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”.
[Illustration: U.S. CONSUL]
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.”
[Illustration: Barking dog on a chain standing between man and money
bag]
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.”
Footnote 5:
See Appendix.
[Illustration: Empty chair next to desk stacked with books]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: Woman with broom]
LECTURE
III