SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE UNIFORM OF
PERSONS IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 20, 1867.
March 20th, Mr. Summer, from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, reported the following joint resolution:--
“_Resolved, &c._, That all persons in the diplomatic
service of the United States are prohibited from wearing
any uniform or official costume not previously authorized
by Congress.”
He then stated that it was reported from the Committee
unanimously, and that perhaps the Senate would be willing to
consider it at once. The resolution was proceeded with by
unanimous consent, when Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, remarked: “I do
not see what right we have to prevent a minister abroad from
wearing the uniform of our army, if he chooses.” Mr. Sumner
replied:--
The Senator is aware that a habit exists among our ministers in Europe
of wearing uniforms of other countries in the nature of court costumes
or dresses; and this is often required before they are presented. The
Committee on Foreign Relations, after careful consideration, have
unanimously come to the conclusion that it is expedient to prohibit any
such uniform or official costume, unless sanctioned previously by Act
of Congress. It seems clear that our ministers abroad should not be
required by any foreign government to wear a uniform, costume, or dress
unknown to our own laws. This is very simple, and not unreasonable.
This question is perhaps more important than it appears. On its face
it is of form only, or rather of dress, proper for the learned in
Carlyle’s “Sartor Resartus.” But I am not sure that it does not concern
the character of the Republic. Shall our ministers abroad be required
by any foreign government to assume a uniform unknown to our laws?
Ministers of other countries appear at foreign courts in the dress they
would wear before the sovereign at home. What is good enough for the
sovereign at home is, I understand, good enough for other sovereigns.
And surely the dress in which one of our ministers would appear before
the President of the United States ought to be sufficient anywhere. Its
simplicity is to my mind no argument against it.
It is sometimes said, gravely enough, that, if our ministers appear
in the simple dress of a citizen, according to the requirement of Mr.
Marcy’s famous circular, they may be mistaken for “upper servants.” If
such be the case, they will have little of the stamp of fitness. I am
not troubled on this head. Their simplicity would be a distinction,
and it would be typical of the republican government they represent.
Amidst the brilliant dresses and fantastic uniforms of European courts
a simple dress would be most suggestive. A British minister appearing
at the Congress of Vienna in simple black, with a single star on
his breast, so contrasted with the bedizened crowd about him as to
awaken the admiration of an illustrious prince, who exclaimed, “How
distinguished!”
This is an old subject, which I trust may be disposed of at last.
Mr. Marcy enjoined simplicity in the official dress of our foreign
representatives, and dwelt with pride on the well-known example of
Benjamin Franklin. But his instructions were not sufficiently explicit,
and they were allowed to die out. Some appeared in simple black, and
were not mistaken for “upper servants.” But gold lace at last carried
the day, and our representatives now appear in a costume peculiar to
European courts. A simple prohibition by Congress will put an end to
this petty complication, and make it easy for them to follow abroad the
simple ways to which they have been accustomed at home.
MR. SHERMAN. All I wish to know is, whether General Dix, or
any other minister, could wear the uniform of our army, if he
chose. The rule, if I understand it, in some foreign countries,
is, that a person must appear at court in some kind of uniform.
If none is provided by his government, or authorized by his
government, then he adopts a certain uniform according to the
custom of the country to which he is accredited. Perhaps,
however, I am not correct.
MR. SUMNER. The object of the pending measure is to encounter that
precise requirement of foreign governments, and to put our ministers
on an equality with those of other countries. I have already said that
ministers of other countries may appear at the courts to which they
are addressed as they would appear before their own sovereign. I take
it the Turkish ambassador is not obliged to assume in Paris or London
any official costume peculiar to France or England; but he appears, as
at a reception by his own sovereign, with the fez on his head. And so
the Austrian ambassador appears in his fantastic Hungarian jacket. But
I see no reason why there should be one rule for these ambassadors,
and another for the representatives of the American Republic. Here, as
elsewhere, there should be equality. The equality of nations is a first
principle of International Law. But this is offended by any requirement
of a foreign government which shall not leave our representative free
to appear before the sovereign of the country to which he is accredited
as he would before the Chief Magistrate of the American people,--in
other words, in the simple dress of an American citizen. This is the
whole case.
MR. SHERMAN. The Senator does not yet answer my question: Will
this prevent an American minister abroad from wearing the
uniform of an officer of the army of the United States, such as
he would be entitled to wear under our laws, if here?
MR. SUMNER. If entitled under our laws, there could be no
difficulty.
MR. SHERMAN. We have a law which authorizes a volunteer officer
who has attained the rank of a brigadier-general, for instance,
always on state occasions to wear that uniform.
MR. SUMNER. There can be no misunderstanding. The ministers are simply
to follow Congress; and as Congress has not authorized any uniform
or official costume, they can have none, unless they come within the
exceptional case to which the Senator has alluded. Certain persons who
have been in the military service are authorized, under an existing Act
of Congress, to wear their military uniform on public occasions. This
resolution cannot interfere in any way with that provision. It leaves
the Act of Congress in full force, and is applicable only to those not
embraced by that Act.
The joint resolution passed the Senate without a division.
March 25th, it passed the House without a division, and was
approved by the President, so that it became a law.[101] It was
promptly communicated to our ministers abroad by a circular
from the Department of State.