Uncle Sam Abroad
Date: 2016-12-09T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: United States -- Politics and government; United States -- Colonial question; Diplomatic and consular service; American

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Uncle Sam Abroad

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Uncle Sam Abroad

Author: Jacob Elon Conner

Illustrator: Clyde J. Newman

Release date: December 9, 2016 [eBook #53701]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by David Edwards, ellinora and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UNCLE SAM ABROAD ***

Transcriber Notes

- Obvious typos corrected. Inconsistencies in punctuation kept as in original.

- Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation made consistent, e.g.: handbook, shipboard, to-day, chargé(s) d’affaires.

- Spelling of Quebec and Colombia made consistent, but otherwise spellings of city and country names left as printed in the original.

- Unclear name suffix in the original was confirmed as Jacob Meyer Jr. elsewhere.

- Page number in Table of Contents for Lecture III—Consular Service—Duties changed to 83 to match actual start of chapter.

- The Diplomatic Service and Consular Service tables in the Appendix have footnotes that are referenced in multiple entries across the original pages in the text. Rather than retain multiple footnotes with identical content, multiple anchors in the text may refer to a single note.

- P. 208 in the original indicates a footnote * that has no corresponding anchor on that page, so it does not appear here.

- The column headers with vertical text in the Synopsis of Commercial Treaties table on pp. 212-213 have been moved to a Key.

- The Synopsis of Commercial Treaties table uses Unicode characters dagger (U+2020) and double dagger (U+2021). If the device font does not support these characters, † and ‡, they may not appear correctly.

- Indent of Lethbridge, Alberta in table on p. 226 made to match surrounding entries since it falls in alphabetical order of those.

- If the device allows, some full page images can be clicked on to view a larger version.

UNCLE SAM ABROAD.

Uncle Sam
Abroad
By J. E. Conner

Illustrated by

Clyde J. Newman

Chicago and New York

Rand, McNally & Company

Copyright, 1900, by J. E. Conner.

CONTENTS.

The Professor Has an Idea | Page 7
Lecture I—The State Department | 11
Lecture II—Consular Service—Officers | 43
Lecture III—Consular Service—Duties | 83
Lecture IV—Diplomatic Service | 121
Lecture V—Uncle Sam and Expansion | 159
Appendix | 197

UNCLE SAM ABROAD.

The Professor Has An Idea.

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

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

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

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

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

THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

LECTURE I - THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- the President and two men whom he appoints—
- the Secretary of State, and
- the Secretary of the Treasury;
- the Speaker and two men whom he appoints—

- the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and

- the Chairman of the Committee of Appropriations.

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

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

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

- (1) keeping, promulgating and publishing the laws,

- (2) custody of the Great Seal,

- (3) preservation of the Government Archives, and

- (4) charge of all official relations between the general Government and the several States.

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

- the Bureau of Indexes and Archives;

- the Bureau of Accounts of the State Department;

- the Bureau of Rolls and Library;

- the Bureau of Appointments;

- the Bureau of Statistics, or Foreign Commerce;

- the Consular Bureau;

- the Diplomatic Bureau.

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Accounts of the Department proper.

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

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

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

- The records and papers of the Continental Congress,

- The Washington papers,
- The Madison papers,
- The Jefferson papers,
- The Hamilton papers,
- The Monroe papers,
- The Franklin papers,

- The papers of the Quartermaster General’s Department during the Revolutionary period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Intercontinental Railway Commission, four members.

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

(4) Nicaragua Canal Commission, three members.

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

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

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

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

(9) International Tribunal of Egypt, three members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Just so.”

“Humph!”

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

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

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

“Exactly.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LECTURE II
THE CONSULAR SERVICE—OFFICERS.

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

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

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

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

- (1) Consul General.

- (2) Consul.

- (3) Commercial Agent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Showing
Off

See page 50

RANK.

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

- Consuls General

- rank with
- Commodores in the Navy or
- Brigadier Generals in the Army.

- Consuls and

- Commercial Agents

- rank with
- Captains in the Navy or
- Colonels in the Army.

- Vice Consular officers,
- Deputy Consular officers,
- Consular Clerks and

- Consular Agents

- rank with
- Lieutenants in the Navy or
- Captains in the Army.

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

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

CLASSIFICATION.

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

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

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

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

SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF CONSULAR OFFICERS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) The exequatur, its nature and use.

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

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

- (a) Correspondence with the State Department and the form thereof.

- (b) Passports, granting and visaing.

- (c) United States merchant vessels in a foreign port, and their crews, whether seeking discharge, deserting or destitute.

- (d) Wrecks within jurisdiction.

- (e) Wrongs to United States citizens within jurisdiction.

- (f) Invoices.

- (g) Official fees and accounts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, what ought to be done?

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

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

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

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

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

Appointment to grades instead of to particular positions allows a shifting of men from one post to another whenever it is desirable, and it does so without sacrificing valuable experience. For it is true that a long residence at one consulate may so familiarize a man with his surroundings, especially if he finds himself in a lucrative business, that he becomes in some degree alienated from his own country without being aware of it. He may lose track of events at home or else become accustomed to viewing them from a foreign standpoint, so that as a result he falls into an apologetic tone toward those who criticize or a critical attitude toward the home government. He is then in a fit condition to be sent home. It has been suggested as a preventative to this that consuls be recalled from time to time to give lectures throughout the country, or instruction in a school for the consular service. Otherwise the same result will be accomplished so far as the consul is concerned, by shifting him to another position along with some salutary advice as to what his business is. This provision also puts the service more on a footing with the Army and Navy, which in many respects would be a decided gain.

Since this bill or a similar one is likely to become a law, and in any event has already earned strong endorsement, I append a few more of its provisions.

Instead of consul general, consul and commercial agent there are to be four grades, namely consul general of the first and the second class and consul of the first and the second class.

All consular officers shall receive compensation in salaries—none in fees.

Subjects in examination shall relate “chiefly but not exclusively to the duties of the consular service, and for consul of the first class examination in one foreign language will be required”.

The President is to appoint a board of five examiners, “who are to be the Civil Service Commissioners and two officials of the State Department”. These, however, shall have no connection with the reorganization of the entire service, which is entrusted to a committee consisting of two Senators, three Representatives and one officer of the State Department. It is intended that this committee shall have a pretty free hand in the inauguration of desirable changes, and the President is given large discretion as to the manner of putting such changes into execution.

There remains one important subject to be mentioned—the very difficult subject of the selection of men for examination, or after examination it may be. The present system is purely political. If you happen to have “influence” which will secure you a recommendation to the President you may be permitted to take the examination whenever a vacancy occurs. Hence the way is pretty effectually barred as far as unsupported merit is concerned; so it depends much more upon the “influence” than upon your merit. This is open to obvious abuses, and in case restrictions as to preparation are set aside, what have we but the “spoils system”?

On the other hand the Department must know something more about you than an examination can show. It must have some assurance of your powers of observation, your business acumen, your vigilance and alertness, and especially your dignity and integrity of character, so that you may well represent your country’s interests among foreigners, and defend the international rights of your fellow citizens.

Whether any better way can be devised remains to be seen, but in justice to the present system it must be said that it has secured many good officials—so many, indeed, that the American consular system, according to one writer[4], has become a subject of careful study by European nations. The same writer quotes from La Revue Diplomatique as follows:

“The Americans are practical men and their instinct for business is marvelous. Nothing is more characteristic in this respect than the organization of their consular corps. Its duty is that of a sort of bureau of information at the expense of the state. It is recruited principally from journalists, who carry into their official career the trained instinct of observation, the quick grasp of passing events which belong to their former profession.

“The American consul does not understand that he has a commercial situation to maintain but always a commercial situation to conquer. His ingenuity is exercised to invent and find new markets, and in his study of ways and means, he descends to the most minute details. Despite their colonial conquests, the Americans have comprehended that the real struggle remains in the old markets—that there especially is the hard school that will force them to manufacture and sell better than all others”.

It appears from the above quotation, as well as others, that, in the judgment of Europeans, the peculiar excellence of the American consul is analogous to that of the American soldier—his ability to take the initiative, to be his own commander.

After all, the man is more important than the equipment and harder to discover.

AFTER APPOINTMENT.

Now let us watch our candidate get ready for business after he has received notice of his appointment. Every consular officer before entering upon his duties must take the prescribed oath of office and give bond for a sum of not less than one thousand nor more than ten thousand dollars. Then his commission is made out and given to the Diplomatic Bureau along with a special passport and an order on his predecessor to turn over the office to him. The commission is forwarded to the diplomatic representative in the country where he is to be stationed with instructions to procure from the government an exequatur.

An exequatur, in a word, is permission to act. It is simply a formal recognition of the right of any country to grant or refuse to any other country, or any of its representatives, the right to do business within its territory.

Meanwhile our newly made consul is supposed to be very hard at work completing his preparation, for he is to be at his post within thirty days of the date of his commission, his salary having begun on the date of his taking the oath of office. Having arrived at his post he notifies the American legation of that fact and receives his exequatur. Then he applies to the person in charge of the consulate for the government archives, the seal and all other government property. In company with his predecessor or the one in charge of the office, he makes an inventory of all the effects, and transmits a copy of it to the State Department.

It is expected that the consulate shall remain in the same place; but if our consul prefers to move he may move. He must do so, however, subject to instructions, for he is expected to establish his office “at the most convenient, central location that the sum allowed for office rent will permit”, and then give in minute detail a description of the new office in a report to the State Department. “The arms of the United States should be placed over the entrance to the consulate, unless prohibited by the laws of the country.” The flag may be hoisted occasionally, on national holidays, etc., if there is no objection, and it is always hoisted when required for protection.

Nothing is stipulated as to his residence except that it must be within the town in which he is doing business. Though he is expected to have regular office hours, he must be willing to be at the service of the public if called upon outside of those hours.

PRIVILEGES.

The consular service originally comprised some of the functions and enjoyed many of the privileges of the diplomatic. It lost those functions and most of the privileges when the diplomatic service developed and became common, except in uncivilized countries. The consul has lost, in the main, his representative character and has retained in uncivilized countries his judicial power—capacity to act as a judge. The consul has lost the right of exterritoriality, that is, the right to be subject to the laws of his own country and not to those of the country where he is stationed. However, he is under the special protection of international law and is regarded as the officer “both of the state which appoints and the state which receives him”. The extent of his authority is derived from his commission and his exequatur, and the extent of his privileges is defined for the most part by treaties between his own government and the one where he is stationed. Among these we will notice the following:

TREATY RIGHTS.

The-most-favored-nation clause in a commercial or consular treaty between two powers entitles the consuls of those two countries to all the privileges that those countries grant to the consuls of other powers. It is no more than an agreement between Smith and Jones that in a certain particular they will treat each other as decently as they treat any of their other neighbors.

Inviolability of the archives and papers of the consulate means that they cannot be seized or examined by anybody.

Inviolability of the consular office and dwelling secures those places from invasion even by officers of the law; but it is understood that they are not to be used as an asylum or place of refuge for fugitives from the law. If it is known that they are so used it is doubtful if there are many countries where this would hold.

Exemption from arrest secures to a consul the freedom of a diplomatic officer, but this is seldom enjoyed in full. Usage inclines to grant every liberty to a consul consistent with public welfare. He is seldom exempt from arrest for crime.

Exemption from obligation to appear as a witness “except for defense of persons accused of crime” is secured in several countries.

Exemption from taxation of personal property is secured in a number of countries, provided the officer is not a citizen of that country, and provided also he is not engaged in business.

This first proviso may sound a little strange, yet it is a fact that Uncle Sam has often jeopardized his reputation for shrewdness by employing citizens of a country to represent his commercial interests right in their own home. A study of treaties will show that foreign governments do not look upon this arrangement with more favor than we should, hence it is a good practice to abandon.

Exemption from military billetings and public services is granted upon the same proviso mentioned above.

These are not all the points covered by treaties in reference to the consular service, but the remainder contemplate his duties rather than his privileges and may be mentioned, possibly, in the next lecture. Bear in mind that these privileges do not exist in any country unless it is so stipulated in a treaty between the United States and that particular country.

PROHIBITIONS.

Uncle Sam doesn’t propose to have his public servants abroad intermeddling in foreign politics. Consuls are desired to “cultivate friendly social relations with the community in which they reside”, but to “refrain from expressing harsh or disagreeable opinions upon local, political or other questions which divide the community within their jurisdiction. They are forbidden to participate in any manner in the political concerns of the country. In their (public) dispatches upon such subjects, they will confine themselves to the communication of important or interesting public events as they occur, avoiding all unnecessary reflections upon the character or conduct of individuals or governments, and they will not give publicity, through the press or otherwise, to opinions injurious to the public institutions of the country or the persons concerned in their administration”.

This is good, sound diplomacy; and the same paragraph goes on to say, “It is at the same time no less their duty to report freely and seasonably to their own government all important facts which may come to their knowledge touching the political condition of the country, especially if their communications can be made to subserve or may affect the interests of their own country”.

Public Speeches.—He is “not allowed to allude in public speeches to any matters in dispute between the United States and any other government, nor to any matters pending in the consulate. It is a still better rule to avoid public speeches when it can be done without exciting feeling”.

The Press.—The prohibitions extend also to correspondence with the press, not literary or non-political articles, but to such as touch upon public affairs in any foreign government, or communications to newspapers relative to epidemic diseases abroad.

Gifts, Testimonials.—Consuls are not permitted to ask or accept for themselves or anybody else “any present, emolument, pecuniary favor, office or title of any kind from any foreign government”. If any such offers are made to them “they may apply to Congress through the Department of State for permission to accept the same”.

Recommendations for Office.—Consuls are forbidden to recommend any one for any governmental office or trust of profit. By permission of the Secretary of State they may make recommendations to offices subject to their own jurisdiction.

Uniform.—Consular officers are forbidden to wear any distinguishing uniform. The Regulations are indulgent enough to allow them to wear an Army uniform if they happen to have been in the Army of the United States during the Rebellion.

Absence.—Consuls are forbidden to be absent from their posts longer than forty-eight hours without reporting to the Department about it. No one is permitted to be absent more than ten days at any one time without permission from the President. Special permission must be obtained in order to return to the United States, and the statutes do not provide for a continuance of salary for an absence of longer than sixty days.

This is about all that need be said about the consuls themselves. What remains to be considered will come up in connection with the duties of the consular office. We will wait a few moments for questions.

Q. “Professor, aren’t there other needed reforms in the consular service besides those you have mentioned”?

A. “Certainly, but I preferred to dwell only upon the most difficult and at the same time the most vital of them all; namely, the choice and preparation of the men. I think it might be well to emphasize just a point or two more in this connection. The first is that the consular service ought not to be filled with foreigners. The Consular Register of July, 1899, shows that out of 706 subordinate positions, including commercial agencies, 412 are filled by men born in the country where they are stationed. In fact, out of a total of 1,020 men in the consular service only 547 are of American birth or parentage. The reason for this is that so many of the positions don’t pay enough to induce Americans to undertake them. Four or five hundred dollars a year may mean something to a man who is on the spot, small as the sum is, but it shuts Americans out of a large majority of the subordinate positions.

“The second point to be mentioned is the effect of this parsimony—miscalled economy—upon the higher positions. For instance, suppose a man is appointed to a place, the duties of which involve some diplomatic responsibility. Such a man must live on a scale becoming his position, or bring himself and his country into contempt. As a matter of fact it has frequently happened that a thrifty consul, profiting by the example in frugality set by his government, has tried to save money by living in rented rooms above his business office, only to find when the inspector came around that he had to move out and live in a more sumptuous fashion. Aside from the question of sentiment, democratic or undemocratic, the government is best served by a consul who, other things being the same, enters a great deal into society and is not too careful to live within his income. It gives him an influence, a prestige among his surroundings which inures to the financial advantage of his country. Uncle Sam pays less for his consular service than does any other power of equal wealth, but those who know best the service and its possibilities have always claimed that it is poor economy.”

Q. “Will you please distinguish again between Consular Clerks and Clerks at Consulate”?

A. “Certainly; Consular Clerks are not stationed at consulates at all. They are specialists who work upon some task assigned by the State Department. Such a one may specialize upon a certain line of textile fabrics in all its degrees of quality and the methods employed in its manufacture. Another may become an expert authority on chemicals or iron and steel products, etc. Clerks at Consulate are, as you may suppose, those engaged in ordinary clerical duties at the consulates.”

Q. “Do you think that the present movement in favor of consular reform has any partisan purpose”?

A. “Not at all. The last two administrations, i. e., Cleveland’s and McKinley’s, have done more for this cause, perhaps, than all the others put together. Moreover, the time just now is ripe for this reform and Congressmen should be more than ever awake to the necessity of it, irrespective of party”.

Q. “How about that school for consuls and diplomats, Professor? It seems to me that however desirable it may be, it is hardly feasible for partisan reasons.”

A. “That, of course, is the stock objection to such a proposition. Yet I fail to see why such a school might not be put into the hands of a non-partisan board—say the second and third Assistant Secretaries of State, who do not change with the administration as a rule. And we might add to these the Civil Service Commissioners, or any other competent men, provided they are not to be meddled with on the score of partisanship. Partisanship does not enter into the management of West Point or Annapolis to any noticeable extent, nor does it prevent our numerous State universities from being as well managed as other institutions of learning.”

Q. “But why not leave all this to the institutions already established?”

A. “Well, perhaps as good a reason as any is that none of them are in Washington. The government has here its great scientific museum, the Smithsonian Institute; also its historical museum, various experiment stations, and above all, perhaps, its Congressional Library and collections of State papers and archives. Besides, diplomacy should be learned from diplomats in active service—men acquainted with their occupation both past and present, European and American. Such a school need not be continuous, perhaps, or conducted as many months of the year as other schools, its chief purpose being to satisfy the exigencies of the Government, rather than to furnish a liberal education”.

Q. “I suppose, Professor, that our Government has treaties with most other countries covering the principal points of commercial importance”?

A. “Yes, in the main, though there are some surprising exceptions. For instance, ‘the-most-favored-nation’ clause is not in the treaties with either Great Britain or Sweden and Norway. With many of our neighboring states we have no extradition treaties whatever. A glance at the synopsis[5] given will show that our treaties are fullest with the following named countries: Austria, Belgium, Colombia, France, Germany, Italy, Holland, Roumania, San Salvador and Servia. Evidently the treaties with some of the other countries need overhauling.”

LECTURE III - THE CONSULAR SERVICE—DUTIES.

Consular duties, like household duties, are very numerous; and about as multiform as they are numerous. The mere mention of them, aside from any description or dwelling upon particulars, would leave little time for anything else to be said in the same lecture. We shall content ourselves, therefore, with a cursory view, a glance over the whole field of those duties, without stopping to distinguish between those of a consul and those of a consul general, or of a seaport and of an inland town.

The following classification will be found to be helpful and very nearly comprehensive:

- (1) Duties commercial.

- (2) Duties in connection with customs regulations.

- (3) Duties to merchant vessels.

- (4) Duties in case of wrecks.

- (5) Duties to officers, naval, diplomatic and departmental.

- (6) Duties to seamen.

- (7) Duties in regard to immigration and quarantine.

- (8) Duties to citizens other than seamen.

- (9) Duties judicial—in non-Christian countries.

- (10) Duties to the State Department.

There are a few others, such as duties in regard to extradition, the purchase and transference of foreign built vessels, etc., etc., which we shall term miscellaneous.

DUTIES COMMERCIAL.

The most important of these—the one indeed which is now, as it always has been, of central importance in the consular service, is the one first mentioned—commercial duties. Owing to its importance I will quote in full from the Consular Regulations, pages 248-51, the list of subjects upon which the consul is expected to report to the State Department:

“1. Conditions of foreign commerce and internal trade, manufacturers, mechanical industries, agriculture, etc., especially—

“(a) Statistics of exports and imports, of shipping and of revenue and expenditure of the country; amount of public debts, national and local; rates of taxation, character of taxable basis, how taxation is levied and collected, amount of taxation per capita, etc.; value, actual value in exchange, and also as measured by the dollar of the United States; changes in purchasing power of the currency; banking—new systems, especially of savings banks and of banks as associations for lending money to agriculturists, mechanics, and factory operatives; public loans and the matters of finance affecting the industry or commerce of the country; commercial credits—rates and periods usually granted to foreign purchasers, and those expected from foreign shippers; trade usages and peculiarities; special demands of consumers as to demand and quality of goods or supplies already in use or capable of being introduced among them, with suggestions as to the best and most economical style of packing to conform to local requirements of sale and transportation.

“(b) Improvement of old and development of new industries, including inventions or discoveries, and the result obtained from the practical application of them.

“(c) Introduction of inventions made in the United States or imitations of them; application of business or mechanical methods employed in the United States.

“(d) Importation and use of food supplies, raw materials and manufactures from the United States, or the possibility of introducing them, and local or race requirements to make them acceptable to foreign consumers.

“2. Facilities for direct and indirect communication with the United States—establishment of new ocean or international railroad lines or agencies; development of internal transportation lines—railroads, highways and steamboat or other carriage on rivers and canals, or betterment of them; opening up of new trade routes or abandonment of old ones; changes in transportation rates, both freight and passenger, which are of general interest to commerce; bounties or subsidies to railroads and shipping.

“3. Development or decline of commercial and manufacturing centers; causes of drift of agricultural population to towns and cities; diversion of trade from one local market or district to another; projects for great manufacturing or other industrial enterprises for harbor or river improvement, for better methods of lighting, street paving, water supply, sewerage and disposal of sewage, economy of municipal taxation and expenditure; hygienic and quarantine measures; police systems, urban and rural.

“4. Changes in economic condition of producing communities, urban and rural; fluctuations in rates of wages, cost of living, prices of products, raw and manufactured, especially for food supplies, wearing apparel, agricultural and domestic implements, machinery, etc.; scarcity or glut of articles of consumption of all kinds, particularly those produced in the United States; changes in hours of labor or other conditions affecting workingmen, trades’ unions; strikes and lockouts; systems of co-operation and profit sharing; government measures (national, municipal or local) or private (organized) projects for insurance or care of infirm or superannuated laborers, for improved sanitation of factories and dwellings, for regulating the labor of women and children, and for combating usury in the lending of money; technical and commercial education; museums, exhibitions, merchants’ unions and similar organizations for promoting trade, and the functions assumed by the state in connection therewith.

“5. All changes in tariff legislation, including new rates of export, import, or transit duties, special care being taken to state whether they discriminate in favor of or against the United States as compared with other countries. When a wholly new tariff law is enacted it should be given in full with an explanatory statement of increase or decrease in duties as compared with the tariff previously existing. Prompt notice of contemplated tariff legislation should be sent to the Department. By tariff legislation are meant not only measures affecting export and import duties, but also those relating to customs administration, transit duties, octroi or municipal taxes upon supplies entering cities and towns, taxes imposed upon the import or export of articles from one political district of a country (such as a state, province, canton, arrondissement, etc.) to another, tonnage, taxes and port dues, or other taxes upon shipping, etc.

“6. Legislation or proposed legislation of interest to farmers, merchants, mechanics, inventors, etc., such as changes in patent, trade mark, and copyright laws; laws to prevent adulteration of food, or to prohibit importation or sale of adulterated or impure food; laws prohibitory of importation of diseased animals, impure seeds, etc.; measures discriminating for or against any particular class of products or against imports from any country; bounties granted to special lines of manufacture or agricultural production; changes in legislation concerning agricultural, commercial or industrial concessions, such as government land grants, railroad bonuses, special privileges, and exemptions for colonists; encouragements to or restrictions of immigration; rights of citizenship; taxation or exemption of manufacturing plants, machinery and implements; licenses to trade; taxation of commercial travelers; legislation as to bankruptcy and collection of debts, etc. Also decisions of courts or of government officers on important commercial questions; government regulations relating to law changes; changes in commercial procedure.

“7. Undertakings and enterprises of moment—the construction of public works, the opening of mines, the granting of concessions for working minerals or forests, or for other similar purposes”.

This is an admirable list for any one to study if he would learn what are the signs of a nation’s material prosperity. It deserves further comment because of its importance to the consular service, but we must pass on.

DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CUSTOMS REGULATIONS.

A large share of the routine of every consulate is concerned with the customs regulations, certifying to invoices, guarding against fraud, keeping account of all transactions and reporting the same to the State Department. If you are engaged in importing “fancy Scotch cheviots” (your imported Scotch goods are made in America, however), the goods must be described in full in a consular invoice. This invoice must be signed by yourself or agent and accompanied by an “official shipper’s certificate”, which amounts to saying that the invoice is “all right”, and this again must be signed by the shipper and certified by the consul. Thus the consular service facilitates the work of the customs officials by having imported goods invoiced before arrival at the “port of entry”.

DUTIES TO MERCHANT VESSELS.

An American merchant vessel sailing from an American to a foreign port is required under penalty to deposit its register and also its sea letter with the American consul immediately upon reaching its destination. “It is usual also to deposit its crew list and shipping articles”. These documents are known as the “ship’s papers”, and are kept by the consul until the ship has received “clearance”.

The consul is required to give the masters of vessels all information in his possession concerning coast surveys, pilot and hydrographic charts, etc., such as are published by the Navy Department, and to furnish to the State Department any information that may be of service to navigation.

DUTIES IN CASE OF WRECKS.

No consular officer is permitted to take any action in case of a wreck, if the “owner, master or consignee thereof is present and capable of taking possession of the same”. If no such person is present, the consul is required, so far as the laws of the land permit, to take all necessary action for the preservation of vessel and cargo, and keep inventories of the same, together with the expense involved. The consul must make a full report of such wrecks to the State Department, whether they occur within his jurisdiction or are brought in.

In case Americans are shipwrecked the consuls are required to “render such assistance as may be in their power”, but they are not authorized to incur any expense with the expectation that it will be met by the State Department.

Whenever foreigners render aid to shipwrecked Americans, the Consul is required to forward to the State Department an account of the facts, giving the name of the master of the foreign vessel and those of the crew who especially distinguished themselves for heroism or humanity. These details should be quite exact, as they are to be laid before the President, who is authorized by Congress to make suitable acknowledgment. In some cases the consul may reward a rescuing crew out of funds at his disposal.

DUTIES TO OFFICERS—NAVAL AND DIPLOMATIC.

Duties to naval officers were mentioned in connection with “rank” in the preceding lecture. Officers of the Navy are under a reciprocal duty to consuls, however, which should be mentioned. On this point I quote the exact words of the Regulations.

“The Navy is an independent branch of the service, not subject to the orders of the Department of State, and its officers have fixed duties prescribed for them; consuls will, therefore, be careful to ask for the presence of a naval force at their posts only when public exigencies absolutely require it, and will then give the officers in command the full reasons for the request and leave with them the responsibility of action. If the request is addressed to the Department of State, the reasons should likewise be fully stated for its information.”

The diplomatic service has general supervision over the consular service in any one country. When there is a consul general, this supervision is exercised through him, and the consuls will not correspond officially with the diplomatic officers—except in reply to inquiries. Where there is no consul general the consuls will correspond directly with the diplomatic officials and “endeavor in all cases to comply with their requests and wishes”. Leaves of absence and recommendations for appointment of subordinate officers are usually sent through the diplomatic officers.

Sometimes in the absence of a diplomatic officer a consul general or consul may discharge the duties of a diplomatic officer. Sometimes the two offices are united in the one representative.

“Consular officers will confer freely with the Treasury revenue agents who may be appointed to visit and examine the consulates. They will remember, however, that these agents have no authority to instruct them as to their official acts”.

DUTIES OR RELATIONS TO SEAMEN.

To no other class of citizens, save in uncivilized countries, does the consul stand in such immediate relationship as to seamen. This would seem to be because as a class, since their occupation takes them to all parts of the world and away from the protection of their own country, and, moreover, because they are laborers and not men of means, they are more at the mercy of circumstances as well as of unscrupulous masters in foreign lands. On the other hand, justice to the masters also requires national authority to enforce contracts and assist in securing harmony often-times on shipboard. Fully 57 pages of the Regulations are taken up with this subject under the following heads:

- 1. Shipment of seamen.

- 2. Discharge of seamen.

- 3. Wages and effects of seamen.

- 4. Relief of seamen.

- 5. Transportation of seamen.

- 6. Desertion of seamen.

- 7. Disputes between masters, officers and crews.

A master of an American merchant vessel who engages any seamen in a foreign port must do so under penalty in the presence of the American consul and only with his sanction. The engagement must be signed in duplicate by both master and men in the presence of the consul, who must see to it that the seamen understand clearly the terms of the contract. Seamen may be engaged for a definite time, for a round trip, for a single voyage or “by the lay”, and the terms of the agreement are called the “shipping articles”. In case of desertion or casualty the master may engage a number of seamen equal to the number lost and report to the first consul he sees. In case a vessel is purchased abroad and the seamen “have not character of American seamen” (subsequently defined), they do not come within the jurisdiction of the consul.

An American seaman is (1) an American citizen or (2) a foreigner shipped in an American vessel in an American port or (3) a foreign seaman shipped in an American vessel in either an American or a foreign port, who has declared his intention in a competent court to become a citizen of the United States and has served three years thereafter on American merchant vessels. For purposes of protection the filing of the declaration is sufficient.

A consular officer may discharge a seaman upon his own or his master’s application, provided the terms of the agreement have been fulfilled. He is also to give a certificate to that effect to the seaman. Other cases where American seamen are discharged abroad are for sickness, misconduct, on the sale of American vessel, on account of ill treatment, when vessel is wrecked or condemned as unseaworthy, etc. The general policy of the government is to “discountenance the discharge of seamen in a foreign port”, and any master who knowingly abandons a seaman abroad is subject to fine and imprisonment. “Cases have occurred in which the consular officers have, with the subsequent approval of the Department of State, removed masters of vessels and appointed others in their places to complete the voyage”, but this was only when the “gross incompetency” of the masters endangered the lives of passengers and crew.

A consul in discharging a seaman, must see to it that his wages are paid, otherwise “he shall be held accountable to the United States for the full amount thereof”.

It is the duty of the consul to provide for destitute seamen, to secure their transportation to the United States at government expense, subject always to certain conditions, and to take charge of their effects upon their death at sea or in port.

The consular officers must help to reclaim deserters and call in the assistance of the local authorities for this purpose if necessary, which they are authorized to do by treaty with several countries and by comity or usage with others.

One of the many interesting points in international law is that of “mixed jurisdiction”, as it is called, or jurisdiction within a harbor. A dispute on shipboard on the high seas is clearly within the jurisdiction of the country under whose flag the vessel is sailing, but when the vessel comes into the harbor of another country it is just as clear that the jurisdiction of that country is superior. As a matter of practice, however, it has long been found best to allow all such controversies occurring on shipboard within a harbor to be tried by the law and authorities to which the vessel is subject, provided, of course, that “it does not involve the peace or dignity of the country, or the tranquility of the port” where it occurs. In all such cases the consul, as the representative of his government, acts as an officer of justice. Where he is authorized by treaty to call for local aid he is cautioned not to do so if it can be avoided. If such aid is refused, he should lay claim to his treaty rights and then report at once to the diplomatic officers in the country and to the State Department.

This hurried review of the consul’s relations to seamen leaves a great deal unsaid, but the main points, at least, have been touched upon. Let us now turn to

IMMIGRATION.

The old idea that this land is an asylum for all kinds and conditions of men is now happily exploded. The classes of aliens now excluded are as follows:

- (a) Chinese laborers.

- (b) Contract laborers.

- (c) All idiots and insane persons.

- (d) Paupers or persons likely to become a public charge.

- (e) Persons suffering from a loathsome or contagious disease.

- (f) Felons and all criminals except political offenders; (and these latter are excluded if the penalty is removed upon condition of immigration).

- (g) Polygamists.

- (h) Assisted immigrants.

- (i) Abandoned women.

Every master of a vessel having on board immigrants bound for any port in the United States is obliged upon arrival to submit a manifest to the inspector of immigration. A manifest is a list of the immigrants on board, with a general description of each one, giving name, age, sex, nationality, ability to read and write, calling or occupation, means, destination, etc. This must be subscribed and sworn to by the master in the presence of the consul before the vessel can leave port, and in like manner the surgeon of the vessel must take oath that he has made a personal examination of each one and finds everything satisfactory.

QUARANTINE.

Before clearing for any American port any vessel in a foreign port must procure from the consul a “bill of health”, which is a certificate to the effect that the sanitary conditions of the vessel are satisfactory and that all rules and regulations in such cases have been complied with. The consul must take pains to satisfy himself before granting the “bill of health”, and for this purpose a medical officer is often detailed by the Government. A master of a vessel who sails into an American port without having procured a “bill of health” is liable to a fine not to exceed $5,000.

DUTIES TO CITIZENS OTHER THAN SEAMEN.

Citizens going abroad for business or pleasure may find it to their advantage to inquire into the consideration that Uncle Sam is prepared to show them when abroad. The freedom of travel you enjoy at home is a small thing until, in a foreign land, you find yourself confronted by an officer of the law demanding your passports. Besides, there are numerous little official courtesies for which the traveler or sojourner will be very grateful, and in cases of emergency assistance may be rendered far beyond all adequate reward.

As was said before, passports may be procured from the State Department, otherwise through the diplomatic officers, or in their absence, through the consular service. If the applicant is accompanied by his wife, minor children, servant, etc., the one passport answers for all.

A consular officer may verify or visé (pronounced vee-záy) a passport by writing on it the word “good” in the language of the country, and affixing his official signature and seal. Diplomatic representatives should visé passports only when there is no consulate in the city where the legation is situated. A visé is good only in the country where it is given.

Restricted
Immigration

See page 101.

The government affords all the protection it can under the circumstances. Of course it can have no jurisdiction in criminal cases, except in uncivilized countries, and it can have no civil jurisdiction except by treaty or by the law of the land. “The right of a citizen to claim protection is founded upon the ‘correlative right’ of his country to his ‘allegiance and support.’” Consuls are “particularly cautioned not to enter into any contentions that can be avoided, either with their countrymen or with the subjects or authorities of the country. They should use every endeavor,” continues the “Regulations”, “to settle in an amicable manner all disputes in which their countrymen may be concerned, but they should take no part in litigation between citizens. They should countenance and protect them before the authorities of the country in all cases in which they may be injured or oppressed, but their efforts should not be extended to those who have been wilfully guilty of an infraction of the local laws. It is incumbent upon citizens of the United States to observe the reasonable laws of the country where they may be. It is their duty to endeavor on all occasions to maintain and promote all the rightful interests of citizens, and to protect them in all privileges that are provided for by treaty or are conceded by usage. If representations are made to the local authorities and fail to secure the proper redress, the case should be reported to the consul general, if there be one, or to the diplomatic representative if there be no consul general, and to the Department of State.”

I have quoted this passage almost entirely because it is the best expression to be found, probably, of the general attitude of the Government of the United States toward its citizens abroad.

Citizens intending to sojourn abroad should register at the consulate within which they are to reside. This is not required, but it may be a great convenience both ways.

Who are citizens? (1) “All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; (2) all children born to such natives, even if beyond the jurisdiction of the United States; (3) “any white woman, or woman of African nativity or descent, or Indian woman, married to a citizen of the United States, is a citizen thereof”; (4) naturalized citizens; (5) the minor children of naturalized citizens.

“An official letter of introduction, when given to a citizen of the United States, is valuable to the holder for prompt identification in case he needs the intervention of a consular officer in his behalf. But in no case must the letter be understood or taken as implying any claim upon the consul for hospitality or personal courtesies beyond the politeness always due to citizens of the United States when they have legitimate business with a consulate”.

Consuls are not allowed to give their names as business references, nor to report the financial standing of houses in their districts. Such requests should be referred to banks or business agencies.

“Consular officers are not authorized to indorse notes or bills of exchange, nor in other ways to become responsible pecuniarily for American citizens or others who have no personal claims upon them.” Such transactions are not a part of the official duties of a consular officer. He is “not authorized to lend money to indigent citizens of the United States or others, nor to incur expenses or liabilities for any persons except seamen of the United States, in the expectation of reimbursement by the Government”.

Consular officers are forbidden to solemnize marriages. A marriage may be solemnized in the presence of a consular officer as a witness, and in that case it has certain peculiarities, as will be seen from the following:

According to international law the mode of solemnizing marriage conforms to the law of the place where it is performed. But there are many conceivable circumstances which might make this undesirable, and in such cases it is declared by the statutes that “marriages in presence of any consular officer of the United States in a foreign country, between persons who would be authorized to marry if residing in the District of Columbia, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, and shall have the same effect as if solemnized within the United States”. In all such cases the consul must give a certificate to each of the parties and forward a copy to the Department of State.

In case of the death of an American citizen abroad, it is the duty of the consul to take possession of his estate, provided there is no other legal representative, and provided, also, the laws of the country so permit,—to inventory the same with the help of two merchants (Americans, preferably), to make collections and to discharge the debts due from the estate, to sell at public auction such part as is of a perishable nature, and at the expiration of one year the remainder, and finally to transmit the proceeds to the Treasury of the United States to be held in trust for the legal claimants, who, however, are at liberty to appear at any time and take charge of the proceedings and the estate themselves. This applies to personal property only—real estate being administered according to the laws of the locality. In the absence of a treaty covering such points the consul is to proceed in the above manner unless it is known that the local authorities are unwilling, for “he should avoid the appearance of opposing or disregarding actual local requirements”.

The same proceedings as the above are followed in case a citizen dies on the high seas “on either an American or a foreign vessel, and his effects are brought within a consular district”.

JUDICIAL DUTIES—IN NON-CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES.

The use of the term “non-christian”, which in the present day is giving place to “uncivilized”, is as old as the consular system itself; that is to say, it has come down to us from mediaeval times when the consular system originated. It might still have been retained had it not been for the progress of one country, Japan, which may be better described as civilized rather than Christian.

The judicial power of a consul, therefore, remains as a relic of mediaevalism, and it remains because the need remains; for just as civilized countries five hundred years ago were unwilling to look to the Turk for justice, so they are to-day, and treaties to that effect secure Turkish recognition of this humiliating state of things. As it is with Turkey so it is with China, Korea, Siam, Persia, Madagascar, Borneo, etc., the treaties varying considerably in each case.

This assumption of superiority by the self-styled civilized countries would be hard to justify on the ground of theoretical ethics, but apparently theoretical and practical or applied ethics sometimes diverge very widely, and when they do diverge no statesman hesitates as to which he shall follow.

From the tiresome details of Title XLVII, U. S. Revised Statutes, which deals fully with courts of this character, the following points may be gleaned:

(1) Cases arising between Americans are tried before American officers.

(2) Cases arising between Americans and others not natives are arranged by their respective consular officers; in Turkey they are tried in the consulate of the defendant.

(3) Cases arising between Americans and natives are tried before an American tribunal in China, Siam and Madagascar; before a mixed tribunal in Persia, the Barbary States and Turkey.

It is rather startling to notice the power entrusted to one man, as is done by our government in the case of the consuls to these countries. A consul, for instance, can issue a warrant for the arrest of a man merely upon his own initiative, and can then proceed to try him, he himself acting as judge and jury. He first submits a list of men to the minister, who selects from one to four to sit with him in the trial as advisers. These advisers must record and sign their judgment of the case, but it is the consul’s judgment that condemns or acquits.

In trials for capital offenses there must be four advisers, and their judgment must concur with the consul’s, and their combined judgment must be approved by the minister before there can be conviction. In some cases appeal may be made to the minister and rarely to a U. S. circuit court, but in general the decision of the consul is final. Hence, although the power of life and death is lodged in the hands of the consul, it is well safeguarded, and the danger of its abuse is more apparent than real.

There are some miscellaneous duties devolving upon the consular service which we will notice briefly before turning finally to the duties to the State Department.

EXTRADITION.

Whenever a criminal attempts to escape justice by fleeing to another country it is a delicate matter to recapture him, necessarily; for aside from the ordinary difficulties of the case the powers add a few by their carefulness to preserve each other’s dignity in such matters. Thus the pursuit of a criminal by the officers of one country into the territory of another, even when permitted by treaty, may result in a rather awkward state of things, especially if what is regarded as a crime in the one is not so much of a crime in the other. For instance, suppose that the laws of Canada regarding embezzlement are not as stringent as are those of the United States, or suppose she hasn’t any at all: one can see that a request by our Government for the extradition of an embezzler might strain international courtesy more than a trifle. A treaty is a prerequisite to extradition in any country, and fortunately our Government has such treaties with most of her neighbors, though there are some startling exceptions.

Whenever a warrant or “requisition” is made for a fugitive criminal it is usual to act through a diplomatic officer. If it is made through a consul it must first be with the sanction of the State Department.

TRANSFER OF FOREIGN VESSELS.

The right of citizens to purchase foreign-made vessels abroad involves the right to the protection of those vessels. A vessel cannot sail the high seas without registration and a flag; for if she does she is liable to seizure as a pirate. Hence the ceremony of transfer in such a case must be attended to by the consul.

Ordinarily this does not imply any great responsibility, but while a war is in progress it is a very different thing, no matter whether we are neutrals or belligerents. To illustrate: Suppose during the recent war the owner of an American vessel wished to put it out of danger by putting it under a neutral flag. This he might do by a pretended sale to a citizen of a foreign country through the connivance of a consul. It is the consul’s duty, therefore, to prevent such fraudulent sales, to take all possible pains to satisfy himself that the sale is or is not a genuine transaction.

WATCHING ENEMY’S VESSEL.

In case of war with another power the consuls are required to keep watch on the movements of the enemy’s vessels and report promptly to the Department.

AS A FOREIGN AGENT.

During the progress of a war between two foreign states our consuls may as a matter of courtesy to one or both of them take charge of its consular offices and effects. This must be with the permission of the Secretary of State, however, and the Government assumes no responsibility for the acts of the consuls.

DUTIES TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT—AND OTHERS.

The consular service may be likened to a great reporting system. The consuls are reporters, their offices are news agencies, their field the world, their managing and publishing office the State Department, their organ the Consular Reports, their readers—just a few persons, here and there, whose numbers, by the way, are increasing. In addition to the correspondence which must be carried on in connection with the duties mentioned, the consul may have occasional correspondence on public business with “the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller, the Auditor for the State and other Departments, the Register of the Treasury, collectors of customs as to invoices and prices current, the diplomatic representative of the United States in the country where he resides, other consular officers, and with naval or military officers in the service of the United States who may be employed in the neighborhood, and to whom it may be necessary to communicate immediately any event of public interest, and with no other person”.

This, I trust, will serve as a brief conspectus of consular duties, and now we will listen to questions.

After dismissal a group of men including a banker, a merchant, two manufacturers, a grain dealer, some traveling men, etc., made their way to the platform and were introduced to Professor Loyal as some of the business men of the place.

“We suppose, Professor,” said one of them, “that it is rather aside from your purpose to tell us how to reach foreign trade—how to get our goods on the market—and yet it is the very thing we need to know; so if you can give us any further light we shall appreciate it”.

“I am very glad to hear you say so”, said the Professor, “for that is just what the consular service is intended to do, while my purpose is to serve as an introduction committee between you and the service. You will find in the syllabi the name and address of every member of the consular and diplomatic services all over the world, and they, no doubt, will furnish you all the information you need. The Regulations, indeed, have this to say: ‘Inquiries made by citizens of the United States touching business matters, or other matters not of mere curiosity, should be answered as far as they can be consistently with the consul’s other duties. All inquiries of this character should be acknowledged, even when it is impracticable to answer them’”.

“But why not write at once to the State Department”?

“That may be just as well. The supposition is, however, if you know in what country you expect to find your market the consular service there can give you the most help, because the local conditions are known. If you do not know where to find your market, you should at least familiarize yourself with the Consular Reports, the ‘advance sheets’ of which give the latest news from foreign markets. If you are exporters you will have no difficulty in obtaining these through your Congressmen”.

“Don’t you suppose, Professor, that a handbook of directions to shippers could be prepared by the Government—something to show how goods should be manufactured or packed, as well as cost of transportation, customs duties in foreign ports, etc.”?

“Yes, but you would find your handbook growing to enormous size, until finally it would be no less and no other than the Consular Reports. The trouble is, or has been, that people don’t read these enough. Now, let us get an idea of what such a handbook would contain. What do you manufacture”?

“Farming machinery”.

“Well, now let us suppose you have discovered that there is a market for your merchandise in Argentina. Suppose, too, that the horses in that country are of lighter draft than ours: then your machines must be lightened correspondingly, and this involves a good deal of detail. Again, their soil will differ from that for which you are manufacturing, consequently you may have to change the shape of your plows, or the construction of your harrows, or the size of your drills. Again, one must make sure that the natives can handle intricate machinery before sending any twine-binders, steam-engines, etc. Then, too, you must learn the strong and the weak points of the machinery with which you are to compete. So you see, when it is remembered that we have been considering a few contingencies in regard to only one line of industry, and that, too, in only one country, the sum of the contingencies is enormous. When it comes to cottons or woolens the case is much the same; the width, texture, color, pattern, price—everything which makes goods salable in any one country—must be known, and the advertisements put in a way that appeals to native sentiment and taste. In the Consular Reports you will get the information you need, and you will find it hard to be put in a handbook”.

“Well, as a matter of fact, I haven’t seen much of the Consular Reports”, said one.

“Nor I, either”, said several others, as they turned to go.

LECTURE
IV

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

In 1815 the Congress of Vienna adopted seven rules for the regulation of diplomatic intercourse. The United States was not represented at this historic congress—wasn’t important enough and perhaps wasn’t interested enough; but it has chosen to conform to the rules, nevertheless. The fact that we had nothing to do with the promulgation of these rules and that we are the only power that has since grown into a commanding position, gives us a diplomatic advantage, an independence agreeable to our national ideals and geographical situation. The first of these rules reads as follows:

“Article 1. 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 chargés d’affaires accredited to ministers for foreign affairs”.

Three years after the Congress of Vienna the Congress of Aix la Chapelle adds an eighth article, which reads as follows:

“Article VIII.—It is agreed that ministers resident accredited to them” (to sovereigns, presumably) “shall form, with respect to their precedence, an intermediate class between ministers of the second class and chargés d’affaires”.

Consequently the classification of our diplomatic officers is as follows:

1. Ambassadors. We do not send or receive legates or nuncios, as there are representatives of the Pope, and to do so would be contrary to our national policy respecting church and state.

2. Envoys, ministers or other persons accredited to sovereigns. This class includes that official with the ridiculously lengthy title of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary—usually called minister “for short”.

3. Ministers resident, who are usually also consuls general. There are but four of these in our service, and as there is little justification for this grade it will probably some day be abolished.

4. Chargés d’affaires (pronounced shar-zha-daffair), who are not accredited to sovereigns, but to the minister for foreign affairs.

It should be borne in mind that this classification has nothing whatever to do with the transaction of business. All diplomats have essentially the same duties to perform. It is merely a matter of precedence, which was considered much more important at the time of the Vienna congress than it is now. Indeed, there are good reasons for thinking that we have outgrown these distinctions and should straightway abandon them. This much, at least, is apparent to all—that the chief diplomatic officer at every legation ought to be an ambassador, thus making no invidious distinctions between countries.

As it is at present we send ambassadors to the most important countries, envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to those that are next important to us, and so on. Thus there are five ambassadors; one each at London, Paris, Berlin, St. Petersburg and Mexico respectively, thirty envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, four ministers resident, and one who is classed as a chargé d’affaires.

There are secretaries of legation at twenty-three different capitals, who in the absence of their chief may become chargés d’affaires exercising all the functions of a diplomatic officer. At fourteen different capitals there are military or naval attachés, sometimes both, and an interpreter at six of them.

Legation, or embassy, formerly meant the particular business, the errand, so to speak, upon which the ambassador was sent.

These terms are now used more often to designate the officers themselves who are sent on an embassy, and finally by the extension of the term they also mean the official residence of those officers.

American legations as a rule have fewer members than those of other great nations and are much less expensive. The American diplomatic service costs only one fourth as much as the British. Whether or not the result is desirable upon the whole you may judge for yourselves; for while it must be said that we have as a rule been very well served diplomatically, yet on the other hand one direct result of our economy is that only men of wealth can afford to be ambassadors. The cost of living, and especially of entertaining, is so high and the salary is so inadequate that no man in ordinary circumstances can occupy a high diplomatic position where the social requirements are burdensome.

In several cases the parsimony of the Government has been quite contrary to its own best interests. In Central and South America, for instance, where we ought, by all means, to be well represented, the same officer is frequently accredited to two, or even three different countries. Now, no country likes to have a representative of an inferior grade accredited to it, certainly not when a mere change of title would mend the matter, but when it comes to being bunched together with another country or two by a powerful and wealthy neighbor it is almost insulting, and the countries in question show a justifiable resentment. In such countries we will find European nations well represented, and yet we wonder at our own loss of prestige.

PURPOSE.

As long as the nations have any dealings with each other as nations, so long will it be necessary for them to have representatives, honored and trusted by those who receive them as well as those who send them, at each other’s capitals. It might almost be said that they exist for the prevention of business—the business arising from misunderstandings—for their primary duty is, while representing their own nation with dignity and reserve, to cultivate friendly relations with the power to which they are accredited, as far as circumstances will allow. To do this they interpret the public acts of their own government as it wishes to be understood, and are frequently entrusted with large discretionary powers for this purpose. Moreover, they expedite business and help to avoid annoyances in a very large measure. The government at Washington, for instance, wishes to know the attitude of the government at Berlin upon a certain matter without making it too formal or exaggerating its importance, and accordingly application is made at once either to the German ambassador residing at Washington or to the American ambassador in Berlin, either of whom, if it lies within his discretion, gives the desired information. If the whole thing is quietly done, so as to escape general notice, it saves needless wild guessing as to what it all means; and this is greatly to be desired when things are in an acute stage, if not at other times. The recent triumph of the “open door” policy in China was accomplished in this quiet, effective way.

It will be observed that the modern conception of the function of a diplomat makes him a resident of the country of his embassage during the time of his appointment. Moreover, that he is not sent on any stated errand, as for instance, the negotiation of a treaty, or as a member of an international congress. This latter, to be sure, is diplomatic business, but the agents employed are usually termed commissioners.

ORIGIN.

It was in this latter sense, however, that the term ambassador was originally used.

Just when it had its origin it would be hard to say, but it was so far back in antiquity that the sanctity of religion must needs be thrown about the persons of the officials to shield them from violence. In ancient times when an ambassador went to a foreign court he went with a special message, and having delivered it and received a reply, his business was ended and he returned homeward. His official dignity was but little inferior to that of the sovereign. Indeed he represented not only his country but the person of his sovereign, and he was accredited not to any foreign minister, but directly to the sovereign. Hence his visit, especially if friendly, was attended with an elaborate display of pomp and ceremony, the exchange of gifts and courtly compliments, and it would have been a royal sight to have beheld his journey through the

“lovely land ...
Whose loveliness was more resplendent made
By the mere passing of that cavalcade

With plumes and cloaks and housings, and the stir

Of jeweled bridle and of golden spur”.

When he began to stay abroad, some four or five hundred years ago, his purpose was mischievous. He stayed to act as a court spy and intriguer, to find out secrets while keeping his own. A certain diplomat of the seventeenth century is said to have written in praise of his occupation, diplomacy “causes sudden revolutions in great states. It excites hatreds, jealousies and seditions. It arms princes and whole nations against their own interests; it forms leagues and other treaties among sovereigns and peoples whose interests are quite opposed to one another; it destroys those leagues and snaps the closest ties asunder”. There is no doubt as to what this means. It is war—polite war, if you please, where the weapons are deception, hypocrisy, insinuation and innuendo—the meanest kind of war, where cowards may be greater than heroes.

“If they lie to you, lie still more to them”, was the naive instruction given by one sovereign to his ambassadors.

Not to multiply instances on a point where history is unfortunately too full, it is interesting to notice, as some one has pointed out, that with rapid communication by train and by telegraph, court intrigues have gradually died away; for now that the capitals of the world are within “whispering distance” of each other, as it were, ambassadors have assumed a position of secondary importance to the minister for foreign affairs (or in America the Secretary of State), an officer who resides at the home capital.

PRECEDENCE.

Naturally enough, one of the questions of greatest concern at a mediaeval court was that of precedence—who was the biggest man, and the next and so on. Talk about comic opera! In more than one historic instance the question of precedence among diplomats, or the consequent squabbles between their trains of attendants, fairly “out-Herods Herod” in farcicalness. “The Conferences of Ryswyk”, we are told, “were held in a house which seemed to have been built for the purpose, with three separate entrances and every convenience for preventing collisions; but it was found impossible from first to last to sit at the single table in the rooms assigned to the mediators, because no agreement could be come to about the order of sitting; in that room they could only stand; they sat in a circle in another room where there was no table. A Latin protocol, which had been preserved of the proceedings at Nymegen eighteen years before, was produced as a precedent, but in vain; it contained a plan of the room used at Nymegen, showing the arrangement of seats in it, together with the positions of the doors, windows and fireplace—for these things may be important in determining which is the top and which the bottom of a table. A round table was used at Cambray, Soissons and Aix la Chapelle; but even a round table loses its accommodating quality when it is discovered that the place of honor is that opposite the door, and that every place of honor has a right hand and a left.” A quarrel between two ambassadors’ wives has seriously interfered with international negotiations, and a coachman’s obstinacy has added thirty pages to the “Compleate History of the Treaty of Utrecht.”

MODERN DIPLOMACY—CHARACTER.

It is not to be supposed that modern diplomacy has so completely changed character as to lose all of its disagreeable features, for there is still more or less mediaevalism attaching to it—at least if the popular conception be true. And perhaps in some degree it must always be so; for the office is unique in its opportunities as well as its inducements to dissimulate, mislead and misrepresent. In the first place, the diplomat undertakes his mission under secret instructions. The public may know what are the duties of the consular service as fully as the consuls themselves; but not so with the diplomatic service, for to the public it is a closed door. Moreover, our diplomat may reason with himself that business of any kind involving competition is a kind of warfare; that diplomatic business is especially so because it is international, that there is no penalty for the breaking of an international law, and thus he may be led to conclude that “all’s fair in love and war”, especially war.

It may be necessary for some if not all of the members of a legation to maintain a “discreet inquisitiveness”; it certainly is necessary for all to know how to meet indiscreet questions with non-committal answers; yet the finesse of diplomatic intrigue is dangerous ground and British and American diplomats have, in the main, done well to avoid it. The chief of a legation especially should remember that his office is a noble one and should be kept above the stifling air of intrigue; that the dignity of a nation may easily be compromised by the mere suspicion of complicity therein, and that to those among whom he moves he both represents his country officially and typifies his countrymen personally. The American diplomat has gained something of a reputation for going straight at the mark—of leaving no doubt as to the attitude of his government and the policy he is to follow, and is not this the true diplomacy? The ruling purpose should not be to gain one’s point, but to preserve the national dignity while using all honorable means to gain the point.

So much depends upon the manner of a diplomat. Men ordinarily admire and covet a certain plainness and directness of speech which in business may amount even to bluntness. But frankness of speech which in any other occupation might prove only disadvantageous, in diplomacy amounts to a complete disqualification. In business a diplomat must be all ears and no tongue until the time comes for him to speak, then he must know exactly what to say and what not to say. He may feel that every man has a right to an opinion and to the expression of it, but being a diplomat he must remember that his opinion will be regarded as official whether or not he intends it so, and therefore it must be guarded religiously.

In society, somewhat to the contrary, there should be no outward indication of a studied reserve—nothing that would serve as a restraint upon his freedom of movement and conversation. He should be a man of engaging manners, of suave and polite address, and of affability and urbanity in conversation. He should not only be well trained in the usages of good society, but should also thoroughly acquaint himself with the traditional usages and customs, the etiquette of the court where he is to reside.

ACCEPTABILITY.

Since the principal purpose in sending ambassadors is to secure peace by cultivating friendly relations with other governments, it is evidently wise before making an appointment to any country to learn whether the person whom it is expected to send is acceptable to that country. Accordingly it is customary before making the appointment public to make the nomination privately to the foreign government and to express the hope that it will be found acceptable. Even the nominee knows nothing of it, and is thus saved the pain of rejection in case that should occur. If there is no personal objection to the nominee, and if there is no doubt that his country possesses full sovereignty and is therefore entitled to send ambassadors, his government is notified of the fact that he is acceptable; but should there be any objection to him—and sometimes very trifling ones will suffice—his government is notified that he is persona non grata (not an agreeable person), and it proceeds to make other nominations. Not only has the foreign government the right to reject a nominee but also to demand his recall at any time if there is any well grounded dissatisfaction with him. One American ambassador was recalled because complaint was made about his bad manners.

SOVEREIGNTY OF A STATE.

Since the power to send ambassadors is conditioned upon the sovereignty of a state we may be pardoned for a glance at international law for the meaning of sovereignty. The essential attributes of a state are—

- (1) Equality—in a legal sense—a small country the equal of a larger one.

- (2) Independence, freedom from all other states.

- (3) Sovereignty.

- (4) Fixed locality—boundary.

- (5) Its people must be organized into a political society.

Woolsey, who mentions the first three only, says that they “cannot exist apart, and perhaps the single conception of sovereignty, or of self-protection, may include them all”. It is “the power of entering into relations with other states and of governing its own subjects”. Thus it follows that no dependency or colony can send a diplomat of any rank whatever.

After the appointment of any one to the diplomatic service, the manner of which will be mentioned later, he must take the oath of allegiance and is then given a pamphlet of printed instructions by the State Department. He is furnished with a letter of credence from the President to the foreign government and is expected to reach his post within a given time, and to stay there until the expiration of his appointment unless he is given special permission to leave. Having reached his destination, he is formally presented to the sovereign, unless he is a chargé d’affaires, makes calls upon his colleagues, and secures his exequatur. It is wise to make an early call upon the dean of the diplomatic body, who is generally the oldest official member of the diplomatic corps, for instruction as to local customs, ceremonies and etiquette.

Our government has generally assumed an attitude of indifference to matters of form and ceremony—an independence which has cost it no little prestige, and its diplomats a great deal of annoyance. It should be granted that forms and ceremonies have their place in diplomatic affairs, and that each court or capital has a right to its own long-established usages. But we have rather been inclined to turn up our noses at such foreign nonsense, forgetting that in matters of form there is sound discretion in the precept, “When in Rome do as the Romans do”. But the government seems to have cared less for the art of being agreeable than for the science of being successful, regardless of the fact that in diplomacy the one is a prerequisite to the other. Two illustrations of this may be given—the appointment of ambassadors and the question of a diplomatic uniform.

It is only within the present decade that the United States has begun to exercise its constitutional right to be represented wherever it chooses by diplomats of the first rank, i. e., ambassadors. Previously its highest representatives abroad were diplomats of the second rank, i. e., ministers, who though thoroughly competent to handle the business were simply out-ranked by every ambassador of every second or third rate power in the world. This we could afford to ignore so far as it is merely a question of sentiment, but when it compels an American diplomat after waiting hours for an audience to give place to any ambassador who happens along, and when it implies an acceptance on our part of a secondary place among the nations, it is sheer nonsense to continue the practice. Our reasons were, first an ambassador is supposed to represent the person of his sovereign, and as we have no sovereign we should have no ambassadors; and second, the office itself was supposed to involve a greater outlay of money and a more gorgeous and elaborate display than was consistent with the simplicity of republican tastes.

As to the diplomatic uniform, which is not the same thing as a court dress, by the way, the same objections have been urged. The mistake that we have made is in assuming that “the rule should emanate from home, and not from abroad”; for while we have an undoubted right to establish our own customs at our national capital, others might be excused for thinking us priggish when we attempt to carry those customs abroad, especially when in defiance of customs in general usage and of long standing. But so it stands recorded in the statutes, that American diplomatic officers shall wear no distinguishing uniform; and as a consequence, at an evening reception in some brilliant foreign capital you will see the diplomatic corps of other nations appropriately distinguished, while the American diplomat appears in the costume worn by the servants and waiters, that is, plain evening dress. What diplomats sometime complain of in this connection is not the lack of distinction, but that they are rather unpleasantly distinguished.

PRIVILEGES.

An ambassador enjoys unusual privileges from the time he enters until the time he leaves the country where he is sent, and these we will now briefly consider. They have been classified under the heads of inviolability and exterritoriality, though they may be considered together.

Inviolability means that “neither public authority nor private persons can use any force or do any violence to him, without offending against the law of nations”. Of course if he attempts any violence toward other individuals he becomes amenable to the local authorities.

Exterritoriality means the right while sojourning in a foreign country to remain subject to the laws of his own, in both criminal and civil jurisdiction.

These privileges are granted because it is thought that an ambassador cannot fully and freely represent his own country if he is liable to be interfered with by the state to which he is accredited. When carried out to their practical application some curious results are reached; for instance—

1. These privileges extend to his goods and his lodgings. “His house is a sanctuary—except in case of a gross crime—for himself and his retinue”. His official papers and archives are inviolate. He cannot shelter any fugitive from law, although even this—the right of asylum—was at one time general.

2. The courtesy of exemption from taxation is usually extended to ambassadors, as well as exemption from duties on all necessary articles of his household.

3. Owing to the inviolability of his property it is hard to collect a debt from an ambassador when he has a mind not to pay—a thing which has happened more than once.

4. The right to his own form of worship is granted to an ambassador and his retinue, even when his religion is not otherwise tolerated by the laws of the land. In this latter case it is sometimes provided that it must be simply “house worship—without bell, organ or other sign indicating to passengers in the street that a chapel is near by”;—“a native of the country cannot attend”, and the “chaplain must not appear abroad in his canonicals”.

5. Exemptions from local jurisdiction apply to the secretary of legation, the chaplain, physician, private secretary and even to domestic servants. They apply even to domestic servants who are natives of the country though in a limited degree.

Diplomatic Ball

See page 141

6. The jurisdiction of an ambassador over the members of his train is limited to minor matters. A criminal would be sent home for trial, the ambassador collecting and forwarding all the evidence.

I have purposely deferred the subject of the selection of diplomatic officers until after a consideration of the service itself, in order that we may the better understand what is needed in such an officer.

It will be observed that the requirements for a successful diplomat are wholly unlike those for a consul. To be successful in the consular service one must first of all be a good business man. One should have a mind for details, a quick and keen commercial insight, an acquaintance with the material facts of life, and the proper training would be that of the merchant or the journalist, supplemented in some cases by that of the lawyer and jurist. There is a definite, body of information which a consul should have at his command, a body of rules whose authority he must not transgress, and in the transaction of his business if he looks to precedent it is only for present guidance.

The diplomat on the other hand should first of all be a statesman. To belong to the first rank, along with the greatest in the world, he must have the gift of prophecy and the grace to keep it quiet. In the pursuit of a great national ambition he should have wisdom to foresee, genius to plan and tact to execute. His study is of men, the history and the political institutions of men, the history and tendencies of his own times, and the capacities and characteristics of different races. These things are his science, furnishing the basis for his art, that art which Bacon called the highest of all—the art of “working” men. He cannot, in the nature of the case, expect to receive very definite instruction from his government, unless it be upon a specific line of policy and an acquaintance with the treaties between the two countries. Precedents are of value to him as a guide to present action, but more especially as affecting future policy; for a nation’s foreign policy is influential among other nations and satisfactory at home in proportion as it is self-consistent and just. In great international emergencies the diplomat sometimes does the work of a military chieftain, but with these differences: his means are peaceful, his warfare is necessarily in secret, the results are bloodless, and, when all is done, the skill with which he has fought is seldom recognized except by the historian.

Fortunately the practical problem of choosing men for the diplomatic service does not contemplate deeds of such momentous character—at least not for beginners—but it does indicate the magnitude of the scale of operations sometimes carried on by this service which makes history no less than do military campaigns. It is evident, moreover, that no course of study however long can prepare a man for the diplomatic service, except in an elementary way. It goes without saying that such elementary preparation should be made before entering the service, and that it should include among other essentials a knowledge of French, Spanish or German, especially the first which has been called the language of diplomacy.

But after all, the only satisfactory preparation for the diplomatic service is experience. Some years ago the United States began a system, pursued more or less by other nations, of appointing young men to various legations as attachés without salary. In this capacity they became acquainted with diplomats and the “ins and outs” of diplomacy, and incidentally gave their superiors a chance to discover their fitness or unfitness for the service. The advantages of such a system, which has been abandoned except as to the appointment of military and naval attachés, must be apparent to all, and it is hard to see why it should not be reinstated.

In the absence of definite training and knowledge to furnish a basis for examination the diplomatic service is either exceptionally fortunate or exceptionally unfortunate. As long as the good of the service is kept chiefly in view in the selection of candidates, even though the service be regarded as political, it is well that technical knowledge cannot interfere seriously with the appointment of the most promising candidate. On the other hand, when the service is regarded as a legitimate means of rewarding political friends it will suffer all the more for the want of a restraint such as the examination affords, just as with the consular service, only in a greater degree.

Diplomatic officers are more apt to change with the change of administration than are consular officers, for the reason that the service itself is more political in character. Some authorities go so far as to justify the change on the ground that the administration ought to be unrestricted in carrying out its policy, and therefore should be represented abroad by those of its own political faith just as it is in the cabinet. It must be admitted that there is a great deal to justify this contention, but it should be said that the analogy with the President’s cabinet is hardly fair; for in the latter case the parties are the units, and we recognize the right of the stronger party to full executive power; but in the case of the ambassadors the nation is the unit which he represents, not the party. Theoretically the change of diplomatic officials with the change of administration cannot be justified, and practically a sweeping change is certainly demoralizing to our interests. In the most important positions, however, it may sometimes be best that the President be allowed to substitute those of his own party.

With the present system of recruiting the diplomatic service the most essential point is to lodge the testing power in the hands of capable and incorruptible men, so that those who are “appointed for examination” will not necessarily pass because of the influence which supports them.

I will now leave the subject with you, merely remarking in closing that diplomacy, especially American diplomacy, which lies outside of and beyond our present theme, is of fascinating interest and will well repay careful study. Our diplomatic history is brief, but it is glorious, chiefly because it has made for righteousness and peace, not to ourselves only but to all the world.

“Professor, will you kindly give the remainder of the articles of the Congress of Vienna”?

“Certainly. Besides the first and the last which have already been given, they are as follows:

“Art. II. Ambassadors, legates, or nuncios only have the representative character; (that is, can represent the person of the sovereign).

“Art. III. Diplomatic agents on an extraordinary mission have not, on that account, any superiority of rank; (e. g., our commissioners at the Hague conference would not for that reason outrank our diplomatic representative there, supposing the latter not to be a commissioner).

“Art. IV. Diplomatic officers shall take precedence in their respective classes according to the date of the official notification 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 between courts confer no precedence on their diplomatic agents. The same rule applies also 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 ministers.”

Q. “Are these the only international rules concerning diplomats”?

A. “They are the only ones given in the Diplomatic and Consular Register”.

Q. “Are they universally accepted”?

A. “By all except Turkey, which recognizes but three grades—ambassadors, ministers and chargés d’affaires”.

Q. “Suppose we send a diplomat of the second rank to any country: have we a right to receive one of the same grade in return”?

A. “Certainly, and no more. Italy, however, sends us an ambassador, while our representative to Italy is a minister”.

Q. “Professor, you will allow me to disagree with you upon the propriety of wearing a uniform”?

A. “Certainly, what have you to say”?

Q. “Well, nothing new; it is only that as a people we have taken a wise stand in favor of simplicity as opposed to meaningless conventionalities, and that it should characterize all our official relations with foreign powers, otherwise we would seem to compromise our position”.

A. “I’ll admit,” said the Professor, “that yours is the view ordinarily taken and officially adopted in our country. But I still maintain that it is a wrong view because it is founded upon a wrong principle, namely that ‘the rule should emanate from home’. Why, suppose you go to visit a neighbor and you find that the rules of his household are somewhat unlike your own: would you not as far as possible try to conform to them? Of course you would; and the complaisance that is to be expected between neighbors is a duty as between ambassadors, because it is their business to remove friction, not to create it. Oh, well, these are trifles and need not be dwelt upon were it not that they are conspicuous trifles.

“But the mention of these matters of etiquette reminds me of a suggestion by Schuyler, to the effect that a bureau of ceremonies should be added to the State Department—just as in Paris there is a Service du Protocol—both to facilitate its correspondence and to serve as an intermediary between the Department and foreign diplomats in Washington. There are many reasons—small in themselves, but rather weighty taken together, why this suggestion is worth heeding. The Master of Ceremonies plays a very important as well as a conspicuous part in nearly every capital except Washington; and perhaps he is all the more necessary with us because we have so little ceremony”.

After dismission a group of ladies was observed in earnest conversation waiting for a word with the Professor, who soon advanced with: “Do you wish to speak to me”?

“Oh, we were just wondering”, said one of them, “why women wouldn’t make good ambassadors”.

“They do”, said the Professor, “and excellent ones, too, for women are generally diplomats both by nature and training”.

“I never heard of one’s being appointed”.

“No, it is always her husband that is appointed; but this is dangerous ground. It is a fact well known in the service that a discreet wife can almost double her husband’s efficiency. In the first place she hears as much gossip as he does—as much, I say—and if she can keep it, why that is the best way that a diplomat can learn what is going on. But aside from court gossip, a great deal of an ambassador’s influence depends upon his position in society and this in turn depends very much upon the kind of wife he has. An indiscreet wife, one who is over fond of gossip, or under fond of society, might be a positive disqualification for the best kind of ambassador. It should go without saying that the wife should be patriotic; only sometimes diplomats will marry abroad. On this point Schuyler says that Bismarck always insisted that German diplomats should marry German wives. Women are very important social factors at every capital, and even sovereigns find that they are to be reckoned with. A good story is told by Schuyler which illustrates this fact and which shows at the same time what diplomacy can do in small things. I give it as nearly as I recall in his words:

“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. 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 appointed 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 the 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 dispense with such useful ministers, neither could he override the rules of court etiquette. He adopted, however, a very simple expedient—he ennobled the long-deceased great-grandfathers of the ladies in question, which thus gave them the personal right to appear”.

“Have diplomats nothing better to do than simply to get along peaceably with each other”?

“It must be confessed that in spite of the grand part they are expected to play upon occasion, a large share of their time and attention is devoted to the art of being agreeable—not a mean art in its way, though it demands attention to trifles after a fashion that would be exasperating to some minds.”

“Then I understand that it is in this exasperating art, the minor tactics of diplomacy, that women have the credit of excelling”?

“It is in this that they certainly do excel; and indeed in major tactics or world politics one need not ask for a better diplomat for her day and her nation than ‘Good Queen Bess’, not to mention other illustrious examples”.

“Well”, said one of the ladies, as they turned to go, “since to be an ambassador a woman must either be born one or marry one, why we might as well settle down to minor tactics where we are; so have a care, Professor, for we may not have learned the art of being agreeable”.

LECTURE
V

UNCLE SAM AND EXPANSION.

Uncle Sam has lately gone abroad after an entirely new fashion—new at least to him.

He went to Hawaii only after repeated and urgent invitation; hesitating because he thought it was against his principles.

He went to Cuba to help the people to get rid of their rubbish.

He went to Porto Rico because he thought that he was needed.

He went to the Philippines on a business trip, and is there yet. He will probably make up his mind to stay there though he is still halting a little. In less than a year he will have decided, and in the meantime he will do some hard thinking about it, just as he has been doing since May 1, 1898.

It is to this problem that we will now address ourselves—for it is still a problem with some—not to questions of method in administration, which should be determined by experience, but to the ethical, political and practical considerations involved in the term expansion, or if you please, imperialism.

First of all, the occupation of the Philippines by the United States is regarded by the average American citizen as a moral question. “Is it right to extend our authority over the Philippines, even, if necessary, by force of arms”? This is the question we all have been asking ourselves, the question that the “anti-imperialists” have promptly answered in the negative, while the great majority of opinion seems to be slowly swinging in the opposite direction, in agreement with the present administration.

But the answer to this question, startling as it may seem, is that it is not primarily an ethical question, whatever ethical phases it may have. “What,” you ask, “do not all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?” Well, let us see about that; and in order to see clearly and dispassionately let us get outside of America as it were, so that we may look at this proposition from a convenient distance.

People sometimes make mistakes. Whole nations sometimes make the same mistake. Indeed, on a fundamental proposition a whole civilization during successive periods of history covering many centuries has been known to swing from one extreme to the other and backward again. Such movements are often likened to the swing of a mighty pendulum, or better still, to the rising and narrowing coils of a spiral.

Naturally, one of the subjects upon which men have thought the most and disagreed the most and therefore made the most mistakes is the relation of the individual to the state. Less than three centuries ago one of the fundamental maxims of government was that the individual exists for the state and not the state for the individual. This is one extreme. Up to the time of Rousseau there was no marked philosophical change upon this subject on the continent of Europe. With him and those after him began that marvelous reaction—that tidal wave of philosophic thought and popular conviction away from absolutism and in the direction of the rights of man. If this movement should reach its climax in the opposite extreme it would mean anarchy—and that is what it reached in the French Revolution.

It was but a few years before its climax, however, that our own Declaration of Independence was written, the writers whereof were thoroughly in sympathy with the movement toward the rights of man. Hence we hear in America the calm statement, “We believe that all men are by nature free and equal”, while in France we hear the frenzied cry, “Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!”

The individual has at last secured his long coveted freedom. But it is only to be confronted with a still greater question, namely: What is he to do with his freedom? How is he to use it?

Well, what has he done with it? In America, as elsewhere, notwithstanding his political creed, he has wisely decided that the insane must not enjoy either freedom or equality with other men. No more can criminals; no more do women. Why? If all have a right to these things, who dares take it away?

This brings us to a point beyond the statement of the Declaration, a point, however, that must have been in the minds of the writers, namely, that

SELF-GOVERNMENT IS NOT SO MUCH A RIGHT AS IT IS A CAPACITY.

Have you a right to vote, and if so where did you get it? You may answer these questions just as you please; but the fact is, if you go insane or commit a crime the government takes away your right to vote because of your incapacity. You are assumed to have the capacity and therefore the right unless it is proved to the contrary; but let it not be forgotten that the capacity is fundamental and antecedent to the right, otherwise our theory will always seem inconsistent with our practice.

And that is what mystifies so many of us just now. We have made no mistake in our practice, but we have made a mistake in trying to justify the practice by an unfounded theory, and it doesn’t work. We as a nation have simply been idealizing the rights of man, liberty and self-government, forgetting that these are all secondary to capacity, just as did the eighteenth century doctrinaires.

So far with the analogy. Now, can any one give a good, valid reason why the same conclusions would not apply to a community or tribe or race within a state which is held to be incapable—the Indians, for instance, or the emancipated slaves? Certainly not. Now, is there any ethical reason why the same conclusions would not apply to an incompetent nation? Certainly not. The difficulty to be encountered is a practical one, because, first, there is no international court to decide upon the capacity of a race to govern itself, and, second, there is no international power to act as guardian for incompetent or backward races.

How is it with the family of nations to-day? A few of them are forging ahead at a marvelous rate, a good many more are like Micawber’s wife, continually in statu quo, while others still are suffering a noticeable decline, and finally there are races or tribes which have never been organized into states or nations, and which if left to themselves probably never will be. And to what shall we liken this family of nations? It is like a settlement beyond the frontier of civilization, with no law above them except a neighborhood agreement—a settlement made up of a few progressive men, a number of “ne’er do weels”, several idiots and insane and a number of dissolutes. The best that one could hope for in such a situation would be for the progressive men to infuse some life and energy into the “ne’er do weels”, remove all destructive agencies from the hands of the idiots and insane and put the dissolutes under watch and ward. Instead, however, the state of things that we actually see is this: the dissolutes are rebellious, the idiots are idiots, the “ne’er do weels” are suspicious, and worst of all, the progressive men are jealous of each other. In the absence of cohesiveness and harmony in this settlement, one of these progressive men has shown a disposition sometimes domineering, sometimes kindly, but a disposition nevertheless to maintain law and order, and a fondness for having a hand in enforcing it, and that man is Mr. Anglo-Saxon. He never puts his hand to this business without calling down the imprecations of the whole neighborhood upon himself as a tyrant, and yet freedom, prosperity and progress go with him. He doesn’t believe much in passive goodness. He has learned the lesson of self-government and he proposes to teach it to his less progressive neighbors whether or no; and when they have once learned it they may stay under his protection or not, just as they please, and the significant fact is that they are not only glad to stay but to fight for him when they have once learned his idea of freedom.

A fanatic may say, “I prefer my own government, not because it is the best, but because it is mine”. That may well be as between two progressive nations, but as between a progressive and a retrograde or incompetent government, it is sheer fanaticism. It avails nothing in such a case to quote the words of Lincoln: “No man is good enough to govern another man against that other man’s consent”, for these words were uttered concerning human bondage which is by no means analogous to a loss of independence by a state. Canada has no political independence, technically, but are Canadians in bondage? Are the Australians, the Hindus, the Egyptians, in bondage?

No nation has a right to remain in the backwoods (pardon the homely expression). The facilities for travel and inter-communication are so vastly improved the “double coincidence of wants and possessions” has become so general, the bar of language, custom, religion and race is so rapidly disappearing—in a word, the nations of the earth are becoming such near neighbors to each other that each must be personally interested, so to speak, in the welfare of the others. If a man’s nearest neighbors are some miles distant, the way they get their living or govern their households may be of small interest to him; but let them move up to adjoining lots and it makes a world of difference whether their business is reputable, and whether their households are quiet and orderly.

No nation is safe when it remains in the backwoods. When two races, a more civilized and a less civilized, come into close quarters as neighbors the latter must improve or go to the wall. And this is not so much a moral as it is a physical question; for an area of land that will support one hunter will support a hundred farmers, and nature is economic in this as in every other matter. It is not so much that the weak must yield to the strong as it is that the ineffectual must give way to the effectual—just the ordinary law of evolution.

“No Nation has a right
to remain
in the backwoods”

See page 169.

Like all natural laws it is merciless; and being a natural law it is neither to be condemned nor justified; yet again, like other natural laws, its rigor may and should be mitigated. In short, the superior race should regard the inferior much as a schoolmaster does an intractable youth, who must be dealt with kindly and patiently, admonished repeatedly and perhaps punished severely.

No nation has a right to remain in the backwoods. A country that shuts its eyes to progress in other lands, a people whose all-sufficient answer is, “What was good enough for our fathers is good enough for us”, a nation which stands for tyranny, for corruption, for instability, for retrogression, of any sort, has no one to blame but itself when the widening breach which separates it from advancing civilization is closed with a violence that destroys its identity.

An unstable government is a standing menace to all neighboring governments. It is the rottenness of Turkey, more than the cupidity of the powers, that constantly endangers the peace of Europe. It was the rottenness of Spanish colonial administration and not our own cupidity, that brought on the Spanish war. It is the turbulence of the South American republics rather than their weakness, that in spite of the protection of the Monroe doctrine may yet invite European intervention. The culpability of the incompetent powers is a theme we hear much less about than the “rapacity” of the “harpy powers”—and why? Because of that childish tendency to take the part of the “under dog”, no matter whose the fault.

It would seem a necessary conclusion, therefore, that whenever a people demonstrates its incapacity to learn self-government by its own unaided effort, or whenever from any cause its civilization is far in the rear of the times, that the best interests both of itself and of the rest of humanity demand that it be placed under a governmental pedagogue, at least until it attains its majority. And this is no less true though the people rebel and many lives be lost, provided that it means progress for the race—“the greatest good to the greatest number”. Who would claim that Egypt would be better off without the wise guidance of England, or who now counts the lives that were lost in India in the establishment of her beneficent reign?

Hence, not all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, for this sublime statement of the Declaration applies to those only who are fit for self-government. We hold it now as we always have held it, a governmental ideal which we mean to realize; for in practice we never have followed it in our dealings with the Indians, and we never made a greater mistake than in following it too literally in the days of “reconstruction”.

It should be observed that the Philippine question, coming upon us as it did, all unlooked for and unsought, made our duty all the more unmistakable. No time was given to judge of the capacity of the people for self-government, nor to ask whether ours was the nation to assume sovereignty. We were simply confronted with a situation. The logic of events (or shall we not say the hand of Providence?) had placed upon us a responsibility which, whether desirable or undesirable, we could not shirk. We stood sponsor to the world for the islands, the sovereignty over which we had destroyed. As a question of international law there could be no doubt of our sovereignty.

“But”, says the anti-imperialist, “this is ignoring the rights of the inhabitants”, and then he proceeds in academic fashion to solve the whole problem by a very simple syllogism, thus:

Major premise—All just government is founded upon the consent of the governed.

Minor premise—The natives of the Philippines are in need of a just government.

Conclusion—The Philippines should be left to take care of themselves.

And this pleasant bit of sophistry actually passes for argument among those who do not stop to see the gaps in it—who do not reflect that a government is a growth, and not a mere artificial structure to be erected by inexperienced hands—who do not reflect that something is due to international comity, and that the nations would certainly have to be reckoned with in the advent of a new power—and finally, who will not give candid consideration to the unanimous testimony of such men as Schurman, Worcester, Denby, Otis and Dewey to the effect that “no tie of race, religion, sympathy or common interest of any kind holds the natives together or justifies a belief in their capacity for self-government”!

But other objections are raised against American occupation of the Philippines. It is alleged that it is contrary to our traditional policy; that it is in disregard of the advice of Washington to “avoid entangling alliances”; that it sacrifices our “splendid isolation”, and makes us more vulnerable to a foreign enemy.

All these objections—if objections they are—must be met by a frank admission. But it is worth while to inquire into their validity as objections—to see whether they should have as much weight henceforth as they have had in the past; for we must all see very plainly that the policy of “expansion” involves a radical change in our world relations—a change somewhat at variance with our historic policy.

Let me not be misunderstood when I say that a certain reserve (to use no stronger term) has always characterized our government—not our citizens, mind you, but our government—that we have exhibited toward the “Old World” such an attitude as, who should say—“We have come out into this New World to escape the tyranny of the Old. We have explored it, conquered it, settled it, and then won our independence from the Old. We consider our land and its government peculiarly suited to become the ‘land of the free and the home of the brave’—‘a home for the oppressed of all nations’. We intend to stay at home and not meddle in your affairs, and we expect you to do the same”.

An attitude such as this is just what one would expect in the light of colonial and revolutionary history. But there is another—a politic reason: a weak power with a flattering prospect of becoming a great one is just such a prize as would tempt the cupidity of stronger powers; hence it would desire nothing so much as to be let alone. Such a power should above all things “avoid entangling alliances”—keep to itself until its strength is developed. Such a power we were when those words were uttered, and such we remained as long as the schism of slavery existed, so that never did we realize our full, united strength until called into action against Spain. Up to the present, then, Washington’s advice has proved sound policy.

What then; are we about to abandon it? No, but we are about to abandon a perverted interpretation of it and that, too, not so much from choice as from necessity. We are beginning to see that a measure of prudence for a weak power is by no means equally wise when that power has grown strong. We are beginning to see, also, that a false interpretation of it has somehow become common, which would confine our activities, save in a commercial way, to our own boundaries. It somehow assumes that we are as large and influential now as we were ever intended to be; that our future development is to be altogether internal.

To admit the truth of this—to admit that there is a limit to the area of our country beyond which it is imprudent to go, to admit that our country, being a republic, cannot consistently possess or successfully administer any foreign territory, whether detached points of military and commercial importance or portions of mainland—to admit all this is to admit the inability of our government to hold its own with the best. The “government” in England is no less democratic than the “administration” in America, and yet England leads the world in colonization.

Expansion in its broadest sense is not new. It is as old, almost, as the government itself. We have merely come to the point of extending its application to other lands, as England has long been doing, and that, too, at a time when rapid transit and communication have simplified the task inconceivably. The policy of expansion was in the air in 1893—though it had not yet received a name—when the weight of public opinion demanded of our executive that the Hawaiian Islands should not be restored to an incompetent queen. Americans have not yet forgotten their chagrin, nor how European diplomats laughed at the spectacle of the “Great Republic”, wanting so much to do the thing it ought while imagining that its hands were tied by the stay-at-home tradition. This same timidity or reticence or reserve or self-distrust or self-satisfaction, call it by whichever term you choose, has already lost for us the Samoan Islands (save one), Hayti and other strategic points.

There is some gratification to be sure in being able to show the world, as we have done, an example of a country which is not grasping for territory—which can even reject a point of advantage offered by the inhabitants thereof, feeling that the sacrifice of territory is better for us than the sacrifice of the principle of self-government for them. But in neither Samoa nor Hayti has the subsequent history of those places justified our rejection of them, either for their sake or our own. Moreover as far as its influence on the world is concerned it seems to have failed of its effect, if one may judge by the accusation of avarice that assailed us at the outbreak of the Spanish war.

It took more than the Philippine question, more than the Spanish war, to inaugurate the policy of “expansion”. These merely furnished the occasion for that toward which the progress of the world was leading us. To put it in a word—we have expanded because our “splendid isolation” is gone, rather than that our isolation is gone because we have expanded; and our isolation is gone because of the progress of the world.

The great international factors of to-day, bringing the nations into common markets and common councils, pouring the commerce, news, literature, customs, life, of each into all the others, are the steamship and the cable. These have done more for America, probably, than for any other nation; for more than any other agency they have destroyed her isolation. But they have done even more than that; for they have made her virtually central.

It was customary a few years ago—is yet in some quarters—to speak of the Pacific Ocean as if it were the backyard of the globe. It was imagined by one devout geographer that the hand of an all-wise Providence could be seen in arranging it so that the most civilized countries of the earth front upon the same ocean—the Atlantic. But the improvement of the steamship is equivalent to the reduction of distance, and this added to the establishment of bases of traffic virtually narrows the Pacific down to a smaller ocean than the Atlantic used to be. Thus America, between the great manufacturing centers of Europe and the greatest of markets in Asia, with the best of pathways to each, seems destined to become the central market of the world; and with the Nicaragua canal severing the Isthmus and the cable crossing the Pacific her position will be made all the more central as well as defensible.

As a mere matter of policy, why should we not adopt expansion? Who ever knew a recluse of a nation to attain to national greatness of any kind, or to send forth leaders of men? In such a nation one inevitable result must be the provincializing and sectionalizing of men and measures, until breadth of statesmanship and catholicity of sympathy are unknown. Americans may well profit by contrasting the statesmanship of her consuls and diplomats abroad with that of certain leaders at home. The former, accustomed to view the national policy from without are practically unanimous so far as they have expressed themselves in urging that we come out of our seclusion. “Happily”, says one, “such an ideal is as impossible as it is ignoble and retrograde. Impelled by irresistible forces we are already beginning to look outward, and are preparing to take the high place among the nations to which our strength entitles us. We should be unworthy members of the stout-hearted race to which we belong if we were daunted by the dangers and burdens of the wider activities upon which we are entering”.

The matter of greatest concern in the policy of expansion is, after all, not financial or political gain, but the reflex influence upon the individual citizen, and here we can only speculate. It is alleged on the one hand that expansion offers opportunities for corruption such as we never have known in municipal misgovernment, that it will lodge power in the hands of officials at a distance from those to whom they are responsible, that our treatment of inferior races at home does not justify our undertaking the same thing abroad, and that it is downright hypocrisy for us, a democratic people, to attempt the government of any other people.

There are certain defects common to all of these objections. It should be noticed, in the first place, that they seize upon the most conspicuous features of misgovernment in America as if they were typical, and consequently the very thing to be expected in foreign service; secondly, they indicate a pessimistic distrust of men—a distrust masquerading as prudence and conservatism—which is neither justified by the sum of the facts nor is it healthful for those who urge them; thirdly, they assume the equal right of all men to govern themselves regardless of capacity.

It should be noticed, moreover, that, as a rule, officers who receive their positions by appointment are held more strictly to account than are those who are elected by ballot; for the latter are not as apt to be removed for inefficiency or corruption as the former. Besides they have the machine back of them instead of the people or the President. Hence, since officers for the foreign administrative service would necessarily be chosen by the administration, as are those in the consular and diplomatic service, it is not too much to expect even a better government for the dependencies than for ourselves—however strange it may seem to say so.

It should be noticed again that good government is more likely to be the rule than the exception in our dependencies for the following reasons:

First, oppression, or misgovernment of any kind, does not pay. As has often been pointed out, this is the one great lesson that England learned in the Revolutionary War, and she has made good use of it ever since. The primary object, first, last and always, must be the welfare of the dependency; otherwise it is all a hypocritical delusion, containing nothing so good as the seeds of its own destruction. Second, American pride in what Americans can do will not accept any but the best results, especially when nearly all the world is looking on distrustfully.

Third, the one race which by common consent has best solved the problem of self-government is the Anglo-Saxon, and the Philippines are to be congratulated upon being under its instruction.

It should be noticed that there are reasons for believing that instead of having a harmful influence upon the American commonwealth the influence of expansion will be healthful. Corruption in politics is generally a direct result of the indifference of the citizen, an indifference arising from an unwarranted sense of security. The citizen must learn to feel that he has now an added responsibility, a deeper obligation to humanity to make his own government as pure as possible; for the idea of expansion involves an assumption of superiority upon our part—an assumption that we must make good in every particular. Lynch law and municipal corruption must cease altogether; for we have given ourselves to the world as an example not only of good government, but of good self-government, and we cannot afford that even occasional exceptions shall be tolerated. We should have more politicians, not fewer—so that scoundrels could find no room in the business.

“Splendid Isolation”

See page 179

Moreover, our newly assumed responsibilities will have the effect of developing and training in leadership. It is a most significant lesson to Americans that this practical training of leaders and rulers of men has enabled England, according to some writers, to make such great advancement in municipal government.

Some notice is due to the objection that these outlying possessions render us more vulnerable in case of war; that because of their wide separation and the enormous increase of coast line the task of defense will be greatly augmented. This is evidently true; and it is no less true and no less evident that in the same ratio will our means of defense be augmented; for the fighting of the future will be naval more and more as the years go by; and naval warfare demands, first, a navy, and, second, bases of operation.

But a navy is expensive both to create and to maintain, and our new policy will demand a largely increased navy and an enormous outlay of money. Yes, but this has long been needed by our foreign commerce, and the lack of it for this purpose has been disastrous. A nation whose merchants pay out half a million dollars every day for transportation in foreign vessels (I quote the words of the chief engineer of the navy), certainly ought to do all in its power to encourage its own merchant marine, at least by furnishing adequate protection. Think of it! a half a million saved every day would build a $3,000,000 battleship in one week. Why, we paid out enough in pensions in one year to build twenty-five such vessels. This ought to suggest to every one that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. Hence, though a navy is expensive, it is still more so to do without one.

But, you say, we are incurring a vast expense in subduing and controlling the country, and apparently there is no income to balance it. Add to all this the $20,000,000 conceded by the Treaty of Paris, and don’t you think it a rather poor investment?

Here again let us seek our answer from the experience of England in Egypt and in India. In both of these countries her outlay of money originally was enormous, and from neither of them does she now receive a penny of revenue. She taxes them to be sure, but the taxes are spent for the local administration—none for England. It is from trade with these countries—the greater because of her greater prestige—trade which is of mutual benefit, that England derives any revenue whatsoever, but that is enormous. Yet she does not forbid other nations to trade with them nor place any obstacle in their way. She has had simply the advantage of greater prestige and commercial ability.

Finally one other objection must be noticed and that is the constitutional objection. As to the merits of this question, let constitutional lawyers decide; but if the country has been expanding ever since it began, and all the arguments of statesmen, big and little, have not prevented it from expanding, it would seem to be not so much a constitutional question as it is one of national policy and international law. At any rate the constitution was made for America and not America for the constitution; and while it is one of the ablest of documents, nobody considers it faultless or supposes it ever could be. James Bryce in a burst of enthusiasm says of us: “Such a people could work any constitution”.

It is impossible to speak in so short a time of all the points involved in expansion, or even of the one case we have been considering, the details of which we can well afford to omit, if it is justified by political, international, commercial and especially ethical considerations.

We will now listen to questions.

As soon as the opportunity was given there were several ready to take advantage of it, and the questions came fast and furious—almost.

“Professor”, said one, “it seems to me that I see several inconsistencies in your position. You will not mind my saying so?”

“Certainly not. Proceed.”

“In the first place, you say that a government is a ‘growth’, and yet you would impose the authority of our government upon the Philippines. Why not give their government a chance to grow?”

“Very good; but suppose instead of resulting in a growth the Philippine attempt proves abortive, as we have every reason to suppose that it would? You seem to assume that growth must result necessarily; but an egg is more likely to spoil than to hatch when left without protection, and so it has proved with republics. The trouble with you theorizers is that you begin at the wrong end in building up your Philippine republic. You begin at the top, the general government, the president and legislature, instead of beginning at the bottom, the precinct or township. To be sure the need of a general government is imperative and immediate, but things never grow in that way. Now, what do we propose to do in the Philippines? We propose to substitute our own power for the general government while the real government is growing up among the people. In all self-government life begins at the extremities, not at the center.”

“And do you propose to withdraw as soon as it has attained full growth?”

“We propose to let that question alone until full growth has been attained. It is quite unlikely that the American people will ever care to impose their government upon an unwilling people who are abundantly able to take care of themselves. It is much more likely when that time shall come, that as a Filipino has expressed it, ‘the Filipinos will be better Americans than the Americans themselves’, just like the English colonists in their loyalty to the mother country”.

“That is all very well; but I still discover some assumptions in your answers. In the first place you assume that the Filipinos are incapable of organizing a government for themselves, and in the second place you assume that we Americans will be entirely disinterested in maintaining our authority over them. If you can satisfy me upon these points I will accept all you have said.”

“I am sorry I can’t prove everything, and must therefore make some assumptions”, said the Professor, “but as to the first I shall simply refer you to the testimony of those who know them best, which to me is conclusive upon this point. But the point itself is secondary to our international obligation to re-establish law and order. As to the second assumption, again I have little to say, though there is much to be said. I am happy to believe not only in the general efficiency of our government, particularly the general or Federal government, but also in its integrity of character and the honesty of its administration.”

“Professor”, said another man, “I suppose I am what you would call a fanatic; for I am foolish enough to prefer my own government simply because it is mine and not because it is the best.”

“You may be uninformed rather than fanatical, my friend. Did you ever live any length of time in Central or South America?”

“No.”

“Well, suppose you go down to Nicaragua, or Venezuela, or Colombia, or Hayti for four or five years; then when you come back—that is if you come back alive—count up the annual and semi-annual revolutions you have seen, and then tell us what you think about it. Don’t you see that you are getting the sentiment of patriotism and the science of government somewhat mixed. You may love your country all you will and independently of its government, but the only justification for the latter should be its efficiency—efficiency in securing life, liberty and justice to all.”

“I should like to ask a question”, said another man.

“Very well.”

“I should like to know how you would prove that the Anglo-Saxon is the one race which by common consent has best solved the problem of self-government.”

“Let me refer you for your answer to ‘Anglo-Saxon Superiority’ by Edward Demolin, a gifted French writer; also for the influence of the British and the American constitutions let me refer you to the history of almost any legislative body in the world. I think this last reference in itself is sufficient.”

“It seems to me, Professor, that your frequent references to England, especially at this time, are rather unfortunate, if you will allow me the liberty to say so; for a country with so shady a reputation as hers, cannot be held up for admiration. Will not your advocacy of expansion suffer from such an unsavory comparison?”

“Perhaps”, said the Professor, “I may be pardoned for departing so far from the subject of the evening as to reply to your criticism, since it leads up to the answer to your question.

“Has England a ‘shady reputation’? Certainly, among those who are jealous of her, and everybody outside of Anglo-Saxon sovereignty has good reason to be jealous of her. But is there no better foundation for this reputation than mere jealousy? Certainly; in her dealings with Ireland, in the early days in India, and in her treatment of the American colonists her policy was sometimes uninformed, sometimes unwise and even cruel and oppressive, and her historians offer no defense for it. Has she displayed unusual cruelty in her conquests? By no means; she has displayed such unusual activity in colonization—in doing police duty for the world, in substituting intelligent force for misdirected force, that as a natural result she is disliked by a great many people. It is not to be supposed that her purposes in colonization have always been unselfish—perhaps they never have been so; but her purposes and methods in administration are unselfish, and thus she has taught the world the secret that Rome failed to find—how to knit together a great colonial empire.

“You speak of the present unfortunate Transvaal war. So far as this bears upon your question I have only this to say; my sympathies are with the English, because, disregarding the merits of the original controversy, about which none of us who read both sides dare be positive, the English are our own kindred; and because we could never forgive ourselves if we were to forget the noble, generous and fraternal part that England played in 1898, the consequences of which she is now suffering in the hostility to the Anglo-Saxon. I do not dismiss the original controversy because it is unimportant—for the question of right or wrong far outweighs all other considerations—but in the conflict of opinions and the appeals to passion the American, it seems to me, should dismiss all; and if he feels that he must take sides, he will find that the considerations of race, national interest and national gratitude, as well as the greater probability of just government, are all on the side of the British arms.

“And now as to the point of your question: England can scarcely be held up to us as a ‘horrible example’ of what is likely to happen to a nation which allows itself to expand, because at the very worst the example isn’t sufficiently horrible. But more than that, our acquisitions have all come to us peacefully and gladly, except one fifth of the Filipinos, and our whole course has been singularly devoid of mistakes, and I can imagine that in the future this period, safely passed, will be regarded as one of the most brilliant and successful in our history.”

1. See “American Diplomacy,” by Eugene Schuyler.

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

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

4. Francis B. Loomis, North American Review, Sept., 1899.

5. See Appendix.

APPENDIX.

SYNOPSIS OF COMMERCIAL TREATIES.

Key:

A:

“Most-Favored-Nation” Clause.

B:

Inviolability of Consular Archives.

C:

Inviolability of Consular Office and Dwelling.

D:

Exemption from Arrest.

E:

Exemption from Obligation to Appear as a Witness.

F:

Exemption from Taxation.

G:

Exemption from Military and Public Service.

H:

Procedure in Infraction of Treaties—Correspondence.

I:

Use of National Arms and Flag on Consular Office and Dwelling.

J:

Right to Take Depositions.

K:

Jurisdiction Over Disputes Between Masters, Officers, and Crew.

L:

Right to Reclaim Deserters.

M:

Jurisdiction Over Salvage and Wrecks.

N:

Right to Take Charge of Deceased Citizens’ Effects.

O:

Extradition of Criminals.

P:

Judicial Powers.

Note.—For explanation of this table, see following pages.

| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P
Argentina | † | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | .
Austria- Hungary | † | † | . | ‡ | ‡ | § | § | † | ‡ | † | † | † | † | ‡ | † | .
Belgium | † | † | † | † | ‡ | § | § | † | ‡ | † | † | † | † | ‡ | ¶ | .
Bolivia | † | † | † | . | . | § | . | . | . | . | . | † | † | . | . | .
Borneo | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | . | . | †
China | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | . | . | †
Colombia | † | † | . | . | . | § | † | † | ‡ | † | † | † | † | ‡ | ¶ | .
Costa Rica | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | ‡ | . | .
Denmark | † | † | . | . | . | § | † | . | . | . | † | † | . | . | . | .
Dominican Republic | † | † | . | . | . | § | . | . | . | . | † | † | † | . | ¶ | .
Ecuador | † | † | . | . | . | § | . | . | . | . | . | † | † | . | ¶ | .
Egypt | † | . | . | . | . | § | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | .
France | † | † | † | ‡ | ‡ | § | § | † | † | † | † | † | † | . | . | .
Germany | † | † | † | † | . | ‡§ | § | † | ‡ | † | † | † | † | ‡ | . | .
Great Britain | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | . | . | † | .
Greece | . | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | † | † | . | . | .
Guatemala | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | . | . | .
Hanseatic Republic | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | . | . | . | .
Hayti | † | † | . | . | . | § | . | . | . | . | . | † | † | . | . | .
Honduras | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | ‡ | . | .
Italy | † | . | † | † | ‡ | § | § | † | ‡ | † | † | † | † | ‡ | ¶ | .
Japan | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | † | . | ¶ | .
Kongo Free State | † | † | † | † | . | § | § | † | ‡ | † | † | † | . | . | . | .
Korea | † | . | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | . | . | †
Liberia | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | . | . | .
Madagascar | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | † | . | . | †
Maskat | . | † | † | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | † | . | †
Morocco | † | . | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | † | . | †
Netherlands | † | † | . | † | ‡ | § | § | † | ‡ | † | † | † | † | ‡ | ¶ | .
Nicaragua | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | ‡ | ¶ | .
Orange Free State | † | † | . | . | . | § | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | ¶ | .
Ottoman Empire | . | . | . | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | . | ¶ | †
Paraguay | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | ‡ | . | .
Persia | † | . | . | . | . | § | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | . | †
Peru | † | † | . | . | . | § | . | . | . | . | . | † | . | † | . | .
Portugal | † | † | . | . | . | § | . | . | . | . | † | † | . | . | . | .
Prussia | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | .
Roumania | † | † | † | ‡ | ‡ | § | † | ‡ | † | † | † | † | † | ‡ | . | .
Russia | † | . | . | . | . | § | . | . | . | . | † | † | . | . | ¶ | .
Salvador | † | † | † | . | ‡ | § | † | † | † | † | † | † | † | † | ¶ | .
Samoan Islands | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | †
Servia | † | † | † | † | ‡ | § | † | ‡ | † | † | . | . | . | ‡ | . | .
Siam | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | † | . | ¶ | †
Spain | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | . | ¶ | .
Sweden and Norway | . | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | † | † | . | ¶ | .
Switzerland | † | † | . | . | . | § | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | ¶ | .
Tripoli | † | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | . | † | † | . | †
Tunis | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | † | † | . | †

EXPLANATION OF PRECEDING TABLE

Whenever a sign of any kind appears in the preceding synopsis it means that there is a proviso in our treaty with that country touching more or less definitely upon the subject indicated. The sign (†) means that the subject is covered by the proviso or nearly so; a (‡) means that it is modified in some measure; a (§) means that it applies only to American citizens in the consular service, not to foreigners, and a (¶) means that the requisitions for the extradition of criminals may be made “through the superior consular officer; otherwise through the diplomatic service.” A blank space means that the point is not touched upon by any treaty now in force.

This synopsis of our commercial treaties shows at a glance their relative fullness or deficiency, and the most remarkable thing about it is their deficiency. Sometimes, it is true, by virtue of international comity, much larger discretion is exercised by consuls and diplomats than is vouchsafed by the terms of the treaty; but it is not to be inferred that this is always the case.

Treaties are sometimes intended to last forever (in perpetuo), and sometimes they are concluded for only a term of years. Political treaties, the purposes of which is usually to terminate wars, establish boundaries, award indemnities, etc., naturally belong, as a rule, to the first class, while commercial treaties usually have a time limit. This accounts for a good many of the blank spaces in the above synopsis.

It will be noticed that there are some countries in the above list which have not at present the treaty making power—such, for instance, as Egypt, the Hanseatic Republic, Prussia, Hawaii, Samoa, Madagascar, Borneo, Kongo Free State, etc. In such cases the government which assumes the sovereignty assumes the treaty obligations, or else concludes new ones.

It may be noticed, on the other hand, that there are no commercial treaties with either Mexico, Brazil, Uruguay or Chile. This does not mean that there are no political treaties with those countries, or that there never have been any commercial treaties, but merely that in some cases the latter have been allowed to lapse or have been abrogated, and no new ones have been concluded. Canada, Australia, India, and all other colonies have no sovereignty, and therefore are not states in international law. Hence they cannot appoint or receive ambassadors nor can they make treaties except through the sovereign power.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

To What Country
Accredited.

Name and Rank.

Argentine Republic | William P. Lord, E. E. & M. P.
| Francois S. Jones, Sec. of Leg.
Austria-Hungary | Addison C. Harris, E. E. & M. P.
| Charles V. Herdliska, Sec. of Leg.
| Com’d’r W. H. Beehler, Nav. Att.
Belgium | Lawrence Townsend, E. E. & M. P.
Bolivia | George H. Bridgman, E. E. & M. P.
Brazil | Charles Page Bryan, E. E. & M. P.
| Thomas C. Dawson, Sec. of Leg.
Chile | Henry L. Wilson, E. E. & M. P.
| Henry J. Lenderink, Sec. of Leg.
China | Edwin H. Conger, E. E. & M. P.
| Herbert G. Squiers,[DS1] Sec. of Leg.
| Wm. E. Bainbridge, 2d Sec. of Leg.
| Lt. Albert L. Key, Nav. Att.
| Fleming D. Cheshire, Int.
Colombia | Charles Burdett Hart, E. E. & M. P.
| Arthur M. Beaupre, Sec. of Leg. & C. G.
Costa Rica | William L. Merry, E. E. & M. P.[DS2]
| Rufus A. Lane, Sec. of Leg.
Denmark | Laurits S. Swenson, E. E. & M. P.
| Lt. Col. W. R. Livermore, Mil. Att.
Dominican Republic | William F. Powell, Chargé d’Affaires.
Ecuador | Archibald J. Sampson, E. E. & M. P.
Egypt | John G. Long, Agt. & C. G.
France | Horace Porter, Amb. E. & P.
| Henry Vignaud, Sec. of Emb.
| Spencer F. Eddy, 2d Sec. of Emb.
| Samuel Morrill, 3d Sec. of Emb.
| Lt. William S. Sims, Nav. Att.
Germany | Andrew D. White, Amb. E. & P.
| John B. Jackson, Sec. of Emb.
| Geo. M. Fisk, 2d Sec. of Emb.
| H. Percival Dodge, 3d Sec. of Emb.
| Com’d’r W. H. Beehler, Nav. Att.
Great Britain | Joseph H. Choate, Amb. E. & P.
| Henry White, Sec. of Emb.
| John R. Carter, 2d Sec. of Emb.
| Jos. H. Choate, Jr., 3d Sec. of Emb.
| Lt. Com’d’r John C. Colwell, Nav. Att.
| Col. Samuel S. Sumner, Mil. Att.
Greece | Arthur S. Hardy, E. E. & M. P.[DS3]
Guatemala | W. Godfrey Hunter (n), E. E. & M. P.[DS4]
| James C. McNally (n), Sec. of Leg. & C. G.
Haiti | William F. Powell, E. E. & M. P.[DS5]
Honduras | W. Godfrey Hunter (n), E. E. & M. P.[DS6]
Italy | Wm. F. Draper, Amb. E. & P.
| Lewis M. Iddings, Sec. of Emb.
| R. C. Parsons, Jr., 2d Sec. of Emb.
| Com’d’r W. H. Beehler, Nav. Att.
Japan | Alfred E. Buck, E. E. & M. P.
| J. R. Herod, Sec. of Leg.
| Huntington Wilson, 2d Sec. of Leg.
| Lt. Albert Key, Nav. Att.
| Ransford Stevens Miller, Jr., Int.
Korea | Horace N. Allen, Min. Res. & C. G.
| Edwin V. Morgan, Sec. of Leg.
| Pang Kyeng Hui, Int.
| Kwon Yu Sup, Int.
Libera | Owen L. W. Smith, Min. Res. & C. G.
| James Robt. Spurgeon, Sec. of Leg.
Mexico | Powell Clayton, Amb. E. & P.
| Fenton R. McCreery, Sec. of Leg.
| William Heimke (n), 2d Sec. of Leg.
Netherlands | Stanford Newel, E. E. & M. P.
| Lt. Col. James N. Wheelan, Mil. Att.
Nicaragua | William L. Merry, E. E. & M. P.[DS7]
| Rufus A. Lane, Sec. of Leg.
Paraguay | William R. Finch, E. E. & M. P.[DS8]
Persia | Herbert W. Bowen, Min. Res. & C. G.
| John Tyler, Int.
Peru | Irving B. Dudley, E. E. & M. P.
| Richard R. Neill, Sec. of Leg.
Portugal | John N. Irwin, E. E. & M. P.
| Capt. S. L’H. Slocum, Mil. Att.
Roumania | Arthur S. Hardy, E. E. & M. P.[DS9]
Russia | Charlemagne Tower, Amb. E. & P.
| Herbert H. D. Peirce, Sec. of Emb.
| Herbert J. Hagerman, 2d Sec. of Emb.
| Lt. William S. Sims, Nav. Att.
Salvador | William L. Merry, E. E. & M. P.[DS10]
| Rufus A. Lane, Sec. of Leg.
Servia | Arthur S. Hardy, E. E. & M. P.[DS11]
Siam | Hamilton King (n), Min. Res. & C. G.
| James A. Chivers, Int.
Spain | Bellamy Storer, E. E. & M. P.
| Stanton Stickles,[DS12] Sec. of Leg.
Sweden and Norway | William W. Thomas, Jr., E. E. & M. P.
| Lt. Col. W. R. Livermore, Mil. Att.
Switzerland | John G. A. Leishman, E. E. & M. P.
| Capt. George R. Cecil, Mil. Att.
Turkey | Oscar S. Straus (n), E. E. & M. P.
| Lloyd C. Griscom, Sec. of Leg.
| A. A. Gargiulo, Int.
Uruguay | William R. Finch, E. E. & M. P.[DS13]
Venezuela | Francis B. Loomis, E. E. & M. P.
| W. W. Russell, Sec. of Leg.

EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS.

E. E. & M. P.,

Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary.

Sec. of Leg.,

Secretary of Legation.

Sec. of Emb.,

Secretary of Embassy.

Nav. Att.,

Naval Attache.

Int.,

Interpreter.

C. G.,

Consul General.

Mil. Att.,

Military Attache.

Amb. E. & P.,

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.

Min. Res.,

Minister Resident.

Agt.,

Agent.

The letter (n) indicates that the officer is a naturalized citizen, and the letter (b) that he is authorized to transact business.

DS1. Born of American parents temporarily residing abroad.

DS2. Accredited also to Nicaragua and Salvador.

DS3. Accredited also to Roumania and Servia.

DS4. Accredited also to Honduras.

DS5. Also Chargé d’Affaires to the Dominican Republic.

DS6. Accredited also to Guatemala.

DS7. Accredited also to Costa Rica and Salvador.

DS8. Accredited also to Uruguay.

DS9. Accredited also to Greece and Servia.

DS10. Accredited also to Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

DS11. Accredited also to Greece and Roumania.

DS12. Born in the legation at Madrid when his father was Minister to Spain.

DS13. Accredited also to Paraguay.

CONSULAR SERVICE.

Place. | Name and Title.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC. |
Buenos Ayres | Daniel Mayer (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | George H. Newbery | V. C.
Bahia Blanca | Walter T. Jones | Agt.
Cordoba (b) | John M. Thome | V. C.
Rosario (b) | James M. Ayers | C.
Do | Charles H. Doherty | V. & D. C.
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY. |
Budapest, Hungary (b) | Frank Dyer Chester | C.
Do | Louis Gerster (n) | V. & D. C.
Fiume | | Agt.
Prague, Austria | Hugo Donzelmann (n) | C.
Do | Emil Kubinzky | V. C.
Reickenberg, Austria | Frank W. Mahin[CS1] | C.
Do | Stefan Wagner | V. & D. C.
Haida | Frank Siller (n) | Agt.
Trieste, Austria | Frederick W. Hossfeld (n) | C.
Do | Felician Slataper (n) | V. C.
Vienna, Austria | Carl Bailey Hurst[CS2] | C. G.
Do | Alvesto S. Hogue | V. & D. C. G.
Brunn | Gustavus Schoeller | Agt.
Innsbruck | August Bargehr (n) | Agt.
BELGIUM. |
Antwerp | George F. Lincoln | C. G.
Do | Stanislas H. Haine | V. & D. C. G.
Do | Francis E. Vouillon | D. C. G.
Brussels | George W. Roosevelt | C.
Do | Gregory Phelan | V. & D. C.
Charleroi | J. Fisher Reese | Agt.
Ghent | Richard Le Bert[CS1] | C.
Do | Julius A. Van Hee | V. & D. C.
Liege | Alfred A. Winslow[CS1] | C.
Do | John Gross | V. & D. C.
Verviers | Henry Dodt | Agt.
BOLIVIA. |
La Paz (b) | Gerardo Zalles | V. C.
BRAZIL. |
Bahia | Henry W. Furniss[CS1] | C.
Do | Louis G. Mackay | V. C.
Aracaju | Luiz Schmidt | Agt.
Para | Kavanaugh K. Kenneday[CS1] | C.
Do | Julius F. Hiedeman | V. & D. C.
Manaos | John C. Redman | Agt.
Maranhao | Luiz F. da S. Santos (n) | Agt.
Pernambuco | Edwin N. Gunsaulus[CS1] | C.
Do | John Krause | V. C.
Ceara | Antonio E. da Frota | Agt.
Maceio | Charles Goble | Agt.
Natal | Apollonio Barroca | Agt.
Rio de Janeiro | Eugene Seeger (n) | C. G.
Do | Will Leonard Lowrie | V. & D. C. G.
Do | Wolff Havelburg | D. C. G.
Victoria | Jean Zinze | Agt.
Santos | Max J. Baehr (n) | C.
Do | | V. C.
Do | Ulrico Christiansen | D. C.
Rio Grande do Sul | Jorge Vereker | Agt.
CHILE. |
Antofagasta (b) | Charles C. Greene | C.
Arica (b) | John W. Lutz | C.
Do | David Simpson | V. C.
Iquique (b) | Joseph W. Merriam | C.
Do | Maximo Rosenstock | V. C.
Valparaiso | John F. Caples | C.
Valparaiso | August Moller, Jr. | V. C.
Caldera | John C. Morong | Agt.
Coquimbo | Andrew Kerr | Agt.
Coronel | J. Henry Downs | Agt.
Punta Arenas | Moritz Braun | Agt.
Talcanuano | John O. Smith | Agt.
CHINA. |
Amoy | Anson Burlingame Johnson | C.
Do | Carl Johnson | V. C.
Do | Carl Johnson | Mar.
Do | Li Ung Bing | Int.
Canton | Robert M. McWade (n) | C.
Do | Hubbard T. Smith | V. C.
Do | Hubbard T. Smith | C. C.
Do | Frank R. Mowrer | Mar.
Do | Tsin Ching Chung | Int.
Chefoo | John Fowler | C.
Do | Henry A. C. Emery[CS2] | V. & D. C.
Do | Henry A. C. Emery[CS2] | Int.
Chinkiang | William Martin (n) | C.
Do | | V. C.
Do | George E. Sevey | Mar.
Do | Wan Bing Chung | Int.
Chungking | George F. Smithers[CS2] | C.
Do | Spencer Lewis | V. C.
Do | William Tseng Laisun | Int.
Fuchau | Samuel L. Gracey | C.
Do | Wilbur T. Gracey | V. C.
Do | Wilbur T. Gracey | Mar.
Do | Thomas Ling | Int.
Hankau | Levi S. Wilcox | C.
Do | | V. C.
Do | | Int.
Do | George E. Reed | Mar.
Niuchwang (b) | J. J. Fred. Bandinel | V. & D. C.
Shanghai | John Goodnow | C. G.
Do | | V. C. G.
Shanghai | Arthur H. White | D. C. G.
Do | George A. Derby | Mar.
Do | Stephen P. Barchet (n) | Int.
Tientsin | James W. Ragsdale | C.
Do | Sylvester G. Hill | V. C.
Do | Bertrand Ragsdale | Mar.
Do | | Int.
COLOMBIA. |
Barranquilla | W. Irvin Shaw[CS1] | C.
Do | Elias P. Pellet | V. & D. C.
Santa Marta | Gerardo M. Danies | Agt.
Bogota | Arthur M. Beaupre | [CS3]C. G.
Do | Benito Zalamea | V. C. G.
Bucaramanga | Gustave Volkman | Agt.
Cali | William A. Barney | Agt.
Cucuta | Philip Tillinghast, Jr. | Agt.
Honda | Henry Hallam | Agt.
Cartagena (b) | Rafael Madrigal (n) | C.
Do | Augustus T. Hanabergh (n) | V. C.
Quibdo | Henry G. Granger | Agt.
Colon | William W. Cobbs | C.
Do | T. S. Flournoy Cobbs | V. & D. C.
Bocas del Toro | David R. Hand | Agt.
Medellin (b) | Thomas Herran | C.
Do | Walter C. Mann | V. C.
Panama | Hezekiah A. Gudger | C. G.
Do | Francis A. Gudger | V. & D. C. G.
COSTA RICA. |
San Jose | John C. Caldwell | C.
Do | Charles S. Caldwell | V. C.
Port Limon | Richard H. Gadd | Agt.
Punta Arenas | Henry G. Morgan | Agt.
DENMARK AND DOMINIONS. |
Copenhagen | John C. Ingersoll[CS1] | C.
Do | | V. & D. C.
St. Thomas, W. I. | Mahlon Van Horne[CS1] | C.
St. Thomas, W. I. | Julius C. Lorentzen | V. C.
Christiansted, St. Croix Island | Andrew J. Blackwood | Agt.
Fredericksted, St. Croix Island | William F. Moore | Agt.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC. |
Puerto Plata (b) | Thomas Simpson | C.
Do | Arthur W. Lithgow | V. C.
Monte Christi | Isaac T. Petit | Agt.
Samana (b) | Jean M. Villain | V. C. A.
Santo Domingo | Campbell L. Maxwell | C. G.
Do | Juan A. Read | V. C.
Azua | John Hardy | Agt.
Macoris | Edward C. Reed | Agt.
Sanchez | Jose A. Puente (n) | Agt.
ECUADOR. |
Guayaquil | Perry M. De Leon | C. G.
Do | Martin Reinberg (n) | V. C. G.
Bahia de Caraquez | Carlos A. Naht | Agt.
Esmeraldas | Ferdinand Servat (n) | Agt.
Manta | Pedro A. Moreira | Agt.
FRANCE AND DOMINIONS. |
Algiers, Africa (b) | Daniel S. Kidder | C.
Do | Louis L. Legembre | V. & D. C.
Beni-saf | E. L. G. Milsom | Agt.
Bone | Antoine Felix Garbe | Agt.
Oran | Benjamin A. Courcelle | Agt.
Bordeaux | Albion W. Tourgee | C.
Do | | V. C.
Do | James L. Chassereau | D. C.
Calais | James B. Milner[CS1] | C.
Do | | V. C.
Boulogne-sur-mer | William Hale | Agt.
Goree-Dakar, Africa (b) | Peter Strickland | C.
Do | | V. C.
Grenoble | George B. Anderson | C.
Do | Thomas W. Murton | V. C.
Guadeloupe Island W. I. | Louis H. Ayme | C.
Do | Charles Bartlett | V. & D. C.
Havre | Alexander M. Thackara | C.
Do | John Preston Beecher | V. & D. C.
Cherbourg | Henry J. E. Hainneville | Agt.
Honfleur | Henry M. Hardy | Agt.
Rennes | Ernest Folliard | Agt.
St. Malo | Raymond Moulton | Agt.
La Rochelle | George H. Jackson | C.
Do | Judd B. Hastings | V. & D. C.
Cognac | Elisee Jouard (n) | Agt.
Limoges | Walter T. Griffin | C. A.
Do | Auguste Jouhannaud | V. C. A.
Lyons | John C. Covert[CS1] | C.
Do | Thomas Nicoll Browne | V. & D. C.
Dijon | Ernest Bourette | Agt.
Marseilles | Robert P. Skinner[CS1] | C.
Do | Robert K. Fast | V. & D. C.
Bastia, Corsica | Simon Damiani (n) | Agt.
Cette | Lorenz S. Nahmens | Agt.
Toulon | Benjamin A. Jouve | Agt.
Martinique, W. I. | Alonzo C. Yates | C.
Do | Amedee Testart | V. C.
Nantes | Joseph I. Brittain[CS1] | C.
Do | Hiram D. Bennett | V. C.
Angers | Jules Henri Luneau | Agt.
Brest | A. Pitel | Agt.
Lorient | Leon Deprez | Agt.
St. Nazaire | Thomas Sankey | Agt.
Nice | Harold S. Van Buren[CS1] | C.
Do | Attilio Piatti | V. C.
Cannes | Philip T. Riddett | Agt.
Mentone | Achille Isnard | Agt.
Monaco | Emile de Loth | Agt.
Paris | John K. Gowdy | C. G.
Paris | Edward P. MacLean | V. & D. C. G.
Do | J. Allison Bowen | D. C. G.
Do | Edward P. MacLean | C. C.
Do | J. Allison Bowen | C. C.
Rheims | William A. Prickitt[CS1] | C.
Do | John T. Crossley | V. C.
Troyes | Gaston Baltet | Agt.
Roubaix | William P. Atwell | C.
Do | Gaston Thiery | V. C.
Do | Alfred C. Harrison | D. C.
Caudry | Hans Dietiker | Agt.
Dunkirk | Benjamin Morel | Agt.
Lille | C. Dubois Gregoire | Agt.
Rouen (b) | Thomas T. Prentis | C.
Do | E. M. J. Dellepiane | V. C.
Dieppe | Raoul le Bourgeois | Agt.
Saigon, Cochin China (b) | Edward Schneegans | C. A.
Do | Lauritz L. Stang | V. C. A.
St. Etienne | Hilary S. Brunot[CS1] | C.
Do | Hastings Burroughs | V. & D. C.
St. Pierre, St. Pierre Island (b) | Charles M. Freeman | C. A.
Do | George H. Frecker | V. C. A.
Tahiti, Society Islands (b) | Jacob L. Doty | C.
Do | John Hart (n) | V. C.
Tamatave, Madagascar | Mifflin W. Gibbs[CS1] | C.
Do | William H. Hunt | V. C.
Tunis, Africa (b) | | C.
Do | Alfred Chapelie | V. C.
GERMANY. |
Aix la Chapelle | Frank M. Brundage[CS1] | C.
Do | Gordon Scott | V. & D. C.
Annaberg | John F. Winter | C.
Do | Franz M. Jaeger | V. & D. C.
Eibenstock | Ernest L. Harris | Agt.
Bamberg | Louis Stern (n) | C. A.
Do | Albert Kiessling | V. C. A.
Barmen | Max Bouchsein (n) | C.
Do | John A. Rittershaus (n) | V. & D. C.
Berlin | Frank H. Mason | C. G.
Do | Dean B. Mason | V. & D. C. G.
Do | Frederick von Versen (n) | D. C. G.
Do | Dean B. Mason | C. C.
Sorau | William B. Murphy | Agt.
Bremen | Henry W. Diederich | C.
Do | | V. & D. C.
Brake and Nordenhamm | Wilhelm Clemens | Agt.
Bremerhaven-Geestemunde | John H. Schnabel | Agt.
Breslau | Charles W. Erdman (n) | C.
Do | Neander Alexander | V. C.
Brunswick | Talbot J. Albert[CS1] | C.
Do | Julius Seckel | V. & D. C.
Chemnitz | James C. Monaghan | C.
Do | Joseph F. Monaghan | V. C.
Coburg | Oliver J. D. Hughes (n) | C.
Do | Alvin Florschutz | V. & D. C.
Sonneberg | Verne E. Joy | Agt.
Cologne | John A. Barnes | C.
Do | Charles E. Barnes | V. & D. C.
Crefeld | Julian Phelps[CS1] | C.
Do | William P. Phelps | V. D. C.
Do | Charles L. Cole | C. G.
Dresden | Alfred C. Johnson | V. C. G.
Do | Hernando de Soto[CS4] | D. C. G.
Dusseldorf | Peter Lieber (n) | C.
Do | Emil Hoette | V. C.
Essen | F. Asthorver, Jr. | Agt.
Frankfort | Richard Guenther (n) | C. G.
Do | S. W. Hanauer (n) | V. C. G.
Do | Charles P. Vaughn | D. C. G.
Cassel | Gustav C. Kothe (n) | Agt.
Langen Schwalbach | Ernest Grebert | Agt.
Freiburg, Baden | E. Theophilus Liefeld[CS1] | C.
Do | Benjamin F. Liefeld | V. & D. C.
Glauchau | George Sawter | C.
Do | Alfred Neubert | V. & D. C.
Hamburg | Hugh Pitcairn[CS1] | C.
Do | E. H. L. Mummenhoff | V. & D. C.
Do | Otto W. Hellmrich | D. C.
Kiel | Paul H. J. Sartori | Agt.
Lubeck | Jacob Meyer, Jr. | Agt.
Ritzebuttel and Cuxhaven | Johann G. F. Starke | Agt.
Hanover | Jay White | C.
Do | Kirke Lathrop | V. & D. C.
Kehl | Alexander Wood | C.
Do | Max Adler (n) | V. & D. C.
Leipzig | Brainard H. Warner, Jr.[CS1] | C.
Do | Frederick Nachod | V. & D. C.
Do | Rudolph Fricke | D. C.
Gera | Charles Neuer | Agt.
Magdeburg | | C.
Do | George H. Murphy | V. & D. C.
Do | George H. Murphy | C. C.
Mainz | Walter Schumann[CS1] | C.
Do | Walter Hausing | V. & D. C.
Mannheim | Heaton W. Harris[CS1] | C.
Do | Peter J. Osterhaus (n) | V. & D. C.
Neustadt | Leopold Blum | Agt.
Munich | James H. Worman (n) | C.
Do | | V. & D. C.
Augsburg | G. Oberndorf (n) | Agt.
Nuremberg | Gustave C. E. Weber (n) | C.
Do | Sigmund Dunkelsbuhler | V. C.
Do | Oscar Bock | D. C.
Plauen | Thomas Willing Peters | C.
Do | William F. L. Fiedler | V. &. D. C.
Markneukirchen | Oscar Malmros (n) | Agt.
Solingen | Edmund Z. Brodowski (n) | C.
Do | Max Brab | V. C.
Stettin (b) | John E. Kehl[CS1] | C.
Do | Henry Harder | V. & D. C.
Danzig | Philipp Albrecht | Agt.
Konigsberg | Alexander Eckhardt (n) | Agt.
Swinemunde | Gustav Ludwig | Agt.
Stuttgart | Edward H. Ozmun[CS1] | C.
Do | William Hahn (n) | V. & D. C.
Weimar | Thomas Ewing Moore | C.
Do | Paul Teichmann | V. & D. C.
Zittau | William K. Herzog (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | Rudolph Konecke | V. C.
GREAT BRITAIN AND DOMINIONS. |
Aden, Arabia (b) | Edwin S. Cunningham[CS1] | C.
Do | William H. Lockerman | V. C.
Hodeida | Vittorio Cremasche | Agt.
Amherstburg, Ont. | Chester W. Martin[CS1] | C.
Do | Franklin A. Hough | V. & D. C.
Antigua, W. I. | Henry M. Hunt (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | Samuel Galbraith | V. C.
Montserrat | Richard Hannam | Agt.
Roseau, Dominica | Henry A. Frampton | Agt.
Auckland, N. Z. (b) | Frank Dillingham[CS1] | C.
Do | Leonard A. Bachelder | V. C.
Christ Church | Robert Pitcaithly | Agt.
Dunedin | W. G. Neill | Agt.
Monganui | Robert Wyles | Agt.
Wellington | John Duncan | Agt.
Barbados, W. I. | Samuel A. Macallister[CS1] | C.
Do | Arthur B. St. Hill | V. C.
St. Lucia | William Peter | Agt.
St. Vincent | Ernest A. Richards | Agt.
Bathurst, Africa, (b) | Henry Goddard | V. C.
Belfast, Ireland | William W. Touvelle | C.
Do | Malcolm T. Brice | V & D. C.
Ballymena | John G. Ballentine | Agt.
Londonderry | P. T. Rodger | Agt.
Lurgan | F. W. Magahan | Agt.
Belize, Honduras | William L. Avery[CS1] | C.
Do | Christopher Hempstead | V. & D. C.
Belleville, Ont. (b) | Michael J. Hendrick | C.
Do | William N. Ponton | V. C.
Deseronto | Charles A. Milliner | Agt.
Napanee | William Templeton | Agt.
Picton | Jacob F. Beringer | Agt.
Trenton | Stephen J. Young | Agt.
Birmingham, England | Marshal Halstead[CS1] | C.
Do | Frederick M. Burton | V. C.
Do | Ernest Harker | D. C.
Kidderminster | James Morton | Agt.
Redditch | H. C. Browning | Agt.
Wolverhampton | John Neve | Agt.
Bombay, India | William T. Fee | C.
Do | Charles F. Meyer | V. C.
Karachi | Alfred H. R. Armstrong | Agt.
Bradford, England | Erastus Sheldon Day | C.
Do | Thomas L. Renton | V. & D. C.
Do | Richard B. Nicholls | D. C.
Bristol, England | Lorin A. Lathrop | C.
Do | Gerard Mosely | V. & D. C.
Gloucester | Arnold Henry Palin | Agt.
Brockville, Ont. | Charles W. Merriman[CS1] | C.
Do | William W. Wood | V. & D. C.
Calcutta, India | Robert F. Patterson | C. G.
Do | Samuel Comfort | V. & D. C. G.
Akyab | Charles Findlay | Agt.
Bassein | | Agt.
Chitagong | R. A. Mactaggart | Agt.
Madras | William H. Nichols | Agt.
Moulmein | W. J. Davidson | Agt.
Rangoon | John Young | Agt.
Campbellton, N. B. (b) | James S. Benedict | C. A.
Campbellton, N. B. | Charles Murray | V. C. A.
Bathurst | Benedict C. Mullins | Agt.
Cape Town, Cape of Good Hope | James G. Stowe | C. G.
Do | Clifford H. Knight | V. & D. C. G.
Durban | Alexander H. Rennie | Agt.
East London | William H. Fuller | Agt.
Kimberley | Gardner Williams | Agt.
Port Elizabeth | John A. Chabaud | Agt.
Cardiff, Wales | Daniel T. Phillips (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | Ernest L. Phillips | V. & D. C.
Newport | William E. Heard | Agt.
Ceylon (Island) | William Morey | C.
Do | Elmer Lake Morey[CS2] | V. & D. C.
Point de Galle | Emil Bretscher | Agt.
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island | Delmar J. Vail[CS1] | C.
Do | John T. Crockett | V. & D. C.
Alberton | Albert Glidden | Agt.
Georgetown | Archibald J. McDonald | Agt.
Souris | Caleb C. Carlton | Agt.
Summerside | Richard Hunt | Agt.
Chatham, Ont. | Charles E. Montieth[CS1] | C.
Do | William Gordon | V. C.
Chaudiere Junction, Quebec (b) | James M. Rosse | C. A.
Coaticook, Quebec | Jesse H. Johnson[CS1] | C.
Do | Ernest John Astell | V. & D. C.
Hereford | John R. Nichols | Agt.
Lineboro | Hoel S. Beebe | Agt.
Potton | Chandler Bailey | Agt.
Stanstead | Benjamin F. Butterfield | Agt.
Collingwood, Ont. | William Small (n) | C.
Do | Charles Macdonell | V. & D. C.
Barrie | Alfred E. H. Creswicke | Agt.
Owen Sound | William T. Robertson | Agt.
Parry Sound | Walter R. Foot | Agt.
Wiarton | J. H. Tibeando | Agt.
Cork (Queenstown) | Daniel Swiney (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | James William Scott | V. C.
Do | Cecil Piatt | D. C.
Waterford | William H. Farrell | Agt.
Dawson City, Yukon Territory | James C. McCook (n) | C.
Do | Ronald Morrison (n) | V. C.
Do | John E. Doherty | D. C.
Demerara, Guiana | George H. Moulton | C.
Do | Gustav H. Richter (n) | V. C.
Cayenne | Edouard A. L. Lalanne | Agt.
Paramaribo | Arthur Deyo | Agt.
Dublin, Ireland | Joshua Wilbour[CS1] | C.
Do | Arthur Donn Piatt | V. & D. C.
Athlone | John Burgess | Agt.
Limerick | Edmund Ludlow | Agt.
Dundee, Scotland | John C. Higgins[CS1] | C.
Do | Allan Baxter | V. & D. C.
Aberdeen | Andrew Murray | Agt.
Dunfermline, Scotland | John N. McCunn (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | Charles Drysdale | V. C.
Kirkcaldy | Andrew Innes | Agt.
Edinburgh, Scotland | Rufus Fleming[CS1] | C.
Do | Frederick P. Piatt | V. & D. C.
Galashiels | John Stalker | Agt.
Falmouth, England (b) | Howard Fox | C.
Do | G. Henry Fox | V. & D. C.
Scilly Islands | John Banfield, Jr. | Agt.
Fort Erie, Ont. | Ossian Bedell | C.
Do | John V. Bedell | V. & D. C.
Gaspe Basin Quebec (b) | Almar F. Dickson | C.
Do | John Carter | V. C.
Paspebiac | Daniel Bisson | Agt.
Gibraltar, Spain | Horatio J. Sprague[CS2] | C.
Do | Richard L. Sprague[CS2] | V. & D. C.
Glasgow, Scotland | Samuel M. Taylor | C.
Do | William Gibson | V. C.
Do | John McFadzean | D. C.
Greenock | James A. Love | Agt.
Troon | Peter H. Waddell | Agt.
Goderich, Ont. | Robert S. Chilton | C. A.
Do | William Campbell | V. C. A.
Clinton | A. O. Pattison | Agt.
Guelph, Ont. | Charles N. Daly | C.
Do | George A. Oxnard | V. & D. C.
Halifax, N. S. | John G. Foster | C. G.
Do | George Hill | V. & D. C. G.
Bridgewater | William H. Owen | Agt.
Liverpool | Jason M. Mack | Agt.
Lunenburg | Daniel M. Owen | Agt.
Hamilton, Bermuda | W. Maxwell Greene[CS1] | C.
Do | James B. Heyl | V. & D. C.
Hamilton, Ont. | James M. Shepard[CS1] | C.
Do | Richard Butler | V. & D. C.
Brantford | Arthur C. Hardy | Agt.
Galt | James Ryerson | Agt.
Paris | William W. Hume | Agt.
Hobart, Tasmania (b) | Alexander George Webster | C.
Do | Charles Ernest Webster | V. C.
Launceston | Lindsay Tullock | Agt.
Hongkong, China | Rounsevelle Wildman | C. G.
Do | | V. & D. C. G.
Do | Chin Poy Woo | Int.
Huddersfield, England | Benjamin F. Stone[CS1] | C.
Do | David J. Bailey | V. & D. C.
Hull, England | William P. Smyth (n) | C.
Do | Arthur W. Benton | V. C.
Kingston, Jamaica | Ethelbert Watts | C.
Do | John S. Twells | V. & D. C.
Black River | C. M. Farquharson | Agt.
Falmouth | Charles A. Nunes | Agt.
Montego Bay | G. L. P. Corinaldi | Agt.
Port Maria | Ruben R. Baker | Agt.
Port Morant | Lorenzo D. Baker, Jr. | Agt.
St. Ann’s Bay | R. W. Harris | Agt.
Savannah-la-Mar | Ch. S. Farquharson | Agt.
Kingston, Ont. | Marshall H. Twitchell | C.
Do | Matthew H. Folger | V. & D. C.
Leeds, England | Lewis Dextert[CS1] | C.
Do | William Ward | V. C.
Do | Edmund Ward | D. C.
Liverpool, England | James Boyle (n) | C.
Do | William J. Sulis | V. & D. C.
Do | William Pierce | D. C.
Holyhead | Richard D. Roberts | Agt.
St. Helen’s | John Hammill | Agt.
London, England | William M. Osborne | C. G.
Do | Richard Westacott | V. & D. C. G.
Do | Francis W. Frigout | D. C. G.
Do | Richard Westacott | C. C.
Dover | Francis W. Prescott | Agt.
London, Ont. | Henry S. Culver[CS1] | C.
Do | Robert Reid, Jr. | V. & D. C.
Malta (Island) | John H. Grout, Jr. | C.
Do | Joseph F. Balbi | V. C.
Manchester, England | William F. Grinnell | C.
Do | Ernest J. Bridgford | V. C.
Melbourne, Australia | John P. Bray | C. G.
Do | Thos W. Stanford | V. & D. C. G.
Adelaide | Charles A. Murphy | Agt.
Albany | Frank R. Dymes | Agt.
Freemantle | Alfred D. Allan | Agt.
Moncton, N. B. (b) | Gustave Beutelspacher (n)[CS1] | C. A.
Do | Edward A. Reilly | V. & D. C. A.
Newcastle | Robert R. Call | Agt.
Richibucto | George V. McInerney | Agt.
Montreal, Quebec | John L. Bittinger | C. G.
Do | Patrick Gorman | V. & D. C. G.
Coteau | Thomas Stapleton | Agt.
Grenville | Alex. Pridham | Agt.
Hemmingford | Wellington W. Wark | Agt.
Huntingdon | John Dineen | Agt.
Morrisburg, Ont. | John E. Hamilton[CS1] | C. A.
Do | George F. Bradfield | V. & D. C. A.
Cornwall | David A. Flack | Agt.
Nassau, N. P. | Thomas J. McLain | C.
Do | Alfred E. Moseley | V. C.
Albert Town | Jose G. Maura | Agt.
Dunmore Town | Norman E. B. Munro | Agt.
Governor’s Harbor | Abner W. Griffin | Agt.
Green Turtle Cay | Edward W. Bethel | Agt.
Mathewtown | Daniel D. Sargent | Agt.
Newcastle-on-Tyne, England | Horace W. Metcalf | C.
Do | Hetherington Nixon | V. & D. C.
Carlisle | Thomas S. Strong | Agt.
Sunderland | Thomas A. Horan | Agt.
West Hartlepool | Hans C. Nielsen | Agt.
Newcastle, New South Wales (b) | Frederic W. Goding[CS1] | C.
Do | Stewart Keightley | V. & D. C.
Brisbane, Queensland | William J. Weatherill | Agt.
Townsville | John Henry Rogers | Agt.
Niagara Falls, Ont. | Harlan W. Brush | C.
Do | Ernest Stanley Fraser | V. & D. C.
St. Catharines | Leonard H. Collard | Agt.
Nottingham, England | Silas C. McFarland[CS1] | C.
Do | William T. Cartwright | V. C.
Derby | Charles K. Eddowes | Agt.
Leicester | Samuel S. Partridge | Agt.
Orilla, Ont. (b) | Ernest A. Wakefield[CS1] | C. A.
Do | Robert H. Jupp | V. & D. C. A.
North Bay, Nipissing | Daniel J. McKeown | Agt.
Sudbury | William P. Martin | Agt.
Waubaushene | Ronald F. White | Agt.
Ottawa, Ont. | Charles E. Turner | C. G.
Do | Horace M. Sanford | V. & D. C. G.
Arnprior | Charles H. Sawyer | Agt.
Plymouth, Eng. (b) | Joseph G. Stephens (n) | C.
Do | John J. Stephens | V. & D. C.
Dartmouth | Jasper Bartlett | Agt.
Guernsey | William Carey | Agt.
Jersey | E. B. Renouf | Agt.
Port Antonio, Jamaica (b) | Nicholas R. Snyder[CS1] | C. A.
Do | Daniel H. Jackson | V. & D. C. A.
Port Hope, Ont. | Harry P. Dill | C. A.
Do | John Harcourt | V. & D. C. A.
Lindsay | James M. Knowlson | Agt.
Peterborough | Frank J. Bell | Agt.
Port Louis, Mauritius | John P. Campbell (n) | C.
Do | A. Povah Ambrose | V. C.
Port Rowan, Ont. (b) | George B. Killmaster (n) | C. A.
Do | William H. Meek | V. C. A.
Port Sarnia, Ont. | Neal McMillan (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | Richard W. Chester | V. & D. C.
Port Stanley, F. I. | John E. Rowen[CS1] | C.
Do | James Smith | V. C.
Prescott, Ont. | Grenville James | C.
Do | James Buckly | V. & D. C.
Quebec | William W. Henry[CS1] | C.
Do | Frank S. Stocking | V. C.
Rimouski, Que. (b) | Charles A. Boardman[CS1][CS2] | C. A.
Do | Joseph A. Talbot | V. & D. C. A.
St. Christopher, West Indies (b) | Joseph Haven | C. A.
Do | Emile S. Delisle | V. C. A.
Nevis | Charles C. Greaves | Agt.
St. George’s, Bermuda (b) | Edward T. Jenkins | C. A.
Do | William D. Fox | V. C. A.
St. Helena (Island) | Robert P. Pooley (n) | C.
Do | | V. C.
St. Hyacinthe, Quebec | Joseph M. Authier (n) | C. A.
Do | Francis Bartels | V. & D. C. A.
Sorel | Isaie Sylvestre | Agt.
Waterloo | Arthur S. Newell | Agt.
St. John, N. B. | Ira B. Myers[CS1] | C.
Do | | V. & D. C.
Campobello Island | John I. Alexander (n) | Agt.
Fredericton | James T. Sharkey | Agt.
Grand Manan | William A. Fraser | Agt.
St. George | Edward Milliken | Agt.
St. John’s, N. F. | Martin J. Carter | C.
Do | Henry F. Bradshaw | C.
St. John’s, Quebec | Charles Deal[CS1] | C.
Do | John Donaghy | V. & D. C.
Farnham | William L. Hibbard | Agt.
Lacolle | Henry Hoyle | Agt.
St. Stephen, N. B. | Charles A. McCullough[CS1] | C.
Do | Charlie N. Vroom | V. & D. C.
St. Andrews | George H. Stickney | Agt.
St. Thomas, Ontario | Michael J. Burke (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | William H. King | V. & D. C.
Courtright | Fred W. Baby | Agt.
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. (b) | George W. Shotts[CS1] | C. A.
Do | Alex. R. Flockhart | V. C. A.
Sheffield, England | James Johnston (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | Frank M. Clark | V. & D. C.
Barnsley | Robert D. Maddison | Agt.
Sherbrooke, Quebec | Paul Lang[CS1] | C.
Do | George E. Borlase | V. & D. C.
Cookshire | William F. Given | Agt.
Megantic | Henry W. Albro | Agt.
Sierra Leone, Africa. | John T. Williams[CS1] | C.
Do | James A. L. Trice | V. C.
Singapore, S. S. | Robert A. Moseley, Jr. | C. G.
Do | A. B. S. Moseley | V. & D. C. G.
Penang | Otto Schule | Agt.
Southampton, Eng. | John E. Hopley[CS1] | C.
Do | Richard Jones (n) | V. & D. C.
Do | Joseph W. Hopley | D. C.
Portsmouth | William Joseph Main | Agt.
Weymouth | Alfred Charles Higgs | Agt.
Stanbridge, Que. (b) | Felix S. S. Johnson | C. A.
Do | Geo. M. Hastings | V. & D. C. A.
Clarenceville | Edmund Macomber | Agt.
Frelighsburg | William A. Reynolds | Agt.
Sutton | James E. Ireland | Agt.
Stratford, Ont. | Augustus G. Seyfert[CS1] | C.
Do | William S. Dingman | V. & D. C.
Palmerston | Richard A. Shea | Agt.
Suva, Fiji Islands (b) | Alexander B. Joske | C. A.
Swansea, Wales | Griffith W. Prees (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | William D. Rees | V. & D. C.
Llanelly | William Bowen | Agt.
Milford Haven | George S. Kelway | Agt.
Sydney, N. S. | George N. West | C.
Do | John E. Burchell | V. C.
Arichat | Stanage Binet | Agt.
Cape Canso | Alfred W. Hart | Agt.
Louisburg | Henry C. V. Le Vatte | Agt.
Pictou | John R. Davies | Agt.
Port Hawksbury and Mulgrave | Alexander Bain | Agt.
Pugwash and Wallace | Conrad W. Morris | Agt.
Sydney, N. S. W. | George W. Bell | C.
Do | Richard F. O’Rourke | V. C.
Do | William H. Dawson | D. C.
Norfolk Island | Isaac Robinson | Agt.
Three Rivers, Que. | Urbain J. Ledoux[CS1] | C.
Three Rivers, Que. | Waters W. Braman, Jr. | V. C.
Arthabaska | Arthur Poitras | Agt.
Toronto, Ont. | William L. Sewell[CS1] | C.
Do | Raymond L. Sewell | V. & D. C.
Oshawa | W. P. Stericker | Agt.
Trinidad, W. I. | Alvin Smith[CS1] | C.
Do | | V. C.
Grenada | P. J. Dean | Agt.
Scarborough, Tobago | Edward Keens | Agt.
Tunstall, England | William Harrison Bradley | C.
Do | John H. Copestake | V. & D. C.
Turks Island, W. I. (b) | | C.
Do | W. Stanley Jones | V. C.
Cockburn Harbor | Cleophas Hunt Durham | Agt.
Salt Cay | Daniel F. Harriott | Agt.
Vancouver, B. C. | L. Edwin Dudley[CS1] | C.
Do | Fred’k J. Schofield | V. & D. C.
Cumberland | George W. Clinton | Agt.
Rossland | John Jackson, Jr. (n) | Agt.
Victoria, B. C. | Abraham E. Smith (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | Benjamin A. Hunter | V. & D. C.
Chemainus | James S. Gibson | Agt.
Nanaimo | George S. Schetky | Agt.
Nelson | William P. Kenibbs | Agt.
Wallaceburgh, Ont. | Isaac G. Worden | C. A.
Do | Charles B. Jackson | V. & D. C. A.
Windsor, N. S. (b) | Joseph T. Hoke[CS1] | C.
Do | John Nalder | V. & D. C.
Cheverie | John G. Burgess | Agt.
Kingsport | Arthur F. Borden | Agt.
Parrsboro | Laurence H. Hoke | Agt.
River Hebert | William Moffat | Agt.
Windsor, Ont. | Hugh C. Morris[CS1] | C.
Do | John M. Little | V. & D. C.
Winnipeg, Manitoba | William H. H. Graham[CS1] | C.
Do | William Hall (n) | V. & D. C.
Deloraine | Albert M. Herron | Agt.
Emerson | Duncan McArthur | Agt.
Fort William, Ont. | C. W. Jarvis | Agt.
Gretna | Enoch Winkler | Agt.
Lethbridge, Alberta | Frederick W. Downer (n) | Agt.
North Portal, Assiniboia | W. H. Dorsey | Agt.
Rat Portage, Ont. | G. Clayton Frisbie | Agt.
Woodstock, N. B. | Frank C. Denison[CS1] | C.
Do | John Graham | V. C.
Edmunston | J. Adolphe Guy | Agt.
Yarmouth, N. S. | Radcliffe H. Ford | C.
Do | Ernest H. Armstrong | V. & D. C.
Annapolis | Jacob M. Owen | Agt.
Barrington | Thomas W. Robertson | Agt.
Digby | William B. Stewart | Agt.
Shelburne | T. Howland White | Agt.
GREECE. |
Athens | Daniel E. McGinley[CS1] | C.
Do | Louis Nicolaides | V. C.
Piroeus | Marino T. Sourmely | Agt.
Patras (b) | George L. Darte | C.
Do | Demetrius E. Maximos | V. C.
GUATEMALA. |
Guatemala | James C. McNally (n) | [CS3]C. G.
Do | W. G. Hunter, Jr. | V. & D. C. G.
Champerico | Pedro A. Bruni | Agt.
Livingston | Frank C. Dennis | Agt.
Ocos | Samuel Wolford | Agt.
Quezaltenango | Grant A. Morrill | Agt.
San Jose de Guatemala | Upton Lorentz | Agt.
HAITI. |
Cape Haitien (b) | Lemuel W. Livingston[CS1] | C.
Do | Theodore Behrmann | V. C.
Gonaives | J. William Woel (n) | Agt.
Port de Paix | Carl Abegg | Agt.
Port au Prince (b) | John B. Terres | V. C. G.
Do | Alexander Battiste | D. C.
Aux Cayes | Henry E. Roberts | Agt.
Jacmel | Jean B. Vital | Agt.
Jeremie | L. Trebaud Rouzier (n) | Agt.
Miragoane | | Agt.
Petit Goave | L. Kampmeyer | Agt.
St. Marc | Charles Miot | Agt.
HAWAII. |
Honolulu | William Haywood | C. G.
Do | W. Porter Boyd | V. & D. C. G.
Do | W. Porter Boyd | C. C.
HONDURAS. |
Tegucigalpa | Frederick H. Allison[CS1] | C.
Do | George Bernhard | V. C.
Amapala | William Heyden | Agt.
Ceiba | Virgil C. Reynolds | Agt.
Nacaome | John E. Foster | Agt.
Puerto Cortez | William E. Alger | Agt.
San Juancito | E. E. Dickason | Agt.
San Pedro Sula | J. M. Mitchell, Jr. | Agt.
Truxillo | John T. Glynn | Agt.
Utilla (b) | Benjamin Johnston[CS1] | C.
Do | Robert Woodville | V. C.
Bonacca | William Bayly (n) | Agt.
Ruatan | William C. Wildt | Agt.
ITALY. |
Castellamare di Stabia | Joseph E. Hayden | C. A.
Do | R. O’N. Wickersham | V. & D. C. A.
Sorrento | Thomas Spencer Jerome | Agt.
Catania | Alexander Heingartner[CS1] | C.
Do | Jacob Ritter | V. & D. C.
Florence | Edward C. Cramer[CS1] | C.
Do | Spirito Bernardi | V. & D. C.
Bologna | Carlo Gardini | Agt.
Genoa | James Fletcher (n) | C.
Do | Federico Scerni | V. C.
Do | E. V. Dobrilovich | D. C.
San Remo | Albert Ameglio | Agt.
Leghorn | James A. Smith[CS1] | C.
Do | Emilio Masi | V. & D. C.
Carrara | Ulisse Boccacci | Agt.
Messina | Charles M. Caughy | C.
Do | Letterio Pirrone | V. & D. C.
Reggio, Calabria | Carlo Celesti | Agt.
Milan | William Jarvis[CS1] | C.
Do | Lorenzo Frette | V. & D. C.
Naples | A. Homer Byington[CS1] | C.
Do | Richard F. St. Leger | V. &. D. C.
Bari | Nicholas Schuck | Agt.
Rodi | Tomaso del Giudice | Agt.
Palermo | Church Howe[CS1] | C.
Do | Felix Pirandello | V. C.
Do | Giovanni Paterniti | D. C.
Carini | Francesco Crocchiolo | Agt.
Girgenti | Francis Ciotta | Agt.
Licata | Arthur Verderame | Agt.
Trapani | Costantino Serraino | Agt.
Rome | Hector de Castro | C. G.
Do | Charles M. Wood | V. & D. C. G.
Do | Charles M. Wood | C. C.
Ancona | A. P. Tomassini | Agt.
Cagliari | Alphonse Dol | Agt.
Civita Vecchia | Gustav Marsanick | Agt.
Turin (b) | Percy McElrath | C.
Do | Hugo Pizzotti | V. C.
Venice | Henry A. Johnson | C.
Do | Frederick Rechsteiner | V. & D. C.
JAPAN. |
Nagasaki | Charles B. Harris | C.
Do | Epperson R. Fulkerson | V. C.
Do | William Henry S. Gleason | Int.
Osaka and Hiogo (Kobe) | Samuel S. Lyon | C.
Do | | V. & D. C.
Do | W. Ebiharah | Int.
Tamsui, Formosa | James W. Davidson | C.
Do | A. Norris Wilkinson | V. C.
Yokohama | John F. Gowey | C. G.
Do | John McLean (n) | V. & D. C. G.
Do | George H. Scidmore | D. C. G.
Do | George H. Scidmore | C. C.
Do | John McLean (n) | Int.
KOREA. |
Seoul | Horace N. Allen | [B]C. G.
Do | | V. & D. C. G.
LIBERIA. |
Monrovia | Owen L. Smith | [CS5]C. G.
Do | Beverly Y. Pane | V. C. G.
MASKAT. |
Maskat (b) | | C.
Do | Archibald Mackirdy | V. C.
Do | Mahomed Fazel | D. C.
MEXICO. |
Acapulco | George W. Dickinson[CS1] | C.
Do | Edgar Battle | V. C.
Chihuahua (b) | William W. Mills[CS1] | C.
Do | Charles Lee Curtis | V. & D. C.
Parral | James J. Long | Agt.
Ciudad Juarez | Charles W. Kindrick[CS1] | C.
Do | Charles E. Wesche (n) | V. & D. C.
Ciudad Porfirio Diaz | Charles P. Snyder[CS1] | C.
Do | Alban G. Snyder | V. & D. C.
Sierra Mojada | Henry B. Hackley | Agt.
Durango (b) | Walter H. Faulkner | C.
Do | | V. & D. C.
Torreon | Louis E. Stern | Agt.
Ensenada (b) | | C.
Do | Harry K. Taylor | V. C.
La Paz (b) | | C.
Do | James Viosca, Jr. | V. C.
Magdalena Bay | | Agt.
San Jose | Abraham Kurnitzky | Agt.
Matamoros | P. Merrill Griffith[CS1] | C.
Do | J. Bielenberg (n) | V. C.
Mier | Henry Vizcayo | Agt.
Mazatlan | Louis Kaiser (n) | C.
Do | Gustavus A. Kaiser (n ) | V. & D. C.
Mexico | Andrew D. Barlow | C. G.
Do | James R. Hardy (n) | V. & D. C. G.
Aguas Calientes | Alfred M. Raphall | Agt.
Guadalajara | Edward B. Light | Agt.
Guanajuato | Dwight Furness | Agt.
Oaxaca | Charles H. Arthur | Agt.
Puebla | William Headen (n) | Agt.
Zacatecas | Edmund von Gehren | Agt.
Monterey | Philip C. Hanna | C. G.
Do | Philip Carroll | V. & D. C. G.
Victoria | William J. Storms | Agt.
Nogales | James F. Darnall[CS1] | C.
Do | Albert R. Morawetz | V. & D. C.
Guaymas | Frank M. Crocker | Agt.
Nuevo Laredo | Robert Butler Mahone[CS1] | C.
Do | | V. & D. C.
Progreso | Edward H. Thompson | C.
Campeche | Rafael Preciat | Agt.
Laguna de Terminos | German Hahn (n) | Agt.
Saltillo (b) | Charles Burr Towle | C.
Do | | V. C.
Tampico | Samuel E. Magill | C.
Do | Neill E. Pressly | V. C.
San Luis Potosi | John H. Farwell | Agt.
Tuxpan (b) | | C.
Do | Edwin R. Wells | V. C.
Veracruz | William W. Canada | C.
Do | Jose Gonzales Pages | V. C.
Coatzacoalcos | Walter K. Linscott | Agt.
Frontera | | Agt.
MOROCCO. |
Tangier | Samuel R. Gummere[CS1] | C. G.
Do | Albert Martinsen | V. & D. C. G.
Casa Blanca | John Cobb | Agt.
Mogador | George Broome | Agt.
NETHERLANDS AND DOMINIONS. |
Amsterdam | Frank D. Hill | C.
Do | Albertus Vinke | V. & D. C.
Batavia, Java (b) | Sidney B. Everett[CS1] | C.
Do | Bradstreet S. Rairden | V. & D. C.
Macassar, Celebes | Karl Auer | Agt.
Padang, Sumatra | Hinrich J. P. Haacke | Agt.
Samarang | B. Caulfield-Stoker | Agt.
Soerabaya | Benjamin N. Powell | Agt.
Curacao, W. I. | Elias H. Cheney | C.
Do | Jacob Wuister | V. C.
Buen Ayre | Gottlob W. Hellmund | Agt.
Rotterdam | Soren Listoe | C.
Do | A. H. Voorwinden (n) | V. & D. C.
Flushing | Pieter F. Auer | Agt.
Schiedam | Ernest A. Man | Agt.
St. Martin, W. I. (b) | Diederic C. van Romondt | C.
Do | W. F. C. L. A. Netherwood | V. C.
St. Eustatius | J. G. C. Every | Agt.
NICARAGUA. |
Managua | Chester Donaldson[CS1] | C.
Do | Arthur O. Wallace | V. C.
Corinto | Henry Palazio | Agt.
Matagalpa | Isaac A. Manning | Agt.
San Juan del Sur | Charles Holmann | Agt.
San Juan del Norte | William B. Sorsby | C.
Do | F. Percy Scott[CS6] | V. C.
Bluefields | Philip E. Coyle | Agt.
PARAGUAY. |
Asuncion | John N. Ruffin[CS1] | C.
Do | William Harrison | V. C.
PERSIA. |
Teheran | Herbert W. Bowen | [CS5]C. G.
Teheran | John Tyler | V. C. G.
PERU. | |
Callao | William B. Dickey | C.
Do | William S. McBride | V. C.
Chiclayo | Theodore Stechmann | Agt.
Mollendo | Enrique Meier | Agt.
Paita | | Agt.
Tumbez | William Baldini | Agt.
PORTUGAL AND DOMINIONS. |
Funchal, Madeira | Thomas C. Jones | C.
Do | William J. G. Reid | V. & D. C.
Lisbon (b) | Jacob H. Thieriot | C.
Do | John B. Wilbor | V. C.
Brava, C. V. I. | Joao J. Nunes | Agt.
Faro | F. J. Tavares | Agt.
Loanda, Africa | | Agt.
Oporto | William Stuve | Agt.
St. Vincent, C. V. I. | J. B. Guimaraes | Agt.
Setubal | John P. T. O’Neill | Agt.
Lourenco Marquez | W. Stanley Hollis | C.
Do | James McIntosh | V. C.
Beira | A. Lewis Kidd | Agt.
St. Michael’s, Azores | George H. Pickerell[CS1] | C.
Do | Wm. W. Nicholls (n) | V. & D. C.
Fayal | Moyses Benarus | Agt.
Flores | James Mackay | Agt.
San Jorge | Joaquin J. Cardozo | Agt.
Terceira | Henrique de Castro | Agt.
ROUMANIA. |
Bucharest | Wm. G. Boxshall | V. C. G.
RUSSIA. |
Batum (b) | James C. Chambers | C.
Do | | V. C.
Helsingfors (b) | | C.
Do | Victor Ek | V. C.
Abo | Victor Forselius | Agt.
Wiborg | C. Edwin Ekstrom | Agt.
Moscow (b) | Thomas Smith | [A]C.
Do | Samuel Smith | V. C.
Odessa | Thomas E. Heenan | C.
Do | | V. C.
Rostoff and Taganrog | William R. Martin | Act’g Agt.
Riga (b) | Niels P. A. Bornholdt | C.
Do | | V. C.
St. Petersburg | William R. Holloway | C. G.
Do | Wm. A. Heydecker[CS2] | V. & D. C. G.
Cronstadt | Peter Wigius | Agt.
Libau | Hugo Smit | Agt.
Revel | Edmund von Glehn | Agt.
Vladivostock | Richard T. Greener | C. A.
Warsaw (b) | Joseph Rawicz | C.
Do | | V. C.
SALVADOR. |
San Salvador | John Jenkins (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | Benjamin Baruch | V. C.
Acajutia | John Stuart | Agt.
La Libertad | Alfred Cooper | Agt.
La Union | Samuel F. Lord | Agt.
SAMOA. |
Apia | Luther W. Osborn | [CS7]C. G.
Do | William Blacklock | V. C. G.
SERVIA. |
Belgrade | | V. C. G.
SIAM. |
Bangkok | Hamilton King (n) | [CS5]C. G.
Do | Lawrence E. Bennett | V. C. G.
SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC. |
Pretoria | Adelbert S. Hay | C.
Do | Emil A. van Ameringen | V. C.
Bloemfontein, Orange Free State | Alfred Elliott | Agt.
Johannesburg | William D. Gordon | Agt.
SPAIN AND DOMINIONS. |
Alicante (b) | | C.
Do | Henry W. Carey | V. C.
Barcelona | Julius G. Lay | C. G.
Do | H. Henderson Rider | V. & D. C. G.
Bilbao | Carlos Yensen | Agt.
San Feliu de Guixols | Francis Esteva (n) | Agt.
Tarragona | Louis J. Agostini (n) | Agt.
Cadiz | John Howell Carroll | C.
Algeciras | | Agt.
Huelva | John A. Parkinson | Agt.
Jeres de la Frontera | Claes L. Nilson | Agt.
Port St Mary’s | George M. Daniel | Agt.
Seville | Samuel B. Caldwell | Agt.
Carthagena (b) | Joseph Bowron | C.
Do | Reginald W. Barrington | V. C.
Corunna (b) | Julio Harmony[CS2] | C.
Do | | V. C.
Madrid (b) | Dwight T. Reed | V. C.
Malaga | Richard M. Bartleman | C.
Do | Thomas R. Geary | V. C.
Almeria Malaga | Algar E. Carleton | Agt.
Valencia | Horace L. Washington | C.
Do | A. H. S. Troughton | V. & D. C.
Denia | Joseph R. Morand | Agt.
Teneriffe, Canary Isl. (b) | Solomon Berliner | C.
Do | Robert C. Griffiths | C.
Grand Canary | Peter Swanston | Agt.
La Palma | Manuel Yanes | Agt.
SWEDEN AND NORWAY. |
Bergen, Norway (b) | Victor E. Nelson (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | | V. C.
Drontheim | Claus Berg | Agt.
Stavanger | Chr. Fr. Falck | Agt.
Tromso | Richard Killengren | Agt.
Christiania, Norway (b) | Henry Bordewich (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | Lauritz F. Bronn | V. C.
Arendal | Christian Eyde | Agt.
Christiansand | Berne Reinhardt | Agt.
Gothenburg, Sweden | Robert S. S. Bergh (n) | C.
Do | Paul Berghaus | V. & D. C.
Helsingborg | Lars Virgin | Agt.
Malmo | Peter M. Flensburg | Agt.
Stockholm, Sweden | Edward D. Winslow | C. G.
Do | Axel Georgii | V. C. G.
Do | Carl P. Gerell | D. C. G.
Sundsvall | Victor Svensson | Agt.
SWITZERLAND. |
Aarau | Henry H. Morgan | C.
Do | Remigius Sauerlander | V. & D. C.
Lucerne | Julius Hartmann | Agt.
Basel | George Gifford | C.
Do | Samuel Hollinger | V. & D. C.
Berne | Adolph L. Frankenthal (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | Emil David (n) | V. & D. C.
Chaux de-Fonds | Henry Rieckel, Jr. | Agt.
Geneva | Benjamin H. Ridgely | C.
Do | Louis H. Munier | V. & D. C.
Vevey | William Cuenod | Agt.
St. Gall | James T. DuBois | C. G.
Do | Joseph Simon (n) | V. & D. C. G.
Zurich | Adam Lieberknecht (n) | C.
Do | William A. Steinmann | V. & D. C.
Winterthur | Heinrich Langsdorf | Agt.
TONGA. |
Nukualofa | Luther W. Osborn | [CS8]C. G.
TURKEY AND DOMINIONS. |
Alexandretta | William Ross Davis[CS1] | C.
Do | Walter F. Walker | V. C.
Aleppo | Frederick Poche | Agt.
Mersine | Richard Viterbo (n) | Agt.
Bagdad (b) | C.
Do | Rudolph Hurner | V. C.
Bassorah | James Hamilton | Agt.
Beirut, Syria | Gabriel Bie Ravndal (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | William C. Magelssen | V. & D. C.
Damascus | Nasif Meshaka | Agt.
Haifa | Gottleib Schumacher | Agt.
Cairo, Egypt | John G. Long | [CS9]C. G.
Do | William Dulany Hunter | V. C. G.
Do | William Dulany Hunter | D. C. G.
Do | William Dulany Hunter | C. C.
Alexandria | James Hewat | Agt.
Assioot | Bestauros W. Khayat | Agt.
Keneh | Abdel K. M. el Ammari | Agt.
Luxor | Aly Mourad | Agt.
Mansourah | Ibrahim Daoud | Agt.
Port Said | Samuel G. Broadbent | Agt.
Suez | Alfred W. Haydn | Agt.
Constantinople | Charles M. Dickinson | C. G.
Do | William Albert | V. C. G.
Do | Frank L. Duley | D. C. G.
Do | Frank L. Duley | Mar.
Do | Thomas O. Morton | Int.
Do | St. Leger A. Touhay (n) | C. C.
Dardanelles | Frank Calvert | Agt.
Salonica | Pericles H. Lazzaro | Agt.
Erzerum | Leo Bergholz | C.
Do | Vital Ojalvo (n) | V. C.
Trebizond | H. Z. Longworth | Agt.
Harput | | C.
Jerusalem, Syria | Selah Merrill | C.
Do | Herbert E. Clark | V. C.
Yafa | E. Hardegg | Agt.
Sivas | Milo A. Jewett[CS2] | C.
Do | | V. & D. C.
Samsoun | G. C. Stephopoulo | Agt.
Smyrna | Rufus W. Lane[CS1] | C.
Do | Frank D. Brooks | V. C.
Mytilene | Michael M. Fottion | Agt.
URUGUAY. |
Colonia (b) | Benjamin D. Manton | C.
Do | Garrett T. Ryan | V. C.
Montevideo | Albert W. Swalm | C.
Do | Thomas W. Howard | V. C.
Paysandu (b) | John G. Hufnagel (n) | C. A.
Do | George A. Hufnagel | V. C. A.
VENEZUELA. |
La Guayra | Louis Goldschmidt (n)[CS1] | C.
Do | | V. C.
Barcelona | Ignacio H. Baiz | Agt.
Caracas | Frederick De Sola (n) | Agt.
Carupano | Juan A. Orsini | Agt.
Ciudad Bolivar | Robert Henderson | Agt.
Cumana | Jose G. N. Romberg | Agt.
Maracaibo | Engene H. Plumacher (n) | C.
Do | Emilio MacGregor | V. C.
Coro | Josiah L. Senior | Agt.
San Cristobal | Alexander Boue | Agt.
Tovar | Wilhelm J. H. Muche | Agt.
Valera | | Agt.
Puerto Cabello | Luther T. Ellsworth[CS1] | C.
Do | William H. Volkmar | V. C.
Valencia | Otto H. Becker | Agt.
ZANZIBAR. |
Zanzibar | Robert E. Mansfield[CS1] | C.
Do | Seth A. Pratt | V. C.

EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS.

C.,

Consul.

V. C.,

Vice Consul.

Agt.,

Agent.

V. & D. C.,

Vice and Deputy Consul.

V. & D. C. G.,

Vice and Deputy Consul General.

C. G.,

Consul General.

D. C. G.,

Deputy Consul General.

V. C. G.,

Vice Consul General.

C. A.,

Commercial Agent.

V. C. A.,

Vice Commercial Agent.

Mar.,

Marshal.

Int.,

Interpreter.

C. C.,

Consular Clerk.

The letter (n) indicates that the officer is a naturalized citizen, and the letter (b) that he is authorized to transact business.

CS1. Appointed after examination under Executive order of September 20, 1895.

CS2. Born of American parents temporarily residing abroad.

CS3. The Consul General is also Secretary of Legation.

CS4. Born of American parents residing abroad.

CS5. The Consul General is also Minister Resident.

CS6. Born of American parents.

CS7. Also Consul General at Nukualofa, Tonga, but he resides at Apia.

CS8. Also Consul General at Apia, Samoa, at which place he resides.

CS9. The Consul General is also Diplomatic Agent.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UNCLE SAM ABROAD ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

back

back

back

back

back

back

Table of Contents

- UNCLE SAM ABROAD.

- CONTENTS.

- The Professor Has An Idea.

- LECTURE I - THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

- LECTURE II THE CONSULAR SERVICE—OFFICERS.

- RANK.

- CLASSIFICATION.

- SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF CONSULAR OFFICERS.

- AFTER APPOINTMENT.

- PRIVILEGES.

- TREATY RIGHTS.

- PROHIBITIONS.

- LECTURE III - THE CONSULAR SERVICE—DUTIES.

- DUTIES COMMERCIAL.

- DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CUSTOMS REGULATIONS.

- DUTIES TO MERCHANT VESSELS.

- DUTIES IN CASE OF WRECKS.

- DUTIES TO OFFICERS—NAVAL AND DIPLOMATIC.

- DUTIES OR RELATIONS TO SEAMEN.

- IMMIGRATION.

- QUARANTINE.

- DUTIES TO CITIZENS OTHER THAN SEAMEN.

- JUDICIAL DUTIES—IN NON-CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES.

- EXTRADITION.

- TRANSFER OF FOREIGN VESSELS.

- WATCHING ENEMY’S VESSEL.

- AS A FOREIGN AGENT.

- DUTIES TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT—AND OTHERS.

- LECTURE IV DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

- PURPOSE.

- ORIGIN.

- PRECEDENCE.

- MODERN DIPLOMACY—CHARACTER.

- ACCEPTABILITY.

- SOVEREIGNTY OF A STATE.

- PRIVILEGES.

- LECTURE V UNCLE SAM AND EXPANSION.

- SELF-GOVERNMENT IS NOT SO MUCH A RIGHT AS IT IS A CAPACITY.

- APPENDIX.

- SYNOPSIS OF COMMERCIAL TREATIES.

- EXPLANATION OF PRECEDING TABLE

- DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

- EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS.

- CONSULAR SERVICE.

- EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS.

- THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE