason to believe that appointments to them are sometimes eagerly sought from the same false ideas of the nature of the employ- ment. To these mistaken ideas, more or less prevalent, may be traced many of the evils which have operated, and still operate injuriously upon the interests and reputation of the country. . . . '' At home the head of every subordinate bureau attached to any of the departments, has an office, and a messenger, and clerks, and fire and stationery, and lights, and every con- venience for carrying on the business entrusted to him. This is as it should be. But, to represent the dignity of the coun- try, and on a scanty salary to transact its most important con- cerns abroad, we send a man whom we provide with none of these necessaries for the transaction of his business ; we force him to do all the drudgery of the office with his own hands, and either to live in some obscure place, where his countrymen blush to find him fixed, when, after some difficulty they have discovered his tavern residence ; or, at the expense of his own fortune, to provide what is necessary for the interest and dignity of the Government. The usual answer to these repre- sentations is that, notwithstanding all these inconveniences, 1 86 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. candidates are always found eagerly seeking these appoint- ments. But it must be remarked that these candidates are of two kinds. First, men of wealth, who are willing to purchase the honor of the station at the expense of their private for- tunes. But although these are not always the fittest, in other respects, for the place, they are sometimes selected, and their appointment is popular, because there seems to be no objec- tion to a minister's keeping up a decent appearance, provided he does it at his own expense. Secondly, there are others, who seek these appointments, because they make false calcu- lations on the consequences. They resolve to be very eco- nomical, to live within their income, and to be drawn into no extravagance. But, on arriving at their place of destination, they find that expenses which might, with prudence, have been avoided here, are inevitable abroad. Civilities are re- ceived which must be returned ; strangers are introduced who must be entertained ; their countrymen call on them, and must be treated hospitably. In short, they find themselves obliged to live ap*^"*?^rs do; or, to forego all the advantages which soc5iil?*^intrt9; '-sa would give them in the business of their mission. The consequence is, that all our ministers re- turn with impaired fortunes, however firm their resolutions have been to avoid unnecessary expense. It is possible there may be exceptions ; but they are certainly very rare. . . . If the mission is useful it ought to be supported at the public, not at private expense ; and the representatives of a great nation ought not to be obliged to employ, in devising parsimo- nious expedients for their support, that time and those talents which ought to be occupied in the service of their country." In a letter to Monroe, dated at Paris, June 17, 1785, Thomas Jefferson says : " I thank you for your attention to my outfit ; for the arti- cles of household furniture, clothes, and carriage, I have al- DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS, 1 87 ready paid 28,000 livres, and have still more to pay. For the greatest part of this I have been obliged to anticipate my salary ; from which, however, I shall never be able to repay it. I find that by a rigid economy, bordering, however, on meanness, I can save, perhaps 500 livres a month, at least in the summer. The residue goes for expenses, so much of course and of necessity, that I cannot avoid them, without abandoning all respect for my public character. Yet I will pray you to touch this string, which I know to be a tender one with Con- gress, with the utmost delicacy. I had rather be ruined in my fortune than in their esteem. If they allow me half a year's salary as an outfit, I can get through my debts in time. If they raise the salary to what it was, or even pay our house- rent and taxes, I can live with more decency." Mr. John Adams wrote to Mr. Jay, in relation to his appointment as minister to England : ** There is a certain appearance in propc"*'-*^ to rank, which all the courts of Europe make a serious po' pxr . . ag from everybody who is presented to them. I need not say to you, sir, because you know it perfectly, that American ministers have never yet been able to make this appearance at court ; they are now less able to do it than ever. I lament this ne- -ifcafeky of consuming the labor of my fellow-citizens upon such objects, as much as any man living ; but I am sure that de- basing your ministers so much below their rank will one day have consequences of much more importance to the husband- man, artisan, and even laborer." Mr. John Quincy Adams, writing from London, in 181 5, to the Secretary of State, says : " It is needless to say to you, or to any person having been in the same capacity here, that the annual salary of an Ameri- l88 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, can minister is insufficient to support a man with a family — I say not in the style of high official rank, but in the decency becoming a private gentleman." Mr. Monroe, in a letter to the auditor in 1820, says : "The reasons in favor of an increase of the salaries of our ministers abroad are as strong as for an increase of that of those at home, if not much stronger ; and there is one reason, of great force, which is peculiarly applicable to the former. The spirit of our Government, and the manners of our people, not only authorize, but inculcate economy at home in the ex- penditure of our public functionaries ; but that indulgence cannot be enjoyed by those at home, however consonant it may be to their habits and inclinations, or necessary to their cir- cumstances." Mr. McLane, who had been minister to Great Britain, said in his Report as Secretary of the Treas- ury, in 1831 : " At some foreign courts, and those whose relations to the United States are the most important, the expenses incident to the station are found so burdensome as only to be met by the private resources of the minister. The tendency of this is to throw those high trusts altogether into the hands of the rich, which is certainly not according to the genius of our system." Such quotations might be indefinitely multiplied. The Report of Mr. Webster, in 1852, is full of similar statements.* Since that time, as has been said before, * Senate Ex. Doc, No. 93, 32d Congress, ist Session. r DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS. 1 89 the expenses of living, in all the capitals of Europe, have increased by from fifty to two hundred per centum. I allow myself, however, one further quotation, which is both interesting and authoritative, from a private letter of Mr. Wheaton : '■'■ The Austrian cabinet is on the point of forming a new commercial union with the states of Northern and Central Italy, and it should be the duty of our minister at Vienna to keep watch of this movement and turn it to our advantage. If Mr. Calhoun could have seen with his own eyes how badly our affairs have been managed for years in the different European courts, from ignorance of official forms and of that language which is the universal tongue of diplomacy, without which a diplomatist might as well be deaf and dumb, as well as from the lack of that experience which, in our profession as in every other, gives a decided advantage to those who possess it, he would be convinced of the importance of having the principal missions^ at least, occupied by men who possess these qual- ities. At least those who unite the desired qualities ought to be employed where they can do most service, while incapable men should be turned out without favor or partiality. Those who have served the country faithfully and skilfully ought to be encouraged and transferred from one court to another, which is the only advancement that our system admits of. The only way of making up for the insufficient salaries given under our system would be to vote new outfits, for those who have deserved them, whenever the interest of the country would justify and demand their transfer to another post. Such is my way of looking at things ; it is the result of much observation and reflection. " I believe that there is still much to do to advance our igo AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. political and commercial interests in Europe, and nothing vexes me more than to hear an American minister say, what- ever the court maybe to which he is accredited, "There is nothing to do here,^^ or " Nothing can be done." I do not know a post, whether important or not, which could not offer a zealous, active, and skilful agent the opportunity of doing something for the interests of his country."* * Wheaton's Letter of May 15, 1836, Lawrence's Commentaire, i,, 83. PART II. AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO PRO- TECT COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION. IV. THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. Necessity of Protecting Merchant Vessels in the Mediterra- nean. — Our Situation after the Revolution. — Application to France. — Mr. Adams and the Tripoline Ambassador. — Adams for Tribute, Jefferson for War. — Treaty with Morocco. — Lamb at Algiers. — The Mathurins. — Effect upon us of the Peace between Portugal and Algiers. — The American Captives. — Donaldson's Treaty with Algiers in 1795. — Its Cost. — The Dey. — Treaty with Tripoli. — Eaton's Negotiations with Tunis. — War with Tripoli. — Lear's Treaty. — War with Algiers. — Decatur. — Lord Ex- mouth. — New Treaty with the United States in 18 16. So many changes have taken place during the present century that it is difficult for us to realize that only seventy years ago the Mediterranean was so unsafe that the merchant ships of every nation stood in danger of capture by pirates, unless they were protected either by an armed convoy or by tribute paid to the petty Barbary powers. Yet we can scarcely open a book of travels during the last century without mention being made of the immense risks to which every one was exposed who ventured by sea from Marseilles to Naples. The French 13 1 94 AMERICA N DIPL OMA C V. dramatist Regnard was captured on an English ship going from Civita Vecchia to Toulon, and served for a time as a slave in Algiers at the end of the seven- teenth century ; and Jacob Leisler, who played such an important part in the early colonial history of New York, suffered the same fate before his arrival in this country. To go much further back, the great Cervantes was a slave in Algiers during four years. We all remember how Goethe in his Italian journey waited a long time at Naples for the corvette which made the fortnightly passage between that place and Palermo, and how afterward at Palermo he tells us of seeing the Prince Pallagonia walking through the streets with his footman, taking up contributions for the purpose of ransoming captives in Barbary. " This collection never produces much," he says, "but the subject remains in men's memories ; and those who have held back during their lifetime often leave large sums for this purpose at their death." The European states, in order to protect their com- merce, had the choice either of paying certain sums per head for each captive, which in reality was a premium on capture, or of buying entire freedom for their commerce by the expenditure of large sums yearly. The treaty renewed by France, in 1788, with Algiers, was for fifty years, and it was agreed to pay $2CX),ooo annually, besides large presents distributed according to custom every ten years, and a great sum THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. 1 95 given down.^ The peace of Spain with Algiers is said to have cost from three to five millions of dollars. There is reason to believe that at the same time England was paying an annual tribute of about $280,- 000. England was the only power suf^ciently strong on the sea to put down these pirates ; but in order to keep her own position as mistress of the seas she pre- ferred to leave them in existence in order to be a scourge to the commerce of other European powers, and even to support them by paying a sum so great that other states might find it difficult to make peace with them. When the Revolution broke out we no longer had the safeguards for our commerce that had been given to us by England, and it was therefore that in our very first negotiations for a treaty with France we de- sired to have an article inserted into the treaty that the King of France should secure the inhabitants of the United States, and their vessels and effects, against all attacks or depredations from any of the Barbary powers.t It was found impossible to insert this article in the treaty of J 778, and instead of that the king agreed to " employ his good offices and interpo- sition in order to provide as fully and efficaciously as possible for the benefit, conveniency, and safety of the * Report of Mr. Jefferson, December 28, 1790, State Papers, x.,45. f Secret Journals of Congress, ii., 10, 28. ig6 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. United States against the princes and the states of Barbary or their subjects." ^ According to a report made in 1 790 by Mr. Jeffer- son, when Secretary of State, " before the War of In- dependence, about one-sixth of the wheat and flour exported from the United States, and about one- fourth in value of their dried and pickled fish, and some rice, found their best markets in the Mediterra- nean ports." There were then employed in the trade about twenty thousand tons of navigation and twelve thousand seamen.t Owing to the Revolution this trade ceased for some time entirely ; but after we had gained the right to fish on the Banks, our merchant vessels began again to go to the Mediterranean, and the trade revived. This could not but be noticed by the Barbary rulers, who saw a strange flag, hitherto unknown, and which certainly had paid no tribute^ to them, coming gradually into the Mediterranean.^ In July, 1785, the schooner Maria was taken, off Cape St. Vincent, by an Algerine corsair, and five days afterward the ship Dauphin was taken by another Algerine, fifty leagues westward of Lisbon. The offi- cers and crews, twenty-one persons in number, were reduced to slavery, although the captains were far better treated than the men.§ One vessel, the brig * Treaty of 1778, Article VIII. f State Papers, x., 42. X Lyman's Diplomacy of the United States, ii., 339, 340. % State Papers, x., 56. THE FIR A TIC A L BA RBA RY FO WERS. 1 9/ Betsy, had indeed been captured the year before and carried into Tangier, but the crew had been liber- ated through the good offices of the Spanish court.* In concluding his report Mr. Jefferson said : *' It rests with Congress to decide between war, tribute, and ransom, as the means of re-establishing our Mediterranean commerce." Already, In May, 1784, Congress had authorized a commission to be issued to Mr. Adams, Dr. Franklin, and Mr. Jefferson, empowering them either directly or through commissioners to treat with the Barbary powers. In March, 1785, these commissioners applied to the French minister. Count de Vergennes, asking his advice about the conduct of negotiations, and re- questing the good offices of Louis XVI. to be inter- posed with the Emperor of Morocco. After Franklin had returned to America, in July, 1785, Adams and Jefferson, finding their hands full with European ne- gotiations, appointed Thomas Barclay to negotiate with Morocco, and John Lamb to negotiate with Algiers. A few months afterward Jefferson was per- suaded to go to London and meet Abdurrahman, the Tripolitan ambassador, with whom Mr. Adams had already had some discussion. Mr. Adams' account of these preliminary conferences is amusing. He writes to Mr. Jay ; * Jeflferson's Works. ff^' or r.vf [( UNIVERSITl 198 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, " At a late levee the king, in conversation with one of the foreign ministers, was pleased to say ' that the Tripoline ambassador refused to confer with his ministers, and insisted on an audience ; but that nothing had been said at it more than that Tripoli and England were at peace, and desirous to continue so.' His Majesty added, * All he wants is a present, and his expenses borne to Vienna and Denmark.' " If nothing more was said at the audience, there are not wanting persons in England who will find means to stimulate this African to stir up his countrymen against American ves- sels. It may reasonably be suspected that his present visit is chiefly with a view to the United States, to draw them into a treaty of peace, which implies tribute, or at least presents ; or to obtain aids from England to carry on a war against us. Feeling his appearance here to be ominous, like that of other irregular bodies, which, * from their hair shake pestilence and war ' I thought at first to avoid him ; but, finding that all the other foreign ministers had made their visits, and that he would take amiss a longer inattention, it was judged necessary to call at his door for the form ; but, when the attempt was made, which was last evening, so late that there was no suspicion of his being visible, the ambassador was announced at home, and ready to receive the visitant. It would scarcely be reconcil- able to the dignity of Congress to read a detail of the cere- monies which attended the conference ; it would be more proper to write them to harlequin, for the amusement of the gay at the New York theatre. " It is sufficient to say that his Excellency made many in- quiries concerning America, the climate, soil, heat, cold, etc., and observed, ' It is a very great country, but Tripoli is at war with it.^ In return, it was asked how there could be war between two nations when there had been no hostility, injury, insult, or provocation on either side. His Excellency replied * That Turkey, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco were the THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. I99 sovereigns of the Mediterranean ; and that no nation could navigate that sea without a treaty of peace with them.' * " It was the delight of his soul, and the whole pleasure of his life to do good ; and he was zealous to embrace an oppor- tunity, which now presented itself, of doing a great deal. The time was critical, and the sooner peace was made the better ; for, from what passed before he left home, he was convinced if the treaty should be delayed anoth^ year, it would, after that, be very difficult to make it. If any considerable number of vessels and prisoners should be taken, it would be hard to persuade the Turks, especially the Algerines, to desist. A war between Christian and Christian was mild, and prisoners, on either side, were treated with humanity ; but a war between Turk and Christian was horrible, and prisoners were sold into slavery. Although he was himself a Mussulman, he must still say he thought it a very rigid law ; but, as he could not alter it, he was desirous of preventing its operation, or, at least, of softening it, as far as his influence extended. . . . He * called God to witness,' that is to say, he swore by his beard, which is a sacred oath with them, * that his motive to this earnestness for peace, although it might be of some benefit to himself, was the desire of doing good.' . . . "This man is either a consummate politician in art and address, or he is a benevolent and wise man. Time will dis- cover whether he disguises an interested character, or is in- deed the philosopher he pretends to be. If he is the latter, Providence seems to have opened to us an opportunity of con- ducting this thorny business to a happy conclusion." f Adams and Jefferson found the terms too exorbi- tant. The ambassador demanded as the lowest price for a perpetual peace 30,000 guineas for his employers * February 17, 1786, Life and Works of John Adams, viii., 372. f John Adams' Works, viii., 373. 200 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. and ;^3,ooo for himself ; that Tunis would probably treat on the same terms ; but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco. Peace with all four powers would cost at least $1,000,000, and Congress had ap- propriated only $80,000. That their minds were full of this subject may be seen from the constant references to it in their corre- spondence. At one time there was a rumor that Dr. Franklin had been captured on his way home, and taken to Algiers, and " that he bore his slavery to ad- miration." * Mr. Adams was strongly opposed to war, on ac- count of the expense, and preferred the payment of tribute. I "As long as France, England, Holland, the Emperor, etc., will submit to be tributary to these robbers, and even en- courage them, to what purpose should we make war upon them ? The resolution might be heroic, but would not be wise. The contest would be unequal. They can injure us very sensibly, but we cannot hurt them in the smallest de- gree. . . . If we could even send a force sufficient to burn a town, their unfeeling governors would only insult and de- ride, . . . and think no more of it than if we had killed so many caterpillars upon an apple-tree. . . . Unless it were possible, then, to persuade the great maritime powers of Eu- rope to unite in the suppression of these piracies, it would be very imprudent for us to entertain any thoughts of contending with them, and will only lay a foundation, by irritating their * Jefferson's Works, i., 449 ; Jefferson to Franklin, October 5, 1785. THE riRA TIC A L BARB A RY PO WERS. 20 1 passions and increasing their insolence and their demands, for long and severe repentance." * Mr. Adams believed that war would be greatly more expensive than tribute, ** And when you leave off fighting, you must pay as much money as it would cost you now for peace. We ought not to fight them at all, unless we determine to fight them forever. The thought, I fear, is too rugged for our people to bear. To fight them at the expense of millions, and make peace, after all, by giving more money and larger presents than would now procure perpetual peace seems not to be economical." f Mr. Jefferson quite as decidedly preferred war. He wrote to Mr. Adams : ** I. Justice is in favor of this opinion. 2. Honor favors it. 3. It will procure us respect in Europe ; and respect is a safeguard to interest. 4. It will arm the federal head with the safest of all the instruments of coercion over its delinquent members. 5. I think it least expensive. 6. Equally effect- ual." t He thought, too, that America would not have to fight alone, but would be joined by Naples and Por- tugal, if not by other powers. " You will probably find the tribute to all these powers make such a proportion of the federal taxes as that every man will feel them sensibly when he pays those taxes. The ques- * Adams to Jay, December 15, 1784, Adams' Works, viii., 218. t Adams to Jefferson, June 6 and July 3, 1786 ; July 31, 1786, Adams' Works, viii., 400, 406, 411. X Jefferson to Adams, July 11, 1786, Jefferson's Works, i., 591. 202 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. tion is, whether their peace or war will be cheapest ? But it is a question which should be addressed to our honor as well as our avarice. Nor does it respect us as to these pirates only, but as to the nations of Europe. If we wish our commerce to be free and uninsulted, we must let these nations see that we have an energy which at present they disbelieve. The low opinion they entertain of our powers cannot fail to involve us soon in a naval war." * Similar remarks are found in other letters. Jef- ferson fortified himself with the opinion of Count d'Estaing as to the means to be employed. He thought a perpetual blockade the best. The expe- rience of Massiac had shown this to be effectual. " Bombardments," said d'Estaing, "are but transitory. It is, if I may so express myself, like breaking glass windows with guineas." t " I was very unwilling," says Jefferson, in his Autobiog- raphy, '' that we should acquiesce in the European humilia- tion of paying a tribute to those lawless pirates, and endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depre- dations from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their govern- ments, articles of a special confederation. . . . Spain had just concluded a treaty with Algiers, at the expense of three millions of dollars, and did not like to relinquish the benefit of that until the other party should fail in their observance of it. Portugal, Naples, the Two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark, and Sweden, were favorably disposed to such an association ; but their representatives at Paris expressed apprehensions * Jefferson to John Page, August 20, 1785, Jefferson's Works, i. , 401. t Count d'Estaing to Jefferson, May 17, 1784, conf. State Papers, x., 54. THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. 203 that France would interfere, and, either openly or secretly, support the Barbary powers ; and they required that I should ascertain the dispositions of the Count de Vergennes on the subject. I had therefore taken occasion to inform him of what we were proposing, and, therefore, did not think it proper to insinuate any doubt of the fair conduct of his gov- ernment ; but stating our propositions, I mentioned the appre- hensions entertained by us, that England would interfere in behalf of those piratical governments. ' She dares not do it,' said he. I pressed it no further. The other agents were satisfied with this indication of his sentiments, and nothing was now wanting to bring it into direct and formal considera- tion but the assent of our Government, and their authority to make a formal proposition. I communicated to them the favorable prospect of protecting our commerce from the Bar- bary depredations, and for such a continuance of time, as, by an exclusion of them from the sea, to change their habits and characters from a predatory to an agricultural people ; toward which, however, it was expected they would contribute a frigate and its expenses, to be in constant cruise. But they were in no condition to make any such engagement. Their recommendatory powers for obtaining contributions were so openly neglected by the several states, that they declined an engagement which they were conscious they could not fulfil with punctuality ; and so it fell through." * Every other method having failed, Barclay pro- ceeded to Morocco, and Lamb to Algiers. ' Barclay concluded a treaty with the Emperor of Morocco on July 16, 1787, without particular diffi- culty. This was, I believe, the first treaty made with any power in which neither tribute nor presents were * Jefferson's Works, i., 65-67. 204 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. stipulated ; although without a naval force it was naturally impossible to secure its accurate observance except by occasional presents. The treaty was con- cluded for fifty years. Soon afterward the Emperor died, and it was necessary to have it recognized by his successor. Twenty thousand dollars were appro- priated for this purpose, which were distributed in presents, and in 1 795 a formal ratification of the treaty was made. In 1802 there were some slight diffi- culties, and the consul was ordered to leave Tangier because the United States had not sent presents and had refused a convoy to some Moorish vessels. When the consul informed the Emperor that the President had ordered a hundred gun-carriages to be made and sent to him as a present, he was allowed to remain. In 1803 a Moorish corsair captured the American brig Celia, but this was soon recaptured by the frigate Philadelphia, and the act was disavowed by the Moorish authorities. When hostile demon- strations were threatened in consequence of this breach of the treaty, the Emperor proclaimed that "the American nation are still, as they were, in peace and friendship with our person, exalted of God." At the expiration of the forty-ninth year the treaty of 1787 was renewed for another fifty years. Our only other treaty with Morocco was a convention, into which, with most of the European powers, we entered in 1865, for the maintaining of a THE PIRA TIC A L BA RBA RY PO VVERS. 20$ lighthouse off Cape Spartel, for which the sum of $325 is now paid annually. Lamb, however, entirely failed in his negotiations at Algiers. He had been sent thither by Jefferson and Adams, with many misgivings ; but he had brought recommendations from Congress, had "fol- lowed for many years the Barbary trade, and seemed intimately acquainted with those states." They did not feel sure either of his abilities or of his integrity ; they sent a Mr. Randall with him as clerk to "attend to his proceedings," and give information if he saw anything going amiss. When afterward, under the pretext of ill health. Lamb declined to return either to Congress, to Mr. Adams or to Mr. Jefferson, they feared some malversation. " I am persuaded that an angel sent on this business," says Mr. Jefferson, " and so much limited in his terms, could have done noth- ing. But should Congress propose to try the line of negotiation again, I think they will perceive that Lamb is not a proper agent."* Richard O'Brien, one of the captured sea-captains, wrote to Mr. Car- michael, our charg^ d'affaires at Madrid, on June 24, 1790, " That Mr. Lamb could speak nothing but English ; that the French consul and Conde d'Espilly, the Spanish ambassador, would not take the trouble to explain Mr. Lamb's propositions, as the terms of the peace would be advantageous to the Alge- * Jefferson's Works, i., 438, 605. 206 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. lines ; and that the French and Spaniards advised Mr. Lamb to return to America, that the Algerines would not make peace with the United States of America," * Subsequently the Vekil Hadji said to Mr. O'Brien that '* He hoped, if the Americans sent an American to Algiers to make the peace, they would send a man who could speak the Spanish or Italian language. He ridiculed much the sending a man that no one could understand what he had to say." f About O'Brien himself, John Quincy Adams wrote, thirty years later : " 0*Brien is an old Irishman, who was once consul-gen- eral at Algiers, chiefly because he had been nine or ten years a slave there. He was a master of a vessel, and is an exact copy of Smollett's novel sailors. His discourse is patched up entirely of sea phrases, and he prides himself upon nothing so much as his language. " % The Dey, however, received Mr. Lamb and his secretary, Mr Randall, politely, and even informed them that he was well acquainted with the exploits of General Washington, for whom he felt great admi- ration ; but as he never expected to see him, he hoped that Congress would do him the favor to send him a full-length portrait, that he might hang it up in his palace. The feeling of regard for General Wash- ington did not, however, diminish the prices of the captives, which, according to Mr. Lamb, were $6,000 * I Foreign Relations, folio ed., 117. f Ibid, t J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, iv., 403. THE PIRA TIC A L BA RBA RY TO WERS. 20/ each for three captains, $4,000 for the mates and pas- sengers, and $1,400 for each of the seamen, besides a customary duty of eleven per cent, on the whole amount. This made about $2,800 a captive, while the agents had authority to offer only $200. The last captives redeemed by the French had cost $300 a man, which, with the expenses, had amounted to about $500. There existed at this time a religious order in Paris called properly the Society of the Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives — more commonly Ma- thurins from the church of St. Mathurin at Paris, which belonged to them — or Brothers of the Redemp- tion. They were instituted in 1 199 by two religious men for ransoming Christians captured by the infidels. Recourse was now had to this charitable order by Mr. Jefferson, and the general of the Mathurins gladly gave his services. But he required that the utmost secrecy should be observed ; for if it were known that they were buying the slaves of other nations the price of their own countrymen would be raised. He required, also, that the allowances for the support of the captives, larger than those given by other nations, which it was believed came from public sources, should be stopped, as no Americans had ever been captured before. It was best to impress upon the Dey that they were supported solely by charity; and it was important to keep the price low, even should 208 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. they remain longer in imprisonment, lest the Alge- rines should pursue the Americans with greater eager- ness and future captives have to pay a higher price. In 1789 a sum of money was deposited with the Mathurins, and the general immediately began bar- gaining. But, unfortunately, the price of captives had not much fallen. In July, 1790, only one had been ransomed, while six had died. The Revolution then put a stop to the proceedings of the Mathurins, by the abolition of all religious orders. As there was no question of obtaining their liberation by force, for the sake of saving a few thousand dollars, fourteen men were allowed to remain in imprisonment for ten years. In 1792, on the proposition of General Washington, the Senate agreed to conclude a treaty with Algiers, provided that it should not cost more than $40,000, as a ransom for the thirteen Americans — $25,000 as a present to the Dey on its signature, and $25,000 more annually. The negotiations were entrusted to Admiral Paul Jones, and were considered so confidential and secret that all the papers were made out in Mr. Jeffer- son's own handwriting. There seems to have been a suspicion that there might be some opposition at Algiers on the part of other powers, for it was known that a Mr. Simpson, of Gibraltar, by the direction of the Messrs. Bulkley of Lisbon, had offered a contract to the Dey to redeem all the American captives for THE PIRA TIC A L BA RBA RY PO WERS. 209 $34,792. It was not known who the parties to this contract were ; it was, indeed, never carried out, and Jones was instructed to deny all knowledge of it.* Jones unfortunately died at this time, and Barclay, who succeeded him, also died in Lisbon. There was therefore some delay before Colonel David Hum- phreys, the American minister at Lisbon, was ap- pointed plenipotentiary. Eight hundred thousand dollars were placed at his disposal. Humphreys never went directly to Algiers ; but while in the south of Spain, endeavoring to get across to the Barbary coast, received the unwelcome, but not entirely unlooked for, news that the Portuguese had made a twelvemonth's truce with Algiers. The Portuguese squadron, there- fore, which had guarded the Straits of Gibraltar, was withdrawn, and that allowed the Algerine fleet to get out into the Atlantic. The immediate result of this was that in a single cruise ten of our vessels were cap- tured, and in November, 1793, the number of prison- ers at Algiers amounted to one hundred and fifteen men, among whom there remained only ten of the original captives of 1785. The Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs as- sured Mr. Church, our consul at Lisbon, that the truce '* Was as unexpected to the court of Portugal as it could be to us, and if it was not quite so unwelcome, yet it was by no *Conf. State Papers, x., 261-8. 2IO AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. means agreeable to their court, who never intended to condude either a peace or truce with the Dey, without giving timely notice to all their friends, that they might avoid the dangers to which they might otherwise be exposed by trusting to the protection of the Portuguese ships of war stationed in the Mediterranean." Portugal had indeed expressed to England and Spain a desire for their co-operation in obtaining a lasting peace, and the English consul at Algiers had therefore, not only without authority, but without even consulting the Portuguese government, concluded this truce in behalf of Portugal. England guaranteed that Portugal should pay a tribute equal to one-third of that paid by Spain, although the Portuguese had refused to pay one farthing. " The conduct of the British in this business leaves no room to doubt or mistake their object, which was evidently aimed at us, and proves that this envy, jealousy, and hatred will never be appeased, and that they will leave nothing unattempted to effect our ruin. As a further confirmation it is worthy of re- mark that the same British agent obtained a truce at the same time between the states of Holland and the Dey, for six months, whereby we and the Hanse towns are now left the only prey to those barbarians."* On Mr. Church's representations the Portuguese arranged to give our merchant vessels the convoy of their ships of war whenever practicable. There were * Church to the Secretary of State, October 12, 1793, conf. State Papers, x., 279. THE FIR A TIC A L BA KB A RY PO WERS, 2 1 I then sixteen American and thirty Hanseatic vessels in the port of Lisbon. Mr. Thomas Pinckney, the American minister at London, had a conversation on this subject with Lord Grenville, who assured him that England ** Had not the least intention or thought of injuring us ; that they conceived they had done no more than their friendship for a good ally required of them ; but that the measure was also particularly advantageous to themselves, as they wanted the co-operation of the Portuguese fleet to act against their common enemy, which it was at liberty to do when no longer employed in blocking up the Algerine fleet." He assured him that no opposition would be made to the Portuguese convoy to vessels already liftheir harbors.* Meanwhile the captives were sending home peti- tions to Congress begging that something should be done for them ; and Captain O'Brien, in a remarkable letter to the President, considered that the only ef- fectual means that could be employed were a fleet of thirty ships.t Colonel Humphreys wrote : "If we mean to have a commerce, we must have a naval force, to a certain extent, to defend it. Besides, the very semblance of this would tend more toward enabling iis to maintain our neutrality in the actual critical state of our af- fairs in Europe than all the declarations, reasonings, conces- sions, and sacrifices that can possibly be made." J * Conf. State Papers, x., 305. t Ibid., 325. nbid.,328. 212 . AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. Congress began at last to see affairs from the same point of view, and on January 2, 1794, the House of Representatives resolved that a " naval force adequate for the protection of the commerce of the United States against the Algerine forces ought to be pro- vided." In the same year authority was given to build six frigates, and to procure ten smaller vessels to be equipped as galleys. Negotiations, however, continued to go on. Pierre Eric Skjoldebrand, the brother of the Swedish consul at Algiers, having become interested in the fate of the Americans, gave some advice and offered his assistance to our Government. He wrote that the European jealousies at Algiers were so great that it was diflficult for any nation to obtain a peace ; and that the Dey wars averse to making peace at any price, *' Because," said he, " if I were to make peace with everybody, what should I do with my corsairs ? What should I do with my soldiers ? They would take off my head for the want of other prizes, not being able to live upon their miserable allow- ance." But Skjoldebrand thought that by the payment of a sufficient amount of money in ways which he speci- fied, together with an annual tribute and occasional presents, peace might be obtained.* In March, 1795, Joseph Donaldson, who had been appointed consul at Tunis and Tripoli, was associated * Conf. State Papers, x., 314. THE PIRA TIC A L BA RBA RY PO WERS. 2 1 3 in the negotiations with Humphreys, to whom Joel Barlow, the poet of the " Columbiad," was afterward added, and they were authorized to employ the ser- vices of Skjoldebrand. Much seems to have de- pended on the manner in which the negotiation was carried on, and stress was laid upon the fact that the Americans had previously employed the Jewish house of BsLSsara & Co., all whose efforts had been countermined by their commercial rivals, Bacri & Co., who were the confidential agents of the Dey. By transferring the business from Bassara to Bacri, and by liberal promises, the Swedes had got the mat- ters into such train that Donaldson, who arrived in Algiers only on the 3d of September, was able to con- clude a treaty on the 5th, the very day on which Barlow arrived.* In making this treaty, however, we had been obliged to follo\y the usage of European powers — not only pay a large sum for the purpose of obtaining peace, but an annual tribute, in order to keep our ves- sels from being captured in the future. The total cost of fulfilling the treaty was estimated at $992,- 463.25. That included $642,500 paid at Algiers to the Dey and to his officials and his brokers, a frigate * Ibid. , 449. See also the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, of January 4, 1797, ibid., 453. The treaty is pub- lished in the Official Collection of Treaties of the United States. 214 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, of thirty-six guns, built and furnished in the United States; and the naval stores and tribute of the first year. We were bound to pay besides this sum about $21,600 a year in naval stores; $20,000 on the pres- entation of a consul ; biennial presents to the offi- cers of the government, estimated at $17,000, as well as incidental and continual presents on the pro- motion of the principal officers of the Dey and regency, and for the attainment of any important ob- ject. Of these last no estimate could be made. The United States fell behind in their payments, and in 1798 sent four armed vessels to the Dey as arrearages. William Eaton, who had been appointed consul to Tunis, accompanied this fleet, and thus de- scribes his presentation to the Dey : *' We proceeded from the American house to the courtyard of the palace, uncovered our heads, entered the area of the hall, ascended a winding maze of five flights of stairs to a narrow, dark entry, leading to a contracted apartment of about twelve by eight feet, the private audience-room. Here we took off our shoes, and entering the cave (for so it seemed), with small apertures of light with iron grates, we were shown to a huge, shaggy beast, sitting on his rump upon a low bench, covered with a cushion of embroidered velvet, with his hind legs gathered up like a tailor or a bear. On our approach to him he reached out his fore paw as if to receive something to eat. Our guide exclaimed, * Kiss the Dey's hand ! ' The consul-general bowed very elegantly and kissed it, and we followed his example in succession. The animal seemed at that moment to be in a harmless mode ; he grinned several THE PIRA TICAL BARBAE V POWERS. 2 1 5 times, but made very little noise. Having performed this ceremony, and standing a few moments in silent agony, we had leave to take our shoes and other property, and leave the den, without any other injury than the humility of being obliged, in this involuntary manner, to violate the second com- mand of God and offend common decency." * A treaty was made by Barlow with Tripoli in No- vember, 1796, on similar terms to that made with Algiers ; indeed, the Dey of Algiers advanced to the United States the money necessary to obtain the peace ; and the treaty was made under his guarantee. By the tenth article the money and presents given to the Dey were to be considered full payment, and no pretence of any periodical tribute for further payment was ever to be made by either party. This clause naturally did not hold good. The Tripolitans became dissatisfied with the more advantageous terms which had been obtained by the Algerines ; and even had a dispute been referred to the Dey of Algiers, as had been stipulated for, it could not be expected that he would decide in our favor. The eleventh article is curious. It reads : '' As the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion ; as it has in itself no char- acter of enmity against the laws, religion, and tranquillity of Mussulmans ; and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the party that no pretext arising from relig- * Life of William Eaton, by C. C. Felton, 182. 2l6 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the har- mony existing between the two countries." For the negotiations with Tunis, Barlow had em- ployed a French trader by the name of Famin, who in 1797 succeeded in concluding a treaty with the Bey. But it contained some articles to which great objection was made by our Government. One of these, the fourteenth, the Senate refused to ratify. It had provided that Americans sending goods to Tunis, in American vessels, should pay three per cent, duty, while those sent by foreigners, on board American ships, should pay ten per cent, duty ; and that all Tu- nisians sending goods to the United States, under any flag whatever, should pay only three per cent. duty. Famin appeared to be something of a rascal, and it was thought that this article, which Barlow said was not in the original document, was inserted that he himself might reap the profits of any direct trade between Tunis and the United States. Two other articles were also objected to ; one that a barrel of gunpowder should be given the Tunisian government for every gun fired in saluting an American ship of war ; and the other that the government of Tunis might compel an American captain to put his vessel at their service at such freight as the government chose to prescribe. Mr. William Eaton, who had served in the army, was sent out as consul *to Tunis at the same time with Mr. Cathcart, who was going . THE PIRA TIC A L BA RBA RY PO H'ERS. 2 1 / in the same capacity to Tripoli. He was authorized to procure a revision of the articles to which objec- tion had been made. Strangely enough, the greatest difficulty he found was with regard to the rates of duties. The Bey of Tunis objected to putting the United States on the footing of the most favored nation, as he would never be able to find out, on ac- count of the distance, what the various duties imposed in America were. So long as the terms were fixed, whether one, ten, or a hundred per cent., he would agree to it. Besides this, however, he insisted on the barrel of gunpowder for each gun fired in a salute. *" However trifling it may appear to you,' the Bey said, ' to me it is important. Fifteen barrels of gunpowder will furnish a cruiser which may capture a prize and net me $100,000.' We told him the concession was so degrading that our nation would not yield to it — both justice and honor forbade — and we did not doubt the world would view the demand as they did the concession. * You consult your honor,' said he ; 'I, my interest ; but if you wish to save your honor in this in- stance, give me fifty barrels of powder annually, and I will agree to the alteration.' " There was also a difficulty about presents. The Bey demanded certain articles of jewelry which could only be procured in London at a great price. When Eaton offered him even $50,000, in place of the jew- elry, he refused, on the ground that he was accustomed to presents, but did not know their value, and had 2l8 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, plenty of cash. Finally the treaty was arranged nearly on our terms ; but it cost us $107,000."^ The whole cost of buying freedom for our ships from the Barbary powers had amounted, in 1802, ex- clusive of sundry expenses incurred but not yet paid, to over two million dollars ; t enough, if we may take the cost of the frigate sent to Algiers as an example, to have built and equipped twenty large frigates. Half of this, if spent on naval appropriations in the beginning, would have saved us the tribute of many years ; for it would have procured peace with all these powers without payment or ransom. Indeed, until we sent a naval force into the Medi- terranean the treaties did us little good. In less than three years after the signature of the peace of Tripoli the consul was ordered to leave, and war was declared. The Bashaw was offended at not being as well paid as Algiers ; and yet under the second year of the treaty he had received $12,000, and in the third $22,- 000, although nothing had been stipulated. He de- manded as a condition of sparing the United States the immediate payment of $225,000, and $25,000 annually — the Swedes, with whom the United States * For a full account of the interesting negotiations of Eaton with Tunis, one should consult the Life of William Eaton, by the late Professor C. C. Felton, published in the ninth volume of Sparks' Library of American Biography. f Foreign Relations, folio ed., ii. 369. THE PIRATICAL BAKBARY POWERS. 2ig seemed to have been put on an equality in all these wars, having agreed to these terms. Eaton wrote : '' If our Government yield these terms to the Bashaw of TripoH, it will be absolutely necessary to make provision for a requisition of double the amount for the Bey of Tunis. Al- giers will also be respected according to rank. If the United States will have a free commerce in this sea, they must defend it. There is no alternative. The restless spirit of these ma- rauders cannot be restrained." A small squadron of American vessels was sent to the Mediterranean and blockaded Tripoli in such a way that no attack was made on our trade until the Dey of Algiers and the Bey of Tunis showed signs of hostility, when the blockade was raised in order that the ships might act as convoys to merchant vessels. The war gradually became more active, and gave oc- casion for the display of great gallantry on the part of our naval officers. The frigate Philadelphia, which had unfortunately grounded on rocks at the entrance of the harbor of Tripoli, was captured and all its offi- cers and crew made prisoners. The Philadelphia was most gallantly destroyed a few months later by a de- tachment under the command of Decatur, then only a lieutenant. There were other small actions in which our officers showed distinguished bravery; but the most romantic incident of the war was the overland march through four hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria to Derna, of Eaton, in company with the 220 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ex-Bashaw Hamet, who had been dethroned by his brother, and whose cause, owing to Eaton's represen- tations, our Government had taken up. Derna was occupied, the troops of the Bashaw were defeated, and we might have obtained a peace with Tripoli on our own terms, as well as have reinstated Hamet, accord- ing to our agreement with him, had not Colonel Tobias Lear,* consul-general at Algiers, under discre- tionary powers which had been granted to him, hastily made a treaty by which we gained none of the prin- ciples at stake, and simply bought a peace by the payment of $60,000 ransom for the American captives in Tripoli. To our great disgrace Hamet was aban- doned. Colonel Lear had put an article into the treaty that his family should be restored to him ; but by a secret article, which was never officially com- municated to the United States Government, and was not known by them until some time later, instead of being obliged to restore the family at once, the Bashaw was given four years for that purpose. It may have been very unwise for us to have made the original agreement with Hamet to restore him to his throne ; but certainly we showed bad policy and bad faith in not keeping our agreement. We already had difficulties with Algiers. In Octo- ber, 1800, the Dey informed the consul that he in- * Colonel Lear had been private secretary to General Wash- ington. THE PIRATICAL BARBAE Y POWERS. 221 tended to send an ambassador to the Porte, at Con- stantinople, with the usual presents, and for that purpose he should choose the small American frigate George Washington, which happened to be at that time in the harbor of Algiers. At that time we had never had any relations with the Turks, nor had we any treaty with any of the Italian states who were at war with Algiers. The captain was, of course, without orders on the subject. To the objections of the con- sul the Dey threatened war, plunder, and captivity unless the vessel should go. More than this, it was necessary to hoist the Algerine flag at the maintop of the frigate. It was found impossible. to refuse. Not only was the Algerine flag raised, but it was saluted with seven guns, a compliment which ultimately cost the United States $40,000. The only satisfaction was, that after arriving at her destination the George Washington was the first of our ships to raise the American flag in the Bosphorus. Grievances were easily made out by the Dey. The naval stores, he claimed, had not come up to the quality desired, and had been short in amount ; and, more than that, as the reckoning of the tribute was by Mohammedan years and not by the Christian calen- dar, we were found deficient to the amount of $27,000 in the year 18 12. The consul was ordered to leave the country, but not before he had paid this amount of money, which he was obliged to borrow at a heavy 222 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. interest. At that time we had already paid in trib- utes to Algiers the sum of $378,363. The Dey had not chosen his time well, owing to the war with Great Britain. Very few of our ships were in the Mediter- ranean, and he captured only one small brig with a crew of eleven persons. After the treaty of peace had been made with England, we declared war against Algiers, and a naval force was sent out. Be- fore our ships arrived at Algiers, they had already captured an Algerine frigate and brig ; and on their arrival they found that the whole Algerine corsair fleet was at sea. It was therefore very easy to inter- cept the ships as they returned to port. The next day after the arrival of the squadron, the Algerines proposed a treaty. The American negotiators, Com- modore Decatur and Mr. William Shaler, who had been sent out as consul-general, replied with a draft of a treaty, and with a declaration that the United States would never pay tribute under any form what- ever. The Dey asked for time to consider, but this was refused. He even pleaded for three hours. The reply was : " Not a minute. If your squadron appears in sight before the treaty is actually signed by the Dey, and sent off with the American prisoners, ours will capture it." An Algerine ship did come in sight, and every preparation was made for a fight ; but within three hours, through the mediation of the Swedish consul, THE FIKA riCA L BA KB A RY PO WERS. 223 the treaty had been signed by the Dey, and the American prisoners were delivered up, although the messenger, accompanied by the Swedish consul as mediator, had to row five miles to the shore and back in that time. No presents were given, and tribute and presents of any kind were henceforth abolished. It was agreed, also, that prisoners of war should not be made slaves. This was on June 30, 18 15, just forty-one days after the squadron had left American waters. On the same day Mr. Shaler landed as consul-gen- eral, and was received with due honor. All the American property which had been illegally seized in Algiers was restored, and $10,000 were paid as an equivalent for the captured brig Edwin and her cargo. Without inserting any stipulation to that effect in the treaty, Decatur agreed, as a mark of good-will, to restore the two Algerine vessels which had been cap- tured. " You told us," the Dey's minister sorrowfully said to the British consul, " that the Americans would be swept from the seas in six months by your navy, and now they make war upon us with some of your own vessels, which they have taken." Both Tunis and Tripoli had shown a hostile dispo- sition, and both in conformity with their treaties with England, but contrary to those made with us, had, during the war, allowed English ships to take possession of American prizes anchored in their har- 224 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. bors. Decatur therefore proceeded to Tunis and de- manded an indemnity of $46,000 for two prizes taken by the privateer Abellino and seized in the port of Tunis by a British ship of war. " I know this ad- miral," said the Dey to our consul, Mr. Noah ; " he is the same one who, in the war with Sidi Yusuf, of Tripoli, burnt the frigate." The Dey looked at the fleet, laid down his telescope, sank back in his cush- ions, combed his beard with a small tortoise-shell comb set with diamonds, reflected a minute, and or- dered the money to be paid immediately. At Tripoli it was much the same. The Bashaw at first threatened war, but when he learned what had happened at Algiers and Tunis, he paid $25,000, as indemnity for two prizes carried away by the Eng- lish, and released ten Christian captives, two of them being Danish youths, and the remainder the family of a Sicilian gentleman. Decatur, in reporting to the Secretary of the Navy, (August 31, 18 1 5), says: " Any attempt to conciliate them, except through their fears, I should expect to be vain. It is only by the display of naval power that this depredation can be restrained. I trust the successful result of our small expedition, so honorable to our country, will induce other nations to follow the example ; in which case the Barbary States will be compelled to abandon their piratical system." The speedy success of our expedition caused much talk, and early in 18 16 the British government sent THE PIRA TIC A L BA RBA RY PO IVERS. 22 S out Lord Exmouth to the Barbary States with in- structions to procure a peace for Naples and Sardinia on the same terms as those made with Spain and Portugal (for it was desired to strengthen these states as a barrier against France) ; to notify them that the Ionian Islands had been put under British protection, and that their commerce must be therefore respected, and especially with reference to our treaty just con- cluded with Algiers. Its eighteenth article, with re- gard to prizes in war, was held to be incompatible with the ninth and tenth articles of the treaty of 1698 between Great Britain and Algiers. While " it might not for this reason be necessary to require the abroga- tion of the treaty between the United States and Algiers," Lord Exmouth was " instructed formally to protest against the application of that article of the treaty to Great Britain in the case of any future hostilities between that country and the United States."^ The question of putting down the Barbary powers had been brought before the Congress of Vienna by Admiral Sir Sidney Smith, who advocated a league of European powers for the purpose of extirpating these pirates, and suggested as the best method that a permanent blockade be established along their coast. English policy seems to have prevented the Congress * John Ouincy Adams, Memoirs, iii., 356. 15 226 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. from taking any action on this subject, and there was a division of opinion as to what course should be pursued ; whether, so long as English commerce was made safe, these piratical states should be preserved in order to prey upon the commerce of other nations; and what the interests of England demanded. The Edinburgh Review said : ^ ** Indeed the common belief in the Mediterranean is that we rather encourage the piracy of these freebooters for the purpose of opposing the commerce of other nations, a most false charge undoubtedly in this extent ; but so far founded in truth that we might by a word have put them down long ago, and that we have always, for one reason or another, abstained from exerting our lawful means of destroying them." The Quarterly Review^ which at that time, accord- ing to Mr. Adams, " was a mere ministerial pamphlet," in April, 1816, gave the Tory view of the question, and attempted to prove that because England had abol- ished negro slavery there was no reason that it should touch white slavery, which was not so bad. The slaves were well enough treated, and could always be ransomed by their friends and relations ; and besides that, they were mostly Sardinians, Neapolitans, and Sicilians, whom apparently the writer thought beneath notice. The article maintained that England could not consistently with sound policy and good faith join in a league for putting down the Barbary pow- * Vol. xxvi., 449. THE PIRATICAL BARBARY POWERS. 22/ ers. " As far as natural interests are concerned," it said, " it would be an act of madness ; " that the cause of humanity would in no way be benefited — and, in- deed, why should England be pirate-taker general ? Or if she was to start in that course, she had better begin by putting down the pirates in the China seas, where her trade suffered, whereas she was abundantly able to secure the safety of her commerce in the Mediterranean. Lord Shefifield had said in 1783, in his " Observa- tions on the Commerce of the American States : " "It is not probable that the American States will have a very free trade in the Mediterranean. It will not be for the interest of any of the great maritime powers to protect them from the Barbary States. If they know their own interests, they will not encourage the Americans to be carriers. That the Barbary States were advantageous to the maritime powers is certain. If they were suppressed, the little states of Italy would have much more of the carrying trade. . . . The armed neutrality would be as hurtful to the great maritime powers as the Barbary States are useful. The Americans can- not protect themselves from the latter ; they cannot pretend to a navy." And Smollett had said : *' All the powers that border on the Mediterranean, except France and Tuscany, are at perpetual war with the Moors of Barbary, and for that reason obliged to employ foreign ships for the transportation of their merchandise. This employ- ment naturally devolves to those nations whose vessels are in no danger from the depredations of the Barbarians, namely, 228 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. the subjects of the maritime powers, who, for this puny ad- vantage, not only tolerate the piratical states of Barbary, but even supply them with arms and ammunition, solicit their passes, and purchase their forbearance with annual presents, which are, in effect, equivalent to a tribute." * In i8i6 Chateaubriand proposed in the French House of Peers that the different courts of Europe should all unite in the endeavor to prevail upon the Barbary powers to abolish their practice of making slaves of Christians. Lord Castlereagh said of it to Mr. J. Q. Adams, " with a sneering smile, that he thought it was only a project of Sir Sidney Smith's which would not meet with much encouragement." t The treaties made by Lord Exmouth provided that the Neapolitan government should pay to Algiers $24,000 yearly, with the usual biennial consular pres- ents, and all the captives, one thousand in number, were ransomed at $1,000 per head. The arrangement with Sardinia was similar, but the forty captives were rated at only $500 each. The rulers of Tunis and Tripoli agreed entirely to abolish Christian slavery, and encouraged by this success Lord Exmouth re- turned to Algiers in order to procure the same con- cession from the Dey. But he was met by a point- blank refusal, and then by requests for delay, which was granted after the British consul had been arrested * Smollett, History of Great Britain, George II., ch. vii. i Memoirs, iii., 365. THE FIR A riCA L BA RBA RY PO WERS. 229 and several naval officers insulted. Lord Exmouth sailed for home on May 2ist. His action brought on a debate in the House of Commons, when Lord Brougham " Reproved the terms on which the treaty had been made, and thought that if the country had sanctioned them with its au- thority, a great stain would be fixed on her character and con- sequences injurious to her reputation and honor could not fail to arrive." * No sooner was Lord Exmouth's back turned than the Dey, to show his anger, ordered the arrest of all Italians under British protection at Gran and Bona. The latter were chiefly Neapolitans, engaged in the coral fishery, and while they were hearing mass on shore, on the morning of May 31st, one hundred were killed, one hundred wounded, and about eight hun- dred taken prisoners. The British vice-consul was ar- rested, but his life was saved through the friendship of the governor. The English acted at once, and Lord Exmouth was sent back in command of a squadron, assisted by five Dutch ships under the command of Admiral van der Capellen. The Dey re- fused the terms proposed to him. The British fleet then bombarded and burned Algiers, upon which the Dey came to his senses, and on the next day signed the treaty. By this all Christian slaves were given up — sixteen hundred and forty-two in number — and * Hansard's Debates, June 18, 1816. 230 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. with those from Tunis and Tripoli, three thousand and three in all ; $400,000 were paid back to Naples and Sardinia for the ransom money received that year, and an agreement was made to treat prisoners of war according to the usage of European nations.^ The punishment was sufficient for the time; but the next Dey, Ali Khoja, kidnapped the daughters of European residents for his harem, sent plague ships about the Mediterranean to spread the pest, and be- haved in such a way that the Congress of Aix-la- Chapelle in 1818 resolved to repress his practices, and commissioned England and France to act for Europe. A combined English and French squadron arrived off Algiers in September 18 19, but the new Dey refused to submit, and after a blockade the fleet retired. It was not until the insult offered to the French consul in 1827 that decisive action was taken, terminating in the French conquest in 1829, when the Dey was allowed to retire to Italy. To return to our own affairs. The day after Lord Exmouth made his first treaties with Algiers, the Dey, under pretext of the difficulties with his two ships, which had been delivered by Decatur at Carta- gena, and had been detained by the Spanish authori- * For the history of these events, during which the Amer- ican consul-general, William Shaler, appears to have acted very well, see The Scourge of Christendom, by Lieutenant- Colonel R. L. Playfair. THE PIRA TIC A L BARB A RY PO WERS. 2 3 1 ties, declared his treaty of 18 15 with us to be no longer binding. He sent away our consul, and wrote a letter concerning his action to "His Majesty the Emperor of America, its adjacent and de- pendent provinces, coasts, and wherever his government may extend ; our noble friend, the support of the kings of the na- tion of Jesus, the pillar of all Christian sovereigns, the most glorious amongst the princes, elected amongst many lords and nobles ; the happy, the great, the amiable James Madison, Emperor of America — may his reign be happy and glorious, and his life long and prosperous." President Madison, in his reply of August, 18 16, said : ** The United States, whilst they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace of none. It is a principle incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute." After the bombardment of Algiers by the British, and the opportune arrival of another American squad- ron under Commodore Chauncey, no further difficulty was made about carrying out the treaty, and it was renewed in December, 18 16. By some accident this treaty was overlooked in the State Department, and it was not ratified until France, Sardinia, and Holland made similar treaties with Algiers; but Naples, Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal continued for some years to pay a tribute of $24,000 annually. In spite of the many hesitations of our policy it 232 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. will be seen that the United States was first to obtain from the Barbary powers the abolition of presents and the proper treatment of its prisoners of war. | Inciden- tally these difficulties with Barbary gave us a navy.' But the cost of the diplomatic negotiations must have equalled that of the naval operations. The expendi- tures for intercourse with the Barbary powers paid out by the State Department, apart from salaries, amounted in 1821 to $2,650,709.* Even after the tribute had ceased, the regular annual appropriations under this head, down to 1841, were $42,000, then $30,000, and finally $17,400; but for some part of this time this was only another name for the secret service fund. * Senate Ex. Doc, No. 38, 44th Congress, 2d Session, pp. 44, 54» 55- V. THE RIGHT OF SEARCH AND THE SLAVE-TRADE. Negro Slavery. — Prohibition of the Slave-trade. — English Feeling and English Interests. — The Right of Search. — English Treaties. — The Police of the Seas. — Treaty of Ghent. — Lord Castlereagh's Propositions. — Mr. Adams' Reply. — The Slave-trade Piracy. — Rush's Treaty. — Can- ning's Objections to the Amendments. — Mr. Adams' Ex- planation. — Attempt to Execute Treaties by a British Statute. — The British Claim to Search American Vessels. — Lord Aberdeen. — Tyler's Message. — The Quintuple Treaty. — General Cass. — Lord Brougham. — The Ashbur- ton Treaty.— Cass and Webster. — Opinions of Publicists. — Brazil. — Renewed Vigor. — General Cass and Lord Na- pier. — British Outrages in 1858. — Debate in Parliament. — The English Claim Withdrawn.— Mr. Seward's Treaty of 1862. — Additional Treaty of 1870. It would be unfair to charge England exclusively with the introduction of slavery into America. Negro slaves were imported into the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam even before it had been occupied by the English. Nevertheless, this traffic was fos- tered by England ; and even where the colonies had passed acts tending to diminish the slave-trade, the as- 234 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. sent to them had been refused by the King.* Further back, in the time of Charles II., owing to domestic troubles, the emigration from England had taken such proportions that the introduction of slaves into the colonies was looked upon as a means of prevent- ing it ; and the King by a proclamation called upon his subjects to subscribe in order to form a new com- pany for the continuation of the trade. At the peace of Utrecht, in 17 13, the English considered themselves repaid for many of the sacrifices to which they had submitted during the war of the Spanish Succession, by obtaining an article known as the Facto del Assiento de Negros, by which Great Britain and the South Sea Company obtained the exclusive right to introduce slaves into the Spanish -provinces of America, to the number of 4,800 yearly, for thirty successive years. In spite of the fact that negro slavery existed in nearly all the colonies, the Declaration of Indepen- dence had no sooner been signed than measures were taken to prohibit the slave-trade ; and at the forma- tion of the Constitution, in 1787, an article was in- serted prohibiting entirely the importation of slaves * The chief authorities for this chapter are Enquiry into the Validity of the British Claim to a Right of Visitation and Search of American Vessels suspected to be engaged in the African Slave-trade, by Henry Wheaton, originally published in 1 841 ; Wheaton's History of International Law; and Visita- tion and Search by William Beach Lawrence, 1858. All quo- tations from speeches and documents have been verified. THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. • 235 after January i, 1808. In 1794 a law was passed for- bidding the slave-trade to Americans under severe penalties. Owing to the efforts of the partisans of abolition in England, the question of suppressing the slave-trade, and even of slavery itself, had been before the public for many years; but it was not until 1807 that Parlia- ment succeeded in passing a law abolishing the slave- trade, and even then there seemed to be great danger that it would be vetoed by the King, who opposed any sort of innovation. Denmark indeed had, by a law passed in 1792, abolished the slave-trade and the importation of slaves into its colonies, beginning with the year 1804. With this exception, and even this was only for the date at which the law was to take effect, the United States were the first to prohibit the kidnapping and trapping in human beings. Wrong as we all believe the slave-trade to be, we are now in a position, since slavery has been, through military force, entirely abolished in the United States, to consider the subject more calmly and without pre- judice. All nations are subject to sudden gusts of philan- thropy, and none more so than the English. But while we may admit that it was entirely owing to the efforts of philanthropic men that the slave-trade and slavery were abolished by England, it is difficult to believe that the active and long-continued policy, for 236 • AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. nearly fifty years, of putting down the slave-trade by all means within its power was entirely owing to philanthropic motives. It was soon found that, as slaves could no longer be introduced into the British colonies, while the traffic that formerly went to them was diverted to the neighboring colonies, the British colonies suffered through want of hands, and foreign trade flourished. The cost of the production of sugar, for instance, which had much influence on the ques- tion, was greater in the British West Indies than in the Spanish colonies. British interests, quite apart from any question of philanthropy, demanded, as far as possible, the entire suppression of the slave-trade. Although the real reason was fairly well concealed under the mask of philanthropy, it occasionally shows itself very plainly. For instance, in a debate in the House of Commons, on June 15, 18 10, on a motion of Mr. Brougham with regard to the suppression of the African slave-trade, Mr. Marryatt, who was an emi- nent West Indian merchant and at the same time colonial agent for Trinidad, said : " We ought to adopt not a nominal but an effectual abolition of this abominable traffic. He alluded more particularly to the Spanish slave-traders, who carried on a traffic enormous in its extent, and in its effects ruinous to the British colonies. In truth, as some had formerly predicted, the slave-trade was not destroyed ; it had only changed hands. Trinidad no longer obtained the ?iegroes so necessary for its cultivation. But the same number of negroes were exported from Africa, THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 237 only they went to the Spanish colonies instead of our own. He appealed to the British Parliament on the part of our own planters, and trusted that effectual steps would yet be taken for remedying so serious an evil." Not only was it proposed to abolish the slave-trade to other countries, but even when this was found dif- ficult, to prohibit the importation of products raised by slave labor, especially of sugar. As to cotton, there was not yet a question. But sugar was raised in British colonies, and it cost more than sugar raised by slave labor. A writer in the Quarterly Review ^' lays stress on the fact that the Brazilians and Span- iards, not the Africans, reaped the benefit of British emancipation until slavery should be abolished in their countries. He speaks of the depopulation of more than one-half of the British West Indian settle- ments, the destruction of more than one-half of Brit- ish West Indian commerce, the displacement of the sugar cultivation of the colonies of other nations, and the transfer of the Cuban trade from Great Britain to the United States. And then, after arguing in be- half of the British sugar planters, in an outburst of philanthropic zeal, says : **If on any pretext whatever, political or commercial, whether to help her revenue or cheapen her purchases, Great Britain admits into her own market a single ton of sugar raised by a slave-importing colony, she is a direct receiver in the felony, with more than a felon's guilt." * Vol. Iv. , p. 250. 238 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. The English cabinet saw that it would be necessary in the general pacification to restore the French and other colonies that had been taken possession of dur- ing the war, and therefore pressed the more earnestly at the Congress of Vienna for general measures for the abolition of the slave-trade, on account of the in- cidental protection thereby accorded to British trade. The Congress did in general terms stigmatize the slave-trade, but left the measures for its abolition to the care of each individual nation. During the war the English had been able to sup- press in great measure this traflfic by the belligerent right of search. Knowing that this right could not exist in time of peace, England endeavored to make treaties with various countries in order to permit it, for the purpose of suppressing the slave-trade. Be- fore the year 1820 such treaties were made with Den- mark, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands ; al- though for the treaty with Portugal England agreed to pay the sum of i^3CX),ooo, under the pretext of in- demnities for slave-ships captured in war ; and to Spain the sum of ^400,000 was given outright. It is hardly to be supposed that, with the burdens then weighing on the English exchequer, these large sums would have been given unless an equivalent of some kind was expected. More than that, England only gained the cessation of the slave-trade by Spain and Portugal in regions north of the equator. The reason THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 239 was very simple. It was to prevent the domains of other powers obtaining cheap labor, and thus com- peting with the British West India Islands. ( So far one of the main reasons for the continued action of England against the slave-trade was the protection of British commerce. But British states- men soon began to see that, through the right of visitation and search which had been accorded by the treaties with the several powers, it might be easy, under pretext of putting down the slave-trade, to obtain the police of the sea, which once having been granted and made the rule of international law, it would be difficult to take away from them ; and this would secure the preponderance of the British navy. The treaty of Ghent, which put an end to our maritime war with England, simply restored the state of things before the war, without deciding any of the questions of maritime rights that were involved. The English negotiators, however, considered this a good occasion on which to procure our assent to their principles for the suppression of the slave-trade. An article (the tenth) was therefore introduced to the effect that " Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the prin- ciples of humanity and justice ; and whereas his Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition ; it is hereby agreed that both the contracting powers shall use their best endeavors to ac- complish so desirable an object." 240 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, This was the beginning of a negotiation that lasted fully fifty years, which, though nominally for the abo- lition of the slave-trade, turned almost entirely on the right of searching vessels during time of peace. Without following every detail of these negotiations, there are certain points that are of more than usual interest, and on these I shall touch. Reference has been made to the treaty with Spain of 1817, by which, in consideration of the payment of ;^400,ooo, England obtained the abolition of the slave-trade south of the equator, its eventual total abolition, and a right of search, for the nominal pur- pose of putting it down. In a subsequent debate in Parliament, February 8, 18 18, great satisfaction was expressed, and the right of search granted was con- sidered a precedent of the greatest value. In order to make use as soon as possible of this precedent, Lord Castlereagh called a meeting of the foreign rep- resentatives then in London, and read to them a memoir, showing that since the general pacification of Europe, the slave-trade had increased. As the belligerent right of search had ceased since the war, it was necessary for the powers to make mutual conces- sions on this subject ; for if even a single one refused to submit to the exercise of this right, the slave-trade might be carried on under the flag of that country. It was suggested, therefore, that the ministers of all the powers should make an arrangement by which THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 24 1 the vessels of war of their respective countries should have the right of visit for this purpose. As the ministers had no instructions they could only refer the affair to their governments. On subsequent ne- gotiations the French government declined to enter into any such arrangement. Lord Castlereagh also communicated to Mr. Rush, our minister at London, the text of the treaties con- cluded between England and Spain, and other Euro- pean powers, and invited the United States to enter into a similar arrangement. Independently of this, Mr. Burrow, of Rhode Island, had introduced into the Senate the subject of concert with foreign nations to put down the slave-trade ; and at the same session a more stringent act was passed by Congress against the trafific. Mr. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, in replying to Lord Castlereagh, mentioned the law which had just been passed, but said that " the admission of a right for the ofBcers of foreign ships of war to enter and search the vessels of the United States in time of peace, under any circum- stances whatever, would meet with universal repug- nance in the public opinion of the country." The two nations had mercantile navies of about the same tonnage, but the war navy of England was ten times greater than that of the United States. Our com- merce would have been subjected to far more inter- ruption than the commerce of England could possi- 16 242 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. bly have been. • It was not so much the search for vessels fitted as slavers that we objected to, but a fear that other encroachments might be made under this pretext. For this fear there were the strongest rea- sons. One of the causes of the war of i8 12, besides the violation of what were claimed as neutral rights, was the impressment of British seamen from Amer- ican ships ; and in the declaration of the Prince Re- gent he spoke of the right of impressing British sea- men as one which came into operation while exercis- ing the undoubted and undisputed right of searching neutral vessels for other purposes. *' If a similarity of language and manners may make the ex- ercise of this right more liable to partial mistakes and occa- sional abuse when practised toward vessels of the United States, the same circumstances make it also a right with the exercise of which, in regard to such vessels, it is more difficult to dispense." We had seen, too, the consequences of such searches. Two American vessels — the Amedee in 1807, and the Fortuna in 181 1 — had been condemned by the English Admiralty courts, not because they had infringed any law of nations or any rule of war, but because they were engaged in carrying on the slave-trade, which was forbidden by municipal law in Great Britain, and had not proved that they were en- gaged in a traffic which was lawful in the United States. Another vessel, the Diana, was restored to THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 243 its Swedish owners because Sweden had never for- bidden the slave-trade. Much as we in this country abhorred the slave-trade, we were unwilling to have our laws carried out by English cruisers and English courts. It is true that a subsequent decision of a contrary nature was rendered in the case of the Louis in 181 7. Without referring to the previous decision, Lord Stowell decided that no British act of Parlia- ment, if inconsistent with the law of nations, can ef- fect the rights of foreigners ; that the right of visita- tion and search on the high seas did not exist in time of peace; and that trading in slaves was not piracy nor a crime by the universal law of nations. This principle, however, the British government attempted to introduce into international law by means of treaties. While negotiations were still go- ing on in the United States, the meeting of sovereigns took place at Aix-la-Chapelle in November, 18 18, and Mr. Clarkson, the advocate of abolition, was in- vited to accompany Lord Castlereagh and present a memoir on the subject. Lord Castlereagh, in support- ing this memorial, proposed a general concession of the reciprocal right of search and the capture of ves- sels belonging to powers that had forbidden the slave- trade, but still continued it ; and second, a solemn proscription of the slave-trade as piracy under inter- national law. The great powers replied separately. France rejected the proposition and suggested a com- 244 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. mon police of the sea. Russia, Prussia, and Austria refused to denounce the slave-trade as piracy so long as Portugal or any other civilized state continued to allow it. They also rejected absolutely the right of search. At the Congress of Verona, in 1822, another effort was made to incorporate this important principle in the law of nations ; but all that Mr. Canning could obtain was a repetition of the general declarations made at Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle. Meanwhile the Congress of the United States had in 1 8 19 passed another law, declaring that the im- portation of slaves should be punished by death ; and by a law of May 15, 1820, declared the slave-trade to be piracy. It is evident that the word piracy here is to be taken in a different sense from the ordinary one. So far as the United States were concerned, it was municipal and not international piracy, and the term was used for the convenience of trial and punishment ; />., the slave-trade was assimilated piracy. But at the same time it is evident that Congress expected that the slave-trade would be declared piracy under international law by the common agreement of all nations, and that in this way any questions as to the right of search might be avoided ; for pirates, being enemies of the human race, can be attacked anywhere and everywhere; and the search of vessels under sus- picion of piracy would, if they were innocent, be fol- THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 245 lowed by proper apology and compensation. Public opinion was so strongly exercised on the subject of the slave-trade that resolutions on the subject passed the House of Representatives in 1821, 1822, and 1823, by which the President was requested to enter into arrangements with other powers for the abolition of the slave-trade; and in 1823, when the vote was nearly unanimous, a clause was added, proposing its denunciation as piracy under the law of nations. We were even willing to overlook our objections to the right of search ; though a clause proposing a direct assent to it was rejected. Already in the English Parliament of July 9, 18 19, an address had been presented to the Prince Regent congratulating him on his efforts to suppress the slave-trade, speaking in very complimentary terms about the United States, and urging a continuation of negotiations, especially with France and America. Efforts to obtain the right of search from the United States were therefore renewed, and on December 20, 1820, Sir Stratford Canning, the British minister, presented a note to Mr. Adams on the subject. Ne- gotiations continued between Mr. Adams and the British minister, without result, until the resolution of 1823, just mentioned, when the conduct of negotia- tions was transferred to Mr. Rush at London ; and he finally, on March 13, 1824, signed a treaty with Eng- land denouncing the slave-trade as piracy by the 246 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. laws of the two countries, and agreeing to exercise their influence with other maritime nations to have it denounced as piracy according to international law, but stipulating also for the reciprocal exercise of the right of search, under certain restrictions, by vessels duly authorized by the instruction of their respective governments to cruise on the coasts of Africa, America, and the West Indies, for the suppression of the slave- trade. Vessels captured were to be tried by the courts of the country to which they belonged, and not by those of the captor, as had been proposed by Eng- land. When this treaty was submitted to the Senate for approval various amendments were made. The Senate refused to submit to the search of American vessels on the coast of America, as also to try as pirates Americans found on the vessels of any third power ; and another article was also proposed allow- ing the treaty to be denounced after six months' no- tice. These amendments the English government refused to accept. Mr. Canning was especially in- dignant with the omission of the word America^ say- ing that he should have never signed the treaty unless the right of search had been granted for the coasts of America as well as for those of Africa and the West Indies. Mr. Canning also took ground which a little reflection would have shown him to be wrong, that any amendment by the Senate was objectionable. THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 247 The treaty, therefore, was not finally ratified, and all negotiations were suspended for some time. Mr. Adams said afterward in Congress, about this very subject : ^" " I returned home and held the situation of Secretary of State under the administration of Mr. Monroe, and was the medium through which the proposal of the British govern- ment was afterward made. I resisted and opposed it in the cabinet with all my power, and though not a slave-holder my- self, I had to resist the slave -holding members of the cabinet, as well as Mr. Monroe himself, for they were all incHned to concede the right. I maintained my ground as long as I could, for there was at that time a strong inclination in Congress also to assent to the proposal. Not a session passed but there was a proposition to request the President to negotiate for the con- cession of this right of search. . . . Mercer continued to press it until, finally, in 1822, he brought the Houseby yeas and nays to vote their assent to it ; and, strange to say, there were but nine votes against it. The same thing took place in the other House ; the joint resolution went to the President, and he, accordingly, entered into the negotiation. It was utterly against my judgment and wishes ; but I was obliged to submit, and I prepared the requisite despatches to Mr. Rush, when he made his proposal to Mr. Canning. Mr. Canning's reply was, * Draw up your convention, and I will sign it.' Mr. Rush did so ; and Mr. Canning, without the slightest alteration whatever, without varying the dot of an z, or the crossing of a /, did affix to it his signature ; thus assenting to our own terms in our own language. " But as to the right of search, in the bitterness of my soul * Mr. John Quincy Adams, April 14, 1842, Congressional Globe, 27th Congress, 2cl Session, p. 424, 248 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. I say it was conceded by all the authorities of this nation. I say this because I am not now for conceding it." In 1831-33 Great Britain obtained from France a concession of the right of search under certain limita- tions, and gained also the adhesion to these treaties of Denmark and Sardinia in 1834; of the Hanse towns and Tuscany in 1837 ; of Naples in 1838 ; andof Hayti in 1839. In this last year (1839) the English govern- ment complained that the Portuguese had never execut- ed the stipulations of their treaty, and still continued the slave-trade. Apparently despairing of obtaining the principles for which they contended by general as- sent, and feeling strong by the co-operation they had thus far obtained, they undertook to enforce them by an act of Parliament, and a law was passed to execute the provisions of the treaty with Portugal by means of English vessels. By this law any Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave-trade, or any vessel that could not establish to the satisfaction of the court that she was justly entitled to claim the protection of the flag of any state or nation, could be condemned by a British admiralty court. The Duke of Wellington, who had opposed all such proceedings, and had main- tained that if Portugal had violated any treaty, re- dress was to be obtained by negotiations, asked, " Was it intended that the vessels of any power in Europe might be searched and afterward allowed to proceed on their voyage, whether we had treaties with those powers or not ? " THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 249 Lord Melbourne replied that '' The bill did not bind her Majesty to adopt those measures ; that it was for her Majesty to apportion her measures to meet the necessities of the case." Even on the third reading of the bill the Duke of Wellington protested against its passage, and made special reference to the United States, as nothing went to show the least disposition on the part of America to permit the right of detention and search for papers. He said that the measure still exhibited its criminal character ; it was a breach of the law of na- tions and a violation of international treaties. Shortly after the bill had passed Parliament, the Republic of Hayti attempted to put into effect a similar law for capturing slave-traders off the Haytian coast, and bringing them into its ports for adjudication. Lord Palmerston declared this entirely unauthorized and impossible to allow, as no state had the right, without special treaties, to visit, search, or detain vessels be- longing to any other power, even though they were actually engaged in the slave-trade. Yet, at almost the same time, this claim was brought forward by Lord Palmerston against the United States, and in a note dated August 27, 1841, to Mr. Stevenson, our minister, he explicitly claimed a right, which he avowed the intention of his government to continue to exercise, that British cruisers could examine our vessels with a view of ascertaining by inspection of 250 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. papers their nationality ; and claimed that the United States flag could only exempt a vessel from search when that vessel was provided with papers entitling her to wear that flag, and proving her to be United States' property, and navigated according to law. Mr. Stevenson showed that the English claims were incompatible with the law of nations, as expounded in their own country. Lord Aberdeen, who had suc- ceeded Lord Palmerston, in his reply of October, 1 84 1, intimated that Lord Stowell's decisions were no longer of authority ; and that the change of circum- stances, by the happy concurrence of the states of Christendom in a good object, not merely justifies, but renders indispensable, the right now claimed and exercised by the British government. He observed that the vessels were not visited as American vessels, but only as being suspected of belonging to some nation with which England had treaties, and fraudu- lently carrying American colors. This view is a dis- tinction too fine for practice, for, as Mr. Wheaton justly observes, " Neither is the neutral vessel visited in time of war, as neutral ; but she is ever visited, and captured, and detained, and carried in for adjudication, as being suspected to be an enemy, either literally such, or as having forfeited her neutral character by violating her neutral duties." * In his subsequent correspondence with Mr. Everett, Lord Aberdeen endeavored to make another point, * Enquiry, p. 143. THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 2$ I that the right of visit claimed by the English was not the same as the right of search practised toward neutral vessels in time of war. It was, however, plainly shown by international authorities, and even by English decisions, that what in French was termed droit de visite had been translated into English either " right of visit," or " right of search," and that there could be no distinction between a visit for the pur- pose of ascertaining the true character of a ship, and a visit with a search to ascertain whether it was strictly performing its neutral duties. As Mr. Law- rence says : *' If the proposition of the British government was tenable, we were in much worse position than if we had actually conceded the right of search. In the treaties made with other powers, there were limits as to the time when and where the visitation for the examination of papers may be made ; and the right of detention is confined to certain cruisers specially authorized. In our case, if admitted at all, it would be equally competent for any ship of war, and if English ships have the right, all others possess it, to visit and detain any merchant-man at any time and in any part of the ocean." * President Tyler had already met the attempt to bind us by the acts of other states in his message of December 7, 1841, in which he declared that " The United States cannot consent to interpolations into the maritime code at the mere will and pleasure of other gov- ernments. When we are given to understand, as in this in- * Visitation and Search, p. 41. 252 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. stance, by a foreign government, that its treaties with other nations cannot be executed without the estabhshment and en- forcement of new principles of maritime police, to be em- ployed without our consent, we must employ language neither of equivocal import nor susceptible of misconstruction. Whether this Government should now enter into treaties con- taining mutual stipulations upon this subject is a question for its mature deliberation. Certain it is, that if the right to de- tain American ships on the high seas can be justified on the plea of a necessity for such detention arising out of the exist- ence of treaties between other nations, the same plea may be extended and enlarged by the new stipulations of new treaties to which the United States may not be a party." There seemed danger that the English pretensions would find strong support on the Continent, for on December 20, 1841, the very date of Lx)rd Aberdeen's letter to Mr. Everett, England had persuaded Austria, Russia, Prussia, and France to sign a treaty by which these four powers agreed to adopt the English laws relating to the slave-trade, which was declared piracy, and all five mutually conceded to each other a quali- fied right of search. Such a treaty was of course a mere formality, for the Mediterranean was specially excluded, and no ships belonging to Austria, Russia, or Prussia had ever been engaged in the slave-trade or were ever captured by British vessels. Fortu- nately our minister in Paris at that time was General Lewis Cass, a man of great experience, of decided views, and who had succeeded in obtaining a very in- timate and friendly footing with the French govern- THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 253 ment. He took the responsibility of acting- without instructions, presented to M. Guizot a copy of the President's message and the correspondence on this subject with England, and called the attention of the French government to the grave consequences, not only to America but to France, which might result from a ratification of the treaty. In this action Gen- eral Cass was supported by some of the most eminent statesmen of France. His letter was laid before the King and Council ; both MM. Guizot and Thiers had full conversations with him on the subject, and the result was that France refused to ratify the quintuple treaty. General Cass' action was warmly approved by our Government, but it was as heartily disliked by the English government ; and Lord Brougham, who had been very prominent in all these disputes, took occa- sion, in a debate a year afterward, on the subject of the Ashburton treaty, to revile General Cass in terms which, fortunately, nowadays no English member of Parliament would use in speaking of an official of even the smallest st^f e." * Said Lord Brougham, on April 7, 1843 : " There was one man who was the very impersonation of mob hostility to Eng- land — General Cass — whose breach of duty to his own Govern- ment was so discreditable, and even more flagrant than his breach of duty to humanity as a man, and as the free descend- ant of Enghsh parents, and whose conduct in all these particu- lars it was impossible to pass over or palliate. This person, 2 54 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. Immediately — for the quintuple treaty had failed of its main object in not being ratified by France, through General Cass' interference — Lord Ashburton was sent to the United States to negotiate a treaty settling sev- eral important questions in dispute between the two governments. The treaty was made and ratified. The question of visitation and search was apparently never mentioned during the negotiations. Instead of this our Government bound itself to keep a squadron carrying not less than eighty guns on the African coast, in connection with the British squadron, but who had been sent to maintain peace, and to reside at Paris for that purpose, after pacific relations had been established between France and America, did his best to break it, whether by the circulation of statements upon the question of inter- national law, of which he had no more conception than of the languages that were spoken in the moon, or by any other argu- ments of reason, for which he had no more capacity than he had for understanding legal points and differences. . . For that purpose he was not above pandering to the worst mob feeling." General Cass replied, in the Senate, only on February lo, 1846: *' Lord Brougham did not always talk thus — not when one of his friends applied to mc in Paris to remove (^rtain unfavorable impressions made in a high quarter by one of those imprudent and impulsive remarks, which seem to belong to his moral habits. The effort was successful. And now my account of good for evil with Lord Brougham is balanced. " It is an irksome task to cull expressions like these and re- peat them here. I hold them up not as a warning — that is not needed — but to repel the intimation that we ought to study the courtesies of our position in the British Parliament." THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 255 independently thereof. When General Cass was asked to communicate this treaty to the French gov- ernment, he complied with his instructions, but re- signed, on the ground that he had not been properly supported by his own Government in the question of the right of search, and in writing to Mr. Webster he took occasion to explain his objections to the treaty on the ground that no article had been inserted es- pecially refusing the right of search. He feared lest England might construe this omission into an admis- sion by the United States of her claims. Mr. Web- ster replied, and a bitter correspondence ensued. What General Cass had said had been substantially said in the debates in the Senate on the ratification of the treaty, and events soon proved General Cass in the right and Mr. Webster in the wrong.^ President Tyler, in his message of August ii, 1842, communicat- ing the treaty to the Senate, sustained the provision for the African squadron on the ground that this was a substitute for visitation and search ; and in his next annual message said that the ground assumed in the former message Itad been maintained, and all pretence removed from interference with our commerce for any purpose whatever by any foreign government. As * The correspondence between General Cass and Mr. Web- ster will be found partly in Webster's Works, and the re- mainder in the Life of Cass. The Letters and Times of the Tylers also contain some interesting statements and letters on this subject. 256 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. soon as these statements reached England, the British government showed their view on the subject. Sir Robert Peel, then Prime Minister, said : " With respect to the treaty lately signed between this coun- try and the United States, I say, that in acting upon that treaty we have not abandoned our claim to the right of visitation, nor do we understand that in signing that treaty the United States could suppose that the claim was abandoned." The British minister, Mr. Fox, was directed to read to the Secretary of State a despatch from Lord Aber- deen, in which it was stated that from the principles which she had constantly asserted, and which are re- corded in the correspondence of 1841, England had not receded and would not recede. The matter was submitted to Congress, and subsequently Mr. Web- ster, in his instructions to Mr. Everett, dated March 28, 1843, reviewed the whole question with great abil- ity, and ended by saying : " The Government of the United States does not admit that by the law and practice of nations there is any such thing as a right of visit distinguished by well-known rules and definitions from a right of search." It is to be regretted that the views of the Govern- ment were not put forward by Mr. Webster in this way at the time when they would have been pecu- liarly forcible, that is, during the negotiations for the treaty. All the important writers on international law THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 2 5/ agree with the position taken up by the United States. De Cussy says : *' The extension of the right of visitation and search in time of peace will be the commencement of a system for the do- minion of the sea, by means of the abuses to which visitation and search would give rise, by confounding intentionally all the distinctions of times and circumstances, of peace and war, and all the rights applicable to the two different situations, the one regular and the other forced and temporary." * In discussing particularly our own actions, he says : *' The United States manifested under these circumstances, in the highest degree, the sentiment of respect which every nation ought to feel for the independence of its flag and for its own dignity as a sovereign state. The other powers, carried away by the philanthropic sentiment which had induced them to sign the treaty of 1841, seemed to have forgotten that they were favoring the strongest passion of England — her dominion of the sea. Was it not to go beyond all her hopes to grant to her numerous ships of war a right of visitation and search in time of peace, in exchange for the same right received by the very inconsiderable navies of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and of the other maritime states which had acceded to the treaty of i84i?"t The action of Parliament in 1845 is a striking ex- ample of how far England was willing to go in this direction. The treaty of 181 7 made with Portugal, by which Brazil, after becoming independent, had bound itself in 1826, expired by its own provisions in 1845 ; and this fact, and the termination of the mixed * Droit Maritime^ tom. ii., p. 385. f Ibid., p. 364. J7 258 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. commission under the treaty, had been duly notified to the English government by Brazil. Yet under the pretext that the treaty had provided that, three years after its ratification, the slave-trade in Brazil should be utterly abolished and treated as piracy, the British Parliament passed an act in August, 1845, giving jurisdiction to British admiralty courts over any vessel engaged in the slave-trade with Brazil. English cruisers even entered Brazilian harbors and rivers and burned, when they could not cut out, Bra- zilian ships. By 1849 England had succeeded in making twenty- four treaties for the suppression of the slave-trade, ten of which established mixed courts, and all of which, except those of France and the United States, per- mitted a mutual right of search. During the Cri- mean War the British were unable to exercise the same vigilance on the coast of Africa, and the slave- trade greatly revived. After this, British cruisers were very active, not only on the African coast, but even in the Gulf of Mexico, and there were numerous complaints that American vessels, some of them entirely innocent, had been overhauled and searched by the British. Complaints in each case were presented to the English government, which ex- plained that no stricter instructions had been given than those which had been for many years in force. The reasons for the greater vigor following these in- THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 259 structions were very simple — the amount of prize- money which every capture brought to the takers. The ship and its cargo were forfeited, and the pro- ceeds divided among the officers and crew of the ves- sel which captured it. Unless in some rare case, even the slaves were not restored to their native country, but were held to service for sixteen years, on government account, in whatever colony the ship might be condemned, in order to pay the expenses of their rescue. Thus, from their great zeal in put- ting down piracy, the British cruisers began to com- mit, themselves, something very near piracy. It be- came quite common on the coast of Africa, whenever a vessel, supposed to be a slaver, showed American colors, for a British officer to board her and suggest to the captain that in case he were engaged in the slave-trade it might be more convenient for him per- sonally — as the penalty for the slave-trade was death by the laws of the United States — to throw his papers ovetboard, and allow his vessel to be taken as with- out papers, by which it would be tried before a Brit- ish court, and only the ship and cargo condemned, while the officers and crew would go free. The French convention of 1845 with England, which was signed after a warm parliamentary discus- sion, to take the place of those of 183 1 and 1833, was limited in duration to ten years, and the French re- fused to consent to its continuance beyond that point ; 260 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. SO that in 1857, the time at which we have now ar- rived, this was inoperaive, and France was allowed to take her own measures for punishing French slave- traders. Although the article of our treaty of 1842, providing for an American squadron on the coast of Africa, might have been abrogated after five years, it was not ; and its execution was insisted on in a note from Lord Napier to General Cass, then Secretary of State, as late as December 24, 1857, and this, too, when the British commanders had done all they could to render our squadron useless, by persuading American captains found delinquent to throw over- board their American papers and surrender to British ships. In Lord Napier's note was a remark referring to the hoisting of the American flag : " This precaution does not prevent the slaver from visit, but it exonerates him from search." It was undoubtedly agreeable to General Cass that, after the action he had taken when minister to France in 1842, he could now be the means of effectually preventing all further British claims in this respect. In his reply of April 10, 1858, he said : *'The distinction taken between the right of visitation and the right of search, between an entry for the purpose of ex- amining into the national character of a vessel and an entry for examining into the objects of her voyage, cannot be justly maintained upon any recognized principles of the law of nations. The United States deny the right to the cruisers of any power THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 26 1 whatever to enter their vessels by force in time of peace, much less can they permit foreign officers to examine their papers and adjudicate upon their nationality, and whether they are navigated according to law. No change of name can change the legal character of the assumption. Search or visit, it is equally an assault upon the independence of nations." * In May, 1858, General Cass was, on two occasions, obliged to bring the subject of boarding American vessels by British officers to the attention of the British government ; and in transmitting a list of American vessels which had been boarded he called particular attention to the search of one in the har- bor of Sagua la Grande in Cuba. On the 24th of May the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate made a report aboiit the out- rages recently committed on American vessels, and on the 15th of June resolutions were adopted unani- mously on the subject, protesting against these acts and approving of the action of the Executive in sending a naval force into the infested seas, with orders to protect all vessels of the United States on the high seas from search or detention by the vessels of war of any other nation. The strongest anti- slavery men, such as Mr. Seward, Mr. Hale, and Mr. Wilson, were as firm and vigorous in their expressions as any slave-holder from the South. This looked very much like war, and in the debates * 35th Congress, ist Session, Senate Ex. Doc, No. 49, p. 49. 262 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. in Parliament on June 17th and i8th it appeared that the British government, after taking the advice of its law officers, had determined to give up all claim to any right of visitation, even without the substitu- tion of any convention in its place. Lord Napier was indeed instructed to state to General Cass that the British government entirely agreed with his state- ment of doctrine on the subject. There still being, however, some question on the subject in the news- papers, and even apparently a little quibbling in Par- liament, Mr. Dallas, the American minister at London, in a speech made on July 4th at a banquetof Ameri- cans, announced to his countrymen that ''Visit and search, in regard to American vessels on the high seas in time of peace, is finally ended." Mr. Dallas, in a letter to General Cass, says : *' The slight doubt hinted in some newspapers as to the question of the renunciation of the boarding question and the reticence of the ministerial grandees when interrogated, seemed to make it important that the exact character of what has been done should be fixed before Parliament adjourns, and before the possible contingency of a change from Derby to Palmerston can take place. The post-prandial device worked to a charm, and Lords Lyndhurst and Malmesbury have left nothing to desire in their public and precise avowals." * In the House of Lords, on July 26th, Lord Lynd- hurst asked for the correspondence with the United *Mr. Dallas to Mr. Cass, July 30, 1858, Dallas' Letters from London, p. 39. THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 263 States on this question. He spoke of Mr. Dallas' speech, saying that some persons in high positions had considered the proceeding not justified, and that a most important and valuable right had been sacri- ficed. " We have surrendered," he said, '' no right at all, for no such right as that contended for has ever existed. We have abandoned the assumption of a right, and in doing so we have acted justly, prudently, and wisely. I think it is of great im- portance that this question should be distinctly and finally un- derstood and settled. By no writer on international law has this right ever been asserted. There is no decision of any court of justice, having jurisdiction to decide such questions, in which that right has ever been admitted." Here it might be supposed that this long-continued dispute had ended ; but four years afterward, in 1862 (April 7), Mr. Seward accepted the proposition of the English government for a more stringent treaty on the subject of putting down the slave-trade, and ac- cepted the mutual right of search for that purpose. We were then engaged in putting down the rebellion. Mr. Seward probably supposed that in accepting this proposition he would conciliate England to our side of the dispute ; at the same time Mr. Seward was no doubt influenced by his feelings against slavery. Such was certainly the case with Mr. Sumner, whose speech in the Senate, when the treaty was presented for ap- proval, is one of the few authentic records of that event. 264 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, There had, indeed, just before the war, been an outbreak of the slave-trade. Up to that time slavers had generally been fitted out in English ports, but in 1859 and i860 the headquarters of the business was in New York. There had been an acrimonious de- bate on the subject in Congress, though a law pro- posing additional penalties had been defeated, and on February 21, 1862, Nathaniel Gordon, the commander of the slave-ship Erie, was executed at New York. This was the only case in which the punishment of death had been applied in this country. This treaty provided also for mixed courts, and, when the law for carrying the treaty into effect came up in the Senate, one or two senators opposed it on the ground that the treaty, for this reason, never should have been made ; but nothing was especially said about the right of search. The treaty was a useless concession to Great Britain, for it did not purchase the benevolent neutrality of that government. Not a single case was ever tried in any of the mixed courts, for the slave-trade had died out ; and in 1869 Con- gress asked the President to obtain the consent of Great Britain to the abolition of these courts. An additional treaty was made in 1870, by which the jurisdiction of the mixed courts was transferred to the admiralty courts of the contracting parties, British vessels to be judged in British courts, and American vessels in American courts at New York or Key West. VI. THE FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS AND SEAS. ^.— THE MISSISSIPPI. Mr. Jay's Negotiations in Spain in 1780. — Our Claim. — Gar^ doqui in America. — Different Views of the Northern and Southern States about the Importance of the Mississippi. — Carmichael and Short at Madrid. — Objections to them. — Thomas Pinckney sent to Madrid. — Treaty of 1795. — ■ Godoy's Opinion. — Spanish Protest against our Treaty with Great Britain. — Incident of 1802. — Final Settlement by the Acquisition of Louisiana and the Floridas. / The efforts of our Government to secure for the commerce of its citizens the free navigation of rivers and seas have been constant, systematic, and remark- able, beginning even before we had obtained our in- dependence. There had been difficulties between the Catholic provinces of the Netherlands and Holland with regard to the navigation of the Scheldt in the latter part of the eighteenth century ; but the United States were the first to insist, as a matter of interna- tional law, that the people who live along the upper i 266 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, waters of a river have a natural right to sail to the sea through the dominions of other powers. The rights claimed by the United States were laid down as part of the public law of Europe by the Congress of Vienna, but the credit of having first proclaimed them belongs to the United States alone. I As early as December 30, 1776,. Congress passed a resolution for the purpose of making a treaty with Spain, agreeing that if Spain should join them in the war against Great Britain they would assist in reduc- ing to the possession of Spain the town and harbor of Pensacola, then held by England, provided the in- habitants of the United States should have the free navigation of the Mississippi and the use of the harbor of Pensacola. Mr. Arthur Lee visited Spain at the request of Franklin and Deane, but he had no special appointment, and appears to have had no other ob- ject than to obtain money and supplies. The first regular minister of the United States to Spain was Mr. John Jay, who was appointed in 1779 to negoti- ate a treaty, and was instructed to guarantee the two Floridas on condition that the free navigation of the Mississippi should be obtained for this country."^ * This whole subject has been excellendy treated by Mr. Theodore Lyman, in his book the Diplomacy of the United States, and by Mr. W. H. Trescot in his two volumes the Diplomacy of the Revolution and the Diplomatic History of the United States during the Administration of Washington FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 26^ The great obstacle to the recognition of Mr. Jay on the part of Spain was the navigation of the Missis- sippi. ' The Spanish government desired to make the Gulf of Mexico a closed sea from Florida to Yucatan, into which the ships of other nations could not pene- trate, the whole commerce being reserved for Span- iards. The Count Florida Blanca, on September 23, 1780, said with warmth, " That unless Spain could exclude all nations from the Gulf of Mexico, they might as well admit all ; that the King would never relinquish that object ; that the ministry regarded it as the principal thing to be obtained by the war ; and that ob- tained he should be easy whether Spain obtained other ces- sions or not. The acquisition was much more important than that of Gibraltar." Mr. Jay remained in Madrid until May, 1782, but he was never received in his official character, for Spain had not yet formally acknowledged the inde- pendence of the United States, nor could he nego- tiate continuously with regard to the proposed treaty. Although he upheld in the strongest manner the claims of the United States to the navigation of the Mississippi, and even to having a free port accessible to merchant ships below the thirty-third degree of north latitude, or about that, for, on account of the and Jefferson. Mr. John Bach McMaster, in his History of the American People has shown the popular feeling called out by the negotiation. I can add nothing new. 268 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. peculiarities of the Mississippi and the necessity of changing goods into sea-going vessels, the simple right of navigation would be of no use; yet he seems always to have considered it doubtful whether the United States would not be compelled to relinquish their claim to the Mississippi in order to obtain the recognition of their independence. The question was complicated by our desire to obtain pecuniary assistance from Spain for the purpose of carrying on the war, and on September 3, 1780, Jay said to Gar- doqui, who had proposed the navigation of the Mis- sissippi as a consideration for aids, "That the Americans, ahnost to a man, believed that God Almighty had made that river a highway for the people of the upper country to go to the sea by ; that this country was ex- tensive and fertile ; that the General, many officers, and others of distinction and influence in America were deeply interested in it ; that it would rapidly settle," etc.* It seems strange that, in a negotiation of this kind, Mr. Jay should have allowed himself to refer to the private speculations of General Washington in west- ern lands.t After Jay's departure his secretary, Mr. Carmichael, was left as charge d'affaires, and; in 1785 the Spanish * Mr. Jay to the President of Congress, November 6, 1780. f For full information on this subject, see a monograph by Prof. Herbert B. Adams, on Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States, published in the Johns Hop- kins University Studies in History and Political Science. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 269 government for the first time sent to this country, as charge d'affaires, the same Don Diego Gardoqui. Mr. Jay, who was then Secretary of State, was authorized by Congress to treat with the Spanish representative, not only on the question of boundaries, but on that of the Mississippi. Our claim had, we thought, been made perfect by the treaty of 1783, by which Great Britain recognized our independence ; for by that treaty Great Britain had fixed, as our western boundary, the Mississippi, from its source down to the thirty-first degree of north latitude, and the eighth article read, " The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States." Our claims, therefore, rested, first, on the law of nature and of nations ; second, on the treaty of Paris of 1763, by which a right was secured to the subjects of Great Britain ** To navigate the Mississippi, in its whole breadth and length, from its source to the sea, and expressly that part which is be- tween the island of New Orleans and the right bank of the river, as well as the passage both in and out of its mouth ; and that the vessel should not be stopped, visited, or sub- jected to the payment of any duty whatsoever." The cession by France to Spain of the island of New Orleans, and of the country west of the Missis- sippi, was, of course, subject to our right of navigation 270 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. previously granted to us by France. Third, by the treaty with Great Britain of 1782-83, by which, as the owners of all the country east of the Mississippi and north of the thirty-first degree of latitude, we had come into all the rights formerly possessed by Great Britain with regard to that part of the river, including the right of free navigation to the mouth. Spain objected to this transfer of rights on the part of England, pleading that the English had ceded what they did not own. Our negotiations were at- tended with very great difficulties owing to the divis- ion of opinion between the States, a fact of which Gardoqui became very easily informed. We were negotiating not only for the freedom of the Missis- sippi, but also for a commercial treaty. The Northern States, on account of their commerce, cared most for the commercial treaty, and were willing, in case we could conclude one with Spain on reciprocal terms, to forbear the use of the Mississippi from the southern boundary of the United States to the ocean for twenty-five or thirty years, thinking that the naviga- tion of that river was of so little importance at that time that it would not become valuable for many years, and that it was no sacrifice to forbear the use of a thing which we really did not want. To this the five Southern States — Maryland, Virginia, the Caro- linas, and Georgia were opposed. Many of their citizens had gone into the western country, and the FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS, 2/1 river system was such that the navigation of the Mis- sissippi appeared to them of prime importance. But at first the Southern States were in a minority, and in 1 78 1, when Mr. Jay was still in Spain, he was em- powered to propose, as the condition of a commercial treaty, that we would forbear the use of the Missis- sippi for thirty years.* The feeling of the country, however, soon changed. Immediately after the war there was a large emigration from the Atlantic States, which were oppressed with taxes and debts, and, as Mr. Lyman well says, *' While Congress was discussing the points of a treaty a nation was created there." f The time was now approaching when the Federal Government was about to go into operation, and the Congress of the confederation, therefore, in Sep- tember, 1788, passed a resolution declaring that " The free navigation of the river Mississippi is a clear and essential right of the United States, and that the same ought to be considered and supported as such ; " but passed over the further negotiations to the new Federal Government. Nothing, however, was done until the latter part of the year 1791, when there * Mr. Jay had already written to Carmichael from Cadiz on January 27, 1780 : '^ Let it appear also from your representa- tion that ages will be necessary to settle those extensive re- gions." f Lyman's Diplomacy of the United States, i., p. 235. 272 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. came an intimation from Spain that she would be willing to treat at Madrid, on one of the subjects then unsettled, viz., the navigation of the Mississippi. This hint was of such importance that Mr. Car- michael, who had left Madrid shortly before, and Mr. Short, at that time charge d'affaires at Paris, were appointed commissioners to treat with the Spanish government on this subject, as well as on the question of boundaries and for a commercial treaty. The in- structions with regard to navigation were sufficiently explicit. It was made a sine qua non that our right be acknowledged of navigating the Mississippi, in its whole breadth and length, from the source to the sea, as established by the treaty of 1763 ; that neither the vessels, cargoes, nor persons on board be stopped, visited, or subjected to the payment of any duty whatsoever ; or if a visit must be permitted, that it be under such restrictions as to produce the least possible inconvenience; but it should be altogether avoided as the parent of perpetual broils ; that such conveniences be allowed us ashore as might render our right of navigation practicable, and under such regu- lations as might, bona fide, respect the preservation of peace and order alone, and might not have an object to embarrass our navigation, or raise a revenue on it. The commissioners were also instructed that no phrase should be admitted into the treaty which could express or imply that we took the navigation of FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 2/3 the Mississippi as a grant from Spain, although this might be waived rather than fail in concluding a treaty. They were told, also, that no proposition could be entertained for compensation in exchange for the navigation ; and in case of any such proposi- tion it was to be offset by a claim for damages to the commerce of the United States by duties and deten- tions at New Orleans during nine years. \^ne adverse circumstance in the negotiations was that Gardoqui was appointed as Spanish commis- sioner. He had been in the United States, engaged in previous negotiations, and had so much experience of the indecision and weakness of the confederation that he was unwilling to make any concessions, and was extremely dilatory in his management. Another adverse circumstance was in the foreign relations of Spain. The power in that country had come into the hands of a young man, Godoy, who, hoping to save the life of Louis XVI., had interfered diplomatically in such a way that war was soon after- ward declared against Spain by France. There was an inclination on the part of Spain to an English alli- ance, and our commissioners feared lest, by pressing too greatly our claims, England, with whom our re- lations were at that time very unfriendly, might unite with Spain in opposing us. They therefore recom- mended to our Government to postpone negotiations for a while. Their instructions, however,, were so i8 274 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. precise that they felt it necessary to act upon them ; and, although they were successful in settling certain questions in regard to the Indians, they made no progress in the main objects of their mission. The commission was soon afterward dissolved by the de- parture of Mr. Carmichael; and Mr. Short, who was left charg^ d'affaires, seems to have become person- ally disagreeable to the Spanish government. Spain was unsuccessful in its war with France, and in July, 1795, Godoy succeeded in making a peace with the Republic, at Bale, for which he was given the title of " Prince of the Peace." Indeed, it was through Mr. Monroe, our minister at Paris, that the first advances from Spain to France were made ; and in order to secure Mr. Monroe's good offices in the matter, Godoy assured him that the settlement of the difficulties with the United States would be made at the same time and on the most favorable terms. When the first advances of Spain were made through Mr. Monroe, she also applied directly to the United States, and in August, 1794, Mr. Jaudenes, the Span- ish commissioner, wrote to the Secretary of State, expressing " His great regret at the little progress made in the negotia- tions between the two countries, owing to the fact that his Majesty would not treat so long as the plenipotentiaries were not furnished with the amplest powers, or were directed by their secret instructions to conclude a partial and not a general FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 2/5 treaty ; at least his Majesty expected that the ministers ap- pointed by the United States should be persons of such char- acter, distinction, and temper as would become a residence near his royal person, and were required by the gravity of the questions under negotiation ; . . . that the well-known misconceptions of Mr. Carmichael, and the want of circum- spection in the conduct of Mr. Short, rendered it impossi- ble to conclude this negotiation with them." There ensued a long conversation between Mr. Randolph and Mr. Jaudenes as to what the objections and difficulties really had been, and especially as to what Messrs. Carmichael and Short had done which rendered them obnoxious to the Spanish govern- ment.* After receiving the explanation from the Spanish representative, and ascertaining that, if a proper per- son were sent to Spain, the business stood a fair chance of being settled quickly, the President, in November, 1794, appointed Thomas Pinckney, then minister at London, as minister plenipotentiary at Madrid, with full powers to conclude a treaty. • Before Mr. Pinck- * Mr. John Adams writes in his diary, under the date- of April 21, 1778, that Carmichael was a native of Maryland, of Scotch extraction, and that he was in England or Scotland when the Revolution began. "He had talents and education, but was considered by the soundest men who knew him as too much of an adventurer. What was his moral character, and what his conduct in Spain I shall leave to Mr. Jay ; but he was represented to me as having contributed much to the ani- mosities and exasperation among the Americans at Paris and Passy." 2/6 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ney reached Madrid the Spanish commissioner sent to Mr. Randolph the points which would probably form the basis of negotiations. One of these was the navigation of the Mississippi. On Mr. Pinckney's arrival in Madrid, about the middle of June, 1795, he found a great inclination to delay ; and finally, after negotiations had begun, there were differences on three points: i, The Spanish government refused entirely to treat on the subject of commerce ; 2, they demanded a division of the claims against Spain ; and 3, while they admitted that the navigation of the Mississippi should be free to both nations, they objected to a depot for the commerce of the United States being established at New Orleans, and insisted that the right of navigation should be restricted solely to the subjects of Spain and to the citizens of the United States. When he found that these differences were insuper- able, Mr. Pinckney demanded his passports on Octo- ber 24th. This brought Godoy to terms, and so fast did negotiations proceed that on October 17, 1795, the treaty was signed. By its fourth article his Catholic Majesty *' Agreed that the navigation of the Mississippi, in its whole breadth from its source to the ocean, should be free only to his subjects and the citizens of the United States, unless he should extend this privilege to the subjects of other powers by special convention." FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 2// And by Article 22 citizens of the United States were allowed " For the space of three years to deposit their merchandise and effects in the port of New Orleans, and to export them from thence without paying any other price than for the hire of the stores ; and his Majesty promises either to continue this permission, if he finds during that time that it is not pre- judicial lo the interests of Spain, or if he should not agree to continue it there, he will assign to them on another part of the banks of the Mississippi an equivalent establishment." So far as the Mississippi was concerned this treaty was all that the United States could desire. Godoy himself says of it afterward in his " Memoirs : " " This was, moreover, a formal act of navigation, indepen- dently of carefully providing for the common interests of both nations, that realized the first application of modern ideas re- specting the equality of maritime rights and the measures which humanity enjoins in order to lessen the evils of war — ideas hitherto recorded in books and proclaimed by the civili- zation of the age, but the practical application of which has at all times been opposed by England." Nevertheless the execution of this treaty was at- tended by numerous obstacles. It was a long time before the boundary lines were finally arranged, and it was fully three years before the Spanish troops were withdrawn from the territory of the United States. Delays were demanded both for Natchez and the Walnut Hills. In May, 1797, the Spanish govern- ment, through their minister at Washington, addressed 2/8 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. a formal protest and remonstrance against the various provisions in our own treaty with Great Britain signed in 1794. Some of the Spanish objections were to the principle of free ships, free goods, and to the designation of contraband articles ; but there was especial protest against the rights given to Great Britain on the Mississippi. It had been stipulated in an explanatory article of the treaty of 1 794, signed at Philadelphia on May 4, 1 796, that no stipulations in any treaty subsequently concluded " can be under- stood to derogate in any manner from the rights of free intercourse and commerce secured by the third article of the treaty" of 1794. In this third article it had been stated that " the river Mississippi shall, ac- cording to the treaty of peace, be entirely open to both parties." Spain referred to the fourth article of the treaty of 1795, by which the right of free navigation of the Mississippi belonged solely to Spanish subjects and to citizens of the United States, and argued that by the treaty of 1763 Spain had ceded to England both banks of the Mississippi, which carried with it the free navigation of the river ; that by the treaty of 1783 England had granted that right to the United States ; but that, by a treaty of the same date made with Spain, England had restored to Spain both banks of the Mississippi without reserving the right of naviga- tion. But, as this right had therefore passed away from England, she could not cede it to the United States. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 2^^ Besides, even if by that treaty England had not been deprived of the right to use the navigation, the separa- tion of the colonies had destroyed any right which the Americans might have formerly pleaded as English subjects. There was, therefore, but one source of de- rivation for the right of the United States — the special treaty with Spain — but that treaty had conferred the navigation exclusively upon the subjects of Spain and citizens of the United States, and therefore the United States had no power to grant this privilege to any one else. The answer of Mr. Pickering, the Secretary of State, was weak. He had to admit that if the right of the United States to the navigation of the Mississippi originated in their treaty with Spain of 1795, they certainly had no right to grant it to Great Britain in 1794. He therefore brought up ex- tracts from Mr. Pinckney's notes in which reference to the rights of Great Britain had been made, and where Mr. Pinckney had contended that the words " alone and exclusively " submitted in the projects of Godoy should be omitted. But, unfortunately, the notes of the negotiation could not bear against the express stipulation. Another ground taken by Mr. Pickering was still weaker, that the stipulation as to navigation was not a joint stipulation, but sole on the part of the Spanish King, and that it concerned the United States no further than that it gave them the freedom of navigation. There was, however, not 280 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. much use in arguing the question, for it must have been understood that the United States would have been perfectly willing to accept any arrangement from Spain that practically opened the river, without too strictly scrutinizing its language, provided that the concession did not rest expressly on the grant from Spain. " The objection to the supplementary article between Great Britain and the United States," as Mr. Trescot says, was '' sim- ply captious, for it could confer no possible right and in no way go a step beyond the original article in the treaty of 1783, by which the United States did nothing more than grant to Great Britain whatever right to navigation she might possess, neither the original nor the supplementary articles undertaking to express what those rights were."* After all objections and difficulties seemed to be overcome, an event occurred which might have given rise to serious conflict. Morales, the Spanish intendant, on October 2, 1802, suspended the right of deposit at New Orleans, which had been enjoyed since the ratification of the treaty, and had been found by * The commissioners who negotiated the treaty of peace wrote to Secretary Livingston, from Paris, on December 14, 1782 : "As to the separate article, we beg to observe that it was our policy to render the navigation of the river Mississippi so important to Britain as that their views might correspond with ours on that subject. Their possessing the country on the river north of the line from the Lake of the Woods affords a foundation for their claiming such navigation."— John Adams : Life and Works, viii., p. 19. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. • 28 1 the Americans of great use. The object of this decree was in order that the trade might fall into the hands of the Spaniards, now that a general pacification had been made in Europe ; for while the war continued the Spaniards had not been able to carry on their trade. The action of Morales was disavowed by the Spanish government, but the difficulties were not entirely removed until the cession of Louisiana by France in 1803, when our rights were of course ex- tended to the mouth of the river. By the subsequent cession of East and West Florida in 18 19 the whole of the banks of the Mississippi, from the source to the mouth, became American ; and as the stipulations for the rights of British subjects to the navigation of the river had not been mentioned in the treaty of Ghent of 1 8 14, they lapsed; so that during the negotiations on the question of the St. Lawrence, ten or twelve years later, we refused to acknowledge any rights of England to the use of the Mississippi, it being all in- cluded within the United States, unless some branch should be discovered rising within the British do- minions. 282 • AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ^.— THE ST. LAWRENCE. Petition from New York. — Instructions to Mr. Rush. — Reply of Great Britain to our Claim of Free Navigation. — Mr. Clay's Arguments. — Mr. Gallatin's Opinions. — Suspension of Negotiations. — Treaty of 1854. — Treaty of 1871, Grant- ing the Right Forever. The American claim to the free navigation of the St. Lawrence rested on the same basis of natural right as that to the use of the Mississippi, Great Britain being here substituted for Spain. The action of the congresses at Paris in 18 14 and at Vienna in 181 5, by which the navigation of the Rhine and its afBuents, as well as of the Scheldt, had been thrown open to the whole world, were additional arguments for the United States, and showed how much the general feeling of the world, as to the use of navigable rivers, had advanced. There had been no mention of the St. Lawrence in any of our treaties with Great Britain; but in 1823 the inhabitants of Franklin County, N. Y., presented a petition to Congress, asking for the right to be secured to them of sending their exports, chiefly lumber, through the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic. They had no difficulty in disposing of their products, whether lumber, pot and pearl ashes, salted provisions, or flour, in the markets of Montreal or Quebec, but FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS, 283 they could be sent no further. They were sold to English subjects who received the middleman's profits. This trade had gradually increased, and in 1821 the amount of a single article — lumber — transported down the St. Lawrence, amounted in value to $650,000, without bringing into the estimate the portion which found its way through Lake Champlain and the Sorel to Montreal and Quebec. This trade, so far as it dealt in the principal articles of flour and lumber, was almost entirely destroyed by an act of Parliament in August, 1822, which was in effect, though not in form, prohibitory. Congress reported favorably on this petition, and in June, 1823, Mr. John Quincy Adams instructed Mr. Rush, our minister at London, to present our claim to the British government. Mr. Rush was then engaged in negotiations for obtaining various commercial rights, as well as for other subjects, and found occasion to present the matter to Great Britain, much apparently to the surprise of the British nego- tiators, who said that, on the principle of accommo- dation they were willing to treat with this claim of the United States in a spirit of entire amity ; that is, as they explained, to treat it as a concession on the part of Great Britain, for which the United States must be prepared to offer a full equivalent. This was the only light in which they could entertain the question. As to the claim of right, they hoped that 284 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, it would not even be advanced. Persisted in, they were willing to persuade themselves it would never be. It was equally novel and extraordinary. They could not repress their strong feelings and surprise at its bare intimation. Great Britain possessed the ab- solute sovereignty over this river in all parts where both banks were of her territorial dominion. Her right, hence, to exclude a foreign nation from navigat- ing it was not to be doubted, scarcely to be discussed. This was the manner in which it was first received. They opposed to the claim an immediate, positive, unqualified resistance. "I said," said Mr. Rush, " that our claim was neither novel nor extraordinary. It was one that had been well considered by my Government, and was believed to be maintainable on the soundest principles of public law. The question had been familiar to the past discussions of the United States, as their state papers which were before the world would show. It had been asserted, and successfully asserted, in relation to an- other great river of the American continent flowing to the south — the Mississippi — at a time when both its lower banks were under the dominion of a foreign power. The essential principles that had governed in the one case were now appli- cable to the other." * Mr. Rush thought It best to consign his arguments to a written paper, which was duly presented and en- * The official correspondence is published in Congressional Documents, Session 1827-28, No. 43 ; see, also. Foreign Re- lations, folio, vi., 7S7-777' FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 285 tered upon the protocol of the eighteenth conference. At the twenty-fourth conference the British negotia- tors presented their reply, which had been drawn up by five of the most eminent publicists of the kingdom. It is not worth while here to recapitulate the ar- guments employed by both governments, except to say that the United States rested their claim entirely upon natural rights, and the English their opposition thereto on the previous custom of nations. " The American Government," as Mr. Clay subsequently wrote to Mr. Gallatin, " has not contended, and does not mean to contend, for any principle, the benefit of which in analogous circumstances it would deny to Great Britain." Mr. Clay admitted that if it were found that a branch of the Columbia River rose in British territory, the British would have a right to navigate the Columbia to the sea ; and so, if further exploration of the country should develop a connec- tion between the Mississippi and Upper Canada. He said : *' It is not necessary to discuss all the extreme cases which may be fancifully presented, such as the foreign claim to pass- ing the Isthmus of Darien, to drive a trade between Europe and distant India through two oceans, or that of passing through England to trade with France or other portions of the European continent. Examples of that kind belong to the species of sophistry which would subvert all principles by pushing their assumed consequences into the regions of ex- travagant supposition." 286 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. No answer was made at the time to the British paper consigned to the protocols of the conferences between Mr. Rush and the British negotiators, until Mr. Clay had become Secretary of State. Mr. Gal- latin was sent as minister to England, and among the subjects to which his attention was especially directed was that of the navigation of the St. Lawrence. Mr. Clay, in a very interesting and able paper, resumed the whole case of the United States. He desired not only that the right to the free navigation of the St. Lawrence should be acknowledged as a right, but that the concession should be given of depots for Amer- ican produce at Quebec, and possibly also at Mon- treal. In his instructions Mr. Clay made one very good point, saying: " If the United States were disposed to exert within their jurisdiction a power over the St. Lawrence similar to that which is exercised by Great Britain, British subjects could be made to experience the same kind of inconvenience as that to which American citizens are now exposed. The best, and for descending navigation the only channel of the St. Lawrence, between Bernhard's Island and the American shore, is within our limits ; and every British boat and raft, therefore, that de- scends the St. Lawrence comes within the exclusive jurisdic- tion of the United States. The trade of the upper province is consequently in our power." Indeed, a report to the Legislature of the State of New York, in March, 1825, recommended an applica- tion to Congress to exercise this power in retaliation FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 28/ for the British act of 1822 regulating the Canadian trade. This report said : '*The right to navigate the St. Lawrence can be of very little use to us unless we are allowed to trade at Montreal and our trade there is placed on a liberal footing." Mr. Gallatin, in giving his opinion on his instruc- tions, wrote to Mr. Clay from New York June 29, 1826: " Generally speaking, two courses present themselves : i, To insist on the right, and wait for a favorable opportunity to as- sert it, even at the risk of losing for the present the advantages which might be derived from a practical arrangement ; 2, to waive for the present, without renouncing, the right, and to make a commercial arrangement which may remove or lessen the evils now complained of." * Subsequently, in giving to President Adams an account of the state of negotiations, Mr. Gallatin wrote : " St. Lawrence wholly impracticable to obtain, and inexpe- dient to offer any article founded avowedly or by implication on our right to navigate that river ; none suggested for a tem- porary arrangement of the inland intercourse with Canada, implying only, but without doubt, reservation of the right." f President Adams in reply wrote : " One inch of ground yielded on the northwest coast, one step backward from the claim to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, one hair's-breadth of compromise upon the article * Gallatin's Writings, ii., p. 313. t Ibid., p. 348. 288 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. of impressments, would be certain to meet the reprobation of the Senate. In this temper of the parties all we can hope to accomplish will be to adjourn controversies which we cannot adjust, and say to Britain, as the Abbe Bernis said to Cardinal Fleury, ' Monseigneur, j'attendrai.'" * Gallatin was cautious in his negotiations, and wrote to Mr. Clay at the end of September, 1827 : *'The determination not to open the colonial intercourse, and that not to negotiate on the river St. Lawrence without something like a disclaimer of the right, had been taken be- fore my arrival, and on both points this government was im- movable."! Again, six weeks later, he wrote to the President : * * This might, in my opinion, be obtained at any time by re- nouncing the right. It is certain that it could not be secured at this time by any agreement which would not be tantamount to a renunciation." t When Mr. Everett went to London as minister, Gallatin, who had already returned, wrote to him on this subject : " The argument derived from natural law is strong. The precedents, that of the Scheldt excepted, are, I fear, against us. The most formidable objection is to be found in forty years' acquiescence, and in having accepted by the treaty of 1794 a part only, and very limited, of the navigation, unac- companied by any assertion or reservation of the right. I have no doubt of the free use being ultimately allowed by Great Britain, not as a matter of right, but because it is clearly their * Gelatin's Writings, ii. p. 368. t Ibid. , p. 372. % Ibid. , p. 395. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 289 interest to afford every facility to draw our produce to Qiiebec."* Here negotiations rested for many years. The trade between the United States and Canada had taken a very different turn. Lumber, instead of being sent abroad from Northern New York, was imported into the United States from Canada. The canal system of the State of New York seemed to answer all the needs of the inhabitants of this part of the country. But in 1854 the disputes about the rights of fishery led to the conclusion of a treaty, which, while regulating this subject, agreed for a commercial reciprocity between Canada and the United States. By the fourth article it was agreed that the citizens of the United States should have the right to navigate the river St. Lawrence and the canals of Canada, which had been constructed since the previous nego- tiations, as a means of communicating between the great lakes and the Atlantic Ocean ; but the British government retained the right of suspending this privilege on giving due notice. As an equivalent to the privilege of navigating the St. Lawrence, British subjects were given the right to navigate Lake Michi- gan. Evidently by this treaty we obtained the navi- gation of the St. Lawrence as a concession and not as a right. The treaty was made terminable after ten * Gallatin's Writings, ii. , p. 403. 19 290 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. years on a twelvemonth's notice by either party. During the war of the Rebellion, owing partly to the predominance of protectionists in Congress, who ob- jected to the comparative free trade with Canada, and partly to the feeling against the Canadians aris- ing out of various incidents connected with the war, the United States gave notice for the termination of this treaty, and the treaty accordingly came to an end on March 17, 1866. The question remained in this state until the nego- tiations at Washington, which resulted in the treaty of May 8, 1871. Among the various subjects treated by the high commissioners was the navigation of the St. Lawrence River. We still claimed that navigation as a right. The British commissioners were willing to yield^it as a concession, provided that we should give the right of navigation of Lake Michigan as an equiv- alent. This our commissioners absolutely refused. The subject was several times discussed, and finally they were asked whether, if the St. Lawrence were declared free, we would admit the same rights to cer- tain rivers rising in the British territories, passing through the province of Alaska, and emptying into the Pacific Ocean. This the United States took under consideration, and the result was the twenty-sixth ar- ticle of the treaty, which stated that *' The navigation of the river St. Lawrence, ascending and descending, from the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude, where FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 29 1 it ceases to form the boundary between the two countries, from, to, and into the sea, s\i2Mi forever remain free and open for the purposes of commerce to the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of Great Britain, or of the Dominion of Canada, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation." The rivers of which we granted the free navigation to British subjects were the Yukon, the Porcupine, and the Stikine. The British government engaged to urge upon the Dominion of Canada to secure to the citizens of the United States the use of the Wel- land, St. Lawrence, and other canals in the Dominion on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Do- minion. The United States gave the use of the St. Clair Flats' Canal on equal terms, and engaged to urge upon the State governments to secure for British sub- jects the use of the several State canals connected with the navigation of the lakes or rivers traversed by the boundary line. We also granted the use for ten years of the navigation of Lake Michigan, as an equivalent for certain fishing rights on the coast, and terminable with them. Those rights having now terminated, the privilege of navigating Lake Michigan has also ended. '^ UNIVERSITl 292 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, C-THE NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN. American Enterprise in the Pacific. — The Russian-American Company. — The Russian Ukase of 1821. — Negotiations. — Treaty of 1824. — Further Proposals. — Public Opinion.— Negotiations of 1834. — Treaty of 1867 ceding Russian America. Years before the United States possessed a foot of land on the Pacific coast, adventurous American sea- men had doubled Cape Horn. In the autumn of 1788 the ship Columbia, of two hundred and twenty- tons, and the sloop Washington of ninety tons, ar- rived in Nootka Sound from Boston, passed the win- ter there, explored Queen Charlotte's Sound and the Strait of San Juan de Fuca. The Columbia took a cargo of furs to Canton, and thence a cargo of tea to Boston, being the first vessel to carry the American flag round the world. From that time on until 18 14 the direct trade between the American coasts and China was almost entirely carried on in American ves- sels. The opposition of the East India Company prevented British merchants from engaging in this trade ; entrance to the Chinese ports was forbidden to Russian ships ; and there were few ships of other na- tions in that part of the Pacific. After the fur-trade on the northwestern coasts had been reorganized by the foundation, in 1798, of the Russian-American \/ FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 293 Company, there were complaints against the Ameri- cans of furnishing arms and ammunition to the na- tives, and had it been possible for the Russians to carry on their commerce without our aid, they would gladly have excluded our vessels. In 1806 the ques tion of expelling the Americans was settled for the time by the fact that the Russian garrison and set- tlers at Sitka would all have died of hunger, but for the opportune arrival of the American ship Juno.* Three years later the Russian government made rep- resentations to the United States on the subject of the illicit trade, which, it was alleged, our citizens carried on with the natives of the North Pacific coasts, and desired that we should make a conven- tion, or at least pass an act of Congress to hinder the sale of spirits, arms, and ammunition in those parts. Finally, Russia proposed an arrangement by which American vessels should supply the Russian settle- ments on the Pacific with provisions and manufact- ures, and should do the carrying trade to Canton, on condition of abstaining from intercourse with the na- tives. There were several reasons for not accepting this proposition, but especially because it was claimed that the Russian possessions extended southward to the mouth of the Columbia River. We were then engaged in a dispute with Great Britain about this * History of Oregon and California, by Robert Greenhow. 294 AMERICAN DIPL OMA C V. very coast, and naturally could not admit the claims of Russia.* The trading post of Astoria, founded by Mr. John Jacob Astor, was taken by the British during the war ; it was found impossible in the treaty of Ghent to settle the boundary line westward of the Lake of the Woods; and by the Convention of 1818 the northwest coast westward of the Rocky Mountains was, for ten years, left free and open to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two powers, without prej- udice to their respective claims. In December, 1820, immediately after the " ratification of the Florida treaty, a resolution was passed by the House of Rep- resentatives " that an inquiry should be made as to the situation of the settlements on the Pacific Ocean, and as to the expediency of occupying the Columbia River." A favorable report was made, and a bill was introduced for the occupation of the Columbia River, which was, however, suffered to lie on the table for the rest of the session. Such was the state of affairs when suddenly, at least to us, in September, 1821, the Emperor Alex- ander issued a ukase to the effect that " The pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishery, and of all other industry on all islands, ports, and gulfs, including the whole of the northwestern coast of America, beginning from * For the papers, see Foreign Relations, folio, v. , pp. 432-471. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 295 Behring's Straits to the fifty-first degree of north latitude, also from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well as along the Kurile Islands from Behring's Str^tslor ji /^ j the South Cape of the island of Urup, viz., to 45^ 50' 'north latitude, are exclusively granted to Russian subjects. It is therefore prohibited to all foreign vessels not only to land on the coasts and islands belonging to Russia, as stated above, but also to approach within less than one hundred Italian miles. The transgressor's vessel is subject to confiscation along with the whole cargo." The first information of this was received by our Government in a note from Mr. Poletica, the Russian minister, dated February 28, 1822, which gave the whole history, from Russian sources, of the Russian discovery of the northwestern coast of America and the subsequent settlements there. There was much reference to the accounts of Russian explorers, all of which are now perfectly well known to geographers, but which at that time, not having been published in English, were looked upon with considerable distrust by our Government. Mr. Poletica defended the choice of the fifty-first parallel upon the ground that this was midway between Sitka and the establishment of the United States at the mouth of the Columbia, and maintained that Russia- would be justified in exercising the right of sovereignty over the whole of the Pacific Ocean north of the fifty-first parallel, as that section of the sea was bounded on both sides by Russian territories, and was thus, in fact, a close sea. 296 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. With regard to this unwarrantable extension of the doctrine "of the King's chambers," Mr. Adams quietly remarked that the distance between the shores of Asia and America, on the parallel of fifty- one degrees north, is four thousand miles, and said : *' From the period of the existence of the United States as an independent nation, their vessels had freely navigated those seas ; and the right to navigate them was a part of that inde- pendence, as also the right of their citizens to trade, even in arms and munitions of war, with the aboriginal natives of the northwest coast of America, who were not under the territorial jurisdiction of other nations." He at the same time denied the Russian claim to any part of America south of fifty-five degrees. This ukase was undoubtedly due to the great in- fluence which the Russian-American Company then possessed at the Russian court. Professor F. von Martens, the Russian publicist, now brings up the one-hundred-mile limit contained therein, as an in- stance of " greatly exaggerated claims." * Mr. Middleton, our minister at St. Petersburg, wrote on the subject on August 20, 1822 : " Baron de Tuyl is coming out as minister from Russia, charged with a proposal for negotiating on the subject." Mr. Speransky, then Governor-General of Siberia, had told him that the Russians had at first thought * Volkerrecht, i., p. 380. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 2gj of declaring the North Pacific ocean a mare clausiun, but afterward took one hundred Italian miles from the thirty leagues in the treaty of Utrecht, which is an exclusion only from " a fishery and not from navi- gation." ^ Baron de Tuyl duly came, was found by Mr. Adams " more agreeable, much more complaisant than his predecessor," and showed every disposition to come to an arrangement. The controversy, how- ever, was chiefly carried on at St. Petersburg. When the Cabinet considered the instructions for Mr. Mid- dleton, Mr. Adams said : " I thought no territorial right could be admitted on this continent, as the Russians appear to have no settlement upon it except that in California." He was thereupon authorized to draft instructions for Mr. Middleton who was, " First, to propose an article similar to that in our conven- tion with Great Britain of October, 1818, agreeing that the whole coast should be open for the navigation of all the parties for a definite term of years, and as there would probably be no inducement for the Russians to agree to this, he should then offer to agree to the boundary line for Russia at the fifty- fifth degree, on condition that the coast might be frequented for trade with the natives, as it has been heretofore." Mr. Adams devoted great attention to the subject, reading up all the books of travel and discovery on the northwest that he was able to lay his hands upon, * Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vi., p. 93. 298 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. and wrote subsequently in his diary, on July ist : "I find proof enough to put down the Russian govern- ment, but how shall we answer the Russian can- non ? " ^ A few days later the Russian minister held a friendly conversation with him, and desired to know the purport of the instructions to Mr. Middleton, which were told him. Mr. Adams says : " I told him specially that we should contest the right of Russia to any territorial establishment on this continent ; and that we should assume distinctly the principle that the Ameri- can continents are no longer subjects for any new European colonial establishments." f This was the first hint of the policy which after- ward came to be known as the Monroe doctrine. While negotiations were going on at St. Peters- burg, Baron de Tuyl was from time to time anxious and troubled in mind. At one time he brought Mr. Adams an account of the toasts that had been drunk at a dinner given to Commodore Hull, who was going to take command of a Pacific squadron. These toasts were belligerent in tone, and the minister was fearful lest there might be bloodshed, although the Russian cruisers had received the most specific in- structions. At another time the Baron brought a Washington Gazette, with a paragraph taken from the Boston Sentinel, purporting to be a letter from Washington, which he thought would be annoying to * Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vi., p. 159. t Ibid., p. 163. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 299 the Emperor. He said that the Emperor entered much into the spirit of the age, and was solicitous to stand fair in public opinion. " I took the paper," said Mr. Adams, " and told him I would prepare a paragraph on the subject." The paragraph, of a quieting nature, duly appeared as an editorial in the National Intelligencer, and Baron de Tuyl immedi- ately came to thank the secretary for his courtesy in publishing it. The negotiations of Mr. Middleton resulted to our satisfaction. The Russian government gave way, and by a convention concluded on April 17, 1824, it was agreed that the southern boundary of the Rus- sian possessions in America should be placed at 54° 40' north latitude ; that navigation and fishing should not be disturbed or restrained upon points not al- ready occupied ; but that the citizens of the United States should not resort to any point where there was a Russian establishment without the permission of the governor or commander ; and, reciprocally, that the subjects of Russia should not resort, without per- mission, to any establishment of the United States upon the northwest coast. The sale of spirituou liquors, or fire-arms or other arms, powder or muni tions of war, to the natives was forbidden. Noth ing was said in the treaty itself about the Asiati coast. Some time after the treaty had been signed the 300 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, Russian- American Company made loud outcries and exerted special influence to prevail on the Russian government to send new instructions to their minister. In an interview on August 23, 1824, Baron de Tuyl related his perplexities to Mr. Adams, and said that he would like an explanatory note to be signed, show- ing that the Russian government did not understand that the convention would give liberty to the citizens of the United States to trade on the coast of Siberia and in the Aleutian Islands. He also wanted a mod- ification of the treaty, which would keep vessels from trading north of the fifty-seventh degree. Mr. Adams represented the difficulties in the way of com- plying with these requests ; that owing to our form of government no explanatory note signed simply by the Executive would be sufficient ; and that if any change was to be made, it was far better to make a new con- vention. He advised the Russian minister to wait until the treaty was ratified, and then if his govern- ment, on second thought, still desired it, he could pre- sent his note. Baron de Tuyl, who himself doubted about the wisdom of the Russian proposals, accepted the suggestion, withdrew the memorandum he had presented, and begged it to be considered as non avenu. The treaty was ratified, and that was the end ^ of the Russian proposal. This dispute with Russia made a far deeper im- pression than we should now think. The newspapers « FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 301 were full of paragraphs and squibs."^" The end was, however, very satisfactory to us. Mr. Madison, in writing to President Monroe on August 5, 1824, said : " The convention with Russia is a propitious event in sub- stituting amicable adjustment for the risks of hostile collision. But I give the Emperor little credit for his assent to the princi- ple of mare liberum in the North Pacific. His pretensions were so absurd, and so disgusting to the maritime world, that he could not do better than retreat from them through the forms of negotiations. It is well that the cautious, if not cour- teous, policy of England toward Russia has had the effect of making us, in the public eye, the leading power in arresting her expansive ambition." f In May and June, 1822, the English papers had a good deal to say about the subject, and the London Times remarked : ** Luckily for the world the United States of America have not submitted with equal patience to the decrees of the auto- crat. An important discussion is now depending between these two countries, a discussion in which we, however, are more deeply interested than the United States." * Here is one from the Baltimore Chronicle, reprinted in Niles' Register on May 10, 1823 : " Old Neptune one morning was seen on the rocks, Shedding tears by the pailful and tearing his locks ; He cried, a Land Lubber has stole, on this day. Full four thousand miles of my ocean away ; He swallows the earth (he exclaims with emotion), And then to quench appetite, slap goes the ocean ; Brother Jove must look out for his skies, let me tell ye. Or the Russian will bury them all in his belly." f Madison's Works, iii., p. 446. 302 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. This was preceded and followed by violent abuse of the English government for taking no steps itself. The Liverpool Mercury of May 31st followed in much the same strain.* Sir James Mackintosh did, however, during that session of Parliament, make a question of that subject. In the subsequent year, on May 21, 1823, he again raised the question, and Mr. Canning replied that a protest on the part of England had been made on the first promulgation of those principles, which had been renewed and discussed at the Congress of Verona, and had been again presented in subsequent negotiations which were still pending at St. Petersburg. The fourth article of the treaty, which gave for ten years the right of fishing and trading in the bays, creeks, harbors, etc., of the northwestern coast, ex- pired in 1834. The Russians claimed that, in spite of the provisions of the treaty, American vessels in pur- suit of their fisheries had sold spirituous liquors and fire-arms to the natives ; and the Russian minister, therefore, by instructions from his government, in- formed the Secretary of State of the expiration of the fourth article of the treaty, and begged him to have an ofificial notification of some kind issued to that effect. Russia at the same time claimed a right of possession down to 54° 40' of north latitude. Mr. Forsyth ob- jected to an ofificial notification, but consented to an * Niles' Register, July 27, 1822. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 303 unofficial announcement in the Globe, to the effect, that, since the expiration of the fourth article, Amer- ican vessels would be bound by the other articles of the treaty, and could frequent those parts of the coast occupied by Russia only by the consent of the Rus- sian commanders. Mr. Wilkins, and subsequently Mr. Dallas, our ministers to St. Petersburg, were in- structed to negotiate for a continuance, either in per- petuity or for a term of years, of the fourth article. We refused to admit that we had implied by the treaty of 1824 any acknowledgment of the right of Russia to the possession of the coast above the latitude of 54° 40'. Mr. Forsyth argued that if we had implied any such right, Russia, in the same way, would have im- plied the right of the United States up to that limit ; whereas by a subsequent treaty with Great Britain in 1825, expressed in much the same terms, the right to the same territory by Great Britain was also acknowl- edged. Even had it been inferred from our agreeing not to occupy any points north of 54° 40', that we acknowledged the Russian right to the whole of the coast, it did not follow that the United States ever intended to abandon the right gained by the first article, as belonging to them under the law of nations, of frequenting the unoccupied parts of the coast for purposes of fishing or trading with the natives. Count Nesselrode, however, without attempting to controvert the arguments advanced by Mr. Forsyth 304 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. and Mr. Dallas, refused to renew the fourth article of the convention. A similar refusal was made to Great Britain, whose rights had also lapsed in the year 1835. In 1839 the charter of the Russian- American Com- pany was renewed for twenty years, and in point of fact the vessels of the United States, as well as those of Great Britain, were excluded from the ports and harbors of the coast of Russian America from that date."^ All questions that might possibly arise were fully settled by the treaty of March 30, 1867, negotiated by Mr. Seward, by which, for the sum of $7,203,000 in gold, the whole of the Russian possessions in Amer- ica, free and unencumbered by the privileges of any company, were ceded to the United States. One question, however, arose out of this treaty. Those Russian subjects who chose to remain after three years had the right of becoming Americans. They had churches and other establishments of the Russian Orthodox Church. In order to provide for their spiritual welfare the Russian Synod appointed an archbishop, with his seat at San Francisco. The American charge d'affaires, believing that the pre- cedent was of some importance, immediately gave notice of this appointment to his Government and suggested that some action be taken. The Secretary of State, however, gave him no instructions on the * Congressional Doc, Session 1838-39. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 305 subject, and without them he did not feel authorized to protest. At the same time he felt that the case was very different from the appointment of bishops of the Catholic Church by the Pope. The Russian Synod is a part of the temporal institutions of the Russian empire, and a Russian bishop in America is paid by, and is an official of, the Russian govern- ment as distinguished from the Russian Church, and is yet allowed to exercise an authority in the United States without any control over him by the United States authorities, even a control such as is exercised over consular officers, 20 306 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. Z^.— THE SOUND DUES. Origin of these Dues. — Tariff of Christianople. — Clay. — Wheaton. — Webster's Report. — Burden upon Trade.— Upshur's Report. — Buchanan's Instructions to Flenniken. — Our Proposition for Compensation. — Its Withdrawal by Mr. Marcy. — Our Notice to Terminate our Treaty. — Dan- ish Proposition for Capitalization. — President Pierce's Message. — European Congress. — Treaty of Capitalization. — Our Separate Treaty. From an early time Denmark had claimed the right of imposing duties and marks of ceremonial respect on all merchant vessels passing through the Sound or the great Belts that connect the Baltic with the North Sea. We find mention of these dues as early as 13 19, when they were to some extent regulated. Com- plaints of their exorbitant character were made at dif- ferent times, and by treaties and conventions they were lowered. They were finally regulated by the treaty of Christianople in 1645, explained by another treaty in 1701, and continued in that form up to the present century. The right to impose them was ta- citly admitted by all the commercial states of Europe. The tariff of duties imposed by the treaty of Chris- tianople was somewhat peculiar. The theory was that one per cent, of the value of all the articles was to be paid ; and a tariff was drawn up commuting these to specific duties on the chief articles of commerce based FREE NAVIGATION 0F_ RIVERS. 307 on the value at the time. In the lapse of two cen- turies not only had the actual value in money of ar- ticles of commerce decreased so that the specific du- ties represented three, four, and five per cent, of their value, but many new articles of commerce were carried into the Baltic, the valuation of which was arbitrary. Countries, besides, were divided into privileged and non-privileged, the former meaning those who had made special treaties with Denmark : non-privileged nations paid duties a fifth higher. The income derived from the Sound dues was, owing to the large commerce of the Baltic, a very important branch of the Danish revenue, amounting to two and sometimes two and one-half millions of rix- dollars per annum. Fifty years ago our commerce on the Baltic, which was very little with Denmark itself, brought into use about one hundred vessels a year. As American vessels, having to cross the ocean, were of larger size than those of European nations, we paid higher duties in proportion to the number of vessels, averaging some years as much as $100,000. The attention of our Government was first appar- ently called to the subject in 1826, when Mr. Clay succeeded in negotiating a general treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation with Denmark, by which vessels of the United States, in passing the Sound or the Belts, were not to pay higher duties than those paid by the most favored nation. Mr. Clay did not 308 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. apparently question the prescriptive right of Den- mark to take these duties, and was satisfied to reduce them thus by a fifth of their amount. Mr. Wheaton, during his residence as minister in Denmark, from 1827 to 1835, studied the histor}^ and the effects of the Sound dues ; and from his despatches Mr. Web- ster, soon after entering upon his office as Secretary of State, made a report to the President, with a view of beginning negotiations for a reduction of the duties ; for there was at that time a general movement on the part of the northern powers of Europe for the purpose of obtaining a modification of the regulations of the Sound, which would remove certain grievances which were a great burden upon commerce. Apart from the Sound dues themselves, there were charges of light-money, pass-money, etc., which caused a delay at Elsinore, where vessels were obliged to stop for the purpose of paying the dues ; and, as their collec- tion was attended by vexatious delays and unneces- sary ceremonies, the port charges sometimes amounted to a large sum. Vessels bound to, or returning from, ports in the Baltic were obliged to lower their top- sails before the castle of Kronenberg in token of re- spect ; to submit to an examination of their cargoes at Elsinore ; frequently to encounter a delay arising from the limited number of hours during which the custom-house was open, which was tedious, and in that sea often dangerous. Mr. Webster says : FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 309 " The amount of our commerce with Denmark direct is in- considerable compared with our transactions with Sweden, Russia, and the ports of Prussia, and the Germanic associa- tion of the ports of the Baltic ; but the sum annually paid to that government in Sound dues, and the consequent port charges, by our vessels alone is estimated at something over one hundred thousand dollars. The great proportion of this amount is paid by the articles of tobacco, sugar, cotton, and rice, the first and last of these paying a duty of about three per cent, ad valorem, reckoning every value from the places from which they came. By a list published atElsinore in 1840 it appears that, between April and November of that year, seventy-two American vessels, a comparatively small number, lowered their top-sails before the castle of Kronenberg. These weee all bound up the Sound to ports on the Baltic, with cargoes composed in part of the above-named products, upon which alone according to the tariff was paid a sum exceeding forty thousand dollars for these dues. Having disposed of these cargoes they returned laden with the usual productions of the countries on the Baltic, on which, in like manner, were paid duties on going out of the Sound, again acknowledging the trib- ute by an inconvenient and sometimes hazardous ceremony.'' * At the time when Mr. Webster took up this sub- ject England, owing to the complaints of her mer- chants, was negotiating with Denmark, and eleven days after the date of Mr. Webster's report an ar- rangement was made far more satisfactory to the com- mercial world. The specific duties imposed by the treaty of Christianople remained unchanged, but the tariff for non-enumerated articles was carefully revised * Report of May 24, 1841, Webster's Works, vi., p. 406. 310 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. and greatly reduced, although the system operated unequally. The tariff on raw sugar, for example, was reduced from nine to five stivers per one hundred pounds. But even this amounted to about two per cent, on the value of common sugar ; and it was found upon examination that, owing to Russia, they equalized the duty upon all unrefined sugars, and only the better kinds of white Havana were sent up the Baltic, so that the commissioners had fixed upon a valuation which nearly doubled the proportion to be paid by the low-priced sugars. The rule requiring the lowering of the top-sails, in token of respect, was abolished, important reductions were made in port charges, the hours of the custom-house were ex- tended, and the visitation of vessels dispensed with. Upon receiving information of the new tariff and regu- lations, Mr. Webster expressed satisfaction, and as far as he was concerned the correspondence closed. Not every one, however, was as satisfied as Mr. Webster. Prussia, especially, felt very much ag- grieved, and for a long time hesitated about accepting the new tariff, as the dues at the entrance of the Baltic were an obstacle to all Prussian commerce. The merchants of the sea-towns made strong repre- sentations to the government, and a vigorous effort was made for the capitalization or entire abolition of the duties. Owing, however, to the personal influence of the King of Denmark, and the influence upon Prussia FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 31I from England and Denmark, Prussia in 1846 accepted the new tariff, and even did more. Following the example of Russia, it demanded attestations of having paid the duties at Elsinore before a ship was allowed to discharge its cargo. The hopes of the mercantile world now rested on the efforts of the United States. Mr. Upshur, who had succeeded Mr. Webster in 1843, made another communication to the President on the subject, in which he took stronger grounds. He said : " Denmark continues to this day without any legal tide to levy exceedingly strange duties on all goods passing the Sound. Denmark cannot lay claim to these duties upon any principle either of nature or of the law of nations, nor from any other reason than that of antiquated custom. It renders no service in consideration of that tax, and has not even such rights as the power to enforce it would give. Great and general is the discontent felt by all nations interested in the Baltic trade on account of that needless and humiliating tribute. For the United States the time has come when they can appropriately take decisive steps to free their Baltic trade of this pressure." The report of Mr. Upshur created considerable ex- citement and consternation in Denmark, but his plans came to an end with the accident on the Princeton in which he lost his life. His successor, Mr. Calhoun, attempted nothing beyond the collection of informa- tion. Meanwhile every year the Chamber of Commerce of Stettin presented the subject again to the Prus- 312 AMERICAN' DIPLOMACY. sian government as a canker on Prussian commerce ; and after the troubles between Prussia and Den- mark in consequence of the Slesvig-Holstein dififi- culties, as it appeared likely that in arranging the peace the Prussians might insist on the total ab- olition of the Sound dues, Mr. Buchanan, then Secretary of State, instructed Mr. Flenniken, our charg6 d'affaires, to negotiate for a new treaty of commerce, providing for exemption frOm the Sound dues — a perpetual exemption, if possible. As there would be considerable delay in obtaining an act of Congress giving notice of the termination of the ex- isting convention with Denmark, and there would be twelve months' delay after giving such notice, while a new treaty, if made, would cut off the Sound dues two years earlier than could be done otherwise, Mr. Flen- niken was empowered to offer to the Danish govern- ment, $250,000 as an indemnity for the amount which would thus be lost, provided that the exemption from the Sound dues should be made perpetual. This proposition, which was expressly stated to be not for the purchase of a right enjoyed by Denmark, but as an equitable equivalent for that branch of her revenue which she would thus give up, and mainly to furnish a liberal precedent on the part of the Govern- ment, which was strictly under no obligations to pay, in order that Denmark might be enabled to settle profitably with European nations, who were, in fact, FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 313 under obligations to submit, was received with satis- faction by the Danish ministry. The resumption of hostilities with Germany, however, broke off the ne- gotiations. Mr. Marcy, on July 18, 1853, instructed the new charg6 d'affaires, Mr. Beddinger, to press the matter of the Sound dues to a conclusion ; and in his de- spatch, after giving an account of the history of the Sound dues, took the decisive stand that the United States can recognize no immemorial usage as obliga- tory when it conflicts with natural privileges and in- ternational law. The previous offer for payment was withdrawn, and the Secretary declined authorizing the offer to Denmark of any compensation for the re- moval of thaf as a favor which we had demanded as a right. There was great delay at Copenhagen, partly on account of the general state of European politics, and partly, in the opinion of our legation as well as of the Prussian mercantile bodies, through the influence of Russia, who desired to keep in the hands of Denmark the power of closing the Baltic in case of need. In March, 1854, the Danish govern- ment intimated that they would make an effort to enter into an arrangement with all the powers for the abolition of the Sound tolls, upon receiving a certain compensation. But nothing was done until Presi- dent Pierce, in his annual message of December 4, 1854, recommended to Congress that notice should 314 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. be given for terminating the convention of 1826. The Danish legation at Washington immediately pre- sented a statement of what the Danes considered the proper nature of the right they claimed. The sub- stance was, that the right of Denmark to the Sound dues is a right existing under the laws of nature by immemorial prescription, and therefore independent of all treaties ; that the abrogation of the convention of 1 8 16 would, therefore, not restore any rights to the United States, or take any from Denmark. As the Danish government steadily refused to listen to any proposition for the abolition of the dues without an equivalent, and as the United States as steadily re- fused to offer any bribes for that which was clearly our right, notice was given, April 14, ^55, that after the expiration of a year the convention would be terminated. Finding herself thus hardly pressed — for the action of the United States found sympathy in the whole commercial world — Denmark, in October, 1855, sug- gested a project of capitalizing the Sound dues, pro- posing that the quota to be paid by each nation should be estimated by the quantity of merchandise passing through the Sound and Belts, as far as the Sound dues proper were concerned ; and by the num- ber of vessels to each flag, as regards the light-money and similar duties. Two conditions were made : i, That this arrangement should be concurred in simul- FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 315 taneously by all the powers interested ; and 2, that the affair in question should be treated not as a com- mercial or money transaction, but as a political mat- ter. This last condition was sufficient to make the United States decline to take any part in this Euro- pean convention. The cogent reasons, as stated by President Pierce, in his message of December, 1855, were as follows : " One is that Denmark does not offer to submit to the con- vention the question of her right to levy the Sound dues ; and, the second is, that if the convention were allowed to take cog- nizance of that particular question, still it would not be com- petent to deal with the immediate and important international principle involved, which affects rights in other cases of navi- gation and commercial freedom, as well as that of access to the Baltic. Above all, by the express terms of the proposition, it is contemplated that the consideration of the Sound dues shall be commingled with, and made subordinate to a matter wholly extraneous — the balance of power among the governments of Europe. While, however, rejecting this proposition, and in- sisting on the right of free transit into and from the Baltic, I have expressed to Denmark a willingness on the part of the United States to share liberally with other powers in compen- sating her for any advantages which commerce shall hereafter derive from expenditures made by her for the improvement and safety of the navigation of the Sound or Belts." The European Congress, nevertheless, met at Co- penhagen in the winter of 1856, and its result was the treaty of March 14, 1857, by which the Sound dues were forever abolished, in consideration of a payment 3l6 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. once for all of 35,000,000 rix-dollars. In fixing this sum the Danes had reduced their claims, setting the annual income at 1,750,000 instead of 2,250,000 rix- dollars, which it had produced for many years. Twenty years' purchase gave 25,000,000 rix-dollars. The proportion of England was more than one-third of the whole; that of the United States was 2,100,- 000 rix-dollars, or $1,050,000. The United States, for reasons already given, re- fused to become a party to this treaty, and subse- quently, on April 11, 1857, made a similar treaty, by which 717,829 rix-dollars, or $393,011 United States currency, were paid to Denmark, in consideration of an agreement to keep up lights, buoys, and pilot es- tablishments in those waters, and of the total and per- petual abolition of all dues on American vessels.* * The official correspondence is found in H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 108, 33d Congress, ist Session, and Senate Ex. Doc, No. 28, 35th Congress, 1st Session. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 317 ^.-THE BOSPHORUS AND THE DARDANELLES. When the whole of the shores of the Black Sea were in the exclusive possession of Turkey, that sea was entirely closed even to the commercial vessels of foreign powers. When Peter the Great, in 1700, at- tempted to obtain the right for his merchant vessels to trade on the Black Sea, the reply of the Turks was : " The Ottoman Porte guards the Black Sea like a pure and undefiled virgin which no one dares to touch ; and the Sultan would sooner permit outsiders to enter his harem than consent to the sailing of foreign vessels on the Black Sea. This can only be done when the Turkish empire shall have been turned upside down." * When this process was accomplished to such an ex- tent that the Russians had made large acquisitions on its shores, they had, according to the common law of European nations, a right to navigate the Black Sea and pass outward into the Mediterranean. But the Turks at this time recognized no principles of international law in common with Europe, and the right could be only obtained by the express stipula- tions of treaties. The first of these stipulating for the free navigation of the straits by merchant vessels was made with Russia in 1774, followed by one with * Schuyler, Peter the Great, i., p. 362. 3 1 8 AMERl CA N DIPL OMA C V. Austria in 1784, with Great Britain in 1799, ^ith France in 1802, and with Prussia in 1806. The United States had no treaty rights on this subject until 1830, when they were given " The liberty to pass the canal of the imperial residence, and go and come in the Black Sea in like manner as vessels of the most favored nations." And the treaty of 1862 provided that clearance re- quired for the passage of an American vessel should be delivered with the least possible delay. By the treaty of Paris in 1856, as modified by the treaty of London in 1871, the Black Sea was thrown open to merchant vessels of all nations ; but the straits are closed to ships of war, except that the Sultan has the faculty of opening them in time of peace to the war vessels of friendly and allied powers in case he deems it necessary for carrying out the stipulations of th"e treaty of Paris. The United States have never ad- hered to either of these treaties, and have always maintained that their right to send ships of war into the Black Sea cannot be legally taken from them by any arrangement concluded by European powers to which they are not parties. No attempt, however, has ever been made to exercise these rights. All American ships of war have, while reserving all ques- tion of right, asked permission of the Porte to pass the Dardanelles. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS, 319 /^.-THE RIVER PLATE. River Systems of South America. — European Intervention at Buenos Ay res. — Decree of Urquiza. — Treaty of San Jose de Flores. — Difficulties. — Solution of Mr. Schenck. — Op- position of Brazil. — The Water Witch. — Trouble with Paraguay. Civilization in South America is, to a certain ex- tent, dependent upon the river systems, and by the two great rivers, the Amazon and the river Plate (La Plata) access is gained to the whole interior of the continent. The foreign relations of a state like Para- guay are entirely dependent upon the freedom of river navigation, for it has no access to the ocean except by the rivers Paraguay and La Plata. Although Bo- livia has a small extent of sea-coast and one port — Cobija — for commercial purposes it can be more easily reached by the Madeira, a branch of the Amazon, or the Pilcomayo, a branch of the Paraguay. Through the Amazon also there is access to the eastern parts of Peru, Ecuador, and New Grenada, and even dur- ing the rainy season to portions of Venezuela. The attainment of the independence of the various states of South America was followed by intestine struggles, and during these the government of Buenos Ayres, basing its action on a treaty concluded in 1825, between the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata and 320 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. Great Britain, claimed the right of opening or shut- ting at pleasure the river La Plata, and thus cutting off the access of Paraguay and of the interior prov- inces to the sea. England and France vainly strove to bring over General Rosas to more liberal views with regard to river navigation ; but he held firm. When a joint intervention was proposed in 1845 by England and France in the affairs of La Plata, Guizot wrote : "We must ask as an accessory and consequence of our in- tervention, the application of the principles established by the Congress at Vienna for the free navigation of rivers in relation to those which, flowing from the frontiers of Brazil and Para- guay, throw themselves into the Atlantic." England, however, on November 24, 1849, signed a treaty with Rosas in its own interest, which recognized the navigation of the Parana as being purely internal. A similar treaty made by France was rejected by the National Assembly. The closing of water communi- cations, together with the struggle at Montevideo, finally wearied the patience of the interior states, and General Urquiza, the governor of the state of Entre Rios, in conjunction with the Brazilian gov- ernment, first defeated General Oribe before Monte- video, and subsequently broke the power of Rosas. By one of the five treaties which Urquiza made with Brazil on October 12 and 13, 185 1, the navigation of the Uruguay and its branches was declared common FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS, 32 1 to the contracting states, and the other riparian states of La Plata were invited to agree to a similar arrange- ment, so as to make free the navigation of the Parana and the Paraguay. One of the first measures of Urquiza, after the defeat of Rosas and his own elec- tion as provisional director of the Argentine Con- federation, was a decree of August 28, 1852, declaring the navigation of the rivers in the Confederation free to all flags. The United States was the first country to avail itself of these new privileges, and immediately fitted out the steamer Water Witch, under the command of Lieutenant Thomas Jefferson Page, to explore and survey all the rivers emptying into La Plata. At the same time Mr. Robert C. Schenck, our minister at Rio de Janeiro, was instructed to go to Buenos Ayres, and together with Mr. John S. Pendleton, our charge d'affaires there, to conclude all necessary treaties re- quired by our commercial interests, and for the open- ings of the rivers. Before his arrival, Mr. Pendleton had already gone up to Asuncion and concluded a commercial treaty with Paraguay, on March 4, 1853, which provided also for the free navigation of the river Paraguay as far as the dominions of the empire of Brazil, and of the right side of the Parana through- out all its course belonging to the republic. The English at the same time had empowered Sir Charles Hotham, and the French their minister at 21 ^22 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. Rio de Janeiro, the Chevalier St. Georges, to negoti- ate similar treaties for free navigation with the Ar- gentine Confederation. As the object of the three governments was exactly the same, the plenipoten- tiaries agreed to work together, and the main burden of the negotiation was entrusted to Mr. Schenck. Buenos Ayres, where the plenipotentiaries lived, was in a state of close siege and blockade, the province of Buenos Ayres having expressed an intention of seced- ing from the Confederation, and having refused to re- cognize the authority of General Urquiza. It was necessary for the plenipotentiaries to go backward and forward between the city and the camp of Ur- quiza under escort. They endeavored in vain to mediate between the contending parties, and finally, when the squadron of the Confederation was treach- erously surrendered to the government of Buenos Ayres, General Urquiza retired, and the plenipoten- tiaries followed him to his camp at San Jose de Flores, where separate but identical treaties, providing for the perpetual free navigation of the rivers Parana and Uruguay were signed on July lo, 1853. At the last moment two difficulties arose — one with regard to the little island of Martin Garcia, which was in a position, if held by Buenos Ayres, to impede free navigation, and of which Urquiza desired the nego- tiating countries to guarantee the possession to the Argentine Confederation. Mr. Schenck, at least, did FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 323 not feel authorized to give the guarantee of the United States, and finally it was agreed to insert a clause that the contracting parties should " agree to use their influence to prevent the possession of the said island from being retained or held by any state of the river Plate or its confluents which shall not have given its adhesion to the principle of their free navigation." This influence might be greater or less, according to circumstances, and it was never actually necessary to use force. The other point was a con- stitutional one. The constitution of the Argentine Confederation had been modelled after that of the United States, which in many places it had copied word for word. A special article, however, had been inserted, that the navigation of the interior rivers of the Confederation could be made free to all the world, subject only to regulations to be established by the national authority. It was suggested that the pro- posed treaties would be in conflict with this article of the constitution. As the whole subject had been removed from the treaty-making power, and left only within the jurisdiction of Congress, it was claimed that the legislative power was the only national au- thority that could prescribe the needed regulations for such free navigation. The plenipotentiaries at first thought their case hopeless; but Mr. Schenck suc- ceeded in satisfying General Urquiza that the proper interpretation of the constitution was that treaties, 324 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. regularly concluded either by the provisional Execu- tive or made by the President and approved by Con- gress after the organization under the constitution, were to be taken, as in the United States, as " the supreme law of the land," and that " regulations " es- tablished by treaty must be considered as much sanc- tioned by " national authority " as if enacted in the shape of statute law. ^ After the treaty had been signed and ratified by General Urquiza, the province of Buenos Ayres made a protest, declaring that the treaty was not binding upon her, for she had refused to be represented at the Constituent Congress, and was therefore, to all intents and purposes, an independent state. Considering, however, that Urquiza was the legal representative of the other thirteen provinces of the Argentine Con- federation, the powers thought best to disregard this protest of Buenos Ayres, leaving her to acknowledge the treaty in the future, or to make new treaties with them to the same effect. The only reply made was the ratification of the treaty by the United States, Great Britain, and Prance. The Brazilian govern- ment, whose aim it was to keep the navigation of these rivers solely to the riparian states, also objected, and the Brazilian minister in Washington presented to our Government a protest, dated November 7, * Despatch of Mr. Schenck ; see La Plata, the Argentine Confederation, and Paraguay, by T. J. Page, p. 575. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 325 1853, against the treaties made with Urquiza, on the ground that "they may prove detrimental to the rights which Brazil possesses as a sovereign nation." Mr. Marcy replied to this by a note of December 1 6th, in which he disclaimed any intention on the part of the United States of violating, any rights of Brazil, but so long as no actual infringement was proved, and merely its possibility suggested, refused to take the protest into account. Meanwhile the steamer Water Witch, which had been of much service during the negotiations, con- tinued its explorations and made careful surveys of a great part of the river system. Lopez, the President of Paraguay, at first objected very much to allowing, even for scientific purposes, a war vessel to navigate the Paraguayan rivers, on the ground that Brazil might demand the same favor, and until a treaty of limits had been made with that country it might prove a dangerous precedent. He, however, finally yielded, and even the Brazilian government, owing to the representations of Mr. Schenck and his successor, Mr. Trousdale, allowed the expedition to enter the Brazilian portion of the Paraguay. A series of unfortunate incidents now occurred which prevented the final ratification of the treaty with Paraguay, and brought that country into hostile relations with the United States. Our Government had appointed as consul at Paraguay Mr. Edward A. 326 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. Hopkins, who had, in pursuance of a mistaken policy, been allowed to engage in business on his own ac- count. He was a man somewhat visionary, and filled with chimerical ideas, and seemed to aim at acquiring a predominating influence in the Plate country. He used his position as consul not only to carry out these projects, but to assist him in his commercial enterprises. Besides cigar-factories and other enter- prises, he had started a steamer company, of which he called himself the agent general. He had, in various ways made himself obnoxious to President Lopez, who, under a republican name, possessed ab- solute power, and their relations were already strained, when an insult offered to the consul's brother by some soldier, who was driving cattle, brought both parties to such extremities that, although satisfaction was given for the insult, Hopkins' exequatur was with- drawn, and he, as well as the other Americans en- gaged in business at Asuncion, was obliged to leave the country. Just at that time the treaty made with the United States was sent to Lieutenant Page for the exchange of ratifications. It had been so carelessly drawn, through the negligence of Mr. Pendleton, that the Senate had found it necessary to make thirty-two amendments, most of which were merely formal ones ; for in few places was even the name of our Govern- ment given correctly. The English clerk who had drawn up the treaty had styled our Government at FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 327 one time the " United States of North America," at another the " North American Union," etc. Lopez, in his bitterness against Americans and foreigners in general, made the amendments of the Senate a pre- text for refusing to ratify the treaty in its new form. He had ratified it once and that was enough. The notes of Lieutenant Page were returned to him with- out an answer, except that the President did not read English and could not understand them without an official translation. Page, who was hot-headed, lost his temper, and insisted on writing again in English. This the Minister of Foreign Affairs chose to con- sider as an insult, and Page was obliged to retire. Soon after this, in October, 1854, a decree was is- sued prohibiting foreign vessels of war from navigat- ing the rivers of Paraguay — a decree which especially aimed at the explorations of the Water Witch. Page therefore continued his explorations within the lim- its of the Argentine Confederation ; but in descending the river Parana, which was common to the two coun- tries, he got aground, and subsequently, in passing closely under the guns of a Paraguayan fort, the vessel was fired into and the helmsman was killed. This was on February i, 1855. Our Government at first took no action in the matter, except to send Mr. Richard Fitz- patrick as a special commissioner to exchange the ratifications of the treaty. Mr. Fitzpatrick arrived in November, 1856, but Paraguay again refused to ratify 328 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. until the pending questions were settled — not only that of the insult which Lopez claimed to have re- ceived from Lieutenant Page of the Water Witch, but also for the reclamations which had been made on the part of the steamer company of Mr. Hopkins. The matter was thereupon brought to the attention of Congress, and on June 2, 1858, the President was authorized to take such action as he deemed neces- sary. A commissioner was again sent to Paraguay, and a considerable naval force — of nineteen vessels, carrying two hundred guns and twenty-five hundred men — was despatched to the river La Plata. This show of force had its effect. Our commissioner, Mr. James B. Bowlin, arrived at Asuncion on January 25, 1859, and by February 4th succeeded in concluding two treaties — one for the settlement of claims, and the other of commerce and navigation, being an al- most exact copy of the original treaty of 1853. These treaties were afterward duly ratified by both sides, and the question was finally settled."^ * The history of this episode may be found in part in the book of Lieutenant Page, cited above ; in the Annuaire de la Revue des deux Mondes, 1853-59 ; and in the Messages of President Buchanan, of December 8, 1857, and December 19, 1859, with the accompanying documents. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 329 6\-THE AMAZON. Our Treaty with Peru of 185 1. — Brazilian Intrigues. — Mr. Randolph Clay's Negotiations. — Bolivian Decree. — Peru- vian River Ports Opened. — Intrigues at Lima. — England and France. — Mr. Marcy's Reply to the Brazilian Min- ister. — His Instructions to Mr. Trousdale. — President Pierce's Message. — Peru Changes Face and Accepts Bra- zilian Doctrines. — Abrogation of Treaty with Peru. — Treaty with Bolivia. — Trousdale at Rio Janeiro. — Brazil- ian Decree of 1866, Opening the Amazon. — Peruvian De- cree. On July 26, 185 1, Mr. J. Randolph Clay, our min- ister at Lima, concluded a treaty of friendship, com- merce and navigation between the United States and Peru, which was duly ratified on both sides. Three previous treaties of a similar nature had been con- cluded, and had been approved by the Senate of the United States and ratified by the President, but had all been rejected by the Peruvian Congress. By this treaty Peru agreed to grant to no other nation favors, privileges, or immunities which should not immedi- ately be extended to citizens of the United States ; and agreed also that citizens of the United States es- tablishing lines of steam-vessels between the different ports of entry within the Peruvian territories should have all the privileges and favors enjoyed by any other association or company whatever. Already, before the treaty had been made, Lieuten- 330 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ants Herndon and Gibbon, of the United States Navy, had been sent to Peru with instructions to explore the Amazon and its different branches to the mouth, for the purpose of ascertaining its navigability and its use for commerce. As soon as this expedition was known at Rio de Janeiro, the Chevalier Da Ponte Ribeyro was sent to Peru and Bolivia in order to negotiate treaties for the navigation of the Amazon, " by which the citizens of the United States should be excluded from all participation in the navigation of the Amazon and in the trade of the interior of South America." A treaty was signed between Peru and Brazil on October 23, 185 1 ; and it was agreed by article second that the navigation of the Amazon *' should belong exclusively to the respective states owning its banks." It was agreed also that if a Bra- zilian company of steam navigation were started, Peru would assist it with a yearly subsidy. During the negotiations Mr. Clay had conversations with Mr. Osma, the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs, who stated that the treaty was only one of limits, and would stipulate nothing for navigation. The min- istry had changed, and after the signature of the treaty Mr. Clay complained to Mr. Tirado, the Min- ister of Foreign Affairs, who showed a willingness to evade the actual provisions of the treaty, and pro- posed to declare several Peruvian towns — Nauta, Lo- reto, and others on the branches of the Amazon, as FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 33 1 ports of ent ry — so as to afford the United States plausible grounds to claim the navigation of the Am- azon. Mr. Clay bestirred himself to preserve our rights, and as we had no representative in Bolivia, he wrote to Lieutenant Herndon, who was still there, and succeeded in frustrating the designs of the Bra- zilian minister, who had been empowered also to conclude a treaty with that country. Subsequently, on January 27, 1853, Bolivia opened freely to the navigation of all the world the rivers and navigable waters flowing through Bolivian territory, and emp- tying into the Paraguay or the Amazon, and besides this, ofTered $10,000 for the first steam-vessel which should arrive from the sea at any Bolivian river port. In 1852 the Brazilian government gave an exclusive right of steam navigation on the Amazon to the Bra- zilian Company of Souza. Mr. Clay thereupon called the attention of the Peruvian government to this fact, and also to the decree of Bolivia opening her rivers, and claimed the equal rights granted by our treaty. He endeavored also to secure action by the governments of Ecuador and New Grenada. The Peruvian consul at Rio de Janeiro had made an agree- ment between Peru and the Souza company, just mentioned, in November, 1852, and this was finally approved by the President of Peru, with the omission of certain articles which were considered objection- able. Shortly after that, in April, 1853, in all prob- 332 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ability owing to the efforts of Mr. Clay, the towns of I / Loreto and Nauta were made ports of entry, and the privileges given to Brazil were extended to all the / most favored nations. Two steamers at the same time were ordered by the Peruvian government from an American, to be delivered at Loreto. Mr. Caval- canti, the Brazilian minister, protested against this ' decree, and Mr. Lisboa was sent out by Brazil to New Grenada, Ecuador, and Venezuela for the pur- pose of making treaties to close the Amazon to the United States. The great argument used was that " the navigation of the Amazon belonged of right ex- clusively to the nations owning its banks," and in isupport of this it was constantly brought up, " that if citizens of the United States were allowed once to establish themselves, either for purposes of trade or abode, in the interior of South America, they would inevitably introduce their own institutions and re- nounce the allegiance of their adopted country." There was an idea prevalent throughout South America at that time that the United States were bent on annexation. Our filibustering expeditions to Cuba and to Central America, and the bombardment of Greytown, had greatly impressed all South Amer- ica. It was thought that if our citizens once estab- lished themselves there, they would introduce free principles, insist on gov.erning themselves, and finally declare their independence and their annexation to FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 333 the United States. Mr. Clay did his best, by private letters and by personal intercourse with the ministers of the other South American republics, to counteract the efforts of Brazil, and was in a measure successful. He persuaded the Peruvian minister to send a circular letter to Brazil, New Grenada, Ecuador, and Venezuela on July 13, 1853, inviting them to treat about the opening of the Amazon. Bolivia was not invited, al- though it had an equal interest with the others, be- cause that country was then at war with Peru. In this circular Mr. Tirado said : " The government believes that, considering the ideas of the time, the exigencies of commerce, and of the diplomacy of the world, as well as the necessity of not impeding the evident destiny of these territories and rivers, the most thorough ex- ploration of them and the adoption of a commercial policy which shall reconcile the interests of the world with the inter- ests and rights of the nations in possession, are matters which these last cannot defer." The Peruvian Congress was about to meet at that time, and Mr. Cavalcanti, the Brazilian minister, tried hard to persuade its members to disapprove of the de- cree of April 15th. He even published a pamphlet, expressed in violent terms, attributing to the United States views of annexation as the reasons for which they desired to have the Amazon opened to them. Mr. Clay replied, through a friend, with another pamphlet, and then published a Spanish translation, with additions and notes, of Lieutenant Maury's 334 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. pamphlet on the Amazon and the Atlantic slope of South America, which was circulated not only through Peru, but also through the other republics of the Pacific coast. This had a very good effect, and the Peruvian Congress appropriated over half a million dollars to carry out the decree of April 15th opening the rivers, as well as to pay the Brazilian Company the $20,000 arranged by the treaty of 185 1, without taking any actual vote on the decree itself. The first Brazil- ian steamer of the Souza Company arrived at the port of Loreto on October 6, 1853, and went further up to Nauta. Its captain had the order to hoist the Peru- vian flag on reaching the Peruvian boundary, so as to afford no pretext to other nations. The representatives of England and France were ordered to follow in the wake of the United States, and Mr. Sulivan, the British charge d'affaires, on Oc- tober 25, 1853, demanded the same rights on the Amazon as might be granted to the United States, Brazil, or others, under the treaty with Great Britain of April 10, 1850. Restated at the same time that " the British minister at Rio de Janeiro had been in- structed to impress upon the Brazilian government the good policy of doing away with all restrictions and getting rid of all monopolies affecting the commerce of that river." There was, however, a difficulty in the way of both England and France. England did not wish to claim separately the navigation of the Ama- FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 335 zon, lest it might be considered by the United States as a precedent with regard to the St. Lawrence, and France was bound by the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth articles of the treaty of Utrecht, by which she had re- nounced all rights to the navigation of the Amazon, and by which she had even agreed that the inhabit- ants of Cayenne should be prevented from carrying on commerce in the Marawon, and the mouths of the Amazon. ^ Mr. Lisboa, the Brazilian envoy, had succeeded in concluding a treaty with New Grenada, similar to that with Peru, and it became Mr. Clay's duty to do what he could to prevent it from being ratified. In Ecuador he had more success, as letters and pamph- lets had produced an impression, and on November 26, 1853, that government declared the freedom to all nations of the navigation of the Amazon and of its branches within the territory of Ecuador. Meanwhile Brazil was very uneasy. On April 4, 1853, Mr. Carvalho Moreira, the Brazilian minister at Washington, made inquiry of Mr. Marcy about rumored expeditions of naval and commercial ships to the Amazon, enclosing newspaper paragraphs on the subject. Mr. Marcy, in his reply of April 20th, seemed to think that the minister's apprehensions had arisen from accounts of the recent scientific expedi- tion on the Amazon, which he explained, and ex- plained also that Lieutenants Herndon and Gibbon 3 3^ AMERICAN DIPL OMA C V. had gone with passports, and under the authority- granted by his predecessor, Mr. Macedo. In August the Brazilian minister made further inquiries, and enclosed a newspaper paragraph, saying that Lieuten- ant Porter of the navy had received two years' leave of absence, for the purpose of taking charge of an ex- pedition intending to force a passage of the mouths of the Amazon. Mr. Marcy, in writing on Septem- ber 22, 1853, again denied any purpose of using force, and showed, by a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, that Lieutenant Porter had not received any leave of absence. Admitting at the same time that citizens of the United States must have seen the great advantages which the navigation of the Amazon would bring them, he added that he *' Permitted himself to entertain the hope that the Brazilian government, actuated by an enlightened regard for the in- terests of the empire, will strive by all proper means to de- velop its vast resources. It appears to the undersigned that no means would be more certain to lead to this result than the removal of unnecessary restrictions upon the navigation of the Amazon, and especially to the passage of vessels of the United States to and from the territories of Bolivia and Peru, by the way of that river and its tributaries. It is hoped that by means of treaty stipulations those advantages may be ob- tained for citizens of the United States." Mr. Moreira was still suspicious, and at the end of November sent more newspaper paragraphs and wished more exact instructions to be given to the FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 33/ Collector of New York to prevent the fitting out of any filibustering expeditions. This Mr. Marcy con- sented to. In the instructions which had been given to Mr. Trousdale, who had succeeded Mr. Schenck as min- ister at Rio de Janeiro, dated August 8, 1853, he was ordered to claim the right of passage, for citizens of the United States, through the Amazon, for legiti- mate commerce with the republics of Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, New Grenada, and Venezuela. Mr. Marcy used almost a threat, for he said : ** Should you discover any reluctance on the part of the gov- ernment of Brazil to yield to this just claim, you will impress upon it the determination of the United States to secure it for their citizens. The President is desirous to cultivate the most amicable relations with that government, and would much regret to have these relations disturbed by its persistence in a policy so much at variance with all the liberal views of civil- ized and enterprising nations." An argument was then drawn from natural rights, and especially from the action of the Congress of Vienna in 1815. So earnest was our Government on this subject that President Pierce, in his annual message of December 5, 1853, said: ** Considering the vast regions of this continent, and the number of states which would be made accessible by the free navigation of the river Amazon, particular attention has been given to this subject. Brazil, through whose territories it passes 338 AMERICAN DirLOMACV. into the ocean, has hitherto persisted in a policy so restrictive, in regard to the use of this river, as to obstruct and nearly ex- clude foreign commercial intercourse with the states which lie upon its tributaries and upper branches. Our minister to that country is instructed to obtain a relaxation of that policy, and to use his efforts to induce the Brazilian government to open to common use, under proper safeguards, this great natural highway for international trade. Several of the South Amer- ican states are deeply interested in this attempt to secure the free navigation of the Amazon, and it is reasonable to expect their co-operation in the measure. As the advantages of free commercial intercourse among nations are better understood, more liberal views are generally entertained as to the common rights of all to the free use of those means which nature has provided for international communication. To these more liberal and enlightened views it is hoped that Brazil will con- form her policy, and remove all unnecessary restrictions upon the free use of a river which traverses so many states and so large a part of the continent." To return to Peru, we find that in January Mr. Paz-Soldan, the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, whose appointment was considered almost an act of hostility to the United States, had begun to waver on the Amazon question ; for the Brazilian minister had declared that, if the decree of April 15th were en- forced in its entirety, the treaty with Brazil would be annulled. He had also informed the Peruvian gov- ernment that the Brazilian minister at Washington had written to him that Mr. Marcy fully sympathized with Brazil in this matter, and was ready to disavow Mr. Clay — a statement which our minister was able to FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 339 denounce at once as a falsehood. It having been al- lowed to the Brazilian steamers to proceed further than Nauta up the river Huallaga, Mr. Clay, on De- cember 31, 1853, had asked if this were true, as he should then claim the same rights for the United States. Mr. Paz-Soldan replied on January 18, 1854, and used specious arguments to prove that the conces- sions granted to Brazil could not be claimed by the United States, as their treaty referred only to coast and not to river navigation, and as the United States nowhere possessed any part of the banks of the Ama- zon, they could not offer the same equivalent as Brazil did. This was accompanied by the decree of January 4, 1854, amending the decree of April 15th, and giv- ing rights on the Amazon to Brazilian subjects only, but stating that " If other states pretend that their subjects and vessels should be admitted to the Amazon and its confluents belonging to the territory of Peru, because they believe they have the right to it by virtue of treaties concluded with the republic, the govern- ment will proceed to grant or deny the demands addressed to it, according to the stipulations of existing treaties, or in the manner and under the conditions which may be deemed most fit and convenient." In explaining this decree, he said that the decree of April 15th had been only administrative, and did not bind Peru to foreign nations except so far as conform- able to treaties. Mr. Clay, in his replies of February 340 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 4th and February i6th declined any controversy, as our rights were abundantly fixed by treaties, by the decree of April 15th, and by his various conversations with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and protested energetically on the part of the United States in case it was intended to deprive our citizens of any rights. In reporting his proceedings to his Government, Mr. Clay thought that the United States should use a tone of decision and energetic remonstrance if they wished to maintain their rights. Various other things had occurred at this time, at the Chincha Islands and elsewhere, which were contrary to the treaty, and doubtless a show of force would have brought Peru to reason. Matters, however, remained in this state until July, 1856, when, at a new session of the Peru- vian Congress, Mr. Clay persuaded several of the deputies to introduce a bill providing for the freedom of coasts and rivers. Owing partly to the apathy of the overworked Congress and partly through the in- opportune arrival of Mr. Lisboa as Brazilian minister (the same who had made a tour three years before in- citing the Pacific republics against the United States), this bill did not pass, and matters remained in that state until 1862, when Peru gave notice that the treaty of 185 1 should terminate. This treaty, there- fore, came to an end on December 9, 1863, and we had no treaty of commerce and navigation with Peru until 1870. FREE NAVIGAl^ION OF RIVERS. 34 1 In 1858, however, the United States concluded a treaty with Bolivia which confirmed to us the rights of navigation previously granted by a decree, and article twenty-six said : ''In accordance with fixed principles of international law, Bolivia regards the rivers Amazon and La Plata, with their tributaries, as highways or channels opened by nature for the commerce of all nations. In virtue of which, and desirous of promoting an interchange of productions through these chan- nels, she will permit, and invites, commercial vessels of all descriptions of the United States, and of all other nations of the world, to navigate freely in any part of their courses which pertain to her, ascending those rivers to Bolivian ports, and descending therefrom to the ocean." If we had had everywhere in South America min- isters as competent and energetic as Mr. Clay and Mr. Schenck, we should probably have acquired a commercial influence on that continent, at a time when we had a large commercial marine, before the war, so great that it would still remain to us. Un- fortunately Mr. Schenck's successor at Rio de Jan- eiro, Mr. Trousdale, a very estimable man, who had been governor of Tennessee, was old and crippled with rheumatism, and was by disposition totally unfitted for diplomatic work. His manner of living and his ignorance of the usages of the world made him unfit for society, and he never succeeded in making those social relations which increase the influence of a min- ister in a large country. In accordance with his in- 342 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. structions, Mr. Trousdale represented to Brazil the desire of the United States for the opening of the Amazon ; but he was put off from time to time, and finally, after ten months, the Brazilian minister replied that he could not consent to the doctrine proposed by the United States; "it could not prevail unless it were for substituting the principles of interest and force for those of right and justice." He main- tained that the principles of the treaty of Vienna did not apply, and had not been recognized even by all of Europe, and that England and France, by their treaties of 1849, had even admitted the navigation of the river Parana to be interior and not interna- tional. Subsequent treaties on that subject he took no notice of. He said that the Amazon valley was a desert in Brazil, and in other countries it was still less populated ; that no advantages could result to the United States or other country by opening the river. He added : " It is not the intention of the imperial government to keep the Amazon forever closed to foreign transit and foreign commerce. Its opening, however, does not seem to it to be as yet called for." Notwithstanding this reply Mr. Trousdale proposed a commercial treaty with the Brazilian government in December, 1854. To this proposition he received an answer only in December, 1855. The proposal was politely declined, the minister saying that he supposed FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 343 the chief object of it was to open the Amazon. As to that, Brazil preferred to open the Amazon volun- tarily to doing so by treaty with any one nation ; that the absence of treaties for the northern and western boundaries of Brazil made a delay necessary. Matters remained in this condition until 1866. Our war and the cessation of our treaty with Peru had prevented us from pressing the subject. On December 7, 1866, the Emperor of Brazil issued a decree which opened the Amazon, together with its tributaries the San| Francisco and the Tocantins, to the commerce of all the world from and after September 7, 1867. Its tributaries — the Topajos, the Madeira, and Rio Negro — were also opened, but not through the upper part of their course, where only one bank belonged to the Brazilian empire. But at this time our foreign commerce and our carrying trade had been ruined by the war and our absurd shipping laws, and the decree announcing the opening of the Amazon, in which Mr. Marcy and Mr. Randolph Clay were so deeply interested, was ap- parently received by Mr. Seward with as little emo- tion as if it had notified him of the dissolution of Parliament, or some other object of purely Brazilian concern. Peru again followed the example of Brazil, and on December 17, 1868, President Jose Balta decreed that " the navigation of all the rivers of the Republic 344 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. is open to merchant vessels, whatever be their nation- ality." ^ * Collection of Peruvian Treaties, Lima, 1876, p. 115. The facts in the above sketch have been taken from the original manuscript despatches in the State Department. The papers on this subject have never been officially published, but ex- tracts are given by Mr. Lawrence in his notes to Wheaton, edition of 1863, pp. 363-365. The notes between Mr. Clay and the Peruvian ministers are printed in the collection of Oviedo, vii., pp. 108-134. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 345 ^.-EUROPEAN RIVERS. The Scheldt. — French Efforts for Free Navigation. — Treaties of Paris and Vienna. — The Rhine. — The Scheldt. — The Elbe. — The Danube. — Congress of Paris. — Riparian Com- mission. — The European Commission. — Treaties of 1871 and 1878. — Proposed Mixed Commission. — Roumanian Objections. — The Barrere Proposal. — Course of Russia. — Conference of London of 1883. — Results. It is necessary to state in a few words the course which the question of free navigation has taken in Europe. The first dispute on this subject related to the Scheldt. By the treaties of Westphalia, by which the United Provinces of the Netherlands were declared independent, the mouths of the Scheldt were closed on the frontier between Holland and the Catholic provinces, although the commerce of these provinces, now Belgium, naturally went through them. After the Spanish provinces were ceded to Austria by the treaty of Utrecht (17 13), they were submitted to a military servitude in favor of the United Provinces. The Barrier treaty, signed be- tween Austria, Great Britain, and Holland, Novem- ber 15, 17 1 5, even stipulated that several cities should receive a Dutch garrison. In 1773, Joseph II. de- clared the Barrier treaty to be no longer necessary, and in 1784, with the idea of disembarrassing Bel- gium of commercial dependence on Holland, brought 346 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. up some old claims against that country. These claims were denied by the States-General, and the Emperor, who could not see one of the finest rivers of the world shut to commerce, and his subjects de- prived by policy of the advantages that nature had given them, declared that he would abandon all his claims if the United Provinces would consent to the navigation of the Scheldt by his subjects. The in- tervention of Great Britain and France was then asked for, and by the the treaty of Fontainebleau, November 8, 1785, the treaties of Westphalia were confirmed, the Barrier treaty annulled, but the Scheldt continued to be closed for the Belgic provinces from Saftingen to the sea. Very soon after this came the French Revolution, and the Republic overturned everything in its power, as far as possible, that it considered contrary to its interests. By a decree of the Executive Council, November 20, 1792, it opened the navigation of the Scheldt and the Meuse, and proclaimed the principle that one nation cannot without injustice claim the right of occupying exclusively the channel of a river, and of preventing neighboring peoples who live on its upper banks from enjoying the same advantage. On May 16, 1795, a treaty between the French and Batavian governments declared the navigation of the Rhine, the Meuse, the Scheldt, and the Hondt, and all their branches to the sea, to be free to the two na- FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 34/ tions, the French and the Batavian. At the Con- gress of Rastadt, in 1798, France demanded not only the free navigation of the Rhine but of its branches, and expressed the hope of seeing these principles adopted on all the great German rivers, and especially on the Danube, on account of the immense benefit which results from free navigation. It was, however, by the treaty of Luneville, February 9, 1801, that the French demands were granted. A convention be- tween Germany and France, for the tolls on the navi- gation of the Rhine, was signed on August 15, 1804. Similar principles were afterward adopted for the Vistula, the Elbe, and other rivers. Notwithstanding the fact that the principle of free navigation was one contended for by the French Republic, yet the five great powers, in the treaty of Paris of May 30, 18 14, inserted an article on this subject : " The navigation of the Rhine, from the point where it be- comes navigable to the sea, and reciprocally, shall be free in such a way that it cannot be forbidden to anybody ; and the future Congress shall consider the principles according to which the duties levied by the riparian states can be regulated in a manner most equal and most favorable to the commerce of all nations." It was agreed, also, that the Congress should con- sider how the same dispositions could be extended to all other rivers which in their navigable course sepa- rate or traverse different states. 348 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. The Congress of Vienna did not, however, realize the project of perfect freedom of navigation which had been entrusted to it. A commission was constituted to draw up a plan, composed chiefly of the delegates of the riparian states, though Lord Clancarty sat as English delegate, showing that the commission had an international footing. The French project, which was the basis of discussion, was very simple, saying, " the Rhine shall be considered as a river common to the riparian states, and its navigation shall be entirely free and cannot be forbidden to anybody." Lord Clancarty proposed some slight changes, accentuating the fact of the freedom of the Rhine to everybody ; but Baron William Humboldt, on the part of Prussia, proposed, two weeks later, another draft which read : " The navigation of the Rhine shall be entirely free, and cannot, in regard to commerce, be forbidden to anybody." These words " in regard to commerce " seemed somewhat suspicious to Lord Clancarty, but he was outvoted, and the commission held, quite contrary to the original project, that the Congress of 1 8 14 had only intended to throw open the Rhine to the riparian states, and not to all nations who had nothing to offer in return. This was bad : but worse was to follow. Humboldt's draft, as accepted by the Congress of Vienna, read, " that the navigation of the Rhine was free to the sea." Holland claimed that " to the sea " did not mean " into the sea," and that FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 349 therefore at the highest limit of tide-water she could place barriers and tolls. This question had to be taken up by the Congress at Verona, in 1822, and the five powers signed a protocol by which they declared that they were authorized " to concur in the exe- cution of the dispositions of the act of the Congress of Vienna relating to the navigation of the Rhine." Holland still delayed conforming to them, and on February 14, 1826, Prince Metternich was obliged to say in a note " that the freedom of the navigation of the Rhine into the sea is an express condition of the existence of the kingdom of the Netherlands, and that the international law of Europe demands his Majesty the King to subordinate his sovereignty to the con- ditions established by the treaties." It was not, how- ever, until 1 83 1 that the Convention for the Regula- tion and Navigation of the Rhine was signed, by which, in spite of the general principles of the treaty of 1 8 14, the navigation of the Rhine can only be exercised by known subjects of the riparian states. Even the navigation from the sea and to the sea is reserved to those, to the exclusion of non-riparian states. The question of the navigation of the Scheldt was never entirely arranged until the treaty of 1839, and the separation of the respective territories of Belgium and the Netherlands. This convention still allowed the existence, for the profit of Holland, of certain 350 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, taxes or tolls on navigation. These, however, were abolished by the treaty concluded May 12, 1863, be- tween Belgium and Holland, by which, for the sum of 17,140,640 florins, Holland renounced all rights of toll on the river. By the protocol of July 15, 1863, Bel- gium arranged with the European powers that each should pay its share of this sum ; and the United States, by a separate convention of May 20, 1 863, and a treaty of July 20, 1863, agreed to pay its proportion, which was 2,779,200 francs, in ten annual instalments, with interest at four per cent. This sum was finally paid in 1873, having amounted in all to $606,202.67. In the treaty signed at Vienna between Prussia and Saxony, May 18, 181 5, it was stipulated that the gen- eral principles stated by the Congress should be ap- plied to the Elbe as soon as possible. Plenipotentia- ries were appointed by the ten riparian states, but it was only in June, 1821, that an act of navigation was signed which gave the rights of navigation only to the riparian states. Owing in great measure to the free city of Hamburg, assisted by both Hanover and Mecklenburg, an additional act, in the year 1844, granted greater freedom in allowing the ships of all nations to transport persons and merchandise from the North Sea to the ports of the Elbe, and vice versa, the internal navigation being still reserved for the riparian States. Another question arose with regard to the Elbe — FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 35 1 that of the tolls at Stade, which were levied by the government of Hanover on all ships descending or as- cending the river. The Hanoverian government was deaf to all appeals, claiming that the tolls at Stade were sea tolls and not river tolls. Finally, England refused to renew its treaty of 1844 on that subject, Holland and Belgium followed its example, and the United States had always refused to recognize the right of Hanover to impose these duties. We had succeeded by our treaty of 1846 in obtaining that no higher or other toll should be levied at Brunshausen or Stade, on the Elbe, on the tonnage of cargoes of vessels of the United States, and no other charges or inconveniences other, than were levied on the vessels of Hanover. In 1861 the question returned, and, by the treaty of June 26th, most maritime states agreed to pay an indemnity to Hanover of 2,85 7,338 J^ thalers, in consideration of the total abolition of the Stade dues. We agreed by our treaty of November 6, 1 861, to pay our quota, amounting to 60,353 thalers, on considera- tion that the dues should be abolished forever ; that no charge of any kind should be imposed in compen- sation thereof ; and that the works necessary for the free navigation of the Elbe should be maintained as. before by the government of Hanover. The treaty of July 3, 1849, for the navigation of the Po was far more liberal than any preceding trea- ties, in allowing navigation to be free to all nations. 352 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, That question has, however, been put entirely aside by all the banks of the Po being now absorbed into the kingdom of Italy. However little these various conventions for the free navigation of rivers conformed to the ideas of the treaty of 1814, yet one thing was gained — that a river flowing along or through two or more states was looked upon as being the common property of them, over which no one had a right to exercise authority to the exclusion of the others. It has often been claimed as one of the merits of the Congress of Paris of 1856, that it extended the principle of the free navigation of rivers to the Danube. The freedom there proclaimed has been restricted in ways which are interesting to study. Here the principle, which we proclaimed a century ago, that states lying on the upper course of a river had a right to navigate the lower course, is so stretched as to imply that such states have a right to control the navigation. The freedom of navigation on the Danube had been recognized by Austria and Turkey by the treaty of Passarowitz in 1784. Russia in 1812 gained a foot- ing on the river, which was increased to such an ex- tent that at last she had in her possession all the mouths of the Danube ; and although by the treaty with Austria in 1840 it had been agreed not to impose tolls on navigation, there were vexations from qua- FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 353 rantines which amounted to about the same thing. An English vessel in 1853 was obliged to remain sixty-five days at Galatz ; and although Odessa and Galatz were at about the same distance from Con- stantinople, the freight to Galatz was twenty-two francs higher than to Odessa. England and Austria protested against this state of things, for the mouths of the Danube had been allowed to fill up ; but they were unable to do anything until 1854, when, on the outbreak of the Crimean War, the re-establishment of free navigation was recognized as indispensable. This question was always brought up at the various negotiations for peace; and finally, in 1856 it was agreed, by Articles 15 to 19 of the treaty of Paris, to apply the principles of the Congress of Vienna to the Danube and its mouths ; and it was declared " that this arrangement henceforth forms a part of the public law of Europe, and is taken under its guaranty." No toll was to be founded solely on the navigation of the river, nor any duty placed on the goods which may be on board the vessels. Regulations of police and quarantine were to be arranged so as to facilitate the passage of vessels. With the exception of such regulations, no obstacle whatever shall be opposed to their navigation. A European Commission, in which the signatory powers were to be represented each by one delegate, was to be charged with executing the necessary works for clearing the mouths of the 23 354 AMERICAN- DIPLOMACY, Danube. A Riparian Commission, which was in- tended to be permanent, was to prepare the regula- tions for navigation and river police, to remove the impediments, of whatever nature they might be, still preventing the application to the Danube of the ar- rangements of Vienna, to execute necessary works throughout the whole course of the river, and, after the dissolution of the European Commission, to maintain the mouth of the Danube and the neighbor- ing parts of the sea in a navigable state. The difificulties after this came not from Russia, but from Austria, which had, during the whole course of the deliberations, attempted to restrict the free navigation of the river to the riparian states solely. Under the guidance of Austria regulations were drawn up by the Riparian Commission, which were presented to the conference of Paris in 1858, with the claim that all that the conference had a right to exact was to acknowledge their receipt, upon which they would immediately be put into vigor. These regulations, however, had been drawn up in a manner entirely contrary to the spirit of the treaty of Paris, with the intention of reserving, as far as possible, all rights on the river to the riparian states, and especially to the Austrian steamer companies, which had a monopoly of the navigation, and in which various high personages in Austria were said to be interested. An attempt was made to introduce a distinction between internal FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 355 navigation from port to port, and the navigation be- tween any part of the river and the sea, the latter only being free to all nations. The articles on agents, licenses, etc., were all drawn up so as to maintain the monopoly of the riparian states. The transit of any article prohibited by the tariff of any country was for- bidden contrary to the stipulations of the treaty ; and also in a like way the riparian states were given power to levy taxes and tolls for the purposes of paying the expenses of keeping the river navigable. Lord Cow- ley, the English plenipotentiary, protested ; and the representatives of France, Prussia, Russia, and Sar- dinia fully agreed with him. Turkey refused to apply the regulations for navigation, on the ground that they had not been approved by Europe, and therefore the whole project of Austria fell to the ground. The representatives of the powers at the same time re- fused to put an end to the European Commission be- cause the works for clearing the mouths of the Danube had not yet been finished. The European Commis- sion proved so successful that when a subsequent conference met at Paris in 1856 it was retained. Par- ticular attention had been given to the Sulina mouth ; and here the works executed by Sir Charles Hartley had deepened the channel of the river from seven feet in 1856 to seventeen and a half feet in 1863. In five years the shipwrecks in passing the mouths of the Danube had been 0.81 per cent, of the total number 356 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. of vessels; whereas after i860 they were reduced to 0.21 per cent., and the commerce had greatly increased. Up to 1 87 1, therefore, there were three different regulations applied to the Danube : From Isaktcha to the mouth those of the European Commission ; from Orsova up to Iller, the head of navigation, the regula- tions established by Austria, and the riparian Ger- man states ; only the intermediate part, from Orsova to Isaktcha was under the same want of regulation as before the treaty of Paris ; for Turkey, Avhich was a riparian state for this whole portion, had refused to put the regulations into force. When Russia, on October 31, 1870, declared that she could no longer consider herself bound by the obligations of the treaty of Paris, as far as they re- stricted her rights of sovereignty in the Black Sea, Austria saw that she should gain more by the con- tinuance of the European Commission, and that the question of the Danube was nearly allied to that of the Black Sea. By the treaty of London of 1871 it was agreed to continue the duration of the European Commission for twelve years — that is, until April 24, 1883, and the riparian powers were allowed to levy tolls for the removal of obstructions at the Iron Gates. By the treaty of Berlin of 1878, which followed the Russian-Turkish War, another change was made with regard to the Danube. Bessarabia, which had been FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 357 taken away by the peace of Paris, after the Crimean War, was retroceded to Russia ; and Russia therefore became riparian on the Kilia mouth of the Danube, the most northern of the three chief mouths, and formerly considered the best. By this treaty, in order to preserve the freedom of the Danube, all the fortifications and forts from the Iron Gates to the mouth were ordered to be razed, and no new ones could be erected. No vessel of war was al- lowed to navigate the Danube below the Iron Gates, with the exception of those of the river police and customs. Despatch-boats of the great powers, gen- erally stationed at the mouth of the Danube, were allowed to ascend the Danube as high as Galatz. The powers of the European Commission were ex- tended from Isaktcha to Galatz, nearly fifty miles further. Austria-Hungary then desired the perma- nent continuance of the European Commission, but objections were made by Russia ; and, without finally deciding the matter, the treaty merely stipulated that an agreement of some kind should be made one year before the expiration of the powers of the Commission. It was, however, arranged that regulations respecting navigation, river police, and supervision, from Galatz up to the Iron Gates, should be drawn up by the European Commission, assisted by delegates of the riparian states, and put in harmony with the regula- tions made for that portion of the river below Galatz. 358 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. The general Riparian Commission provided for by the treaty of Paris was tacitly allowed to become extinct ; and the works for removing the cataracts at the Iron Gates were transferred from the riparian powers to Austria-Hungary. Such was the haste to conclude the treaty of Berlin, that nothing was provided for the execution of the regulations for the Middle Danube, the propositions both of the Austrian and the Russian plenipotentiaries having been rejected. Article 55 spoke only of the preparation of the regulations. The European Commission of the Dan- ube met, and after a long discussion decided, in spite of the opposition of Roumania, which by the treaty of Berlin had been allowed to have a member of the European Commission, to bring in a preliminary draft of regulations. These provided that a so-called Mixed Commission should be appointed, composed of delegates of the riparian states, and also of a delegate of Austria-Hungary, which latter should have the presidency and a casting vote. In this way Austria- Hungary, without being a riparian power for this por- tion of the river, would be able to decide all questions with regard to the navigation of the Danube, and would have the predominance on the river below the Iron Gates, at the expense of the riparian powers and perhaps also of the general interests of the world. This preliminary draft met with such objections that it had to be abandoned. FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 359 After some very stormy sessions and long discus- sions the French delegate, Mr. Barrere, afterward the French representative in Egypt, proposed as a so- lution that not only Austria-Hungary should sit in the Mixed Commission with the delegates of the ri- parian states, and should have the presidency, but also that there should be present a delegate from the Eu- ropean Commission, appointed for six months in regu- lar alphabetical order. The Mixed Commission, being thus raised from four to five members, there would be no necessity for a casting vote. Another advantage was that there would thus be a connection established between the Mixed Commission and the European Commission, which would imply some sort of a con- trol by Europe. The difficulties were, that, owing to the alphabetical arrangement, the names of the powers being in French (the language generally adopted in diplomatic acts) Austria and Germany would have the first two representatives from the European Com- mission ; and it would naturally be during the first year that the regulations for the Mixed Commission would be made. As Germany was acting in concert with Austria, this was really equivalent to giving Austria two votes, although, strictly speaking, Aus- tria was not a riparian power, but simply a power holding a portion of the upper waters of the river, and therefore having a great interest in the regulations for the navigation of the lower portion. Roumania, 360 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. in its turn, would have had two delegates ; but its turn would have been the last, and it then would have been difficult to have changed the regulations previously adopted. Roumania absolutely refused to accept the proposition of Barrere, yet, in spite of this opposition, and of the rule which demanded that all of the decisions of the European Commission should be taken unanimously, it was decided to report the result to the powers. This resolution was signed on June 2, 1882. The powers of the European Commis- sion expired in less than a year. All countries, but especially England, which had sixty-seven per cent, of the total navigation of the mouths of the river, were greatly interested in the result ; and in consequence of negotiations Lord Granville proposed a conference at London for the purpose of settling the dispute. An additional difficulty was raised by Russia, who proposed to withdraw from the control of the Euro- pean Commission that part of the northern mouths of the Danube under its exclusive jurisdiction, including the mouth of Otchakof, which had formerly been the chief mouth. Russia proposed not only to prevent the officers of the European Commission from visiting the mouths which she exclusively controlled, but to execute works which, if successful, it was urged by others, would perhaps divert the whole of the com- merce from the Sulina mouth of the Danube, the only one which so far had been improved, and thus render FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 36 1 the European Commission of no account. These fears seem to be groundless ; but there were other political considerations, of which it is enough to mention that by the possession of these months exclusively, Rus- sia could prepare vessels and munitions there, en- abling her at any time to sail up the Danube in case of a future war in that region. The conference of London met in February, 1883. Austria refused to assent to the prolongation of the European Com- mission, unless the Mixed Commission, in conformity with the principles of the Barrere amendment — which was the last concession that she would make — were accepted. Russia demanded, for the sake of the liberty of the Danube, the exemption of her mouths from European control ; and Great Britain, in order to save something for her large commerce, agreed to yield to both. Roumania had a natural title to be present at this conference, not only as a riparian power of the Danube, but also as having a delegate in the European Commission. But her representatives, as well as those of Serbia and Bulgaria, were ex- cluded. In spite of her protests, the conference ac- cepted in principle the Mixed Commission, and the powers even ratified the treaty, although it was evident that it could not be enforced without the consent of Roumania, a riparian power. It could not be ex- pected that the powers would resort to force to im- pose measures which had been absolutely rejected by 362 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. the chief riparian power ; for at least one-third of the navigable distance of the Danube had one bank be- longing to Roumania. In spite of the Austrian rep- resentation, the conference refused to make its deci- sions executory. Although ratified, the decisions of the conference, as far as Roumania was concerned, re- mained in abeyance. Russia is the only power which has attained anything, for it was agreed that the Russian mouths of the Danube should be ex- empted from the operation of the European Com- mission. By the convention of London the powers of the European Commission were extended from three years to three years, unless denounced by one of the signatory powers; and the powers of the Commission were extended up the river as far as Braila. To these measures Roumania made no objection. The question of the free navigation of rivers had reached a singular phase. The states in possession of the mouths and the lower portion of the Danube were in favor of free navigation, while the power holding the upper portion of the river was desirous of restrict- ing the navigation of the lower portion in its own interests and in the interests of monopolies created by it. The result is that, at the present time, there are eight different systems of regulation for the Danube, instead of one for the whole river, which was pro- FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 363 vided for by the treaty of Paris of 1856. We have, according to the convention of London, Firsts The regime of Wiirtemberg and Bavaria, for the highest portion of the river. Second, That of Austria-Hungary. Third, That of Serbia. Fourth, That of the Iron Gates, which is confided to Austria-Hungary. Fifth, That of the Mixed Commission, from the Iron Gates to Braila. Sixth, That of the European Commission. Seventh, That of Russia and Roumania, on the Kilia branch. Eighth, That of Russia on the Otchakof mouth.* * See Etienne Carathedory, Du droit international concer- nant les grands cours d^eau, Leipzig, 1861 ; E. Engelhardt, Du rigime conventionnel des fleuves inter nationaux, Paris, 1879; von Holtzendorfif, Rumdniens Uferrechte an der Donau, Leip- zig, 1883 ; F. Heinrich Geffcken, La question du Danube^ Ber- lin, 1883 ; F. von Martens, Volkerrecht ; the protocols of the European Commission and of the London Conference. 364 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. /.-THE CONGO AND THE NIGER. Very recently the principles of free navigation have been extended to two great rivers of the African con- tinent. Mr. Henry M. Stanley, under the patronage of the King of Belgium, had for some years been ex- ploring the valley of the Congo for the purpose of ascertaining its capabilities for trade. It was gen- erally understood that this region was soon to be opened freely to the trade of the world, when the governments of England and Portugal, both jealous of any interference with their rights on the west coast of Africa, made the treaty of February 26, 1884, by which that portion of the southwest African coast between south latitude 5° 12' and 5° 18^ was recognized as Portuguese. This gave the mouth of the river Congo to Portugal, and cut off the domain of the International African Association from the sea. France, which claimed some rights to the Congo valley, in consequence of the explorations of Monsieur De Brazza, and of the treaties made by him with various African chiefs, immediately pro- tested ; so also did Germany and the United States, on more general principles. The subject was brought to the attention of Congress, and by a resolution of the Senate of April 10, 1884, the President was FREE NAVIGATION OF RIVERS. 365 authorized to recognize the International African Association. This was done by proclamation. In consequence of the disputes to which the Anglo-Por- tuguese treaty gave rise — which, it must be said, was thoroughly disapproved of in the commercial centres of England — Germany finally called a conference of the chief commercial and maritime states, which met at Berlin on November 15, 1884. In this congress there were representatives of Germany, Austria, Bel- gium, Denmark, Spain, the United States, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Rus- sia, Sweden, and Turkey. Turkey was admitted, because, on the basis of his rights as Caliph, the Sul- tan claimed some indefinite spiritual jurisdiction over the Mussulmans in the interior of Africa. After long discussion, a treaty having been objected to, a general act was agreed upon, and signed on February 26, 1885, which established the Free State of the Congo, into which the African International Association was merged, and granted, first, freedom of trade in the basin of the Congo, its mouths, and certain adjacent districts; second, the free navigation of the river Congo, in all its mouths and branches, to be exercised under the supervision of an international commission, on the principles set forth by the Congress of Vienna of 181 5, and the treaties of Paris of 1856, of Berlin of 1878, and of London of 1871 and 1883; and, third, the free navigation of the river Niger and its branches, 366 AMERICAN DIPL OMA C V. without prejudice to the rights of England and France, who agreed to carry out the treaty in the waters under their jurisdiction. President Cleveland, in his message of December 8, 1885, refused to ask the Senate to approve of this general act, on the ground that " an engagement to share in the obligation of enforcing neutrality in the remote valley of the Congo would be an alliance whose responsibilities we are not in a position to as- sume." Mr. J. A. Kasson, one of the delegates of the United States to the conference, in an article in the North American Review for February, 1886, seems to show that this action is based on a misunder- standing of the provision of the act. Indeed, there is nothing whatever expressed in that document about " enforcing " neutrality. The powers have agreed only to " respect the neutrality of the territory."* So far as the free navigation of the Congo and the Niger are concerned, it makes little difference to us whether we ratify the act or not. These rivers are open to the whole world. The only detrimental re- sult is that we can take no share in preparing or executing the regulations governing such free naviga- tion. We lose an opportunity of doing a service to our future^ commerce with Africa. * See the full text of the General Act, and especially Chap- ter III., which is printed in Mr. H. M. Stanley's last book on the Congo. VII. NEUTRAL RIGHTS. Subjection of Neutrals. — Our Treaty with France of 1778. — Armed Neutrality of 1780. — Its Origin. — Our Treaties with the Netherlands, Sweden, and Prussia. — Franklin's Ideas. — John Quincy Adams and the Renewal of the Prussian Treaty. — Our Negotiations of 1823 to Preserve Private Property from Capture at Sea. — Letters of Marque. — Privateering. — Declarations of 1854. — Our Reply. — Treaty with Russia. — President Pierce's Message. — Decla- ration of Paris of 1856. — The Marcy Amendment. — Opin- ions of other Powers. — English Opposition. — Cessation of Negotiations under President Buchanan. — Proposal of Mr. Seward. — Its Rejection. — European Wars. — Our Treaty with Italy of 187 1. After having explained to a limited extent the ef- forts of the United States to secure the freedom of navigation and commerce in time of peace, it is neces- sary to mention briefly what they have attempted to do for the freedom of commerce and navigation in time of war. I At the outbreak of the American Revolution the commerce of the world was governed, or rather mis- governed, by a system of arbitrary and contradictory rules imposed by the great maritime powers, especially 368 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. Great Britain, all tending one way, to the effacement and abolition of all rights of small neutral states when the larger powers were at war with each other. According to the rules of English fair-play the ring was to be cleared, and outsiders were allowed to com- municate with each other only under severe pains and penalties. The world was to stand still, and starve, it might be, whenever England fought. In the very first commercial treaty made by the United States, that with France of February 6, 1778, signed on the same day with the treaty of alliance, Ave adopted the more liberal maxim, already pro- claimed by France, that " free ships make free goods." It was agreed also that so far as France and the United States were concerned, either nation should be allowed to trade with one at war with the other without danger of capture, and, therefore, that the ships of either of these two countries could carry the property belonging to enemies without risk ; that free ships shall also give a freedom to goods, and that everything shall be deemed to be free and exempt which shall be found on board of the ships, although the whole lading or any part thereof should pertain to the enemies of either, contraband goods being always excepted. The definition of contraband goods was also laid down as being solely munitions of war. Mer- chandise which had in some instances by some coun- tries been prohibited, such as cloths, manufactured NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 369 articles, gold and silver, metals, tobacco, fish, grain, and other provisions, and even cotton, hemp, flax, tar, pitch, ropes, cables and sails, and materials for mak- ing ships, were not to be regarded as contraband. This treaty preceded, but not by a long time, the declaration of the northern powers of Europe as to the rights of neutral trade, which is generally spoken of under the name of the " Armed Neutrality." The first idea of the armed neutrality is now ad- mitted to have belonged to Russia, but for a long time it was ascribed by many writers to Frederick the Great, and the French Abbe Denina, in his biography of Frederick the Second, affirmed that even in 1744 Frederick had dreamed of a confederation of this sort. Catherine II., on reading the book of Denina, wrote opposite that passage : " This is untrue. The idea of the armed neutrality arose in the brain of Catherine II. and of no one else. Count Bezborodko can bear witness that this thought was expressed by the Em- press very unexpectedly. Count Panin did not wish to hear about an armed neutrality. This idea did not belong to him, and it took much labor to convince him, so that it was confided to Bakunin, who carried out this business."* Wheaton, and most writers on international law who have succeeded him, have followed the version given by Baron von Goertz in a little pamphlet which * Diary of A. V. Khrapovitzky, p. 475. 24 3/0 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. he published, first anonymously, and then under his own name,* in which he gave the credit of the armed neutrality to Count Panin as a means of counteracting the efforts of the English minister, Mr. James Harris, afterward Earl of Malmesbury, who was endeavoring to gain the Empress to take the side of England. Goertz was in some respects a clever man, but he sig- nally failed in all his missions, and his pamphlet was written, or at least published, after the death of most of the parties concerned. His motives may be guessed at, but it is not worth our while to consider them. Since that time not only has the correspond- ence of Lord Malmesbury been published, but the history of the armed neutrality, from the Russian point of view, supported by a complete series of documents, has also been given to light.t We find from these papers not only that Goertz is entirely wrong as to the way in which the armed neutrality arose, but even as to its date. J Although the final declaration was * Me moire ou precis historique sur la neutralite armee et son origine. Bale, 1795 and 1801. f See the Russian Nautical Magazine [Morskoi Sbornik)^ 1859, Nos. 9, 10, II, 12. X Professor Carl Bergbohm, of Dorpat, in his very interest- ing and instructive work, Die beivaffnete Neutralitdt (Berlin, 1884), attempts to uphold the exact truth of the version of Goertz. The question is not of great interest, except to stu- dents of Russian or of diplomatic history ; but the book of Bergbohm seems an attempt to support a paradoxical theory, simply as an exercise of dialectic power, like many other German theses of the present day. NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 37 1 dated in 1780, yet preliminary steps were taken and were known to the cabinets of Europe as early as De- cember, 1778. • In 1778 a number of American privateers appeared in the northern ocean and did considerable injury to trade carried on by foreign merchants with the Russian port of Archangel. The Empress Catherine, desiring to protect her commerce, resolved in the subsequent summer to enter into negotiations with the courts of Denmark and Sweden for taking protective measures in common. Count Panin, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to whom the matter was referred, reported that the peculiarity of the trade was such that the only harm caused to Russia was by the capture of vessels sailing for Archangel. If they were taken, the goods might wait for a whole year for a foreign pur- chaser ; but, once the goods having been bought and despatched to a foreign port, it made no difference to Russia whether the English or the Americans profited by them. The Empress decided to send three or four ships and a frigate to protect the foreign trade going to Archangel, without distinction, and orders were given to advise the English, French, and American cruisers to leave those waters, as they would not be allowed to carry on their trade near the Russian coasts. Any actual attack on a merchant vessel might be repelled by force. Denmark and Sweden were asked to send to sea similar armed squadrons to 372 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. act in connection with Russia. Count Bernstorff, the Danish minister, replied that Denmark was so bound by treaties that it would be difficult for them to co-operate with Russia, as it would be a breach of their neutrality, for the whole advantage would be given to English ships. They were willing, however, to protect foreign commercial marine, but owing to having distant colonies it was necessary to be careful about the steps taken. Sweden, to which the same proposition was made in February, 1779, agreed to them ; but proposed at the same time taking broader measures for protecting neutral navigation even in the more distant seas. Russia actually sent, in 1779, into the northern ocean, for the protection of trading vessels, four ships and two frigates. The whole year, however, passed in these negotiations, which led to no decisive result. The capture, however, of two ships laden with Russian wares — one Dutch and the other Russian — by Spanish cruisers, in the beginning of 1780, and their condemnation and sale in Cadiz, as being prob- ably bound for Gibraltar, made the Empress so angry that in the representations to the Spanish govern- ment, conveyed both by the Russian minister at Mad- — ^ rid, and the Spanish minister at St. Petersburg, she demanded that all neutral ships carrying Russian goods should be free from capture, and that compen- sation should be made for those which had already NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 373 been taken. At the same time an order was given to fit out, for readiness at the opening of navigation, two ships and two frigates, destined for the northern ocean as before, and fifteen other ships for any destination which might be given them. The Empress ordered Count Panin to say in reply to questions, that this squadron was fitted out for the defence of the Rus- sian flag, and that the Empress proposed to send them wherever the honor, profit, and need of the country demanded. On February 27, 1780, the Rus- sian government sent to the courts of London, Ver- sailles, and Madrid, the well-known declaration about neutral rights, the points of which were, first, that neutral ships can freely go from port to port, and on the coasts of the nations at war ; second, that prop- erty belonging to the subjects of the powers at war is free on neutral vessels, with the exception of contra- band ; third, that only arms and ammunition arc recognized as contraband ; fourth, that blockades must be effective ; and fifth, that nothing but contra- band can make a lawful prize. Formal propositions were then made to Denmark, Sweden, Portugal, and the Netherlands, for taking similar measures and concluding conventions for that purpose. France and Spain replied to the Russian declaration by the assurance of their readiness to respect neutral rights. Spain excused her action toward the Russian ships on the ground of the at- 374 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, tempts made to enter Gibraltar, and by English ex- amples, but promised to make indemnity. England replied negatively that she had always considered it her duty to give due respect to the Russian flag, and assured the Empress that the navigation of her sub- jects would never be interrupted or stopped by British vessels. The negotiations with the neutral powers resulted in a convention between Russia and Denmark on July 9, 1780, and with Spain, on August ist of the same year, agreeing to the doctrine already laid down in the Russian declaration. The Netherlands agreed to the same principle at the end of December. Prussia, Austria, Portugal, and the Two Sicilies all accepted it within the two years following. The United States, by a resolution of Congress dated October 5, 1780, gave its adherence to the principle claimed by the armed neutrality, and offered to join the northern league. Mr. Adams communicated this action of Congress to the Dutch government, as well as to the ministers of Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, in March, 1781 ; but as none of these governments were yet prepared to recognize the United States, no further action was taken. | ' In the treaty with the Netherlands, in 1782, the provisions for guaranteeing neutral rights were practi- cally the same as those in the treaty of 1778 with France, that is, that free ships made free goods, and NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 3/5 that goods found in an enemy's ship would be liable to be confiscated, unless put on board before declara- tion of war or within six months thereafter. The definition of contraband goods was perfected. By the treaty with Sweden of 1783 — the first power which voluntarily offered its friendship to the United States — the same provisions were repeated. A similar treaty would have been made with Denmark, had not, under the pressure of England, Denmark captured some American vessels engaged in trade prohibited by England. The treaty with Prussia in 1785 introduced some entirely new principles. It was negotiated under the influence of Dr. Franklin and of King Frederick the Great, and it has been often said that, owing to the slight probability that Prussia and the United States should be brought into conflict, the philanthropic provisions inserted in it were merely such declarations as speculative theorists might safely indulge in. Dr. Franklin, however, had already attempted to insert similar provisions in the treaty of peace with Great Britain in 1783. The English negotiators at that time refused to discuss the question of maritime rights. By this treaty with Prussia free ships made absolutely free goods, and no goods were to be regarded as contraband so as to justify confiscation, although the vessels carrying contraband goods could be retained until the contraband goods were taken 37^ AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. out, and in that case such contraband goods being military stores could be used by the captors if the current price were paid for them. Blockades of all kinds were practically abolished, for merchant and trading vessels were to be allowed to pass free and unmolested, and privateering was entirely abolished as between the two countries. Dr. Franklin had al- ready written on March 14, 1785 : " It is high time, for the sake of humanity, that a stop were put to this enormity. The United States of America, though better situated than any European power to make profit by privateering, are, as far as in them lies, endeavoring to abolish the practice by offering in all their treaties with other powers an article engaging solemnly that in case of future war no privateer shall be commissioned on either side, and that all marine ships on both sides shall proceed on their voyages un- molested. This will be a happy improvement of the law of nations. The humane and the just cannot but wish general success to the proposition." li In making the treaty of 1794 with England, com- monly known as Jay's treaty, the United States were obliged from imperative reasons (this seemed the only course possible to prevent a war) to retrace their steps and to admit, as far as England was concerned, certain principles of maritime law which they had always op- posed. It was expressly agreed that the flag did not cover the merchandise, — the only treaty signed by the United States in which this acknowledgment can be found. Ship timber, tar, hemp, sails, and copper NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 377 were declared contraband, although they had been made free in the other treaties concluded at that time by the United States. Provisions also were declared contraband. There was no definition of the right of search and blockade, but both were acknowledged in general ternis. The treaty with Prussia expired by its own limita- tion in 1796, and Mr. John Quincy Adams was sent to Berlin for its renewal. Mr. Adams, although still a young man of only thirty-two years of age, had begun public life as secretary to Mr. Dana, our commissioner to St. Petersburg, .and had recently been minister to The Hague. He had been appointed to Lisbon, but was finally transferred to Berlin for the purpose of this special negotiation. Subsequently minister at St. Petersburg, then at London, afterward Secretary of State for eight years, and finally President, he was an excellent example of the advantage of diplomatic training. His instructions at Berlin were to negotiate a treaty which was in opposition not only to his own personal views, but to those which the United States had previously expressed, and have subsequently in- sisted upon. He, however, took up the matter as a lawyer would a brief, and succeeded in satisfying our Government. He was aided in some respects by the opportune death of the King of Prussia, which left him several months without credentials for the new sovereign, and therefore without power for negotiating, 378 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, a circumstance which enabled him to make acquaint- ances extremely useful to him. The position of the United States had been com- plicated not only by the treaty of 1794 with Great Britain, but by the action of England and France in the war. The principles of " free ships, free goods," which we had recognized in all our treaties and de- sired to become universal, we found to be of no avail so long as it was not universally recognized by mari- time nations. In fact it had been observed by other powers only when it would operate to the detriment of the United States, and not to. our benefit. Mr. Adams was therefore instructed to propose the aban- donment of this article. The Prussian negotiators objected to giving it up entirely, on the ground of the confusion which it would cause in the commercial speculations of nations, and the rejection of claims prosecuted by them in the admiralty courts of France and Great Britain, relating to the captures and colli- sions with the northern powers, which were sustaining this principle at that very moment by armed convoys, and proposed a qualification. After a long discussion, in which Mr. Adams fully carried out the views of our Government, a treaty was agreed upon with the following article : " Experience having proved that the principles adopted in the twelfth article of the treaty of 1785, according to which free ships make free goods, has not been sufficiently respected NEUl^RAL RIGHTS. 379 during the last two wars, and especially in that which still con- tinues, the two contracting parties propose, after the return of a general peace, to agree, either separately between them- selves, or jointly with other powers alike interested, to concert, with the great maritime powers of Europe, such arrangements and such permanent principles as may serve to consoUdate the liberty and the safety of the neutral navigation and commerce in future wars." After it was approved, by the wish of the United States to prove it had no desire to part from the principles of the treaty of 1785, there was added : *' If in the interval either of the contracting parties should be engaged in a war to which the other should remain neutral, the ships of war and privateers of the belligerent power shall conduct themselves toward the merchant vessels of the neutral power as favorably as the course of war then existing may per- mit, observing the principles and rules of the law of nations generally acknowledged." The treaty of 1 799 itself expired in ten years, and the twelfth article of the original treaty of 1785 was again revived by a treaty which was concluded be- tween the United States and Prussia in 1828, both parties engaging to treat at some future and con- venient period, either between themselves or in con- cert with other maritime powers, for insuring just protection and freedom to neutral navigation and commerce, and which may, at the same time, advance the cause of civilization and humanity. For various reasons it is inconvenient here to speak of the impressment of seamen on board of American 380 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ships, and of the infringement of neutral rights by the orders in council and by the French decrees, which led to the war between the United States and Great Brit- ain of 1812. Our diplomatic efforts at that time, and even later, were chiefly in the way of protests, and the question of impressment was only finally settled by the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of 1863, modified by that of 1871 on the subject of naturalization. During the war of 181 2 prize courts in the United States enforced the generally acknowledged rule of international law that enemies' goods in neu- tral vessels were liable to capture and confiscation, ex- cept as to such powers with whom we had stipulated the contrary rule that free ships should make free goods. During the war between France and Spain the French government proposed not to capture Spanish marine ships, and in an official proclamation of April 20, 1823, it was stated that the King only considered as enemies of France pirates and Spanish corsairs. These alone were the object of surveillance of the vessels commanded by the officers of the military marine. Apparently the French did not persist in this mode of action, for in the treaty concluded after the war there was an arrangement for indemnity for the prizes taken from each other during the war.* * See Ch. de Boeck, De la proprUte privee ennemie sous pavilion ennemi, p. 97, Paris, 1882 ; Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 630. -^ NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 38 1 The French proclamation, however, was made the basis of action by our Government, and President Monroe, in 1823, issued instructions to our ministers at Paris, London, and St. Petersburg to propose the abolition in future hostilities of all private war at sea. These instructions were probably not so much the work of President Monroe as of the Secretary of State, Mr. John Quincy Adams. Starting with the proposal to abolish the slave-trade, Mr. Adams sent a draft of a convention, to be concluded with England and other maritime powers, the prime object of which was to take the first steps toward the general aboli- tion by all nations of private war upon the sea. In his despatch to Mr. Rush, July 28, 1823, Mr. Adams said : ^.- ** The result of the abolition of private maritime war would be the coincident abolition of maritime neutrality. By this the neutral nations would be the principal losers, and sensible as we are of this we are still anxious, from higher motives than mere commercial gain, that the principle should be universally adopted. We are willing that the world, in common with our- selves, should gain in peace whatever we may lose in profit." The British government evaded the question. Mr. Rush was empowered to treat of other matters as well, and was unwilling to consider the general mari- time questions without taking into action that of im- pressment. This England absolutely refused to con- sider, and at the same time declined to^iscuss the 382 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. question of the abolition of privateering without dis- cussing the other maritime questions, so that there was a dead-lock.* Chateaubriand, in replying to Mr. Sheldon, our charge d'affaires at Paris, was appar- ently willing to accede to this proposal provided all governments did the same. He said : "If the trial successfully made by France can induce all governments to agree on the general principle which shall place wise limits to maritime operations, and be in accordance with the sentiments of humanity, his Majesty will congratulate himself still more in having given the salutary example, and in having proved that, without compromising the success of war, its scourge can be abated." Count Nesselrode, in reply to Mr. Middleton, said : " The principle will not be of great utility except so far as it shall have a general application." The Emperor sympathizes with the opinions and wishes of the United States, and *' As soon as the powers whose consent he considers as indispensable, shall have shown the same dis- position, he will not be wanting in authorizing his ministers to discuss the different articles of an act which would be a crown of glory to modern diplomacy." f The negotiation with Russia went on through dif- ferent ministers — Randolph, Buchanan, and Wilkins — to the end of 1835, but the reply was always in the same sense, that a general understanding was neces- * Congress. Doc, Senate, i8th Congress, 2d Session, Confi- dential. f H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 3, 33d Congress, ist Session. NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 383 sary before making any special treaties. Attempts to renew negotiations on this subject with Great Britain were made by Mr. Gallatin in 1826, and Mr. Barbour in 1828, but without success. The rules with regard to the duties of neutrals dur- ing war are now very strict ; but it was received for- merly that neutral subjects could command and own privateers, provided that they possessed letters of marque from one of the belligerent states. In order to guard against this, the United States, from the very beginning, inserted in its treaties with foreign powers stipulations that if any citizen or subject of either of the contracting parties took a commission or letters of marque for the purpose of privateering against the other who was at war, it should be treated as piracy. Such treaties were made with France in 1778; with 'the Netherlands in 1782; with Sweden in 1783, renewed in 18 16 and again in 1827 ; with Prussia in 1785, renewed in 1799, and again in 1828; with Great Britain in 1794; with Spain in 1795 ; with Colombia in 1824; with Brazil in 1828; with Chili in 1832 ; with Guatemala in 1849; and with Peru in 185 1. Some of these treaties have now expired, especially those with England and France. In 1797 the United States passed a law to prevent citizens of the United States from privateering against nations in amity with, or against citizens of the United States. This was repealed in 1818; but the article 384 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. with regard to privateering against citizens of the United States was re-enacted. The substance of the provisions with regard to privateering against friendly- nations was, however, retained in other words : for any person within the United States was prohibited from fitting out any ship or vessel to cruise or commit hos- tilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any power or state with whom the United States are at peace. During our war with Mexico there was great ap- prehension lest letters of marque should be accepted by the subjects of neutral states, although England and France expressly prohibited their subjects from accepting them, and the general laws of most other powers were to the same effect. President Polk, in his message of December, 1846, announced that he had called the attention of the Spanish* government to the provision of the treaty of 1795 on this subject, and at the same time recommended to Congress to provide for the trial and punishment as pirates of any Spanish subjects who should be found guilty of pri- vateering against the United States. It had been rumored that the United States would hang as pirates all foreigners on board of Mexican privateers ; and the British minister at Washington, although Great Britain had forbid its subjects to engage in such enterprises, expressed to our Government the expecta- tion that this threat would not be put in execution NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 385 against any British subjects. By an act passed March 3, 1847, it was declared piracy for any subject or citi- zen of a foreign state to make war against the United States or cruise against their vessels or property con- trary to the provisions of treaties existing with that state of which they were subjects and citizens. This was certainly a great extension of the crime of piracy as known to international law. At the outbreak of the Crimean War Austria and Spain issued declarations forbidding their subjects from taking letters of marque from any foreign power, and forbidding the use of their ports to privateers. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway followed this so far as to prohibit privateers from anchoring in their ports. England and France, by a declaration made on March 28, 1854, stated that for the present they would waive a portion of their belligerent rights ; that they would waive the rights of seizing enemy's property, laden on board of neutral vessels, unless contraband of war; that they would not claim the confiscation of neutral prop- erty not being contraband of war found on enemies' ships ; and being desirous to lessen as much as pos- sible the evils of war, would restrict their operations to the regularly organized forces of the country, and would not issue letters of marque for the commission- ing of privateers. Lord Clarendon, in conversation with Mr. Buchanan, our minister to London, spoke in very complimentary terms of the treaties of the 25 386 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. United States with different nations with regard to letters of marque ; and while he did not propose the conclusion of a treaty for the suppression of privateer- ing, expressed a strong opinion against the practice as inconsistent with modern civilization. On another occasion he spoke in high terms of our neutrality law of 1818, and pronounced it superior to the English, especially with regard to privateers. Mr. Buchanan replied to Lord Clarendon that ** It did not seem to him possible under existing circumstances for the United States to agree to the suppression of privateer- ing, unless the naval powers of the world would go one step further and consent that war against private property should be abolished altogether upon the ocean, as it had already been upon the land. There was really nothing different in princi- ple or morality between the act of a regular cruiser and that of a privateer in robbing a merchant vessel upon the ocean, and confiscating the property of private individuals on board, for the benefit of the captor." Mr. Marcy, the Secretary of State, wrote to Mr. Buchanan that he did not think that the stipulations about letters of marque would be inserted in any new treaties ; not that the Government would not prohibit, as far as possible, its own citizens from accepting letters of marque from other powers ; but in case it was itself engaged in war it did not wish to preclude itself from resorting to the merchant marine of the country. Mr. Marcy, in replying to the note of Mr. Cramp- NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 38/ ton, the British minister, enclosing the declaration, expressed the satisfaction of the United States *' That the principle that free ships make free goods, which the United States have so long and so strenuously contended for as a neutral right, and in which some of the leading powers of Europe have concurred, is to have a qualified sanction by the practical observance of it in the present war by both Great Britain and France — two of the most powerful nations of Eu- rope." This satisfaction ** Would have been enhanced if the rule al- luded to had been announced as one which would be observed not only in the present, but in every future war in which Great Britain shall be a party. The unconditional sanction of this rule by the British and French governments, together with the practical observance of it in the present war, would cause it henceforth to be recognized throughout the civilized world as a general principle of international law. This Government, from its very commencement, has labored for its recognition as a neutral right. It has incorporated it in many of its treaties with foreign powers. To settle the principle that free ships make free goods, except articles contraband of war, and to prevent it from being called again in question from any quarter, or under any circumstances, the United States are desirous to unite with other powers in a declaration that it shall be observed by each hereafter as a rule of international law." * What we maintained was that the right then exist- ing under international law should not be waived from time to time, but should be surrendered alto- gether, and we were unwilling to accept anything less. At the outbreak of the war Russia had extended * Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 771, note. 388 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. certain privileges to Turkish vessels in Russian ports ; but as these had not been reciprocated Russia in- sisted on asserting the rights of war to their whole extent against Turkish vessels, against Turkish goods, and against neutral goods on Turkish vessels. When England and France became engaged in war, Russia published declarations of a similar nature to those published by those powers, declaring that enemy's goods in neutral vessels would be regarded as invio- lable, and the subjects of the enemy on board neutral vessels would not be molested. Mr. Marcy, in writ- ing to Mr. Seymour, our minister to St. Petersburg, called attention to what had been done by Great Britain and France with regard to free ships making free goods, and spoke of the efforts of the United States in this direction, adding, " This seems to be a most favorable time for such a salutary change. From the earliest period of this Government it has made strenuous efforts to have the rule that free ships make free goods, except contraband articles, adopted as a principle of international law ; but Great Britain insisted on a different rule. These efforts, consequently, proved unavailing ; and now it cannot be recognized, and a strict observance of it se- cured without a conventional regulation among the maritime powers. This Government is desirous to have all nations agree in a declaration that this rule shall hereafter be observed by them respectively, when they shall happen to be involved in any war, and that as neutrals they will insist upon it as a neu- tral right." * * H. R. Ex. Doc, 103, 33d Congress, ist Session. jveutral rights, 389 Our ideas were so well received by Russia at that time that on July 22, 1854, a treaty was concluded at Washington between the United States and Russia by which *' The two high contracting parties recognized, as permanent and immutable, the following principles, to wit : i. That free ships make free goods — that is to say, that the effects or goods belonging to subjects or citizens of a power or state at war are free from capture and confiscation when found on board of neutral vessels, with the exception of articles contraband of war. 2. That the property of neutrals on board an enemy's vessel is not subject to confiscation, unless the same be con- traband of war. They engage to apply these principles to the commerce and navigation of all such states as shall consent to adopt them, on their part, as permanent and immutable." Similar treaties were made with the Two Sicilies on January 13, 1855, and with Peru on July 26^ 1856. In reporting the treaty with Russia to Congress, in his annual message in December, 1854, President Pierce said : '' The King of Prussia entirely approves of the project of a treaty to the same effect, submitted to him, but proposes an additional article providing for the renunciation of privateer- ing. Such an article, for most obvious reasons, is much de- sired from nations havmg naval establishments large in pro- portion to their foreign commerce. If it were adopted as an international rule, the commerce of a nation having compara- tively a small naval force would be very much at the mercy of its enemy in case of war with a power of decided naval superiority. The bare statement of the condition in which 39^ AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. the United States would be placed after having surrendered the right to resort to privateers in the event of war with a bel- ligerent of naval supremacy, will show that this Government could never listen to such a proposition. The navy of the first maritime power in Europe is at least ten times as large as that of the United States. The foreign commerce of the nations is nearly equal, and about equally exposed to hostile depreda- tions. In war between that power and the United States, without resort, on our part, to our mercantile marine, the means of our enemy to inflict injury upon our commerce would be tenfold greater than ours to retaliate. . . . The proposal to surrender the right to employ privateers is pro- fessedly founded upon the principle that private property of unoffending non-combatants, though enemies, should be ex- empt from the ravages of war ; but the proposed surrender goes little way in carrying out that principle, which equally requires that such private property should not be seized or molested by national ships of war. Should the leading powers of Europe concur in proposing, as a rule of international law, to exempt private property upon the ocean from seizure by public armed cruisers, as well as by privateers, the United States will readily meet them upon that broad ground." The Chamber of Commerce of New York, on April 6, 1854, passed a series of resolutions which, though they differed somewhat from the policy of the Gov- ernment, yet aided in strengthening its hands. They were in substance that the employment of privateers was contrary to all sound principles of morality, justice, and humanity ; that the ravages caused only the ruin of private persons, without any advantage to the nation ; that the U|iited States ought to co- NEUTRAL RIGHTS, 39 1 Operate with the efforts of European powers for the abolition of privateering; and that the example set in the principles proclaimed in the treaty of the United States with Prussia of 1785 should be sup- ported by the Chamber. At the Congress of Paris in 1856, subsequently to the conclusion of the treaty which ended the Crimean War, a declaration of principles was signed on April 1 6th, by the plenipotentiaries of all the powers repre- sented there, which contained four articles : ** First, Privateering is and remains abolished. " Second, The neutral flag covers enemies' goods, with the exception of contraband of war. " Third, Neutral goods, except of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. *' Fourth, Blockades, to be binding, must be effective — that is to say, maintained by a force really sufficient to prevent ac- cess to the coast of the enemy." The adherence of other powers was requested to these principles. The Belgian government proposed, in order to give these doctrines greater force and so- lidity, that they should be put in the form of a treaty or convention ; but this was opposed by the English government, which feared difficulties in Parliament. These difficulties were not slow in coming, and they will be spoken of presently. The adherence, however, was given in full by all the states that now compose the German empire, although this was, in general, a 392 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. mere formality, as most of these states had no sea- ports ; by Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chili, the Argen- tine Confederation, Denmark, Ecuador, the Italian states, Greece, Guatemala, Hayti, New Grenada, the Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, Salvador, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, and Uruguay. Spain and Mex- ico, wishing to preserve the right of privateering, re- fused to adhere to the first article ; but declared their willingness to accept the three others. The action of the United States gave rise to much comment. It had been inserted in the protocol of the proceed- ings, although not in the declaration itself, that this " Declaration was indivisible, and that the powers which signed it, or should accede to it, could not thereafter enter into any agreement in regard to the application of the maritime law in time of war, which did not rest upon the four principles which are the object of the declaration." It was admitted, however, on the motion of the Russian plenipotentiaries, that this provision could not have any retroactive power or invalidate any ex- isting convention, and it was also conceded " that it would not be obligatory on the signers of the declara- tion to maintain the principle of the abolition of privateering against those powers which did not ac- cede to it." On July 14, 1856, Mr. Marcy sent a circular to the American ministers abroad informing them that the declaration of Paris had been submitted to our Gov- NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 393 ernment for adoption; and on July 28, 1856, he made a formal reply to the French minister, Count Sartiges, objecting to the indivisibility of the four articles, for two of which the United States had for a long time been in negotiation. He thought that the fourth article on blockade did not relieve the subject from the difficulty in determining what fulfilled the con- ditions of the definition. As to the first article, with regard to privateering, Mr. Marcy maintained that the right to resort to privateers is as incontestable as any other right appertaining to belligerents ; and reasoned that the effect of the declaration would be to increase the maritime preponderance of Great Britain and France, without even benefiting the general cause of civilization ; while if public ships retained the right of capturing private property, the United States, which had at that time a large mercantile marine and a com- paratively small navy, would be deprived of all means of retaliation. Mr. Marcy said : ** A predominant power on the ocean is still more menacing to the well-being of other nations than a predominant power on land. For that reason all nations are equally interested in rejecting a measure tending to favor the permanent establish- ment of such a domination, whether such a domination should belong to one power or to several. The lesses which would probably be the result of abandoning the domination of the sea either to one nation owning a powerful navy, or to several, are, above all, due to the custom of submitting private property on the ocean to capture by the belligerent powers. Justice 394 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. and humanity demand that this custom be abandoned, and that the rule in regard to property on land be extended to that on the sea. The President proposes, therefore, to add to the first proposition contained in the declaration of the Congress of Paris the following words : * And that the private property of the subjects and citizens of a belligerent on the high seas shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the other belligerent, except it be contraband.' " Theoretical writers on international law have gener- ally blamed the conduct of our Government in thus apparently rejecting principles which it was one of the first to propose, and have laid great stress on the wrongfulness and abuses of privateering. It is, how- ever, difficult to see how, except in the general want of discipline and in the predatory habits which it en- courages, privateering is worse than the use of public ships for the capture of private property. In fact, those nations who have given up privateering have considered themselves perfectly justified in converting a merchant vessel into a ship of the navy by the sim- ple process of' giving her a regular commission and putting on board a naval officer as captain. We al- most forget now that, even so lately as 1856, we had one of the largest commercial ^avies of the world, and a foreign trade which it was necessary to protect at all hazards. The statesmen who then had the di- rection of our Government saw the exigencies of the situation far more clearly than the writers on interna- tional law. Events, as will be seen, have shown that NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 395 they were justified in their course, and that our refusal to accept the declaration of Paris has brought the world nearer to the principles which we proposed, which became known as the " Marcy amendment for the abolition of war against private property on the seas." There was another difficulty, which governments gradually saw, that the President had no constitu- tional power to accept the declaration of Paris unless it were put into the form of a treaty approved by the Senate, and duly ratified. Our courts, before whom all prize cases would come, would have refused to accept as a rule of law any declaration made by the President in another form, unless there were also a law or a treaty to that effect. Among the minor states of Europe there was com- plete unanimity and a general readiness to accept our amendment to the rules ; but before giving a formal reply they naturally waited the action of the great powers who had signed the declaration. Russia im- mediately consented. Prince Gortchakof immedi- ately instructed Baron Brunnow on the subject of Mr. Marcy 's note, *' In which the American proposition is developed in that cau- tious and lucid manner which compels conversion. The Sec- retary of State does not argue the exclusive interests of the United States ; his plea is put for the whole of mankind. It grows out of a generous thought, the embodiment of which rests upon arguments which admit of no reply. The attention 39^ AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. of the Emperor has in an eminent degree been enlisted by the overtures of the American cabinet. In his view of the ques- tion they deserve to be taken into serious consideration by the powers which signed the treaty of Paris. They would honor themselves should they, by a resolution taken in common, and proclaimed to the world, apply to private property on the seas the principle of inviolability which they have ever professed for it on land. They would crown the work of pacification which has called them together, and give it an additional grant of permanence." Baron Brunnow was instructed to say to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs " that should the Amer- ican proposition become a subject of common deliber- ation among the powers it would receive a most deci- sive support " from Russia. " You are even author- ized to declare that our August Master would take the initiative of this question." * Count Walewski, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, informed our Government that France would agree to the declara- tion as modified by us, although a formal assent was deferred in order to consult the other parties to the treaty. Prussia, in May, 1857, also accepted Mr. Marcy's amendment, and said that " if this proposition should become the subject of a collective deliberation, it can rely on the most marked support of Prussia, which earnestly desires that other states will unite in a determination, the benefits of which will apply to all nations." Count Cavour gave the amendment his * Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 640, note. NEUTRAL RIGHTS, 39/ cordial approval, and regarded it as a very just and logical deduction from the original ideas of the Paris Congress, and said that if the Congress should reas- semble, he would there be a warm advocate for it. The only decided opposition to the American pro- posal came from England. Lord Palmerston talked both ways at different times. The policy of these rules was several times discussed in Parliament, and in a debate in the House of Lords on May 22, 1856, Lord Clarendon being attacked for having subscribed to the principle that free ships make free goods, de- fended himself on the ground that the declaration must be taken as a whole or not at all, and that if the 'United States accepted it, they must agree to the abandonment of privateering, which was to Eng- land more than an equivalent for a claim {i.e,^ taking enemy's property in neutral vessels) which she could not maintain ; that privateering must become more important than heretofore, as commerce carried on in sailing vessels would be absolutely at the mercy of a privateer moved by steam, however small. The truth of this last remark of Lord Clarendon was abundantly proved during our civil war. Lord Har- rowby said that England had suffered more injury from privateering than she could inflict, and that the United States would derive no benefit from the treaty if they did not agree to abandon privateering.* * Lawrence's Wheaton, pp. 637, 638, note. 398 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, However, before the English government had made any formal reply to our proposition, President Buchanan had succeeded President Pierce, and Mr. Marcy had been replaced by General Cass. Instruc- tions were given to our ministers to suspend negotia- tions, and the Marcy amendment was practically withdrawn. The reasons which prompted our Gov- ernment to this course are difficult to understand ; but General Cass, in a circular of June 27, 1859, called the attention of European governments to the provisions of the declaration of Paris which affected enemy's property on board of neutral vessels, and in- sisted that the United States should have the bene- fit of this rule whether they had acceded to the decla- ration or not. The Italian war had at that time just broken out. England, it is understood, still main- tains that, not being a party to the declaration, we have no right to the advantages of it in any war in which she should be a party and we should be neu- trals. The proposition, which we had for the moment abandoned, was revived in 1858 by Brazil, which in a note to the French minister at Rio de Janeiro, dated March 18, 1858, proposed that "all private property, without exception, of merchant vessels, should be placed under the protection of maritime law, and be free from the attacks of cruisers of war." At the beginning of our civil war, there being ap- NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 399 prehension that the Confederate States might issue letters of marque, Mr. Seward thought that, if we should then accept the declaration of Paris, we could induce foreign governments to treat privateers coming from the Confederate States as pirates. He there- fore, on April 24, 1861, addressed a circular on the subject to our ministers abroad, in which, while ex- pressing his preference for the Marcy amendment, he said : " Prudence and humanity combine in persuading the Presi- dent, under the circumstances, that it is wise to secure the lesser good offered by the Paris Congress, without waiting in- definitely in hope to obtain the great one offered to the mari- time nations by the President of the United States.* Both England and France refused to accept the re- nunciation of privateering on the part of the United States, if it were coupled with the condition that it should be enforced on the Confederate States, holding that such action on their part would be a breach of neutrality and a participation in the civil disturbances of this country. There was, however, a disposition on the part of those governments to waive the privateer- ing clause of the declaration, notwithstanding the in- divisibility of the articles previously insisted upon, provided that the United States would accept the other three. Mr. Seward insisted that the tender of our adhesion to the declaration was " pure and * Diplomatic Corresppndence, 1861. . 400 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. simple," and instructed Mr. Dayton to renew it in the form originally prescribed. The result was that the negotiations failed. Subsequently, when, on account of the Trent affair, it was feared that there would be war between the United States and Great Britain, Lord Lyons was instructed to say that Great Britain was willing to abolish privateering as between the two nations, if the United States would make the same engagement. Meanwhile the principle of the immunity of private property at sea made headway in Europe. During the Italian war of 1859, all parties being signers of the treaty of Paris, the rules were strictly maintained ; but in the treaty of Zurich, November 10, 1859, it was stipulated that, as an extension of the previous rules, Austrian vessels which had been captured and not yet condemned would be restored. Similar proceedings took place after the Mexican war, by a decree of the Emperor Napoleon on March 29, 1865. At the out- break of the Danish war, in 1864, first Denmark and then Prussia and Austria, applied the old laws about prizes. But in the treaty Denmark agreed to restore the merchant ships captured, or pay for them. Thus, as Bluntschli says, " this treaty implicitly recognized the doctrine that, even in maritime war, private prop- erty ought to be respected." At the beginning of the war of 1866 the principles of Paris were carried still further, Austria, Prussia, and Italy all agreeing not NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 4OI only to give a special protection to neutral vessels, but to exempt from capture even enemy's vessels which should not be carrying contraband of war, or trying to violate the blockade. At various times chambers of commerce of maritime cities — English, German, French, Belgian, and Danish — had passed resolutions in favor of the immunity of private prop- erty ; and on April 18, 1868, on the proposition of Dr. Aegidi, the Federal Diet of North Germany passed almost unanimously the following resolution : *' The Federal Chancellor is invited to profit by the friendly relations at present maintained with foreign powers to begin negotiation^ for maintaining, by means of treaties, the freedom of private property on the seas in time of war, and make it the recognized principle of international law." The Federal Council accepted the vote of the Diet, and invited the Chanceller to act according to the resolution which had been adopted. In consequence, according to the ProvinziaVsche Correspondenz of Berlin, of August 26, 1869, the German minister at Washington was instructed to begin negotiations on this subject with the United States. At the beginning of the war between Germany and France, in 1870, M. Gamier- Pages, deputy of Paris, proposed, in the French legislature, that the capture of hostile commercial vessels should be abolished, as well as the blockade or the bombardment of com- mercial and open towns, the right of attack remain- 26 402 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ing limited only to military ports and towns. This law was, however, only to be applied in cases of re- ciprocity. Although urgency was then granted to this proposition, the sudden revolution prevented its consideration. The Germans, on their side, by a royal ordinance of July i8, 1870, declared that French com- mercial ships would not be captured unless under the conditions in which neutral ships might be captured. There was no question about reciprocity. Selfish reasons, that is, a large commercial marine, a small navy, and an undefended coast may have entered into this ; but the declaration was certainly an ad- vance in international law. France did pot recipro- cate in exempting German cornmercial ships from capture, and on January 12, 1871, information was given to neutral countries that this declaration would be recalled after four weeks' delay, in order to protect neutral property which might in consequence of the declaration have been placed on French ships. Hos- tilities had ceased, however, before the four weeks had expired ; and the throat of reprisals was there- fore without result. A sufficient time having elapsed after our civil war for us to forget the disturbance which it had caused us in every way, we again took up this principle, which we had been ready to relax in a moment of need. By a treaty of commerce concluded with Italy on February 26, 1 871, we stipulated for all that we NEUTRAL RIGHTS. 403 had ever maintained. By Article 12 it was agreed that private property should be exempt from capture or seizure on the high seas, or elsewhere, by the armed vessels or by the military forces of either party, ex- cepting, of course, contraband of war, and vessels at- tempting to enter blockaded ports. By Articles 13 and 14 blockades were more exactly defined, and the category of contraband of war was limited to arms and munitions by Article 15. In Article 16 it was recog- nized that citizens of either country may trade with the enemies of the other ; that free ships make free goods, contraband excepted, but that this stipulation shall be applied only to those powers who recognize the principle. Stricter regulations were also made for the exercise of the right of search. VIII. THE FISHERIES. Treaty of 1783. — Treaty of Ghent. — Our Contention. — Treaty of 1818. — Difficulties, Complaints, and Seizures. — Diplo- matic Correspondence. — Treaty of 1854. — Its Abrogation. — New Difficulties. — Treaty of 1871. — The Halifax Award. — Abrogation of Treaty. — Temporary Prolongation of Privileges. — Present State of the Question. The question of the fisheries on the coasts of British North America is one which has occupied our Gov- ernment since its foundation, and which, though sev- eral times settled by temporary arrangement, has now reached a point, through the lapse of these arrange- ments and the abrogation of treaties, where it is again under the actual consideration of our Government. By Article 3 of the treaty of September 3, 1783, which recognized the independence of the United States, " It is agreed that the people of the United States shall con- tinue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfound- land, also in the Gulf of St. La wrence, and at all places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish ; and also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part 407 THE FISHERIES. ^ * of the coasts of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall choose, but not t o dry^or cure the same on that island ; and also on the coasts, bays, and creeks, and all other of his British Majesty's dominions in America ; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Noya Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, as long as the same shall remain unsettled ; but as soon as the same, or either of them, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settle- ment without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground." In the preceding negotiations an effort was made to induce the American commissioners to give up the fishery rights. John Adams said, " I will never put my hand to any article without satisfaction about the fisheries," and the British negotiators yielded. It will be observed that the right to take fish on the banks, which is a deep-sea or off-shore fishery, far away from any territorial jurisdiction, was recognized as a right inherent and belonging to the inhabitants of the United States, as indeed to any other people. The right to take fish in the deep waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence was also recognized, apart from any claims to territorial jurisdiction over that Gulf by drawing a line from headland to headland. We claimed that the liberty which was secured to the in- habitants of the United States to take fish on the coasts of Newfoundland, under the limitation of not drying or curing the same on that island, and also on AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. the other coasts, bays, and creeks, together with the limited rights of drying or curing fish on the coasts of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, were not created or conferred by that treaty, but were sim- ply recognized by it as already existing. They had been enjoyed before the Revolution by the Americans in common with other subjects of Great Britain, and had, indeed, been conquered, from the French chiefly, through the valor and the sacrifices of the colonies of New England and New York. The treaty was there- fore considered analogous to a deed of partition. It defined the boundaries between the two countries and all the rights and privileges belonging to them. We insisted that the article respecting fisheries was there- fore to be regarded as identical with the possession of land or the demarcation of boundary. \ We also claimed that the treaty being one that recognized in- dependence, conceded territory, and defined bound- aries, belonged to that class which is pe rma nent in its nature and is not affected by subsequent suspension of friendly relations.) The English, however, insisted that this treaty was not a unity ; that while some of its provisions were permanent, other stipulations were temporary and could be abrogated, and that, in factAhey were abro- gated by the war of 1812) that the very difference of the language used showed that while the rights of deep-sea fishing were permanent, the liberties of fish- THE FISHERIES. 40^ ing were created and conferred by that treaty, and had therefore been taken away by the war. These were the two opposite views of the respective governments at the conferences which ended in the treaty of Ghent of 1 8 14. At the very beginning the British commis- sioners stated that these fishing privileges would not be renewed without some equivalent. The American commissioners, who had no special instructions on this subject, insisted that these rights and privileges still existed in spite of the war, and proposed either to incorporate into the treaty articles concerning the American right to fish in British waters and the Brit- ish right to navigate the Mississippi, just as they had existed in the treaty of 1783, or else to omit them en- tirely. This latter proposition was accepted by the British commissioners, and for that reason theQtreaty of Ghent is entirely silent as to the fishery question.*) Professor John Norton Pomeroy, in criticising in 1871 the arguments of the American commissioners, thinks that they did not make the best of their case. He agrees with the British claim that these liberties of fishing were not in the nature of demarcation of boundaries or their appurtenances, but insists that they were in the nature of a servitude, and of a per- manent servitude. He says : * In this connection it is interesting to read the pamphlet of Mr. John Quincy Adams, called the Duplicate Letters, pub- lished in 1822. 408 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. " The third article of the treaty of 1783 is in the nature of an executed grant. It created and conferred at one blow rights of property perfect in their nature, and as permanent as the dominion over the national soil. These rights are held by the inhabitants of the United States, and are to be exercised in British territorial waters. Unaffected by the war of 18 12, they still exist in full force and vigor." * Theoretically Mr. Pomeroy's doctrine may be correct ; but unfortunately it was never put forward or insisted upon by our Government. In consequence of conflicts arising between our fishermen and the British authorities, our point of view was very strongly maintained by Mr. Adams in his correspondence with the British Foreign Office, and finally, on October 20, 1818, Mr. Rush, then our minister at London, assisted by Mr. Gallatin, suc- ceeded in signing a treaty, which among other things settled our rights and privileges by the first article, as follows : *' Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States for the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, it is agreed between the high contracting parties that the inhabi- tants of the said United States shall have foxfiyer, in common with the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, the liberty of tak- ing fish of any kind on that part of the southern coast of New- foundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands ; on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland * American Law Review, v., p. 426. THE FISHERIES. 409 from the said Cape Ray to the Ouirpon Islands ; on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on* the coasts, bays, har- bors, and creeks from Mont Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast. And that the Amer- ican fishermen shall have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of the un^ttled bays, harbors, and creeks in the southern part of Newfoundland herein-before described, and of the coasts of Labrador ; but as soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion, so settled, without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground./ And the United States hereby renounces forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or har- bors of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not in- cluded in the above-mentioned limits.y Provided, however. That the American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter, of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as shall be necessary to prevent their taking, dry- ing, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby secured to them." The American plenipotentiaries evidently labored to obtain as extensive a district of territory as possible for in-shore fishing, and were willing to give up privi- leges, then apparently of small amount, but now much more important, than of using other bays and harbors for shelter and kindred purposes. For that reason they acquiesced in omitting the word " bait " in 410 A M ERIC A N DIPL OMA C F, the first sentence of the proviso after " water." The proviso as at first proposed had read : " Provided, however, that American fishermen shall be per- mitted to enter such bays and harbors for the purpose only of obtaining shelter, wood, water, and bait." The power of obtaining bait for use in the deep- sea fisheries is one which our fishermen were after- ward very anxious to secure. But the mackerel fisheries in those waters did not begin until several years later. The only contention then was about the cod fisheries. The renunciation of any liberty to take, dry, or cure fish in territory not included within the limits mentioned, was inserted by the American commissioners much against the wish of the British, as they desired to prevent any implication that the fisheries secured to us were a new grant, and in order to show that we still continued to maintain that they had been perpetually secured to us by the treaty of 1783. In 1 8 19 Parliament passed a statute to carry out the stipulations of the conventions of 18 18, empower- ing the Privy Council to make such regulations and give such instructions as were deemed proper, and providing that any foreign vessel found fishing, or to have been fishing, or preparing to fish{within thiee miles of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors outside of the limits specified in the treaty, might be seized and condemned 3 imposing fines for persons refusing to THE FISHERIES. 41 1 depart from such bays on being required to do so, or neglecting to conform to any of the regulations. Be- tween 1 8 19 and 1854 the provincial legislatures adopted various laws relating to American fishermen, purporting to be based on the treaty of 18 18, far more stringent and minute in their provisions than the imperial act, and in many respects, as our fisher- men and our Government have claimed, contrary to the treaty. Very many seizjjres and confiscations of American vessels by the British authorities took place on the following grounds : i, fishing within the prescribed limits; 2, anchoring or hovering in shore during calm weather without any ostensible cause, having on board ample supplies of wood and water; 3, lying at anchor and remaining inside of bays to clean and pick fish ; 4, purchasing and bar- tering bait, and preparing to fish ; 5, selling goods and buying supplies ; 6, landing and transshipping cargoes of fish. It will be seen that most of these djfi5culties arose from a change in the character of the fisheries. Cod, being (taught on the banks, were seldom pursued within the three-mile limit. And yet it was to cod, and perhaps halibut, that all the early negotiations had referred. The mackerel fishing had now sprung up in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and had proved ex- tremely profitable. This was at that time an in- shore fishery. 412 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. More than that, vessels at various times have been seized for fishing within large bays, such as the Bay of Fundy, although ten or fifteen miles from shore. The expression of " three marine miles from the coast," as used in the treaty of 1818, was interpreted by us to mean three marine miles from the coast fol- lowing all its sinuosities. The English, on the other hand, claimed that this line should be measured at three miles' distance from extreme headland to head- land, including all waters inside of this exterior boundary, and especially all bays and gulfs, whether great or small. ^ Our claim seems first to have been presented to the British government in ^824 , when we complained of interruptions to the taking and curing of fish in the Bay of Fujuiy by American citi- zens, and the seizure of their vessels) Mr. Addington replied in February, 1825, justifying such seizure on the ground that the fishing was within the limits of prohibition. The President, in 1840, communicated to Congress various documents relating to the arrest of vessels in 1839; and from that time until 1845 we had an elaborate diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain on this subject. On March 10, 1845, Lord Aberdeen announced to Mr. Everett that the British government did not admit the correctness of | the construction put upon the treaty of 18 18 by the \ United States, nor did it abandon its own interpre- tation ; but from considerations of comity! it would '^ THE FISHERIES. 413 relax its rights to the Bay of Fundy, but iiQt to other bays. ] Mr. Everett refused to accept these conces- sions as a favor, but demanded them as a right. In 1852 the British government declared its intention of enforcing its rights with greater strictness, and sent a squadron to the fishing grounds ; but Lord Malmes- bury consented to leave the Bay of Fundy in the condition in which it had been placed by Lord Aber- deen in 1845. We based our arguments on the gen- eral principles of international law, which have been accepted by all except British authorities, and even by some of them. And our case was strengthened by the fact that in the treaty between Great Britain and France of August 3, 1839, stipulating for the right of fishing within a distance of three miles from low-water mark, the ninth article of that treaty pro- vided that "this distance shall be measured in the case of bays, of which the opening shall not exceed ten miles, by a straight line drawn across from one cape to the other." /In 1853 a convention was made between Great Britain and the United States for referring various claims to a mixed commission for arbitration. ) One claim brought before this commission was that of the owners of the Washington, which had been seized in 1843 while fishing in the Bay of Fundy. The com- missioners disagreed, but the umpire decided that as the Bay of Fundy is from sixty-five to seventy-five 414 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, miles wide, and from one hundred and thirty to one hundred and forty miles long, it is not a British bay nor a bay within the meaning of the word as used in the treaty of 1818. So matters stood, when in 181;^ a treat y was con- cluded at Washington by Mr. Marcj^ and Lord Elgin, the Governor-General of Canada, acting as British plenipotentiary, called the Reciprocity Treaty. By the first article it was agreed that *' In addition to the liberty secured to the United States fisher- men by the convention of October 20, 1818, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of her Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind, except shell- fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore ; with permission to land upon the coasts and shores of those colonies and the islands thereof, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish ; pro- vided that, in so doing, they did not interfere with the rights of private property, or with British fishermen in the peaceable use of any part of said coast in their occupancy for the same purpose." Under the liberal provisions of this treaty there Wcis a cessation of the complaints of our fishermen ; but in 1866. this Reciprocity Treaty was abrogated on the motion of the United States. It was maintained by THE FISHERIES. 4^5 our Government that in consequence of this abroga- tion the provisions of the treaty of 1818 again came into force. The claims on both sides, which had only- been temporarily suspended by the Reciprocity Treaty, were also revived, and with them frequent disputes. The various laws of the provincial governments re- stricting the movements of American fishermen were revived by the Dominion act of May 22, 1868, with its amendment of May 10, 1870; and even on January 8, 1870, the Governor-General of Canada made an order " that henceforth all foreign fishermen shall be prevented from fishing in the waters of. Canada." Mr. Fish, on May 31, 1870, called the attention of the British minister to the broad and illegal terms of this order, which directly contravened the treaty of 1818, and requested its modification. High commissioners met soon after in Washington, and after prolonged negotiations signed the treaty of 1871. The eigh- teenth article of this treaty revived the first article already quoted of the Reciprocity Treaty, stipulating, however, that it should exist for the term of ten years, and for two years after either of the contracting parties should have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same. The nineteenth article granted, as a compensation to British subjects, the right of fish- ing on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the United States nortlL_of _the_thirty-ninth degree of latitude. The corresponding article of the Reciprocity Treaty 4l6 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. had given such rights down to the thirty-sixth par- allel. By the twenty-first article it was agreed that for the term of years mentioned, * * Fish-oil and fisli of all kinds (except fish of the inland lakes and of the rivers falling into them, and except fish preserved in oil), being the produce of the fisheries of the United States, or of the Dominion of Canada, or of Prince Edward's Island, shall be admitted into each country respectively free of duty." As Great Britain asserted that the privileges ac- corded to the citizens of the United States were greater in value than those accorded by the United States to British subjects, an assertion that was not admitted by the United States, it was agreed that commissioners should be appointed to determine the amount of compensation which ought to be paid by the United States to Great Britain in return for these fishing privileges. This commission met at Halifax in 1877, the treaty having gone into effect on July i, 1873. The commission was composed of one Ameri- can, Mr. E. H. Kellogg, a New England country lawyer ; Mr. A. T. Gait, a prominent Canadian states- man ; and M. Maurice Delfosse, then Belgian minis- ter at Washington. The British agent was Mr. Fran- cis Clare Ford, now British Minister at Madrid ; our agent was Mr. Dwight Foster, a distinguished lawyer of Massachusetts, assisted by Mr. William H. Trescot and Mr. Richard H. Dana, Jr. During the negotia- tions at Washington in 1871, we had proposed to THE FISHERIES. 41/ purchase the right to enjoy, in perpetuity, the use of the inshore fisheries, in common with British fisher- men, and had offered the sum of $i,ooo,cxx). This was thought inadequate by the British negotiators. Now, after a session of over five months, after hearing evidence and arguments on each side, the Halifax commission, by a vote of two to one, on November 23, 1877, decided that we were to pay for a twelve years' use of these fishing privileges the sum of $5,- 500,000. The evidence was clear, for four years had already elapsed, that the fisheries were not in them- selves worth this ; but other claims were taken into consideration. There was, perhaps, a feeling of the necessity of offsetting the Alabama award, and our commissioner was certainly unfitted for his place. Hence this great award was given to our prejudice. There was a general dissatisfaction in the United States, but the money was paid without an official murmur, although we knew that these fisheries were becoming yearly of less value and use to us. When the time came that this part of the treaty of 1 87 1 could be terminated. Congress, by a resolution which was approved on March 3, 1883, directed the President to take the proper steps, and notice was accordingly given on July i, 1883, of\^the termination of the treaty, which came to an end on July I, 1885) As the termination of the treaty fell in the middle of the fishing season, Mr. Bayard, the Secretary of 27 41 8 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. State, acting partly on the representations of New England fishermen, and partly at the suggestion of the British minister, agreed, on June 22, 1885, to ex- tend the agreement of the treaty through the season of 1885, with the exception of the exemption from customs duties. This agreement contemplated fur- ther negotiations, and in his message of December, 1885, the President recommended the appointment of a commission for such negotiations. This recom- mendation has met with disfavor in Congress, on the ground that any reciprocity in fishing privileges would do us more harm than good. Indeed, the situation seems to have totally changed in the last few years. I cannot do better than quote on this subject from a recent article in Science of February 5, 1886, which seems to reflect the opinion of the United States Fish Commission : '* The fisheries-treaty question, which is now the subject of so much discussion, is a very complicated one ; and it is not at all surprising that the Secretary of State, following tradi- tionary policy of more than a hundred years' standing, and acting upon the long-established theory that participation in the fishery privileges of Canadian waters is of great value, should have failed to satisfy the expectations of the New England fishermen, who know so well that these privileges have long been valueless. A general impression seems to exist that our fishing-fleet no longer visits the Gulf of St. Lawrence, only be- cause there has been a temporary desertion of those waters by the species of fish which they seek. Such, also, is the idea of the Canadians. In his recent article in the North American Re- THE FISHERIES. 419 vieiv^ Lord Lome patronizingly suggests to his ' good friends ' across the line that they should not be too hasty in throwing aside the right to fish in EngHsh waters, because the fish may before long return in their former abundance. '' As a matter of fact, the abundance of fish in the Gulf has very little to do with the question as it now presents itself. Since 1871, when the Washington treaty was negotiated, a complete revolution has taken place both in the fisheries and the fish trade of the United States ; and, strangely enough, this revolution was effected chiefly in the six years which inter- vened between the completion of this treaty and the meeting in 1877 of the Halifax convention, by which $5,500,000 were awarded to Great Britain as a compensation for a concession to our fishermen, which had ceased to be of value to them, in addition to the remission of duties on Canadian^ fish, which during the period of fourteen years have amounted to several millions of dollars. Our Government has thus, unintentionally of course, been paying each year a large subsidy to the fish- eries of British North America, and developing the Canadian fisheries at the expense of our own ; and Canadian competi- tion has become so great that our fishermen feel that they have a strong claim upon the Government for some kind of protection. The fishermen therefore demand that the duty upon Canadian fish be restored, and that their own privileges shall be based upon the provisions of the treaty of 18 18, which will again go into effect, if no new treaty arrangements are made. Our dealers in cured fish, on the other hand, mindful of the profits of handling the product of the Canadian fisheries, are clamorous for a continuance of the present free-trade policy. " The revolution in the American fisheries is so extensive that it can scarcely be discussed in a notice so brief as this. One of the principal changes is the adoption of the purse-seine in the mackerel fishery, by which the fish are caught far out 420 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. at sea, and in immense quantities, by enclosing them in an im- mense bag of netting. Formerly they were taken solely with hooks by the * chumming ' process. This was in the best days of the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery, when hun- dreds of American vessels would frequently lie side by side, throwing overboard vast quantities of oily, mushy bait, by which the schools of fish were enticed within reach. There is no reason to doubt that mackerel were as abundant then as now off our own coast, but the old method of fishing was not so well adapted to our waters. The purse-seine, on the other hand, cannot be used advantageously in the Gulf, nor is there any necessity for our fishermen to go so far from home for their fish. There does not appear to be any probability that our fishermen will ever return to the old methods. * Chum- ming mackerel ' is essentially a lost art. *' Another feature in the revolution is the introduction of im- proved methods of marketing fresh fish. With the extensive refrigerating establishments now in operation, and the facili- ties for rapid transmission of sea-fish inland, the demand for salted fish is relatively very much less than it was fifteen years ago. Then, too, the immense competition produced by the free entry of Canadian fish has lowered the price of cured fish until a very decided depreciation in its quality has resulted, with a consequent decrease in demand." IX. COMMERCIAL TREATIES. General Commercial Treaties. — The Most Favored Nation. — Special Commercial Treaties. — Changes in Commerce. — Our Earliest Treaties. — Commercial Relations and Ne- gotiations with Great Britain. — Treaties of 1794, 1806, and 181 5. — Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. — Mr. Wheaton's Negotiations with the German ZoUverein. — Advantageous Treaty Rejected by the Senate. — The Mexican Treaty of 1859,— That of 1883.— The Hawaiian Treaty,— The recent Treaty with Spain. Commercial treaties are in their nature either gen- eral or special. The ordinary general treaties of com- merce and navigation which secures to the contract- ing parties rights which otherwise would be granted only to subjects, are, in general, reciprocal in their nature, both parties granting like favors and immu- nities to the other. In such treaties it has been usual to insert what is called the " most-favored-nation clause," the effect of which is to give to each party the same treatment and the same privileges which have been or may be granted to the most favored nation without further specification or agreement. The form in which this clause has been inserted in 422 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. most of our treaties is as follows, from our treaty with Italy : " The United States of America and the Kingdom of Italy mutually engage not to grant any particular favor to other na- tions, in respect to commerce and navigation, which shall not immediately become common to the other party, who shall enjoy the same freely, if the concession was freely made, or on allowing the same compensation, if the concession was con- ditional." The most-favored-nation clause is not expressed in our late treaties in as absolute terms as it generally is in foreign treaties; and, in speaking of "compensa- tion," if the concession should be conditional, we have endeavored to keep to ourselves the right of making special commercial treaties, the stipulations of which should not be extended to other powers. Special commercial treaties are of two varieties. One, where either by force or predominance certain favors are granted by one party which are not re- ciprocally granted by the other, and which are there- fore not common to all the world, even under the most-favored-nation clause ; and the other, where re- ciprocal advantages are stipulated for, but of a special nature. The general policy of the United States has been to avoid special commercial treaties, and to place the conditions of their commerce on an equality for the whole world. On several occasions we have de- rogated from this policy, especially with regard to COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 423 countries in our immediate neighborhood ; and very recently the Government proposed a whole system of special commercial treaties which, if carried out, would perhaps secure to our commerce very great ad- vantages. Whether these recent treaties be ratified or not, the system is one to which we shall un- doufttedly be forced to come sooner or later. The increase in the manufacturing interests of several con- tinental states, which make them rivals to England, the growth of their commerce, and the great impor- tance which the governments of civilized states now give to commercial questions, have brought about a system of special commercial treaties in Europe which we shall be obliged to imitate, at least for the coun- tries in this hemisphere, unless we intend to lose even those advantages which we have hitherto enjoyed. Changes in commercial theories and practices, as well as the changes brought about in transportation, to say nothing of those caused by new political systems, compel us to be on the alert and watchful lest our interests receive detriment. For example, a few years ago an attempt was made in Germany to pro- tect German products by a higher freight tariff on the German railways for foreign goods. In practice, in one particular article, this worked disadvantageously ; for Russian grain, instead of being sent through Danzig, found its way through the Hungarian port of Fiume, and was the immediate cause of the great 424 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. increase and the prosperity of that port. It has therefore been considered advisable in the most re- cent commercial treaties to insert a stipulation that no higher charge shall be made for the transportation of foreign goods over the railways of the country than for native goods. This was inserted in our re- cent treaty with Serbia of 1881. The difficulty which we have had with certain for- eign governments with regard to the importation of American pork will be obviated by more recent com- mercial treaties, which provide that the authorities of the country have power to forbid the importation of any articles which may be deleterious to public health. Such a provision not having been inserted in the most of our treaties with foreign powers, we are un- willing to yield to their declaration that questions of public health override all treaty stipulations. While the United States were yet colonies of Great Britain, they had been precluded from any trade ex- cept with Great Britain itself, and with certain little valuable markets in Africa, the South of Europe, and the West Indies. The parallel of Cape Finisterre, the boundary of the northern trade, entirely cut off France, Holland, and the northern countries of Europe. So accustomed were the European powers to consider the colonial trade of especial value, that when the United States cut loose from Great Britain, both France and Holland were exceedingly anxious to COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 425 obtain the monopoly, or at least a great share of our commerce. However, in our commercial treaty with France of 1778, we simply admitted France to trade with the United States, without giving her any ex- clusive advantages. The same thing took place in our treaty of 1782 with the Netherlands; although the advantages expected to be derived from the American trade had greatly influenced Holland, and especially the merchants of Amsterdam, to a state of friendliness and subsequently to a treaty. William Pitt, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in March, 1783, after the provisional treaty and armis- tice had been concluded, and before the permanent treaty of peace had been made, wishing to attract the trade of America to Great Britain, and to continue the old commercial relations, brought a bill into Parlia- ment, in which he proposed to admit American ships and American goods into Great Britain on the same principles as British ships and goods, with the same duties, and entitled to the same drawbacks, exemp- tions, and bounties. One of the chief adversaries of this proposition was Mr. Eden, afterward Lord Auck- land, who feared that such an arrangement would in- jure British trade, and that it woiild be contrary to treaties with other powers, and who believed that in any case, as was indeed the fact, American commerce would continue to seek English markets instead of foreign ones. Such was the opposition that Mr. Pitt's 426 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. bill failed. Our commercial relations with England remained in an undefined condition all the more dis- agreeable to us, because when colonies we had had the right of trading with other British colonies, which after the Revolution was taken away from us. In 1790 our Navigation Act was passed, which laid a duty of fifty cents per ton on foreign vessels, and an extra duty of ten per cent., ad valorem, on all merchandise im- ported in them. ij^ During the Confederation it was impossible to do anything for the furtherance of commerce because Congress had no power over commercial matters. It was, indeed, this very lack of power which finally brought about the Federal Constitution. An attempt was made in 1794 to regulate the com- mercial relations of the two countries ; but by the treaty of that year we succeeded in getting few advan- tages. The duties on all ships and merchandise were put in the two countries on the footing of the most favored nation. There was reciprocal and perfect liberty of commerce and navigation between the ter- ritories of the United States and the dominions of Great Britain in Europe. As far as the West India trade was concerned, ships of not more than seventy tons burden could trade between the United States and the West Indies ; but their cargoes were to be unloaded in the United States; and more than that, American vessels were prohibited from carrying any COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 42/ rriolasscs, sugar, coffee, cocoa, or cotton, either from British islands or from the United States, to any part of the world except the United States. The object of this article was to prevent commerce in the products of the British West India Islands, which had for the sake of form been landed in the United States. It was not at that time thought that much cotton could be produced in the United States, although a small amount of it had indeed at that time been cultivated. Louisiana not yet being annexed, none of the other products could originate in the United States. Per- mission was given also to trade with the East Indies ; but ships, after having loaded there, were obliged to proceed directly to the United States without touch- ing at any other port or country, except at the island of St. Helena for refreshment. In 1806 Mr. Monroe, then minister to England, and Mr. William Pinkney, of Maryland, were commis- sioned to negotiate a commercial treaty with Great Britain. This they did, and in some respects it was the most favorable treaty ever obtained from that power. The articles of the treaty of 1794, which had not expired, were confirmed, with some changes. The trade to India was made a direct one, going as well as coming — a change not so advantageous to us as the previous agreement. The colonial trade with an enemy's colony was arranged in a manner satisfactory to us at the moment, for we never had agreed to the 428 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. rule of 1756, which forbade the coasting and tfie colonial trade in war, if it had been forbidden by- municipal law in peace. The list of contraband arti- cles was lessened by excluding provisions. Unfortu- nately it had been found impossible to obtain any concessions from England with regard to the right of impressment of seamen claimed by that country, and in consequence the President, without even consult- ing the Senate, refused to ratify the treaty. In 181 5 we at last succeeded in concluding a com- mercial convention with Great Britain, the chief ad- vantage of which was the entire abrogation between the two countries of discriminating rates on vessels and importations. Goods imported in American vessels were not to be charged higher duties than in British vessels, and vice versa ; and American goods imported into Great Britain were not to be charged higher duties than those imposed in any other country. With regard to the East India trade the arrangement was substantially the same as in 1794; but not quite so favorable because American vessels were restricted to four ports of entry. We refused to allow the Eng- lish to trade with our Indians; and they in turn refused to give us the use of the St. Lawrence River. This treaty was concluded for four years, but was sub- sequently renewed in 1818 for ten years,'" and again * For a full and interesting account of these negotiations with England, see the Diplomacy of the United States, by COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 429 in 1827 for ten years more. It was in vain that our Government struggled to obtain a more liberal ar- rangement, or at least a more liberal interpretation of the treaty. Before 1845 trade with Canada and* the British colonies was burdened with a system of differential duties which discriminated against foreign in favor of British goods, and prevented extensive importation into those provinces from the United States. The British colonial policy was changed in 1845, and the Canadian legislature, on receiving commercial liberty, in 1846 removed the differential duties. The imme- diate result was a great increase of trade, and the imports from the United States increased from about four millions of dollars in 1844 to about eleven mill- ions in 185 1. This relaxation of commercial restric- tions was accompanied by propositions for reciprocal free trade between Canada and the United States. Mr. Packenham, the British minister, communicated with our Government on the subject in 1846; Mr. Bancroft was engaged in negotiations in London in 1847, and in consequence of renewed representations a bill was passed by the House of Representatives in 1848, though it did not reach a vote in the Senate. President Taylor submitted the subject to Congress in 1850, and President Fillmore again in 185 1 and in Theodore Lyman, Jr. — a book which is unfortunately out of print. 430 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 1853. Finally, after long negotiations, a treaty was signed, on June 5, 1854, by Mr. Marcy and Lord Elgin, which was duly ratified. This treaty settled for the time the fishery question, as well as that of the navigation of the St. Lawrence, and provided for reciprocal free trade in a specified list of raw materials. Owing, as has been already said, to a strong protec- tionist feeling in Congress, and to a dislike to Canada arising from incidents connected with our war, notice was given to terminate this treaty, and it accordingly came to an end on March 17, 1866. In July, 1869, Sir Edward Thornton proposed new negotiations for a similar treaty, based on that of 1854, with the addition of manufactured articles to the free list, the mutual opening of the coasting trade, the protection of patents and copyrights, and extra- dition. Negotiations continued, but it was found impossible to come to a satisfactory arrangement, and provisions for reciprocal free trade were therefore omitted in the treaty of Washington of 1871.^ *See Senate Ex. Doc, No. i, 32d Congress, ist Session; H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 32, 38th Congress, ist Session; H. R. Ey. Doc, No. 64, 31st Congress, ist Session; Senate Ex. Doc, No. 3, Special Session, March 8, 1853 ; H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 40, 32d Congress, 2d Session ; Report No. 4, H. R., 32d Congress, 2d Session; Report No. 22, H. R., 37th Congress, 2d Session ; H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 78, 39th Congress, 2d Ses- sion ; H. R. Ex. Doc, Nos. 240 and 295,40th Congress, 2d Session ; H. R. Ex. Doc, No. 36, 40th Congress, 3d Session ; conf. Ex. Doc. A, Senate, Special Session, 1871. COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 43 1 Negotiations for commercial privileges with the German states were due chiefly to the initiative of Mr. Henry Wheaton, who was no less eminent as a negotiator than as a publicist. Mr. Wheaton arrived in Berlin, as minister, in June, 1835. There had been no minister before him except John Quincy Adams, who had been sent in 1797 for the renewal of the commercial treaty which had expired in 1795. Since that time Germany had taken on a very different form, partly in consequence of the arrangements made by the treaty of Vienna in 18 15, and partly through the customs-union. At that time there were two : the Zollverein^ composed of most of the states of Germany, except the Austrian dominions and a few northern countries, which formed a sepa- rate league known as the Steuer-verein. Prussia was at the head of the Zollvcrein. Mr. Wheaton was in- structed by Mr. Forsyth to direct his attention to the establishment of commercial relations with Ger- many, as well as for the removal of the droit d'aii- baine and the droit de detraction. One of Mr. Wheaton's first duties was to make a journey through parts of Germany and collect commercial informa- tion. Two things had especially attracted the no- tice of our Government : the high duties on tobacco, of which at least one-half of the American product was consumed in Germany; and the high duties on rice. By resolutions of the Congress of 1837-38 Mr. 432 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, Wheaton was instructed to procure a reduction of these duties. His negotiations went on for six years, for he was somewhat embarrassed by the question of the " most-favored-nation " clause ; that is, whether, if we gave as an equivalent to Germany for the re- duction of duties certain reductions, we would be bound to give them to all nations with whom we had treaties containing this clause. This question had first sprung up in consequence of the convention for the purchase of Louisiana, and of the commercial convention of 1815 with Great Britain, and it was in order to get rid of such obligations, as Mr. Forsyth wrote to Mr. Wheaton, that the preference accorded to French wines was inserted in the treaty with France of 183 1. Mr. John Quincy Adams had ar- gued on the American side, and it was believed answerably, in 1 81 7, with regard to the Louisiana treaty ; and Mr. Wheaton always contended for the same views.^ Mr. Wheaton went before the Con- gress of the Zollverein at Dresden in 1838 and pre- sented a memoir, by which he obtained a reduction of duties on rice, although not immediately upon tobacco. The reciprocity stipulations in our previous treaties were thought to operate disadvantageously to American navigation in the case of the Hanse towns, especially in regard to tobacco. For while in * See Congress. Doc, i8th Congress, 2d Session, No. 91 ; also, Lawrence's Wheaton, notes on pp. 493, 494, ed. of 1863. COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 433 1828 there was a great preponderance in favor of the American vessels, in 1835 the difference in the to- bacco trade alone was six to one against our mercan- tile marine. It was, therefore, that, in the treaty with Hanover of 1840, Mr. Wheaton introduced a less extended reciprocity than had been adopted in the previous German treaties. In May, 1841, Mr. Webster compiled, from the materials furnished him by Mr. Wheaton, a report on our commerce with the Zollverein, which was laid before Congress with the President's message, and the suggestion was made of entering into a commercial treaty with the Zollverein. In 1842-43 Mr. Wheaton attended further sessions of the Commercial Union, but difficulties were raised in consequence of the augmentation by our tariff of 1842 of the duties on articles imported into the United States from Ger- many, and retaliatory measures had been suggested. Nevertheless Mr. Wheaton was finally successful in signing a treaty on March 25, 1844. The United States agreed not to impose on certain articles of produce or manufacture of the states of the Zollve- rein duties exceeding twenty per cent., ad valorem ; on others, duties exceeding fifteen per cent. ; and on a third class, duties exceeding ten per cent. They agreed also not to increase the duties on wines sent from Prussia, nor to impose higher duties on the wines from the other states. The Zollverein, in con- 28 434 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. sideration of this, agreed to reduce the duties on to- bacco and lard to a stipulated rate ; not to raise the existing duties on rice ; and not to impose any duty on unmanufactured cotton. These reductions, how- ever, were only to apply to goods laden on board the vessels of one of the contracting parties, or on vessels placed on the footing of national vessels by treaties, and imported directly from the ports of one party to those of the other. Mr. Wheaton's treaty was considered as a master- stroke by most of his colleagues and by our Govern- ment, and naturally aroused the jealousy of Great Britain and of other maritime powers, who attempted to claim the same advantages without rendering any corresponding equivalent. Transmitting this treaty to the Senate in April, 1844, the President said in his message that he " could not but anticipate from its ratification important benefits to the great agricul- tural, commercial, and navigating interests of the United States." This treaty was rejected by the Senate, by a strictly party vote of twenty-six to eighteen, on the single ground that " the Legislature was the department of Government by which commerce should be regulated and laws of revenue passed ; " that therefore the State Department had no right to interfere in such regula- tions by negotiations. This view was contested by Mr. Calhoun, who became Secretary of State after the COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 435 sudden death of Mr. Upshur, and he said that the ob- jections of the committee were opposed to the uniform practice of the Government. " So well established," says he, " is the practice, that it is believed that it has never before been questioned. The only question it is believed that was ever made was, whether an act of Congress was not necessary to sanction and carry the stipulations making the change into effect." In a private letter to Mr. Wheaton, of June 28, 1844, he spoke of the reasons assigned for its objection as very inconclusive.* The objections made to the Zollverein treaty seemed afterward to be deemed untenable ; for the Canadian Reciprocity Treaty with Great Britain, of 1854, which was made in the same way, was at once ratified, although it varied the existing tariff, and a law to carry it into effect was passed by Congress. In 1859 Mr. McLane was sent as minister to Mex- ico, with instructions to conclude a commercial treaty. Unfortunately, owing to the slavery question, our country was then in such a state that anything begun by Mr. Buchanan was treated with suspicion by a large party at the North, and a treaty, in many re- spects very advantageous to us, was rejected by the Senate. At that time the government of President Juarez was shut up in Vera Cruz, and it was believed * Lawrence's Wheaton, ed. of 1863, Introductory Remarks, p. cvii. 43^ AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. at Washington that by giving him an indefinite promise of eventual support he could be induced to sell to the United States certain provinces of Mexico. It was understood that at first Mr. Buchanan de- manded Lower California, Sonora, Chihuahua, and a part of Coahuila. These offers being declined our Government then reduced its demands to Lower Cali- fornia only, and made the cession of that territory a sine qua non of the treaty negotiations. When it was ascertained that the Mexicans would not sell a foot of their territory, Mr. McLane received instructions in August, 1859, to abandon such demands. During that time, however, there had been a change in the cabinet of Juarez, and Mr. McLane was obliged to re- turn home at the end of August without any treaty at all. In November he was sent back again. Mr. O'Campo had returned to the cabinet as Minister of Foreign Relations, and negotiations were renewed and a treaty signed on December 14th. This had one very important commercial article, the eighth, giving a list of merchandise, from which the Congress of the United States was to be allowed to ''Select those which, being the natural industry or manu- factured product of either of the two republics, may be ad- mitted for sale or consumption in either of the two countries under condition of perfect reciprocity, whether they be con- sidered free of duty or at a rate of duty to be fixed by the Congress of the United States ; it being the intention of the Mexican republic to admit'the articles in question at the low- COMMERCIAL TREATIES, 437 est rate of duty, and even free, if the Congress of the United States consents thereto." There were, however, other important stipulations; one which allowed free transit, without duty, across the isthmus of Tehuantepec, with ports of deposit, one on the east and one on the west of the isthmus, and also a free right of way of transit from Mata- moras, or any suitable point on the Rio Grande, to the port of Mazatlan on the Gulf of California. Mexico agreed to employ the requisite military force for de- fending these routes should it ever become necessary; " but upon failure to do this, from any cause whatever, the Government of the United States might, with the consent or at the request of the Government of Mexico or their minister, or other competent legal authorities, employ force for this and no other pur- pose." Still further provision was made for an ex- ceptional case of unforeseen or imminent danger to the lives and property of citizens of the United States, when the United States troops could be em- ployed for their protection without any consent hav- ing been previously obtained. '* In consideration of these stipulations and compensation for the revenue surrendered by Mexico on the goods and mer- chandise transported free of duty through the territory of the repubhc," the United States agreed to pay Mexico the sum of $4,000,000; but two million^ were to be retained for 438 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. the payment of claims of citizens of the United States against the government of Mexico. The Mexican treaty came up first in the executive session of the Senate on February 28, i860, and, as we learn by the account of the proceedings in the New York Tribune of the following day, it was vio- lently opposed both by Senator Wigfall, of Texas, and Senator Simmons, of Rhode Island, who said : ** It is substantially reciprocal free trade with Mexico, which would require us in the clause inserted in every commercial treaty for the last forty years of admitting each nation on an equal footing with that of the most favored nation, to allow other nations to claim similar privileges, and would result in destroying our revenue and compelling a resort to direct tax- ation." The treaty came up again in executive session on May 31st, when Mr. Simmons took opposite ground to that which he apparently held at the first session, and proposed a number of amendments to regulate the articles to be admitted free of duty in either country according to the eighth article. Among these we find from Mexico, tobacco, sugar, and wool. Mr. Hammond objected to the treaty, on the ground that it would be equivalent to the practical annexa- tion of Mexico, and he could not see how the South would be benefited by it ; and Mr. Seward was un- willing to commit the Government to an important treaty with a faction which might be immediately COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 439. deposed by another, which would repudiate the action of its predecessor, and that we would then be com- pelled even to surrender what had been acquired, or probably to resort to war for its enforcement. The amendments of Mr. Simmons were rejected by a vote of twenty to twenty-six, and Senator Wigfall then moved an amendment providing for a reclamation of fugitives from service or labor, which received a ma- jority, but not a two-thirds majority. The treaty was defeated by eighteen to twenty-seven. Senators Sim- mons and Anthony being the only Republicans who voted in favor of it. A motion was made to recon- sider, and it came up again on June 27th, but it then went over to the next session, and was never rati- fied.* The extension of the Mexican railway system to connect with the railways of the United States, and the great increase of the American capital invested in Mexico, led to a resolution in the Senate, on April 5, 1882, authorizing negotiations for a commercial trea- ty with Mexico. General Grant and Mr. William Henry Trescot were appointed commissioners on the part of the United States, and Mr. Romero and Mr. E. Cafiedo on the part of Mexico. This treaty was signed at Washington on January 20, 1883, and pro- vided for the entry into the United States, free of *See The Mexican Papers, No. 3, September 15, i860, by E. E. Dunbar. 440 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. duty, of twenty-eight articles of Mexican produce, in- cluding, among other things, coffee, unmanufactured leaf tobacco, and sugar of not above sixteen of the Dutch standard and color. Seventy-three articles of American produce and manufacture were to be ad- mitted free of duty into Mexico, including coal, petroleum, iron machines, and many manufactured articles. This treaty was to last six years, but could not be ratified until the Congress of the United States and the Mexican government had passed the laws necessary to carry it into effect. It was, however, provided that the contracting parties were free to make such changes in their import duties as their re- spective interests might require, and to grant to other nations the same liberty of rights in regard to one or more of the articles of merchandise named in the an- nexed schedules, either by legislation or treaties; but if such changes were made, the party affected might denounce the treaty before the six years had elapsed, and it would be annulled in six months after such denunciation. This treaty, after a long debate and several post- ponements, was finally approved by the Senate ; but as Congress has never yet been willing to pass the laws necessary to carry it into effect, it has not yet been ratified. Our delay in this matter has been pre- judicial to us; for Germany and Great Britain have not been slow to profit by it in beginning negotiations COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 44 1 for treaties more beneficial to themselves than to us ; and if the time should come when Congress should finally consent to put this treaty into operation, we may find that the advantages which we once could have had are no longer ours. That question, how- ever, belongs to the sphere of legislation and not to diplomacy. From a diplomatic point of view it is possible that, considering our extensive land frontier of Mexico, and the ease of railway communication, we might have adopted some different method of obtaining the same result, and one which would shut out Euro- pean nations from the same privileges. W.e might, for instance, have adopted the extended definition of local frontier traffic, introduced by Austria into her treaty with Serbia, by which the whole produce of the United States, or of Mexico, might have been included within the articles of local frontier traffic. The condition of the Hawaiian Islands had been such for many years as to excite the apprehension of our statesmen. The trade of that country demanded an outlet, and unless facilities were afforded by the United States, there was great fear lest the commerce of the country should be monopolized by Australia and the English, which would result in the Islands becom- ing practically a British possession. From a political point of view such a prospect had been most unpleas- 442 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ant for the United States, and it was at last decided, in 1874, to negotiate a commercial treaty with the Hawaiian Islands, admitting various of their prod- ucts, especially sugar, free of duty into the United States, in return for the remission of duties on many objects of American manufactures and production. This treaty was signed on January 30, 1875. Ratifi- cations were exchanged on June 3d of the same year, and Congress subsequently passed a law carrying its stipulations into effect. By one article the govern- ment of the Hawaiian Islands agreed to impose no export duty or charges on the articles admitted free of duty into the United States, so that it was impossible for the amount of revenue given up by our Govern- ment to be taken by the Hawaiian Islands in the way of an export duty. The necessity of this stipulation was obvious from the fact that when, some years be- fore, in order to answer the cry for a free breakfast table, our customs duties had been taken off from tea and coffee the government of Brazil immediately placed an export duty on the coffee sent from that country, and the result was that the price of coffee in the American markets was in no way diminished ; but the amount of revenue which the United States gave up was simply put into the treasury of Brazil. Had we, at that time, instead of putting coffee upon the free list, made a commercial treaty with Brazil by w^hich special advantages of some kind had been ob- COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 443 • tained in return for taking the duty off coffee, the state of our trade with Brazil would have been much more favorable to us than it is at present. It was also agreed that the Hawaiian Islands would not grant to any other nation the same privileges relative to the admission of articles free from duty as was se- cured to the United States ; and it was also agreed that so long as the treaty should remain in force the government of the Hawaiian Islands should not lease, or otherwise dispose of, or place any lien upon any port, harbor, or other territory in its dominions, or grant any special privilege or rights of usage therein to any other power, state, or government. This stip- ulation was more of a political than of a commercial nature. In order to carry out these provisions of the treaty the Hawaiian government was obliged to submit to considerable loss. For, in order to satisfy Great Britain, which claimed the privileges of the most favored nation, a remission of fifteen per cent, was granted on the duties fixed by the general tariff laws of the kingdom. In a subsequent treaty with the German empire, on September 19, 1879, it was stipu- lated that the special advantages granted to the United States of America, in consideration of equiva- lent advantages, could not be claimed by Germany ; and a similar declaration was inserted in a treaty made with Portugal. 444 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. • The result of this treaty has been, on the whole, in spite of some slight drawbacks, exceedingly favorable to the United States, and the efforts to denounce it have thus far failed. The exports from the United States to Hawaii increased from $8o9,(XX) in 1876 to $3,523,000 in 1884; and the imports increased, in like way, from $1,383,000 in 1876, to $7,926,000 in 1884. The population of the Hawaiian Islands being about seventy thousand, the exports from the United States amounted to about fifty dollars per head, while the consumption in 1876 was only $12.66 per head. The imports of American goods free of duty into Hawaii in 1883 amounted to over fifty-six per cent, of the total amount, being $3,169,000 out of $5,624,- 000. There would seem to be an excess of imports into the United States from the Hawaiian Islands over the exports of nearly four and a half million dol- lars ; but this amount is not returned to the Sandwich Islands in coin, because it is paid in this country. It simply goes from the hands of one American to those of another. In fact, commercially speaking, the Hawaiian Islands have become almost an American possession. Mr. Daggett, the American minister, re- ported in October, 1883, that fully two-thirds of the sugar plantations in the Islands belonged to citizens of the United States ; out of an aggregate valuation of over fifteen million dollars Americans owned over ten million dollars. In 1884 ninety-five per cent, of COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 445 the total commerce between the United States was effected on American vessels, and this brought with it the purchase of stores in the United States. While the Hawaiian commercial marine has greatly increased since the signature of the treaty, nearly all of the new vessels were of American build. It has been urged against this treaty that the price of sugar is no lower in the Pacific States than it was before the treaty, or than it is in the East. This is not due to the working of the treaty itself, but to other circumstances. So long as Manilla sugar, that is, the sugar imported from the Philippine Islands is burdened with the duty, the cost of the Hawaiian sugar, which is entirely bought up by sugar refin- ers, and only sold to the consumer in a refined state, will be about the same as the cost of sugar refined from the Manilla raw sugar. Competition from the Eastern States is shut out by contracts made by these same sugar refiners with the railway compan- ies, who, it is stated, receive the value of the freight which they would take for the transportation of sugar from the Eastern States, with a handsome bonus besides, on condition that they shall transport none at all. In speaking of the recent commercial arrangement with Spain, and especially of our trade with the Spanish Antilles, it is necessary to take into account what difificulties had hitherto been placed in the way 44^ AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. of our commerce. The old colonial system — that is, which considered the trade with the colonies to be a simple extension of the coasting trade — had always been kept up by Spain, and a system of discriminat- ing duties had been placed on imports, especially in Cuba and Porto Rico, designed to favor trade with the mother country, as well as to favor Spanish ves- sels trading between the colonies and either home or foreign ports. There were four distinct tariff rates applicable to these islands. What is called the first column applied only to goods brought from Spain under the Spanish flag. The second fixed duties at about double the rate of the first on goods of Spanish origin taken in foreign vessels. The third, about treble the rate of the first, applied to goods brought from any foreign country under the Spanish flag. The fourth column contained duties four or five times greater than the most favored rate of the first column, and were applied to foreign goods brought to Cuba or Porto Rico under any foreign flag. As from two- thirds to three-fourths of the whole export trade of the Spanish Antilles had been with the United States, and as the American sailing vessels, being better fitted for the traffic, had obtained a great share of the carrying trade, notwithstanding discriminating duties, this discrimination of tariffs bore heavily on the trade with the United States. Among other regulations imposed by the rule of COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 447 the particularists and protectionists which obtained such strength during the war of the rebellion, an act of Congress of June 30, 1864, imposed ten per cent., ad valorem, in addition to all other duties, on merchandise imported in any ships or vessels not of the United States. This discriminating duty was of course not applicable to any countries which were en- titled by treaties or by acts of Congress to the same privileges as vessels of the United States. There was no treaty with Spain on this subject, and there- fore the ten per cent, discriminating duty was imposed on all articles brought from Spain or the Spanish colonies to the United States in Spanish ships. Sub- sequently, however, by a series of partial agreements, this discriminating duty was abolished as concerns Spain itself, and all the Spanish possessions, except Cuba and Porto Rico, and this exception was an- nounced by the proclamation of the President of December 19, 187 1. Spain considered this law as an unfriendly act, and retaliated by imposing, even on merchandise carried in vessels bearing the Spanish flag, the same duties as if they had been carried under a foreign flag. This was directed solely against the United States, for merchandise coming from any other country would pay the duties fixed by the third column of the tariff, that is, from thirty to sixty per cent. less. But against the products of the United States the discrimination which had hitherto been 448 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. partial was made total. From that time on there were protracted negotiations to get rid of this dis- criminating duty ; but the Spaniards refused to re- move it until we had removed the discriminating duties imposed by the act of 1864, and the President was only empowered to remove these in cases where other countries had removed their discriminating duties. Besides this, the Spanish government had imposed what was practically an export duty on articles sent from the United States to Cuba and Porto Rico, by refusing to verify ships' manifests until a certain tax was paid, based upon the tonnage of the cargo and not upon the clerical service rendered. This was paid to the Spanish consul before the vessels could clear for Cuba or Porto Rico. We protested against this on the ground that it was not, properly speaking, a consular fee, but that it was a tax on exports from the United States, such as under the Constitution our Government was expressly prohibited from levy- ing. Furthermore, a heavy import duty had been im- posed on Cuba on live fish brought to the island in foreign vessels, which was practically prohibitory, and nearly destroyed a lucrative industry pursued by the fishermen of Florida. Owing to the nearness of Florida to Cuba Spanish vessels would clear from Havana for a coast port, and would then go to the COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 449 coast of Florida or into the Gulf of Mexico and fish, and introduce the product as if caught on the Cuban coast ; while American vessels with the same cargo were subjected to this heavy duty. Owing to the erroneous classification of our diplo- matic posts, which insists on regarding the legation to Madrid as one of the second class, instead of being, what it really is, our second diplomatic pJost, in im- portance inferior only to the legation at London ; and owing also to the system under which diplomatic ap- pointments have been made, so that if by chance a good or experiended man were sent to Madrid he was soon replaced by a hack politician, neither intel- ligent nor experienced, it was impossible to make headway in our negotiations. Fortunately for our interests the Government finally sent to Madrid Mr. John W. Foster, who had already had several years' experience as minister to Mexico, and subsequently to St. Petersburg, who understood the language and the people, and who happened to be well acquainted with the state of our trade with the West Indies. He succeeded, on January 2, 1884, in making an agree- ment, in the nature of a modus vivendi, between the United States and Spain, by which the differential flag duty was abolished, and articles coming from the United States paid the duties imposed by the third instead of the fourth column of the tariff ; by which the duty on live fish was made void for the United 4 so AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. States; and by which the Spanish consular officers ceased to impose or collect tonnage fees on the car- goes of vessels leaving the ports of the United States for Cuba and Porto Rico. The United States at the same time agreed to remove the extra ten per cent, duty under the act of 1864, and perfect equality of treatment between the said Spanish provinces and the United States was established, thus removing all extra duties or discrimination in general as to other countries having the treatment of the favored nation. The two countries at the same time bound themselves to begin negotiations for a complete treaty of com- merce and navigation. For this arrangement an- other one, varying in some slight matters, and leaving out the agreement for treaty negotiations, was sub- stituted on February 13, 1884. Subsequently Mr. Foster was successful in nego- tiating a commercial treaty, which was signed on No- vember 18, 1884, which in general put American ves- sels and American trade on the same footing with Spanish trade, and contained certain stipulations with regard to the commerce of the United States which were not granted to other foreign countries. Apart from reductions of duties the treaty with Spain is remarkable, being the most perfect commer- cial treaty in all its provisions that has ever been signed by the United States, and redounds greatly to the credit of the negotiator. All restrictions and COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 45 1 technical peculiarities to which American exporters and shippers had been subjected for many years were abolished, and it was arranged that foreign products sent from the United States in American vessels should have the same privileges as though shipped in Spanish vessels. Tonnage dues on both sides were completely abolished, as well as consular fees, which, especially on the Spanish side, had been a heavy bur- den. The treaty of 1795 did not contain many of the stipulations of more modern treaties with regard to the rights of persons, property, and commerce to the disadvantage of our interest. These defects were fully supplied, and the result of this treaty would be to prevent most of the complaints of American prop- erty-owners, such as have arisen in the recent insur- rections in Cuba. This treaty differed from former reciprocity treaties, which provided only for the free admission of certain goods, in providing, also, for the favored admission of an additional list of articles at a specified reduction of duties from the existing cus- toms tariffs. It was arranged that these products should be exchanged at the lower rate of duties only when carried in American or Spanish vessels, which is certainly an important provision for the develop- ment of our shipping. It was forbidden to lay ex- port duties in either country on the articles admitted free of duty, and the export duties imposed in Cuba on sugar were reduced to the lowest rate consistent 452 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. with the obligations of the Cuban bond-holders, to whom these revenues had been pledged, that is, one- sixth of a cent per pound. No greater internal taxes were to be levied on American products in the Spanish islands than on native products. This im- portant provision, which is now generally inserted in American commercial treaties, was to prevent the im- position of municipal dues and what are called " taxes on consumption," which amount to the same thing as customs dues. Such a provision was not inserted in the Mexican treaty, although it was admitted that the " taxes on consumption " imposed in the various provinces, and in the city of Mexico itself, frequently doubled or trebled the customs duties. While in the treaty with Mexico it was provided that in case of any important changes in the customs duties of either country there would be a right to de- nounce the treaty, this right was specially given up by Article 24 of the Spanish treaty, and each power was allowed to make such changes in their customs, tariff, and navigation dues as they may see proper, and to extend to other powers freedom of duties, reduc- tions, and favors equal or similar to those stipulated in the treaty under the same or similar conditions, the principle being maintained, on which we had be- fore insisted, that the most-favored-nation clause of treaties cannot be applied in its unrestricted sense to reciprocity conventions ; but that, when two nations COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 453 Stipulate for special favors or reciprocal reduction of duties upon specified conditions, third powers cannot claim or enjoy like favors except upon the same or equivalent conditions. It was agreed, however, by- Article 23, that any favors or concessions granted to a third power could be enjoyed by the other party to this treaty gratuitously, if the concession shall have been gratuitous, or upon giving the same or other equivalent compensation, if the concession should be conditional. By a protocol annexed to the treaty it was agreed that the modus vivendi of January 2 and February 15, 1884, should terminate, the result of which was that while we gained by the treaty all of the advan- tages which we had received by the modus vivendi^ they terminated as far as other countries were con- cerned. The important items on the list of articles to be admitted either free or at a reduction of duty were of Cuban produce — sugar and tobacco. As to sugar, all grades not above No. 16 of the Dutch standard were to be admitted into the United States free of duty, and on tobacco in general the duty was reduced by fifty per cent. The list of American goods ad- mitted into the Spanish colonies at either free or reduced rates was very much greater ; and the con- cessions made were such as to be very beneficial to our export trade. The duty on petroleum, for ex- 454 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. ample, was reduced from $6.40 to $1 per hundred kilogr. ; on wheat, from $3.15 to 50 cents per. hun- dred kilogr. ; on flour, from $4.70 to $2.50, and $1.65 a barrel, not to mention the very great reduc- tion on manufactured goods of all kinds. This treaty was submitted to the Senate on Decem- ber 10, 1884, and was made public about the same time. Some of its provisions excited considerable opposition, especially on the part of the particularists and protectionists, who feared lest the sugar and to- bacco interests might be affected. As far as the sugar refiners were concerned there could be little question. Sugar duties are now arranged so as to prevent the consumption of any but refined sugar. So heavy a duty is placed on the higher grades of unrefined sugar that we no longer find in use here those brown and half-brown sugars which were formerly so common, and which are so much liked and so much consumed in England. The only way in which the treaty was not wholly in the interest of the sugar refiners was in admitting the grades of sugar between No. 13 and No. 16, and it was thought that if the treaty could be amended by substituting No. 13 for No. 16 there would be no interference whatever with the business of the sugar refiners. What the sugar-refining interests amounts to we may see from a letter from various leading merchants in New York to Senator Miller, the Chairman of the COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 455 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, dated New York, December 28, 1884. In the year 1880, as ap- pears from the census returns, there were employed in all the sugar and molasses refining establishments of the United States five thousand eight hundred and thirty-two men and twenty-five children. The wages paid were $2,875,032. The refined product for the year was worth the enormous sum of $155,484,915. The total cost for materials was $144,698,499, and, adding the cost of wages, the total cost of the manu- factured product was $147,573,531, leaving the sum of $8,000,000 for the interest on capital invested and for profit. But objections also were made to the treaty on the ground that as Cuba and Porto Rico supplied us with only about two-thirds of the amount of sugar used, the price of sugar in the market, to the con- sumer, would remain about the same so long as any amount whatever paid duty, and the result would be that the revenue which the United States gave up by taking off the duties on Cuban and Porto Rico sugar would simply go into the hands of the Spanish plant- ers in the shape of increased profits. In one sense this is true, but it could only remain true until Cuba and Porto Rico were enabled to supply us with the whole amount of sugar that we need, or until other similar commercial treaties were made with other sugar-producing countries. These last are chiefly 45^ AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, three : other Spanish possessions, especially the Phil- ippine Islands, the British West Indies and Guiana, and Brazil. It was claimed by many who were con- versant with the subject that the impulse given to the sugar industry in Cuba and Porto Rico would be suf- ficient within one, or at most two years, to supply us with the whole amount that would be consumed, although with cheaper sugar its use would be greatly extended. It would be wrong to consider the commercial treaty with Spain as standing alone, but it should be considered as forming part of a system. A similar treaty was concluded at about the same time with St. Domingo, and another one was in process of negotia- tion with the British West India Islands. Unfortu- nately these negotiations all took place toward the close of an administration, and another party coming into power was unwilling to be hampered by the acts of its predecessor. The result was that the Spanish treaty was withdrawn from the Senate before being acted upon, for further consideration and possibly amendment ; and when this occurred the British gov- ernment broke off negotiations for a similar treaty with their West India Islands. The question as to whether it is desirable entirely to take off the duties on sugar, which are a convenient means of raising revenue, is not my province to dis- cuss ; but if those duties are either to be removed or COMMERCIAL TREATIES. 45/ lowered, it would seem better to use them as a means of obtaining concessions from other powers, rather than to throw away all the advantages which we now possess, by lowering or abolishing the sugar duties by a general law. INDEX Adams, John, 187; appointed com- missioner to treat with Barbary powers, 197 ; his account of inter- view with Tripolitan ambassador, ib.; 200, 201, 205, 226, 287 ; his say- ing relative to the fisheries, 405 ; correspondence regarding fish- eries, 408. , John Quincy, 8, 138, 140, 155, 187, 206, 241, 2-17, 283, 296, 297, 298, 300, 374. 377, 378. 381. 432. Aberdeen, Lord, 250, 412, 413. Addington, Mr., 412. yEgidi, Dr., proposition of, 401. Alexander, Emperor, 294. Algiers, slaves in, instances of, 194 ; treaty of France with, ib. ; cost of peace with, to Spain, 195 ; Thomas Barclay and John Lamb appointed to treat with, 197, 203 ; failure of Lamb's negotiations with, 205; Mr. Jefferson, Richard O'Brien, and John Quincy Adams on, z'/^.— Treaty with, proposed by General Washington, 208 ; Ad- miral Paul Jones sent to treat with, ib.; failure of treaty with, 209 ; number of American prisoners in, ib. ; English and Portuguese truce with, 210 ; Mr. Church on, 210 note : petitions of American cap- tives in, to Congress, 211 ; Donald- son's treaty with, 213 ; total cost of treaty with, ib.\ war with, 222; draft for treaty with, ib.; dec- laration made by Decatur and William Shaler to, ib. ; treaties with, by Lord Exmouth, 228 ; bombardment of, by English and Dutch, 229 ; Christian slaves given up by, ib. ; French conquest of, 230 ; arrival of American squad- ron at, under Commodore Chaun- cey, 231 ; treaty with, ratified, ib.\ treaty of France with, report of Mr. Jefferson on, 194. Algiers, Dey of, armed vessels sent to, as arrearages by United States, 214 ; account of presentation to, by William Eaton, ib. ; action of the, with regard to frigate George Washington, 221 ; cost to United States and satisfaction, ib. ; grievances of the, ib. ; no- table reply of Decatur and Will- iam Shafer to, 222 ; terms of treaty signed by, 223 ; Lord Exmouth and the, 228, 229 ; action taken by the Congress of Aix-la-Cha- pelle against, 230 ; declares treaty with us no longer binding, 231; message to James Madison, ib. ; President Madison's reply to, ib. Ambassador, Tripolitan, meeting between, and Jefferson, 197; Mr. Adams' account, 198 ; price de- manded by, for perpetual peace, 199. Ambassadors, their rights, their rank, 108 ; Calvo on, no ; Pro- fessor Martens on, in; Baron de Neumann on, 112; difference between, and Ministers Plenipo- tentiary, 116. Amazon, river, and tributaries opened to commerce of the world, 343 ; pamphlet of Lieuten- ant Maury on, translated and circulated in Peru, ib. Anthony, Senator, 439. Appropriations, Chairman of Stand- ing Committee on, his position, 4- Archives, 36 ; rules regarding ac- 46o INDEX. cess to them, 39 ; American doc- uments in foreign, 38. Argentine Confederation, treaty of Great Britain, France, and United States with, for free navigation of rivers, 322 ; constitution of, modelled after that of United States, 323. Armed neutrality, commercial treaty of United States with France precedes declaration of, 369 ; first idea of, belongs to Russia, ib. ; ascribed to Freder- ick the Great, ib. ; Catharine II. relative to, ib. ; Wheaton, and Baron von Goertz on, ib. ; his- tory of, given to light, 370;/^/'/Ir. McLane sent to Mexico to conclude, in 1859, 436 ; de- mands of United States, impor- tant articles and stipulations, ib. ; opposition to Mexican, by Mr, Wigfall and Mr. Simmons, never ratified, 439 ; General Grant and Mr. William H. Trescot commis- sioned to negotiate a, with Mexi- co, 1882, 440 ; diplomatic view of Mexican, 441 ; Hawaiian, 1875, contains one stipulation of politi- cal nature, 443 ; United States, 'with Spain, arranged by Mr, Foster, 1884; this, mostperfectone ever signed by United States, 450. Commissioners, or commissaries, 119 ; diplomatic representatives, sent to settle special questions, ib. ; their rank, ib. ; as political agents, ib.; their rank as such, ib. Committee, on Appropriations, re- cent change in rules of House regarding, 30 ; on Expenditure, how elected, 23 ; duties, powers, 27 ; on Foreign Affairs, House and Senate, 24 ; reports of, speci- men, 28 7tote ; Standing commit- tees, their power, 23, Congo, Free State of the, estab- lished by act at Conference of Berlin, 1884, 365 ; African Inter- national Association merged in, ib. ; extract from President Cleve- land's message relative to, 366 ; J. A. Kasson on, ib.\ North Amer- ican Review on, ib. River, different claims to, 364- , Valley of, explored by Henry M. Stanley, 364. Consul, his exequatur, 96 ; its ob- ject, ib. ; at Palermo, his impor- tance, 68. Consul-General, reports, 58 ; at Shanghai, 66; at Matamoras, 67, Consular appointments, objections to long tenure of, 161. clerks, 46, 84. courts, need of reform in sys- tem of, 55. hierarchy, abroad and at home, 81. Invoice Book, 50. officer, his qualifications, 71 ; additional qualifications, 75; qual- ifications in France, 73, officers, privileges of, 69. privileges, or capitulations, Regulations, 58. Reports, printing of annual, 60. 32. salaries, 46. service, expense of, 17 ; its growth, 84 ; in Belgium, 103 ; British, its efficiency, 93 ; in France, its excellency and its sal- aries, 94. System, self-supporting, 92 ; need of reform in, ib. Treaty with France, 45. Consuls, 41 ; duties, 44 ; their rights 462 INDEX. and powers, ih. ,62; as defined in Wheaton's International Law, 44 ; in William Beach I^awrence's Commentary on Wheaton, ib. ; in shipping ports, 53 ; duties in non- Christian countries, 59 ; their number, 85 ; salaries, ib. ; fees, 87 ; authorized to employ experts at Lyons, Zurich, Horgen, 91. Corea, treaty with, 118; diplomatic relations with, ib. Correspondence, diplomatic, 34, Cushing, Caleb, 45. Daggett, Mr., 444> Dallas, Mr., 262, 263, 303. Dana, Richard H. , Jr., 416. Danube, freedom of navigation on, recognized by Austria and Tur- key, 352 ; Articles 15 to 19 of Treaty of Pans regarding, 353 ; three different regulations applied to, up to 1871, 356 ; change made by Treaty of Berlin, ib., 358 ; de- cision of European Commission on navigation of, 358 ; Mr. Bar- rere's proposal, ib., 359; eight different systems for regulation of, 361. -, mouths of, allowed to fill up. 353 ; possessed by Russia, 352 ; European commission for clearing, 353 ; number of ship- wrecks in, m five years, 356 ; ac- tion of Russia relative to, 360, 361 ; Russian, exempted from operation of European commis- sion, 362. Dardanelles, straits of, first treaty for free navigation of, made with Russia, 317 ; treaties with Austria, Great Britain, and France, con- cerning, 318 ; United States no treaty rights for navigation of, until 1830, ib. ; treaty of 1862 with United States concerning, ib. ; American ships of war and, ib. Dayton, Mr., 400. Decatur, Commodore, as lieutenant, destroys frigate Philadelphia, 219; negotiator to Algiers, answer to the Dey, 222 ; proceeds to Tunis, report to Secretary of Navy, 224. Delfosse, Mr. Maurice, Belgian minister, commissioner Halifax award, 416. Denina, Abbe, 269! Department of State, when created, 7 ; its management, 15 ; chief clerk, 16 ; its efficiency, 17 ; sal- aries, 18 ; Secretary of; 4, 7, 18 ; his duties, 19. Diplomacy, the first use of the word, 106 ; Calvo's definition of, ib. \ Professor Marten on the word, 131 ; purposes of, ib. Diplomate, 106, note. Diplomatic agent, an American, at Bucarest, 121. agents, strictly so called, 119, 120 ; rules for, as arranged by Congress of Vienna, 108 ; ac- cepted by United States, 107, 108 7iote ; as classified by Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, 108 ; system of, 164; opinions concerning their use, Wheaton on, ib. ; Lord Palm- erston on, 165-167 ; Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden on, 166. service, expenditure of our foreign, 168, efforts to reduce it, ib. ; salaries in, inadequacy of, 184 ; salaries in, Edward Living- ston's report, ib. ; Thomas Jeffer- son's letter, 186 ; John Adams' and John Quincy Adams' let- ters, 187 ; Mr. Monroe's letter, 188 ; Mr. McLane's and Mr. Webster's reports, 188 note ; Mr. Wheaton's letter, 189 ; number of persons in, 177 ; total cost of, during fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, 178 ; comparative table showing rank and salaries in, of United States, Great Britain, and France, 179 ; examples of, com- bined, 170 ; suggestion that we entirely dispense with, '171 ; du- ties, ib. ; pensions abroad, 184. Diplomatists, questions of rank of, 118 note ; good and bad, exam- ples of, 146, 147, 148, 148 note ; greatest annoyances to, 162. Documents, Executive, 34. Dominion act, its amendment re- stricting American fishermen, Mr. Fish's action on, 415. Donaldson, Joseph, consul at Tu- nis and Tripoli, authc»rized to em- ploy Skjoldebrand, 213 ; concludes treaty with Algiers, ib. Duties, consular and diplomatic, 171 ; consular, have not hindered INDEX. 463 diplomatic work, 172 ; such uni- ons no novelty, 174 ; examples in foreign diplomacy, ib., 175. Eaton, William, consul at Tunis, description of his presentation to Dey of Algiers, 214 ; authorized to treat with Bey of Tunis, 217 ; letter of, 219 ; march overland from Alexandria to Derna with ex-Bashaw Hamet, ib. Eden, Mr. (Lord Auckland), 425. Elgin, Lord, treaty of commerce, 430; Reciprocity Treaty, 414, Embassy, an, 121. Envoys, when instituted, their dip- lomatic rank, 108 ; Calvo on, no. Extraordinary, few in num- ber in United States, 112. Erie, slave-ship, commander of, ex- ecuted, 264 ; only case of punish- ment by death, ib. Etiquette, questions of, 13; ques- tions of, in diplomatic service, 138, 139- Everett, Edward, 8, 250, 256, 412, 413- Exequatur, a consul's, 96 ; of Mr. Hopkins, consul to Paraguay, withdrawn, 236, Fillmore, President, 429. Fish, Mr., 34, 135, 415. Commission, 413, 416, 418. Fisheries, the. Article 3 in, treaty of September 3, 1873, 404 ; re- mark of John Adams concern- ing, 405 ; English on the, treaty, 406 ; effect of War of 1812 on, ib. ; reason of silence regarding the, in treaty of Ghent, 407 ; Mr. Pom- eroy on commissioners of, 408 ; conflicts concerning, ib.\ treaty under Mr. Adams, 1818, ib., rights and privileges of, in first article, ib. ; omission of word bait afterward an obstacle in, 410; statute of Parliament, 1819, for, ib.; commission of arbitration, 1853, 413 ; permanent legislation regarding, 414 ; change in char- acter of, ib.'. Article 1 on, in Reciprocity Treaty, ib.\ disputes on, renewed at abrogation of treaty, in 1866, 415 ; Dominion act restricts American, ib. ; order of Governor-General of Canada, Mr. Fish on, ib.\ treaty of 1871 reopens the, ib.; commission at Halifax, 1877, award paid for right of, 417 ; decline in value of, ib. ; treaty of 1871 terminates in 1885 by act of Congress, ib.; further extension of, treaty by Mr. Bay- ard, 418 ; present state of, in arti- cle from Science, ib. Fiume, Hungarian port of, cause of the great prosperity of, 423. Ford, Thomas Clare, 416. Forsyth, Mr., 432. Foster, Mr. Dwight, . American agent, Halifax award, 416. , John W., sent to Madrid, 449 ; his treaty with Spain, 1884, 450. Fox, Mr., 256. Franklin, Dr., 141, 197 ; rumor of his capture in Algiers, 200 ; treaty negotiated with Prussia, 375, 376. Frederick the Great, 375. Frelinghuysen, Mr. , 47, 100. Free ships make free goods, max- im proclaimed by France, 368 ; adopted by United States, ib. ; quoted by Mr. Crampton, 387 ; by Mr. Marcy, 388 ; Lord Claren- don attacked for having subscrib- ed to principle, 397. Fundy, Bay of, American vessels seized for fishing in, 412 ; com- plaints regarding fishing in, to British government, ib. ; Mr. Ad- dington and the President on, ib. ; controversy on rights in, be- tween Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Everett, ib. ; Lord Malmesbury on, 413 ; article in treaty of Great Britain with France regarding, ib. ; ship Washington seized in, ib. ; dimensions of, discussed by commission for arbitration, ib. Gall, A. T., commissioner, Halifax award, 416. Gallatin, Mr,, 286, 287, 288, 381, Gardogui, Don Diego, Spanish charge d'affaires, 269 ; Spanish commissioner, 273. Gamier- Pages, 401. Gibbon, Lieutenant, 350. Godoy, power of Spain in hands of. 464 INDEX. 273 ; styled Prince of Peace, 274 ; his relations with Mr. Monroe, ib. ; remarks in memoirs of, on navigation of Mississippi, 277. Goertz, Baron von, 369. Gortchakof, Prince, 125, 395 ; an- swer to Mr.Marcy's amendment, 397- Government, Congressional, Wood- row Wilson's book on, 5 note. , of United States, of what composed, 4 ; addition to, in time of war, ib. ; diplomatic publica- tions of the, 36. Grant, General, 45 ; commissioner for commercial treaty with Mex- ico, 1882, 1883, 439. Guizot, M., 253. Halifax Award, the, decided by commission, November 23, 1877, 417 ; list of commissioners, 416. Hale, Mr., 261. Harrowby, Lord, 397. Haswell, John H., 40. Herndon, Lieutenant, 331, 335, 350. Hopkins, General Edward, 325. Humboldt, Baron William, 348. Humphreys, Colonel David, Amer- ican minister at Lisbon, appointed plenipotentiary, 209 ; letter of, 211. Jackson, General, 140. Jay, Mr. John, 266, 267, 268, 269, 271. Jefferson, Thomas, 8, 186, 196, 197, 199, 201. 202, 205, 207, 208. Jones, Admiral Paul, negotiations for treaty with Algiers entrusted to, 208 ; death of, 209. Joseph II., Emperor, 345, 346. Juarez, President, 435. Juges-Consuls and their tribunals, 43 ; origin of commercial or con- sular courts in France, ib. Juno, American ship, opportune arrival of, at Sitka, 293. Kasson, J. A., 366. Keim, Mr., treasury agent, sent to examine consular affairs, 59 ; bill of, 59 note. Kellogg, E. H., 416. Lamb, John, his negotiations with Algiers, 197 ; Jefferson and O'Brien on, 205 ; reception by Dey of Algiers, 206. Languages, most in use in diplo- matic circles, 125. Lear, Tobias, 220, Legation, a, 121 ; attache's and sec- retaries of, duties and salaries, 122, 123, 182 ; first appropriations made for secretaries of, 182 ; qualifications of secretaries of, 123, 126 ; the, at Madrid, impor- tance of, 449. Legations, complaints made to our, 160 ; commercial difficulties give most work to our, 161. Leisler, Jacob, who played impor- tant part in early colonial history, captive in Algiers, 194. Letters of marque ; stipulations re- garding, in our treaties, 383, 386 ; Austria and Spain's declarations at Crimean war, 385. Livingston, Edward, 184. Lopez, President, 326, 327, 328. Lyndhurst, Lord, speech on right of search, 263. Lyons, Lord, 400. Madison, President, 231, 301. Malmesbury, Earl of (James Har- ris), 370, 413. Marcy, Mr., 141, 143, 313, 325, 335, 336 ; instructions to Mr. Trous- dale concerning navigation of Amazon, 2,yJ^ 2,Z^^ 343 \ on letters of marque, 386-388, 392 ; amend- ment to Declaration of Paris, ^F^^* 395 ; Reciprocity treaty, 414, 430. Marshall, John, 8. Mason, Mr., 142, 143. Mathurins, order of, when institftted, 207 ; for what, ib. ; how employed by Mr. Jefferson, ib, McLane, Mr., 188, 435, 436. Melbourne, Lord, 249. Metternich, Prince, 349. Middleton, Mr., 296, 299. Miller, Senator, 454. Ministers, their acceptance abroad, rules regulating it, 133 ; Ameri- can, refused according to these rules, 134 ; special, why maintain- ed at each foreign capital, 169. , how sometimes rejected by ^?J^ ' \ INDEX, 465 countries they are accredited to, 134. 154; examples, 135, 136, 154; 136 note. Ministers, plenipotentiary, when in- ^ stituted, 108 ; their diplomatic Ay rank, ib.\ how differing from am- ^ /'bassadors and envoys extraordi- \^ nary, 116. , resident, when instituted, 108 ; their diplomatic rank, ib. \ American, when introduced, 112; rank and precedence, ib.\ ques- tions of, 114 ; how appointed, 132 ; salaries of, 115, 133 ; diplo- matic duties of, 136, 138, 139, 145, 146, 157, 162 ; social duties, 149, 155 ; questions of etiquette for, 138. 139 ; John Quincy Adams on ceremonies, 138 ; rank and prece- dence of, questions of, 112 ; uni- forms of foreign, of United States, 139 ; resolution of Congress relat- ing to uniform of, ib. ; uniform of, under John Quincy Adams and General Jackson, 140 ; other ex- amples, 141, 142, 143, 145. Missions abroad, rearranged ac- cording to relative importance, 176. Mississippi, the. our western boun- dary in treaty of 1783, 269; nego- tiation for the freedom of the, how carried on, 270 ; proposition to Spain through Mr. Jay relating to, 271 ; Thomas Pinckney ap- pointed to treat with Spain on navigation of, 275 ; treaty relat- ing to navigation of, signed, 276 ; fourth article of treaty, ib.\ pro- test of Spanish government to minister at Washington relating to navigation of, in 1797, 277 ; an- swer of Mr. Pinckney, ib. , 279 ; •whole banks of the, from source to mouth, become American, 281. Modus Vivendi, effected by John W. Foster with Spain, 449 ; results of its termination, ib., 453. Monroe doctrine, first hint of the policy known as, 298. • , James, 8, 150, 188, 274, 301, 381 ; commissioned to negotiate commercial treaty with Great Brit- ain, 429. Morocco, treaty with Emperor of, 203 ; renewal of, 204 ; convention with, its object, ib. Napier, Lord, 260, 262. i Navigation, free, of rivers and seas, rights claimed by United States, 266; of the Mississippi, condition on which obtained, 266 note ; of the St. Lawrence, American claim to, 282 ; of rivers Yukon, Porcu- pine, Stikine, and of Lake Michi- gan granted to Britain, 291 ; of Dardanelles, 317 ; Guizot on free navigation of La Plata, 320 ; treaty of England with Rosas con- cerning Parana, 321 ; of Uruguay declared common to contracting parties, ib.\ of rivers of Confede- ration free to all flags, ib.\ of Par- aguay and right side of Parana, ib.\ of rivers Parana and Uru- guay, 322 ; of rivers and naviga- ble waters flowing through Bolivia opened to the world, 331 ; exclu- sive right of steamers on Amazon given to Brazilian Company, ib.\ of Amazon, why not claimed by England and France, 334, 335 ; of Amazon declared free by Ecua- dor, 335 ; Mr. Marcy to Brazilian minister on free navigation of Amazon, 336 ; Mr. Marcy's in- structions to Mr. Trousdale rela- tive to, of Amazon, -^jj ; Presi- dent Pierce's message relative on, ib. ; of riversof Peruvian Republic, 344; of the Sheldt, 345, 346; French of Sheldt and Meuse, ib.\ demands of France at Rastadt concerning Rhine and other rivers, 347 ; Congress of Vienna and of Verona on navigation of Rhine, 348, 349; question of Sheldt arranged at treaty of 1839, ib. ; navigation of Elbe, rights of, 350 ; settled by treaty, 351 ; of river Po settled by treaty, ib.; navigation on the Danube, when recognized by Austria and Tur- key, 352 ; of Danube at outbreak of Crimean War, 350; attempts to restrict it, 354; action of European powers, 354, 355 ; free navigation of rivers, singular questions in, 362; free navigation of Congo and of Niger decided at Conference of Berlin, 1884, 365. — Act, 1790, 426. Nesselrode, Count, 303, 382. Neutral rights, declaration of, by 466 INDEX. Russia to courts of London, Ver- sailles, Madrid, 1780 ; points of declaration, 3, 373 ; nations who join convention of, 374 ; United States offers to join league, ib.\ provisions for, in United States treaty with Netherlands, ib. \ and in treaties with Sweden and Prus- sia, 375 ; Jay's treaty, 376 ; treaty of 1785 with Prussia expires, 379 ; renewed ib. : position of, at out- break of Crimean War, 387; treaty of 1854 between United States and Russia on, 389; de- claration of principles of, at Con- gress of Paris, 391 ; adherence to these principles, 392 ; refusal of United States, ib.\ Mr. Marcy's amendment to the declaration of Paris, 393, 398 ; opinions of sev- eral statesmen on amendment, 395-397 ; General Cass on, at time of Italian war, 398 ; Mr. Seward's circular, 399 ; answer of England and France, ib.\ rules of treaty of Paris during Italian war, 400 ; after Mexican War by Napoleon's decree, ib. \ at outbreak of Span- ish war of 1866, ib.\ actions of va- rious chambers of commerce on, 401 ; resolution of Federal Diet of North Germany, ib. ; M . Gamier- Pages' proposal at beginning of Franco-German War, ib.\ treaty of commerce with Italy, 403. O'Brien, Captain Richard, 205 ; John Quincy Adams on, 206 ; his letter to the President. 211. Officers, diplomatic, 151 ; salaries of, ib.\ Mr. Schroeder on, ib.\ comparative table showing sala- ries of, of United States, Great Britain, and France, 179. Official, a diplomatic, in no way a political one, 129 ; how appointed, 132 ; credentials, 133. Packenham, Mr. (Lord Palmer- ston), 397, 429. Pacto del Assiento de Negros.^ the article known as, 234. Page, Lieutenant Jefferson, 321, 326, 327, 328. Palmerston, Lord, 150, 165, 166, 167, 249. Panin, Count, 369, 371, 373. Paraguay, treaty of 1853 with, provides for free navigation of river, 322 ; ratification of treaty with, prevented, 326 ; hostile rela- tions of, with United States, how caused, ib., 328 ; decree issued by, prohibiting foreign vessels from navigating rivers of, 327 ; United States sends commissioner and naval force to, 328 ; two treaties effected with, in 1859, 328 note. Passarowitz, treaty of, recognizes freedom of navigation on Danube, 352. Peel, Sir Robert, 256. Pensacola, harbor of, held by Eng- land, 206. Peru, terms of American treaty with, in 1851, 329; Lieutenants Herndon and Gibbon sent to, 330 ; treaty between Brazil and, article in it for navigation of Am- azon, 331 ; Mr. Randolph Clay takes action to preserve American rights in, ib., 'i2>2>'f Loreto and Nauta made ports of entry in, 332 ; intrigue in, against United States on opening of Amazon, 333 ; Brazilian minister to, stirs up controversy on Amazon ques- tion, 338 ; Mr. Clay urges his gov- ernment to maintain iheir rights in, 344 ; treaty with, terminates in 1863, ib. ; no treaty with, until 1870, ib. ; decree of, opening all rivers to merchant vessels, ib. Pickering, Mr., 279. Pierce, President, on treaty with Russia, '^2)7. Pinckney, Thomas, 211, 275, 276, 279. Pinkney, William, 427. Piracy, slave trade declared to be, by Lord Castlereagh, 242; by Congress, 244 ; the word defined, ib. ; municipal, international, as- similated, ib. Pirates, can be attacked anywhere and everywhere, 244 ; examples of capture by Barbary, 194; Pres- ident Polk on privateers as, dur- ing Mexican War, 384. Pitt, William, bill of, 425. Polk. President, on privateering, 384. Pomeroy, Professor John Norton, 406. INDEX. 467 Powers, diplomatic and consular, united in same person, examples, 172, 173, 174. 175- Privateering, Dr. Franklin on, 376 ; action of United States and Eng- land regarding, in 1823, 381, 383 ; France and Russia on, 382 ; ac- tion during war with Mexico, mes- sage of President Polk, 384 ; Aus- tria and Spain concerning, at outbreak of Crimean war, 385 ; declaration of England and France in 1854, ib.\ injury to Eng- land by, statement of Lord Har- rowby, 397 ; Congress of Paris, declaration on, 391 ; Mr. Marcy on, ib. ; theoretical writers on in- ternational, 394 ; Mr. Seward on, during our civil war, 400. Privateers, injury to trade by Amer- ican, in Northern Ocean, 371 ; action of Empress Catherine, ib. ; proclamation by French king re- garding, in 1823, 380 ; neutrals' ownership of, 383 ; Norway, Swe- den, and Denmark prohibit, from anchoring in their ports, 385 ; President Pierce on, 389 ; action of Chamber of Commerce, 1854, 390. Pruyn, Mr., 144. Randolph, Mr., 275, 282. Red Book, the, 34. Register, Historical, of Department of State, 40. Right of Search, treaties of England regarding, 238 ; obtained by Eng- land by treaty with Spain, 240 ; message of John Quincy Adams to Lord Castlereagh relative to, 241 ; Prince Regent on, 242 ; de- cision of Lord Stowell on, 243 ; Lord Castlereagh's proposal at Aix-la-Chapelle, ib. ; treaty with England stipulates for reciprocal right of, 246 ; Mr. Adams on, 248 ; Great Britain obtains from France concession of, ib. ; Duke of Wel- lington on, ib. ; Lord Palmerston on, 249 ; Lord Aberdeen, Mr. Wheaton, and Mr. Lawrence on, 250 ; President Tyler's messages relating to, ib..^ 255 ; treaty be- tween England, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and France relative to. qualified, 252 ; action of Mr. Cass relative to, 253, 255 ; Mr. Web- ster on, 256 ; De Cussy on, 257 ; action of Parliament in 1845 on, ib. ; Lord Napier and Mr, Casson on, 260, 261 ; action taken by Executive to protect all vessels of United States from, 261 ; Mr. Dallas on, 262 ; Lord Lyndhurst on, 263 ; Mr. Seward's acceptance of mutual, ib. Romero, Mr., 439. Rush, Mr., 241, 245, 283, 284, 286, 381 ; negotiates treaty with Great Britain, 408. Russia, convention with, setting boundary of Russian posses- sions in America, 299 ; Mr. Mon- roe on convention with, 301 ; the English papers on convention with, ib., 302 ; 4th article of treaty made at convention with, expires in 1834, 302. Russian America, treaty of 1867 ne- gotiated by Mr. Seward — Russia cedes possessions in, 304 ; ques- tion arising out of treaty regard- ing, ib. Russian-American Company reor- ganizes fur trade, 1798, 292 ; in- fluence of, at Russian court, 296 ; charter of, renewed in 1839 for twenty years, 304. Russian, subjects, right of, to be- come Americans, 304. synod appoints archbishop at San Francisco, 304. bishop an official of Russian government, 305. Ukase, introduced by Rus- sian minister, 296 ; reply of Mr. Adams to, tb. ; Professor Mar- tens and Mr. Middleton on, ib.\ Mr. Adams on, 298, 299 ; Baron de Tuyl on, 298 ; treaty fixing boundaries of possessions in America, 299. Sanford, H S., 142, 143. Schenck, General, 144, 321, 322, 323. 325. 341- Secretary of State, by whom named, 4 ; of the Treasury, by whom named, ib.\ his duties, 5 ; his pre- rogative, ib. Secretaries of State, assistant, their 468 INDEX. positions and duties, lo, 20 ; as diplomatists, Adams, Clay, Jeffer- son,' Marshall, Monroe, 8 ; full list of, ib. Seward, Mr., 46, 83, 261, 263, 304, 399 ; Mexican treaty, 438. Shaler, William, consul-general to Algiers, negotiator with Decatur, 222, 223. Simmons, Senator, 438, 439. Skjoldebrand, Pierre Eric, 212. Slavers, fitted out in English ports, 264 ; in New York, ib. Slavery, extract from Quarterly Re- view on abolishment of, 237. Slaves, negro, first imported into New Amsterdam, 233 ; exclusive right to introduce, into Spanish American provinces given to Great Britain, 234 ; introduction of, into colonies a means of preventing emigration from England, ib.\ importation of, punishable by death, 244 ; law passed by Con- gress, ib. Slave trade, when first prohibited in this country, 235 ; when first by English Parliament,?^.; by Den- mark, ib.\ United States first to prohibit, ib. ; motion of Brough- am on suppression of, 236 ; Mr. Marryatt, extract from speech on, ib. ; action of Congress of Vi- enna relative to, 238; right of search demanded by England in order to abolish, ib. ; real reason for England's action against, 239 ; article introduced in Treaty of Ghent relative to, ib.; treaty of England with Spain obtained abo- lition of, south of equator, 240 ; action of Congress relative to, communicated by John Quincy Adams to Lord Castlereagh, 241 ; two American vessels condemned by English Admiralty court for carrying on, 242 ; condemned as piracy by Lord Castlereagh, ib.\ declared piracy by Congress, 244 ; resolutions on subject of, passed by House of Representatives, 245 ; denounced as piracy under law of nations, ib.\ England succeeded in making twenty -four treaties for suppression of, in 1849, 258 ; greatly revived during Crimean war, 258 ; Act of Parliament gives jurisdiction to British Ad- miralty Court over vessels en- faged in, with Brazil, ib.\ Mr. eward accepts Enghsh proposi- tion for more stringent treaty re- lating to, 263 ; temporary out- break of, just before the war, 264. Sound dues, first mention of, 306 ; income derived from, 307 ; Mr. Clay on, 308 ; despatches to Mr. Webster by Mr. Wheaton on, ib.\ arrangement concerning, 309 ; an obstacle to Prussian com- merce, t<5.; Mr. Upshur on, 310, 311 ; Mr. Buchanan empowers charg^ d'affaires to offer Danish government indemnity for, 312 ; Mr. Marcy's action concerning, 313 ; President Pierce on state- ment of Danish legation concern- ing, 314; Denmark suggests capitalizing, ib.\ extract from message of President Pierce on, 315 ; forever abolished by Euro- pean congress, ib.; treaty of United States concerning, 316 note. Stanley, Henry M., 364. Statutes at Large, 36. Steam vessel, $10,000, offered for first, to arrive from sea at any Bolivian river port, 331. St. Lawrence, free navigation of river, 282 ; Mr. Rush on, 284 note ; Mr. Clay on, 285, 286 ; report on, Mr. Gallatin on, 287, 288 ; Presi- dent Adams on, 287 ; free naviga- tion of, gained as concession, not as a right, ib. ; end of treaty granting the free navigation of, 290 ; navigation of, still claimed as a right in 1871, discussed, treated in 26th article of treaty, ib.\ Gulf of, fishing in, 411. Stowell, Lord, 243. Strozzi, Leonardo, 41. Sumner, Senator, 143, 263. Talleyrand, Prince, on consular offi- cers, 71. Taylor, President, 429. Thiers, Mr., 253. Thornton, Sir Edward, 430. Trade, colonial, of United States when first independent, 424 ; con- INDEX. 469 ditions of, with East Indies, 427, I 428 : condition of, with Canada and British colonies before 1845, 429 ; increase of, from 1844 to 1851, ib.\ proposal for reciprocal free, between Canada and United States, ib. ; Presidents Taylor and Fillmore submit bills for recipro- cal free, to Congress, ib.\ the Re- ciprocity treaty of 1854 ends 1866, 430 ; new negotiations by Sir Ed- ward Thornton, 1869, their fail- ure, ib.\ of Hawaiian Islands of United States, with Antilles, 445 ; old colonial system of, ib. ; act of Congress of 1864 hampers, with Spain and her possessions, 447 ; Spanish retaliation, ib. ; com- mercial treaty, 1884, puts our, on same footing as Spanish, 450 ; statistics of United States sugar refining business, 455 ; objections by sugar refiners to treaty as in- fluencing sugar, ib. Treaties, with Borneo, China, Ja- pan, Madagascar, Muscat, Persia, Samoa, Siam, 62 ; with Tripoli, Algeria, Tunis, 63 ; most-favored- nation clause of, 421 ; example, 422 ; England makes twenty-four in 1849, for suppression of slave- trade, 258. Treaty power, in the House and Senate, 22 Trescot, William H. , Halifax award, 416. Trescott, Henry, 429. Tripoli, treaty with, by whom made, terms and curious article in, 215 ; war declared with, 218 ; blockade of, 219 ; capture of frigate Phila- delphia in harbor of, ib. ; roman- tic incident of the war with, ib. ; peace with, and results of, 220. , Bashaw of, pays indemnity, and releases Christian captives, 224. Trousdale, Mr., 325, 337, 341, 342. Tunis, negotiations with, 216; Christian slaves given up by, 230 ; treaty with Bey of, by whom made, 217 ; objections by our Government to articles in, ib.\ objections of Bey of, ib. ; final settlement of treaty with, by whom effected, 218 ; cost to United States, 218 note ; remark of Bey of, on Decatur, 224. Tuyl, Baron de, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300. Tyler, President, 251, 255. Upshur, Mr., 311. Urquiza, General, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324. Uruguay, navigation of, declared common to contracting states, 321 ; treaty providing for free navigation of, 322. Vroom, Mr., 142. Walewski, Count, 396, Washburne, Mr., 135. Washington, General, proposition of, concerning treaty with Al- giers, 208. , ship, in Nootka Sound, 1788, 292. Waterwitch, steamer, sent by United States to explore rivers emptying into La Plata, 321 ; gets aground in river Parana, and fired into by Paraguayan fort, 327- Webster, Mr., 188, 255, 256, 308, 309, 310, 311 ; report on~CDTnmerce with Zollverein, 433. Wellington, Duke of, 248, 249. Wheaton, Henry, 44, 190, 250, 308 ; negotiates for commercial privi- leges with Germany, 431 ; his in- structions, 432 ; treaty with Zoll- verein, 433, 434. Wigfall, Senator, 438. RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT TO— #^ 202 Main Library LOAN PERIOD 1 - HOME USE 2 : 3 4 5 ( 5 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW liC^ClW&IU' AUG 7 1996 CIRCULATION DE k FORM NO. DD6 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY, CA 94720 Y CDS71Elfc33S