TITLES AND DECORATIONS FROM FOREIGN POWERS
The Constitution of the United States provides:
"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, and
no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall,
without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument,
office, or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or
foreign State."
When I became chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, there
were numerous bills pending, and numerous requests submitted through
the State Department, for authority, on the part of officers of
the United States, to accept gifts and decorations from foreign
Governments. At first I was disposed to consent to the report and
passage of such bills, and during the first year or two they were
reported from the committee from time to time and passed in the
Senate. The House did not act upon the individual bills, but a so-
called "omnibus bill" was passed in the House containing all the
bills that previously had been passed by the Senate, and in addition
quite a number of House bills. I had not realized until then how
extensive the practice had become, and I thereupon determined to
use what influence I had to put a stop to it. Since then but two
decorative bills of an exceptionally meritorious nature, one in
favor of Captain T. deWitt Wilcox, and one in favor of Admiral B.
H. McCalla, have been enacted by Congress.
I thoroughly disapprove of the practice, and wanted to put an
effectual stop to it. At the same time the requests came pouring
in from session to session, and certain Senators, both on the
committee and others who were not members of it, insisted and urged
that favorable action be taken in behalf of officers of the United
States in whom they were interested. After more than two hundred
requests had accumulated, I determined to appoint a subcommittee
to consider the whole matter and report to the committee such cases
as were meritorious, or to adopt a general rule against the whole
practice. As chairman of that subcommittee, I appointed Mr. Root,
and with him Mr. Lodge, Mr. Carter, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. Stone. The
subcommittee, on March 10, 1910, submitted its report, which was
adopted by the full committee and submitted to the Senate. Besides
reviewing at considerable length the reasons for legislation, the
report included the following salient features:
First, the existence of the provision in the Constitution indicates
that the presumption is against the acceptance of the present,
emolument, office, or title. A habit of general and indiscriminate
consent by Congress upon such applications would tend practically
to nullify the Constitutional provision, which is based upon an
apprehension, not without foundation, that our officers may be
affected in the performance of their duties by the desire to receive
such recognition from other Governments. A strong support for the
view that the practice should not be allowed to become general is
to be found in the fact that the Government of the United States
does not confer decorations or titles, or--unless in very exceptional
cases--make presents to the officers of other Governments. The
report then recommended that the following five rules be observed;
"1. That no decoration should be received unless possibly when it
is conferred for some exceptional, extraordinary, and highly
meritorious act, justifying beyond dispute a special mark of
distinction.
"2. That no presents should be received except such articles as
are appropriate for souvenirs and marks of courtesy and appreciation,
and having an intrinsic value not disproportionate to such a
purpose.
"3. That the acceptance of presents within the limitation above
stated should be further limited to cases in which some exceptional
service or special relation justifying the mark of courtesy exists
between the recipient and the Government offering the present.
"4. That no offer of any other title or emolument or office should
be considered.
"5. We consider that membership in learned societies, even though
the appointment thereto may have a _quasi_ Governmental origin,
should not be considered as coming within the Constitutional
provision, and it may well be that as to certain trifling gifts,
such as photographs, the rule of _de minimis lex non curat_ should
be deemed to apply."
I agreed to the report of the subcommittee and agreed to the bill,
permitting certain officers to accept the presents tendered to
them, where there were good reasons therefor; but I am free to say
that I was somewhat disappointed that the subcommittee had not
reported in favor of abolishing the practice entirely, instead of
discriminating between presents and decorations, as they did.
The bill passed the Senate without debate and without objection.
It went to the House, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
through Mr. Denby, of Michigan, submitted a most admirable report,
which was far more in line with my own ideas than was the report
of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. I agree with the
conclusions arrived at by the Committee on Foreign Affairs so
thoroughly that I am going to give most of that report here:
" . . . The subcommittee expresses the hope that this adverse
disposition of these bills, which contains items fairly representative
of the great majority of the requests for Congressional sanction
for the acceptance of foreign orders, decorations, or presents, by
officials of the United States, will be regarded as notice to
officials of the United States that this committee at least, and
it is hoped all future committees dealing with this subject-matter,
will refuse to consider such requests, except as hereinafter noted.
"The Committee of Foreign Affairs has been required to devote much
time to the consideration of bills to grant permission to accept
such gifts. The committee has in the past very generally declined
to recommend favorably any such legislation, except in the case of
decorations offered to American citizens by official or quasi-
official scientific associations for eminent scientific achievements."
Article 1, section 9, paragraph 8, of the Constitution of the United
States is quoted, and the report proceeds:
"The Congress has been frequently importuned since the adoption of
the Constitution to grant its consent for the acceptance of orders,
decorations, and presents offered to officials of our Government,
frequently upon pretexts the most trivial and for services the most
commonplace, when services of any kind were rendered at all. A
glance at the requests now on file, summarized in Calendar No. 378,
which accompanies S. 7096, will show that the offers of foreign
gifts, decorations, etc., have been made in the great majority of
cases to officials for services in the direct line of their duty,
and which in themselves, in the majority of cases, were not deserving
of any special commendation. Following a practice which, because
of reciprocal considerations, probably operates satisfactorily
between foreign powers, the Governments of the world frequently
tender to our officers decorations or presents upon such occasions
as the first visit of a fleet to a foreign power, or the presence
of individual officers representing our Government at reviews and
public ceremonials, and to our diplomatic officials upon the
termination of their missions, or upon occasions of rejoicing,
jubilees of sovereigns, etc. While the practice of exchanging such
graceful souvenirs is not unpleasing among the nations which
recognize and reciprocate the courtesy, it is entirely inappropriate
that officials of this Government should accept, or desire to
accept, such presents.
"The prohibition of the Constitution appears to have been put there
out of a well-founded desire to safeguard our officials from the
insidious influence of a natural but not desirable sense of obligation
toward the powers donor. The history of nations abounds with
instances of the giving of rich presents to retiring ambassadors
and ministers upon the conclusion of treaties or the satisfactory
termination of negotiations. There can be no doubt of the danger
of recognizing that the agent of our Government may properly be
compensated by another to which he is accredited. Another and
obvious objection to permitting our officials to receive gifts or
decorations from foreign powers is that, having no orders of nobility
and no decorations in this country, and not recognizing the propriety
of offering to officials of other powers, we can in no way reciprocate.
It is beneath the dignity of the American Government to receive,
through its representatives, presents for which it can make no
return. The Constitutional prohibition is, in the opinion of the
subcommittee, a wise one, to which Congress should very seldom
permit any exception.
"Therefore the subcommittee earnestly hopes that the Committee may
put itself on record so unequivocally in this instance as to clearly
indicate that it will not, except under circumstances the most
unusual and extraordinary, grant permission to any official of the
Government to receive such presents.
"To that end the subcommittee further recommends that this report
may, by resolution, be adopted as expressing the view of the members
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives;
that this report may be printed, and that a copy may be communicated
to the Secretary of State.
"(Signed) Edwin Denby,
"H. W. Palmer,
"H. D. Flood, Subcommittee,
"Adopted by the Committee of Foreign Affairs, April 7, 1910.
"Frederic L. Davis, Clerk."
I have no doubt that these two reports, first the report of the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and second, the report
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House, taken together,
will effectually stop the application for permission to accept both
presents and decorations from foreign Governments. Indeed, I do
not think that the Secretary of State will again consent to apply
to Congress in behalf of officers who have been tendered presents
and decorations.