AS PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN DELEGATION AT THE PEACE CONFERENCE

OF THE HAGUE: V--1899

July 4.

On this day the American delegation invited their colleagues to

celebrate our national anniversary at the tomb of Grotius, first

in the great church, and afterward in the town hall of Delft.

Speeches were made by the minister of foreign affairs of the

Netherlands De Beaufort; by their first delegate, Van Karnebeek;

by Mr. Asser, one of their leading jurists; by the burgomaster of

Delft; and by Baron de Bildt, chairman of the Swedish delegation

and minister at Rome, who read a telegram from the King of Sweden

referring to Grotius's relations to the Swedish diplomatic

service; as well as by President Low of Columbia University and

myself: the duty being intrusted to me of laying the wreath upon

Grotius's tomb and making the address with reference to it. As

all the addresses are to be printed, I shall give no more

attention to them here. A very large audience was present,

embracing the ambassadors and principal members of the

conference, the Netherlands ministers of state, professors from

the various universities of the Netherlands, and a large body of

other invited guests.

The music of the chimes, of the organ, and of the royal choir of

one hundred voices was very fine; and, although the day was

stormy, with a high wind and driving rain, everything went off

well.

After the exercises in the church, our delegation gave a

breakfast, which was very satisfactory. About three hundred and

fifty persons sat down to the tables at the town hall, and one

hundred other guests, including the musicians, at the leading

restaurant in the place. In the afternoon the Americans gathered

at the reception given by our minister, Mr. Newel, and his wife,

and in the evening there was a large attendance at an "American

concert" given by the orchestra at the great hall in

Scheveningen.

July 5.

Early in the morning to the second committee of the conference,

where I spoke in behalf of the Beldiman resolution, doing justice

to Switzerland as regards the continuance of the Red Cross

interests in Swiss hands; and on going to a vote we were

successful.

Then, the question of a proper dealing with our memorial

regarding the immunity of private property on the high seas

coming up, I spoke in favor of referring it to the general

conference, and gave the reasons why it should not simply be

dropped out as not coming within the subjects contemplated in the

call to the conference. Though my speech was in French, it went

off better than I expected.

In the afternoon, at the full conference, the same subject came

up; and then, after a preface in French, asking permission to

speak in English, I made my speech, which, probably, three

quarters of all the delegates understood, but, at my request, a

summary of it was afterward given in French by Mr. van Karnebeek.

The occasion of this speech was my seconding the motion, made in

a very friendly manner by M. de Martens, to refer the matter to a

future conference; but I went into the merits of the general

subject to show its claims upon the various nations, etc., etc.,

though not, of course, as fully as I would have done had the

matter been fully under discussion. My speech was very well

received, and will, I hope, aid in keeping the subject alive.

In the afternoon drove to Ryswyck, to the house of M. Cornets de

Groot, the living representative of the Grotius family. The house

and grounds were very pleasant, but the great attraction was a

collection of relics of Grotius, including many manuscripts from

his own hand,--among these a catechism for his children, written

in the prison of Loewenstein; with official documents, signed and

sealed, connected with the public transactions of his time; also

letters which passed between him and Oxenstiern, the great

Swedish chancellor, some in Latin and some in other languages;

besides sundry poems. There were also a multitude of portraits,

engravings, and documents relating to Olden-Barneveld and others

of Grotius's contemporaries.

The De Groot family gave us a most hearty reception, introducing

their little girl, who is the latest-born descendant of Grotius,

and showing us various household relics of their great ancestor,

including cups, glasses, and the like. Mr. De Groot also gave me

some curious information regarding him which I did not before

possess; and, among other things, told me that when Grotius's

body was transferred, shortly after his death, from Rostock to

Delft, the coffin containing it was stoned by a mob at Rotterdam;

also that at the unveiling of the statue of Grotius in front of

the church at Delft, a few years ago, the high-church Calvinists

would not allow the children from their church schools to join

the other children in singing hymns. The old bitterness of the

extreme Calvinistic party toward their great compatriot was thus

still exhibited, and the remark was made at the time, by a member

of it, that the statue was perfectly true to life, since "its

back was turned toward the church"; to which a reply was made

that "Grotius's face in the statue, like his living face, was

steadily turned toward justice." This latter remark had reference

to the fact that a court is held in the city hall, toward which

the statue is turned.

In the evening to a dinner given by Mr. Piersoon, minister of

finance and prime minister of the Netherlands, to our delegation

and to his colleagues of the Dutch ministry. Everything passed

off well, Mr. Piersoon proposing a toast to the health of the

President of the United States, to which I replied in a toast to

the Queen of the Netherlands. In the course of his speech Mr.

Piersoon thanked us for our tribute to Grotius, and showed really

deep feeling on the subject. There is no doubt that we have

struck a responsive chord in the hearts of all liberal and

thoughtful men and women of the Netherlands; from every quarter

come evidences of this.

A remark of his, regarding arbitration, especially pleased us. He

said that the arbitration plan, as it had come from the great

committee, was like a baby:--apparently helpless, and of very

little value, unable to do much, and requiring careful nursing;

but that it had one great merit:--IT WOULD GROW.

This I believe to be a very accurate statement of the situation.

The general feeling of the conference becomes better and better.

More and more the old skepticism has departed, and in place of it

has come a strong ambition to have a share in what we are

beginning to believe may be a most honorable contribution to the

peace of the world. I have never taken part in more earnest

discussions than those which during the last two weeks have

occupied us, and especially those relating to arbitration.

I think I may say, without assuming too much, that our Grotius

celebration has been a contribution of some value to this growth

of earnestness. It has, if I am not greatly mistaken, revealed to

the conference, still more clearly than before, the fact that it

is a historical body intrusted with a matter of vast importance

and difficulty, and that we shall be judged in history with

reference to this fact.

July 6.

At 5.30 P.M. off in special train with the entire conference to

Amsterdam. On arriving, we found a long train of court carriages

which took us to the palace, the houses on each side throughout

the entire distance being decorated with flags and banners, and

the streets crowded with men, women, and children. We were indeed

a brave show, since all of us, except the members of our American

delegation, wore gorgeous uniforms with no end of ribbons, stars,

and insignia of various offices and orders.

On reaching our destination, we were received by the Queen and

Queen-mother, and shortly afterward went in to dinner. With the

possible exception of a lord mayor's feast at the Guildhall, it

was the most imposing thing of the kind that I have ever seen.

The great banqueting-hall, dating from the glorious days of the

Dutch Republic, is probably the largest and most sumptuous in

continental Europe, and the table furniture, decorations, and

dinner were worthy of it. About two hundred and fifty persons,

including all the members of the conference and the higher

officials of the kingdom, sat down, the Queen and Queen-mother at

the head of the table, and about them the ambassadors and

presidents of delegations. My own place, being very near the

Majesties, gave me an excellent opportunity to see and hear

everything. Toward the close of the banquet the young Queen arose

and addressed us, so easily and naturally that I should have

supposed her speech extemporaneous had I not seen her consulting

her manuscript just before rising. Her manner was perfect, and

her voice so clear as to be heard by every one in the hall.

Everything considered, it was a remarkable effort for a young

lady of seventeen. At its close an excellent reply was made by

our president, M. de Staal; and soon afterward, when we had

passed into the great gallery, there came an even more striking

exhibition of the powers of her youthful Majesty, for she

conversed with every member of the conference, and with the

utmost ease and simplicity. To me she returned thanks for the

Grotius tribute, and in very cordial terms, as did later also the

Queen-mother; and I cannot but believe that they were sincere,

since, three months later, at the festival given them at Potsdam,

they both renewed their acknowledgments in a cordial way which

showed that their patriotic hearts were pleased. Various leading

men of the Netherlands and of the conference also thanked us, and

one of them said, "You Americans have taught us a lesson; for,

instead of a mere display of fireworks to the rabble of a single

city, or a ball or concert to a few officials, you have, in this

solemn recognition of Grotius, paid the highest compliment

possible to the entire people of the Netherlands, past, present,

and to come."

July 7.

In the morning to the great hall of the "House in the Wood,"

where the "editing committee" (comite de redaction) reported to

the third committee of the conference the whole arbitration plan.

It struck me most favorably,--indeed, it surprised me, though I

have kept watch of every step. I am convinced that it is better

than any of the plans originally submitted, not excepting our

own. It will certainly be a gain to the world.

At the close of the session we adjourned until Monday, the 17th,

in order that the delegates may get instructions from their

various governments regarding the signing of the protocols,

agreements, etc.

July 8.

In the evening dined with M. de Mier, the Mexican minister at

Paris and delegate here, and had a very interesting talk with M.

Raffalovitch, to whom I spoke plainly regarding the only road to

disarmament. I told him that he must know as well as any one that

there is a vague dread throughout Europe of the enormous growth

of Russia, and that he must acknowledge that, whether just or

not, it is perfectly natural. He acquiesced in this, and I then

went on to say that the Emperor Nicholas had before him an

opportunity to do more good and make a nobler reputation than any

other czar had ever done, not excepting Alexander II with his

emancipation of the serfs; that I had thought very seriously of

writing, at the close of the conference, to M. Pobedonostzeff,

presenting to him the reasons why Russia might well make a

practical beginning of disarmament by dismissing to their homes,

or placing on public works, say two hundred thousand of her

soldiers; that this would leave her all the soldiers she needs,

and more; that he must know, as everybody knows, that no other

power dreams of attacking Russia or dares to do so; that there

would be no disadvantage in such a dismissal of troops to

peaceful avocations, but every advantage; and that if it were

done the result would be that, in less than forty years, Russia

would become, by this husbanding of her resources, the most

powerful nation on the eastern continent, and able to carry out

any just policy which she might desire. I might have added that

one advantage of such a reduction would certainly be less

inclination by the war party at St. Petersburg to plunge into

military adventures. (Had Russia thus reduced her army she would

never have sunk into the condition in which she finds herself now

(1905), as I revise these lines. Instead of sending Alexeieff to

make war, she would have allowed De Witte to make peace--peace on

a basis of justice to Japan, and a winter access to the Pacific,

under proper safeguards, for herself.)

Raffalovitch seemed to acquiesce fully in my view, except as to

the number of soldiers to be released, saying that fifty or sixty

thousand would do perfectly well as showing that Russia is in

earnest.

He is one of the younger men of Russia, but has very decided

ability, and this he has shown not only in his secretaryship of

the conference, but in several of his works on financial and

other public questions published in Paris, which have secured for

him a corresponding membership of the French Institute.

It is absolutely clear in my mind that, if anything is to be done

toward disarmament, a practical beginning must be made by the

Czar; but the unfortunate thing is that with, no doubt, fairly

good intentions, he is weak and ill informed. The dreadful

mistake he is making in violating the oath sworn by his

predecessors and himself to Finland is the result of this

weakness and ignorance; and should he attempt to diminish his

overgrown army he would, in all probability, be overborne by the

military people about him, and by petty difficulties which they

would suggest, or, if necessary, create. It must be confessed

that there is one danger in any attempted disarmament, and this

is that the military clique might, to prevent it, plunge the

empire into a war.

The Emperor is surrounded mainly by inferior men. Under the shade

of autocracy men of independent strength rarely flourish. Indeed,

I find that the opinion regarding Russian statesmen which I

formed in Russia is confirmed by old diplomatists, of the best

judgment, whom I meet here. One of them said to me the other day:

"There is no greater twaddle than all the talk about far-seeing

purposes and measures by Russian statesmen. They are generally

weak, influenced by minor, and especially by personal,

considerations, and inferior to most men in similar positions in

the other great governments of Europe. The chancellor, Prince

Gortchakoff, of whom so much has been said, was a weak, vain man,

whom Bismarck found it generally very easy to deal with."

As to my own experience, I think many of those whom I saw were

far from the best of their kind with whom I have had to do. I

have never imagined a human being in the position of minister of

the interior of a great nation so utterly futile as the person

who held that place at St. Petersburg in my time; and the same

may be said of several others whom I met there in high places.

There are a few strong men, and, unfortunately, Pobedonostzeff is

one of them. Luckily, De Witte, the minister of finance, is

another.

July 10.

The evil which I dreaded, as regards the formation of public

opinion in relation to the work of our conference, is becoming

realized. The London "Spectator," just received, contains a most

disheartening article, "The Peace Conference a Failure," with an

additional article, more fully developed, to the same effect.

Nothing could be more unjust; but, on account of the

"Spectator's" "moderation," it will greatly influence public

opinion, and doubtless prevent, to some extent, the calling of

future conferences needed to develop the good work done in this.

Fortunately the correspondent of the "Times" gives a better

example, and shows, in his excellent letters, what has been

accomplished here. The "New York Herald," also, is thus far

taking the right view, and maintaining it with some earnestness.

July 17.

This morning, at ten, to the "House in the Wood" to hear Mr. van

Karnebeek's report on disarmament, checking invention, etc.,

before the session of committee No. 1. It was strongly attacked,

and was left in shreds: the whole subject is evidently too

immature and complicated to be dealt with during the present

conference.

In the afternoon came up an especially interesting matter in the

session of the arbitration committee, the occasion being a report

of the subcommittee. Among the points which most interested us as

Americans was a provision for an appeal from the decision of the

arbitration tribunal on the discovery of new facts.

De Martens of Russia spoke with great force against such right of

appeal, and others took ground with him. Holls really

distinguished himself by a telling speech on the other

side--which is the American side, that feature having been

present in our original instructions; Messrs. Asser and Karnebeek

both spoke for it effectively, and the final decision was

virtually in our favor, for Mr. Asser's compromise was adopted,

which really gives us the case.

The Siamese representatives requested that the time during which

an appeal might be allowed should be six instead of three months,

which we had named; but it was finally made a matter of

adjustment between the parties.

July 18.

The American delegation met at ten, when a cable message from the

State Department was read authorizing us to sign the protocol.

July 19.

Field day in the arbitration committee. A decided sensation was

produced by vigorous speeches by my Berlin colleague, Beldiman,

of the Roumanian delegation, and by Servian, Greek, and other

delegates, against the provision for commissions d'enquete,--De

Martens, Descamps, and others making vigorous speeches in behalf

of them. It looked as if the Balkan states were likely to

withdraw from the conference if the commission d'enquete feature

was insisted upon: they are evidently afraid that such "examining

commissions" may be sent within their boundaries by some of their

big neighbors--Russia, for example--to spy out the land and start

intrigues. The whole matter was put over.

In the evening to Count Munster's dinner at Scheveningen, and had

a very interesting talk on conference matters with Sir Julian

Pauncefote, finding that in most things we shall be able to stand

together as the crisis approaches.

July 20.

For several days past I have been preparing a possible speech to

be made in signing the protocol, etc., which, if not used for

that purpose, may be published, and, perhaps, aid in keeping

public opinion in the right line as regards the work of the

conference after it has closed.

In the afternoon to the "House in the Wood," the committee on

arbitration meeting again. More speeches were made by the

Bulgarians and Servians, who are still up in arms, fearing that

the commissione d'enquete means intervention by the great states

in their affairs. Speeches to allay their fears were made by

Count Nigra, Dr. Zorn, Holls, and Leon Bourgeois. Zorn spoke in

German with excellent effect, as did Holls in English; Nigra was

really impressive; and Bourgeois, from the chair, gave us a

specimen of first-rate French oratory. He made a most earnest

appeal to the delegates of the Balkan states, showing them that

by such a system of arbitration as is now proposed the lesser

powers would be the very first to profit, and he appealed to

their loyalty to humanity. The speech was greatly and justly

applauded.

The Balkan delegates are gradually and gracefully yielding.

July 21.

In the morning to the "House in the Wood," where a plenary

session of the conference was held. It was a field day on

explosive, flattening and expanding bullets, etc. Our Captain

Crozier, who evidently knows more about the subject than anybody

else here, urged a declaration of the principle that balls should

be not more deadly or cruel than is absolutely necessary to put

soldiers hors de combat; but the committee had reported a

resolution which, Crozier insists, opens the door to worse

missiles than those at present used. Many and earnest speeches

were made. I made a short speech, moving to refer the matter back

to the committee, with instructions to harmonize and combine the

two ideas in one article--that is, the idea which the article now

expresses, and Crozier's idea of stating the general principle to

which the bullets should conform--namely, that of not making a

wound more cruel than necessary; but the amendment was lost.

July 22.

Sir Julian Pauncefote called to discuss with us the signing of

the Acte Final. There seems to be general doubt as to what is the

best manner of signing the conventions, declarations, etc., and

all remains in the air.

In the morning the American delegation met and Captain Mahan

threw in a bomb regarding article 27, which requires that when

any two parties to the conference are drifting into war, the

other powers should consider it a duty (devoir) to remind them of

the arbitration tribunal, etc. He thinks that this infringes the

American doctrine of not entangling ourselves in the affairs of

foreign states, and will prevent the ratification of the

convention by the United States Senate. This aroused earnest

debate, Captain Mahan insisting upon the omission of the word

"devoir," and Dr. Holls defending the article as reported by the

subcommittee, of which he is a member, and contending that the

peculiar interests of America could be protected by a

reservation. Finally, the delegation voted to insist upon the

insertion of the qualifying words, "autant que les circonstances

permettent," but this decision was afterward abandoned.

July 23.

Met at our Minister Newel's supper Sir Henry Howard, who told me

that the present Dutch ministry, with Piersoon at its head and De

Beaufort as minister of foreign affairs, is in a very bad way;

that its "subserviency to Italy," in opposition to the demands of

the Vatican for admittance into the conference, and its

difficulties with the socialists and others, arising from the

police measures taken against Armenian, Finnish, New Turkish, and

other orators who have wished to come here and make the

conference and the city a bear-garden, have led both the extreme

parties--that is, the solid Roman Catholic party on one side, and

the pretended votaries of liberty on the other--to hate the

ministry equally. He thinks that they will join hands and oust

the ministry just as soon as the conference is over.

Some allowance is to be made for the fact that Sir Henry is a

Roman Catholic: while generally liberal, he evidently looks at

many questions from the point of view of his church.[9]

[9] As it turned out, he was right: the ministry was ousted, but

not so soon as he expected, for the catastrophe did not arrive

until about two years later. Then came in a coalition of high

Calvinists and Roman Catholics which brought in the Kuyper

ministry.

July 24.

For some days--in fact, ever since Captain Mahan on the 22d

called attention to article 27 of the arbitration convention as

likely to be considered an infringement of the Monroe

Doctrine--our American delegation has been greatly perplexed. We

have been trying to induce the French, who proposed article 27,

and who are as much attached to it as is a hen to her one chick,

to give it up, or, at least, to allow a limiting or explanatory

clause to be placed with it. Various clauses of this sort have

been proposed. The article itself makes it the duty of the other

signatory powers, when any two nations are evidently drifting

toward war, to remind these two nations that the arbitration

tribunal is open to them. Nothing can be more simple and natural;

but we fear lest, when the convention comes up for ratification

in the United States Senate, some over-sensitive patriot may seek

to defeat it by insisting that it is really a violation of

time-honored American policy at home and abroad--the policy of

not entangling ourselves in the affairs of foreign nations, on

one side, and of not allowing them to interfere in our affairs,

on the other.

At twelve this day our delegation gave a large luncheon at the

Oude Doelen--among those present being Ambassadors De Staal,

Count Nigra, and Sir Julian Pauncefote, Bourgeois, Karnebeek,

Basily, Baron d'Estournelles, Baron de Bildt, and others--to

discuss means of getting out of the above-mentioned difficulty. A

most earnest effort was made to induce the French to allow some

such modification as has been put into other articles--namely,

the words, "autant que possible," or some limiting clause to the

same effect; but neither Bourgeois nor D'Estournelles,

representing France, would think of it for a moment. Bourgeois,

as the head of the French delegation, spoke again and again, at

great length. Among other things, he gave us a very long

disquisition on the meaning of "devoir" as it stands in the

article--a disquisition which showed that the Jesuits are not the

only skilful casuists in the world.

I then presented my project of a declaration of the American

doctrine to be made by us on signing. It had been scratched off

with a pencil in the morning, hastily; but it was well received

by Bourgeois, D'Estournelles, and all the others.

Later we held a meeting of our own delegation, when, to my

project of a declaration stating that nothing contained in any

part of the convention signed here should be considered as

requiring us to intrude, mingle, or entangle ourselves in

European politics or internal affairs, Low made an excellent

addition to the effect that nothing should be considered to

require any abandonment of the traditional attitude of the United

States toward questions purely American; and, with slight verbal

changes, this combination was adopted.

July 25.

All night long I have been tossing about in my bed and thinking

of our declaration of the Monroe Doctrine to be brought before

the conference to-day. We all fear that the conference will not

receive it, or will insist on our signing without it or not

signing at all.

On my way to The Hague from Scheveningen I met M. Descamps, the

eminent professor of international law in the University of

Louvain, and the leading delegate in the conference as regards

intricate legal questions connected with the arbitration plan. He

thought that our best way out of the difficulty was absolutely to

insist on a clause limiting the devoir imposed by article 27, and

to force it to a vote. He declared that, in spite of the French,

it would certainly be carried. This I doubt. M. Descamps knows,

perhaps, more of international law than of the temper of his

associates.

In the afternoon to the "House in the Wood," where the "Final

Act" was read. This is a statement of what has been done, summed

up in the form of three conventions, with sundry declarations,

voeux, etc. We had taken pains to see a number of the leading

delegates, and all, in their anxiety to save the main features of

the arbitration plan, agreed that they would not oppose our

declaration. It was therefore placed in the hands of

Raffalovitch, the Russian secretary, who stood close beside the

president, and as soon as the "Final Act" had been recited he

read this declaration of ours. This was then brought before the

conference in plenary session by M. de Staal, and the conference

was asked whether any one had any objection, or anything to say

regarding it. There was a pause of about a minute, which seemed

to me about an hour. Not a word was said,--in fact, there was

dead silence,--and so our declaration embodying a reservation in

favor of the Monroe Doctrine was duly recorded and became part of

the proceedings.

Rarely in my life have I had such a feeling of deep relief; for,

during some days past, it has looked as if the arbitration

project, so far as the United States is concerned, would be

wrecked on that wretched little article 27.

I had before me notes of a speech carefully prepared, stating our

reasons and replying to objections, to be used in case we were

attacked, but it was not needed. In the evening I was asked by

Mr. Lavino, the correspondent of the London "Times," to put the

gist of it into an "interview" for the great newspaper which he

serves, and to this I consented; for, during the proceedings this

afternoon in the conference, Sir Julian Pauncefote showed great

uneasiness. He was very anxious that we should withdraw the

declaration altogether, and said, "It will be charged against you

that you propose to evade your duties while using the treaty to

promote your interests"; but I held firm and pressed the matter,

with the result above stated. I feared that he would object in

open conference; but his loyalty to arbitration evidently

deterred him. However, he returned to the charge privately, and I

then promised to make a public statement of our reasons for the

declaration, and this seemed to ease his mind. The result was a

recasting of my proposed speech, and this Mr. Lavino threw into

the form of a long telegram to the "Times."

July 26.

At ten to a meeting of our American delegation, when another

bombshell was thrown among us--nothing less than the question

whether the Pope is to be allowed to become one of the signatory

powers; and this question has now taken a very acute form. Italy

is, of course, utterly opposed to it, and Great Britain will not

sign if any besides those agreed upon by the signatory powers are

allowed to come in hereafter, her motive being, no doubt, to

avoid trouble in regard to the Transvaal.

Mr. Low stated that in the great committee the prevailing opinion

seemed to be that the signatory powers had made a sort of

partnership, and that no new partners could be added without the

consent of all. This is the natural ground, and entirely tenable.

I would have been glad to add the additional requirement that no

power should be admitted which would not make arbitration

reciprocal--that is, no power which, while aiding to arbitrate

for others, would not accept arbitration between itself and

another power. This would, of course, exclude the Vatican; for,

while it desires to judge others, it will allow no interests of

its own, not even the most worldly and trivial, to be submitted

to any earthly tribunal.

The question now came up in our American delegation as to signing

the three conventions in the Acte Final--namely, those relating

to arbitration, to the extension of the Geneva rules, and to the

laws and customs of war. We voted to sign the first, to send the

second to Washington without recommendation, and to send the

third with a recommendation that it be there signed. The reason

for sending the second to Washington without recommendation is

that Captain Mahan feels that, in its present condition, it may

bring on worse evils than it prevents. He especially and, I

think, justly objects to allowing neutral hospital ships to take

on board the wounded and shipwrecked in a naval action, with

power to throw around them the safeguards of neutrality and carry

them off to a neutral port whence they can again regain their own

homes and resume their status as combatants.

The reason for submitting the third to Washington, with a

recommendation to sign it there, is that considerable work will

be required in conforming our laws of war to the standard

proposed by the conference, and that it is best that the

Washington authorities look it over carefully.

I was very anxious to sign all three conventions, but the first

is the great one, and I yielded my views on the last two.

The powers are to have until the 31st of December, if they wish

it, before signing.

July 27.

Early in the morning to a meeting of our American delegation, Mr.

van Karnebeek being present. We agreed to sign the arbitration

convention, attaching to our signatures a reservation embodying

our declaration of July 25 regarding the maintenance of our

American policy--the Monroe Doctrine. A telegram was received

from the State Department approving of this declaration. The

imbroglio regarding the forcing of the Pope into the midst of the

signatory powers continues. The ultramontanes are pushing on

various delegates, especially sundry Austrians and Belgians, who

depend on clerical support for their political existence, and, in

some cases, for their daily bread; and the result is that M.

Descamps, one of the most eminent international lawyers in

Europe, who has rendered great services during the conference,

but who holds a professorship at the University of Louvain, and

can hold it not one moment longer than the Jesuits allow him, is

making a great display of feeling on the subject. Italy, of

course, continues to take the strongest ground against the

proposal to admit his Holiness as an Italian sovereign.

Our position is, as was well stated in the great committee by Mr.

Low, that the contracting parties must all consent before a new

party can come in; and this under one of the simplest principles

of law. We ought also to add that any power thus admitted shall

not only consent to arbitrate on others, but to be arbitrated

upon. This, of course, the Vatican monsignori will never do. They

would see all Europe deluged in blood before they would submit

the pettiest question between the kingdom of Italy and themselves

to arbitration by lay powers. All other things are held by them

utterly subordinate to the restoration of the Pope's temporal

power, though they must know that if it were restored to him

to-morrow he could not hold it. He would be overthrown by a

revolution within a month, even with all the troops which France

or Austria could send to support him; and then we should have the

old miserable state of things again in Italy, with bloodshed,

oppression, and exactions such as took place throughout the first

half of this century, and, indeed, while I was in Italy, under

the old papal authority, in 1856.

In the afternoon to the "House in the Wood" to go over documents

preliminary to signing the "Final Act."

July 28.

In the afternoon in plenary session of the conference, hearing

the final reports as to forms of signing, etc.

To-day appears in the London "Times" the interview which its

correspondent had with me yesterday. It develops the reasons for

our declaration, and seems to give general satisfaction. Sir

Julian Pauncefote told Holls that he liked it much.

The committee on forms of the "Final Act," etc., has at last,

under pressure of all sorts, agreed that the question of

admitting non-signatory powers shall be decided by the signatory

powers, hereafter, through the ordinary medium of diplomatic

correspondence. This is unfortunate for some of the South

American republics, but it will probably in some way inure to the

benefit of the Vatican monsignori.

July 29.

The last and culminating day of the conference.

In the morning the entire body gathered in the great hall of the

"House in the Wood," and each delegation was summoned thence to

sign the protocol, conventions, and declarations. These were laid

out on a long table in the dining-room of the palace, which is

adorned with very remarkable paintings of mythological subjects

imitating bas-reliefs.

All these documents had the places for each signature prepared

beforehand, and our seals, in wax, already placed upon the pages

adjoining the place where each signature was to be. At the

request of the Foreign Office authorities for my seal, I had sent

a day or two beforehand the seal ring which Goldwin Smith gave me

at the founding of Cornell University. It is an ancient carnelian

intaglio which he obtained in Rome, and bears upon its face,

exquisitely engraved, a Winged Victory. This seal I used during

my entire connection with Cornell University, and also as a

member of the Electoral College of the State of New York at

General Grant's second election, when, at the request of the

president of that body, Governor Woodford, it was used in sealing

certificates of the election, which were sent, according to law,

to certain high officials of our government.

I affixed my signature to the arbitration convention, writing in,

as agreed, the proviso that our signatures were subject to the

Monroe Doctrine declaration made in open session of the

conference on July 25. The other members of the American

delegation then signed in proper order. But the two other

conventions we left unsigned. It was with deep regret that I

turned away from these; but the majority of the delegation had

decreed it, and it was difficult to see what other course we

could pursue. I trust that the Washington authorities will

rectify the matter by signing them both.

We also affixed our signatures to the first of the

"declarations."

At three P.M. came the formal closing of the conference. M. de

Staal made an excellent speech, as did Mr. van Karnebeek and M.

de Beaufort, the Netherlands minister of foreign affairs. To

these Count Munster, the presiding delegate from Germany, replied

in French, and apparently extemporaneously. It must have been

pain and grief to him, for he was obliged to speak respectfully,

in the first place, of the conference, which for some weeks he

had affected to despise; and, secondly, of arbitration and the

other measures proposed, which, at least during all the first

part of the conference, he had denounced as a trick and a humbug;

and, finally, he had to speak respectfully of M. de Staal, to

whom he has steadily shown decided dislike. He did the whole

quite well, all things considered; but showed his feelings

clearly, as regarded M. de Staal, by adding to praise of him

greater praise for Mr. van Karnebeek, who has been the main

managing man in the conference in behalf of the Netherlands

Government.

Then to the hotel and began work on the draft of a report,

regarding the whole work of the conference, to the State

Department. I was especially embarrassed by the fact that the

wording of it must be suited to the scruples of my colleague,

Captain Mahan. He is a man of the highest character and of great

ability, whom I respect and greatly like; but, as an old naval

officer, wedded to the views generally entertained by older

members of the naval and military service, he has had very

little, if any, sympathy with the main purposes of the

conference, and has not hesitated to declare his disbelief in

some of the measures which we were especially instructed to

press. In his books he is on record against the immunity of

private property at sea, and in drawing up our memorial to the

conference regarding this latter matter, in making my speech with

reference to it in the conference, and in preparing our report to

the State Department, I have been embarrassed by this fact. It

was important to have unanimity, and it could not be had, so far

as he was concerned, without toning down the whole thing, and,

indeed, leaving out much that in my judgment the documents

emanating from us on the subject ought to contain. So now, in

regard to arbitration, as well as the other measures finally

adopted, his feelings must be considered. Still, his views have

been an excellent tonic; they have effectively prevented any

lapse into sentimentality. When he speaks the millennium fades

and this stern, severe, actual world appears.

I worked until late at night, and then went to Scheveningen

almost in despair.

July 30.

Returned to The Hague early in the morning, and went on again

with the report, working steadily through the day upon it. For

the first time in my life I have thus made Sunday a day of work.

Although I have no conscientious scruples on the subject, it was

bred into me in my childhood and boyhood that Sunday should be

kept free from all manner of work; and so thoroughly was this

rule inculcated that I have borne it in mind ever since, often

resisting very pressing temptation to depart from it.

But to-day there was no alternative, and the whole time until

five o'clock in the afternoon was given to getting my draft

ready.

At five P.M. the American delegation came together, and, to my

surprise, received my report with every appearance of

satisfaction. Mr. Low indicated some places which, in his

opinion, needed modification; and to this I heartily agreed, for

they were generally places where I was myself in doubt.

My draft having thus been presented, I turned it over to Mr. Low,

who agreed to bring it to-morrow morning with such modifications,

omissions, and additions as seemed best to him. The old proverb,

"'T is always darkest just before daylight," seems exemplified

in the affairs of to-day, since the kind reception given to my

draft of the report, and the satisfaction expressed regarding it,

form a most happy and unexpected sequel to my wretched distrust

regarding the whole matter last night.

July 31.

The American delegation met at eleven in the morning and

discussed my draft. Mr. Low's modifications and additions were

not many and were mainly good. But he omitted some things which I

would have preferred to retain: these being in the nature of a

plea in behalf of arbitration, or, rather, an exhibition of the

advantages which have been secured for it by the conference; but,

between his doubts and Captain Mahan's opposition, I did not care

to contest the matter, and several pages were left out.

At six in the afternoon came the last meeting of our delegation.

The reports, duly engrossed,--namely, the special reports, signed

by Captain Mahan and Captain Crozier, from the first and second

committees of the conference; the special report made by myself,

Mr. Low, and Dr. Holls as members of the third committee; and the

general report covering our whole work, drawn almost entirely by

me, but signed by all the members of the commission,--were

presented, re-read, and signed, after which the delegation

adjourned, sine die.

August 1.

After some little preliminary work on matters connected with the

winding up of our commission, went with my private secretary, Mr.

Vickery, to Amsterdam, visiting the old church, the palace, the

Zoological Gardens, etc. Thence to Gouda and saw the

stained-glass windows in the old church there, which I have so

long desired to study.

August 3.

At 8.30 left The Hague and went by rail, via Cologne and

Ehrenbreitstein, to Homburg, arriving in the evening.

August 5.

This morning resumed my duties as ambassador at Berlin.

There was one proceeding at the final meeting of the conference

which I have omitted, but which really ought to find a place in

this diary. Just before the final speeches, to the amazement of

all and almost to the stupefaction of many, the president, M. de

Staal, handed to the secretary, without comment, a paper which

the latter began to read. It turned out to be a correspondence

which had taken place, just before the conference, between the

Queen of the Netherlands and the Pope.

The Queen's letter--written, of course, by her ministers, in the

desire to placate the Catholic party, which holds the balance of

power in the Netherlands--dwelt most respectfully on the high

functions of his Holiness, etc., etc., indicating, if not saying,

that it was not the fault of her government that he was not

invited to join in the conference.

The answer from the Pope was a masterpiece of Vatican skill. In

it he referred to what he claimed was his natural position as a

peacemaker on earth, dwelling strongly on this point.

The reading of these papers was received in silence, and not a

word was publicly said afterward regarding them, though in

various quarters there was very deep feeling. It was felt that

the Dutch Government had taken this means of forestalling local

Dutch opposition, and that it was a purely local matter of

political partizanship that ought never to have been intruded

upon a conference of the whole world.

I had no feeling of this sort, for it seemed to me well enough

that the facts should be presented; but a leading representative

of one of the great Catholic powers, who drove home with us, was

of a different mind. This eminent diplomatist from one of the

strongest Catholic countries, and himself a Catholic, spoke in

substance as follows: "The Vatican has always been, and is

to-day, a storm-center. The Pope and his advisers have never

hesitated to urge on war, no matter how bloody, when the

slightest of their ordinary worldly purposes could be served by

it. The great religious wars of Europe were entirely stirred up

and egged on by them; and, as everybody knows, the Pope did

everything to prevent the signing of the treaty of Munster, which

put an end to the dreadful Thirty Years' War, even going so far

as to declare the oaths taken by the plenipotentiaries at that

congress of no effect.

"All through the middle ages and at the Renaissance period the

Popes kept Italy in turmoil and bloodshed for their own family

and territorial advantages, and they kept all Europe in turmoil,

for two centuries after the Reformation,--in fact, just as long

as they could,--in the wars of religion. They did everything they

could to stir up the war between Austria and Prussia in 1866,

thinking that Austria, a Catholic power, was sure to win; and

then everything possible to stir up the war of France against

Prussia in 1870 in order to accomplish the same purpose of

checking German Protestantism; and now they are doing all they

can to arouse hatred, even to deluge Italy in blood, in the vain

attempt to recover the temporal power, though they must know that

they could not hold it for any length of time even if they should

obtain it.

"They pretend to be anxious to 'save souls,' and especially to

love Poland and Ireland; but they have for years used those

countries as mere pawns in their game with Russia and Great

Britain, and would sell every Catholic soul they contain to the

Greek and English churches if they could thereby secure the

active aid of those two governments against Italy. They have

obliged the Italian youth to choose between patriotism and

Christianity, and the result is that the best of these have

become atheists. Their whole policy is based on stirring up

hatred and promoting conflicts from which they hope to draw

worldly advantage.

"In view of all this, one stands amazed at the cool statements of

the Vatican letter."

These were the words of an eminent Roman Catholic representative

of a Roman Catholic power, and to them I have nothing to add.

In looking back calmly over the proceedings of the conference, I

feel absolutely convinced that it has accomplished a great work

for the world.

The mere assembling of such a body for such a purpose was a

distinct gain; but vastly more important is the positive outcome

of its labors.

First of these is the plan of arbitration. It provides a court

definitely constituted; a place of meeting easily accessible; a

council for summoning it always in session; guarantees for

perfect independence; and a suitable procedure.

Closely connected with this is the provision for "international

commissions of inquiry," which cannot fail to do much in clearing

up issues likely to lead to war between nations. Thus we may

hope, when there is danger of war, for something better than that

which the world has hitherto heard--the clamor of interested

parties and the shrieks of sensation newspapers. The natural

result will be, as in the Venezuelan difficulty between the

United States and Great Britain, that when a commission of this

sort has been set at work to ascertain the facts, the howling of

partizans and screaming of sensation-mongers will cease, and the

finding of the commission be calmly awaited.

So, too, the plans adopted for mediation can hardly fail to aid

in keeping off war. The plans for "special mediation" and

"seconding powers," which emanated entirely from the American

delegation, and which were adopted unanimously by the great

committee and by the conference, seem likely to prove in some

cases an effective means of preventing hostilities, and even of

arresting them after they have begun. Had it been in operation

during our recent war with Spain, it would probably have closed

it immediately after the loss of Cervera's fleet, and would have

saved many lives and much treasure.

Secondly, the extension of the Geneva rules, hitherto adopted for

war on land, to war also on the sea is a distinct gain in the

cause of mercy.

Thirdly, the amelioration and more careful definition of the laws

of war must aid powerfully in that evolution of mercy and right

reason which has been going on for hundreds of years, and

especially since the great work of Grotius.

In addition to these gains may well be mentioned the

declarations, expressions of opinion, and utterance of wishes for

continued study and persevering effort to make the

instrumentalities of war less cruel and destructive.

It has been said not infrequently that the conference missed a

great opportunity when it made the resort to arbitration

voluntary and not obligatory. Such an objection can come only

from those who have never duly considered the problem concerned.

Obligatory arbitration between states is indeed possible in

various petty matters, but in many great matters absolutely

impossible. While a few nations were willing to accept it in

regard to these minor matters,--as, for example, postal or

monetary difficulties and the like,--not a single power was

willing to bind itself by a hard-and-fast rule to submit all

questions to it--and least of all the United States.

The reason is very simple: to do so would be to increase the

chances of war and to enlarge standing armies throughout the

world. Obligatory arbitration on all questions would enable any

power, at any moment, to bring before the tribunal any other

power against which it has, or thinks it has, a grievance. Greece

might thus summon Turkey; France might summon Germany; the

Papacy, Italy; England, Russia; China, Japan; Spain, the United

States, regarding matters in which the deepest of human

feelings--questions of religion, questions of race, questions

even of national existence--are concerned. To enforce the

decisions of a tribunal in such cases would require armies

compared to which those of the present day are a mere bagatelle,

and plunge the world into a sea of troubles compared to which

those now existing are as nothing. What has been done is to

provide a way, always ready and easily accessible, by which

nations can settle most of their difficulties with each other.

Hitherto, securing a court of arbitration has involved first the

education of public opinion in two nations; next, the action of

two national legislatures; then the making of a treaty; then the

careful selection of judges on both sides; then delays by the

jurists thus chosen in disposing of engagements and duties to

which they are already pledged--all these matters requiring much

labor and long time; and this just when speedy action is most

necessary to arrest the development of international anger. Under

the system of arbitration now presented, the court can be brought

into session at short notice--easily, as regards most nations,

within a few weeks, at the farthest. When to these advantages are

added the provisions for delaying war and for improving the laws

of war, the calm judgment of mankind will, I fully believe,

decide that the conference has done a work of value to the world.

There is also another gain--incidental, but of real and permanent

value; and this is the inevitable development of the Law of

Nations by the decisions of such a court of arbitration composed

of the most eminent jurists from all countries. Thus far it has

been evolved from the writings of scholars often conflicting,

from the decisions of national courts biased by local patriotism,

from the practices of various powers, on land and sea, more in

obedience to their interests than to their sense of justice; but

now we may hope for the growth of a great body of international

law under the best conditions possible, and ever more and more in

obedience to the great impulse given by Grotius in the direction

of right reason and mercy.

CHAPTER L

HINTS FOR REFORMS IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

In view of a connection with the diplomatic service of the United

States begun nearly fifty years ago and resumed at various posts

and periods since, I have frequently been asked for my opinion of

it, as compared with that of other nations, and also what

measures I would suggest for its improvement. Hitherto this

question has somewhat embarrassed me: answering it fully might

have seemed to involve a plea for my own interests; so that,

while I have pointed out, in public lectures and in letters to

men of influence, sundry improvements, I have not hitherto

thought it best to go fully into the subject.

But what I now say will not see the light until my diplomatic

career is finished forever, and I may claim to speak now for what

seems to me the good of the service and of the country. I shall

make neither personal complaint of the past nor personal plea for

the future. As to the past, my experience showed me years ago

what I had to expect if I continued in the service--insufficient

salary, unfit quarters, inadequate means of discharging my

duties, and many other difficulties which ought not to have

existed, but which I knew to exist when I took office, and of

which I have therefore no right to complain. As to the future, I

can speak all the more clearly and earnestly because even my

enemies, if I have any, must confess that nothing which is now to

be done can inure to my personal benefit.

As to the present condition, then, of our diplomatic service, it

seems to me a mixture of good and evil. It is by no means so bad

as it once was, and by no means so good as it ought to be and as

it could very easily be made. There has been great improvement in

it since the days of the Civil War. The diplomatic service of no

other country, probably, was so disfigured by eminently unworthy

members as was our own during the quarter of a century preceding

the inauguration of President Lincoln, and, indeed, during a part

of the Lincoln administration itself.

During one presidential term previous to that time our ministers

at three of the most important centers of Europe were making

unedifying spectacles of themselves, whenever it was possible for

them to do so, before the courts to which they were accredited.

On one occasion of court festivity, one of them, in a gorgeous

uniform such as American ministers formerly wore, ran howling

through the mud in the streets of St. Petersburg, the high

personages of the empire looking out upon him from the windows of

the Winter Palace. Sundry other performances of his, to which I

have referred in the account of my Russian mission, were quite as

discreditable.

Another American representative, stationed at Berlin during that

same period, disgraced his country by notorious drunkenness; and

though some of our countrymen at that capital sought to keep him

sober for his first presentation to the King, they were

unsuccessful. Happily, his wild conduct did not culminate abroad;

for a murder which he committed in a drunken fit did not occur

until after his return to our country. A third American

representative at that period published regularly, in his home

newspaper, such scurrilous letters regarding the authorities of

the country to which he was accredited, his colleagues in the

diplomatic service, and, indeed, the country itself, that,

according to common report, his early return home was caused by

his desire to escape the consequences. These were the worst, but

there were others utterly unfit,--men who not only spoke no other

language used in diplomatic intercourse, but could not even speak

with fairly grammatical decency their own. As to the early days

of Mr. Lincoln's administration, there is a well-authenticated

story that, a gentleman having expostulated with the Secretary of

State, Mr. Seward, for sending to a very important diplomatic

post a man whose conduct was the reverse of exemplary, Mr. Seward

replied, "Sir, some persons are sent abroad because they are

needed abroad, and some are sent because they are NOT wanted at

home."

It is a great pleasure to note that since the war both of the

political parties have greatly improved in this respect, and that

the standard of diplomatic appointments has become much higher.

It is a duty as well as a pleasure to acknowledge here that no

President of the United States has ever taken more pains to make

the diplomatic and consular services what they should be than a

representative of the party to which I have always been

opposed--President Cleveland. Especially encouraging is the fact

that public opinion has become sensitive on this subject, and

that the only recent case of gross misconduct by an American

minister in foreign parts was immediately followed by his recall.

And it ought also to be said, even regarding our diplomatic

system in the past, that sundry sneers of the pessimists do our

country wrong. It is certain that no other country has been

steadily represented in Great Britain by a series of more

distinguished citizens than has our own,--beginning with John

Adams, and including the gentleman who at present holds the

position of ambassador to the Court of St. James. Much may also

be said to the credit of our embassies and legations generally at

the leading capitals of Europe. As to unfortunate exceptions,

those who are acquainted with diplomatists in different parts of

the world know that, whatever may have been the failings of the

United States in this respect, she has not been the only nation

which has made mistakes in selecting foreign representatives.

Our service at the present day is, in some respects, excellent;

but it is badly organized, insufficiently provided for, and, as a

rule, has not the standing which every patriotic American should

wish for it.

I have frequently received letters from bright, active-minded

young men stating that they were desirous of fitting themselves

for a diplomatic career, and asking advice regarding the best way

of doing so; but I have felt obliged to warn every one of them

that, strictly speaking, there is no American diplomatic service;

that there is no guarantee of employment to them, even if they

fit themselves admirably; no security in their tenure of office,

even if they were appointed; and little, if any, probability of

their promotion, however excellent their record. Moreover, I have

felt obliged to tell them that the service, such as it is,

especially as regards ambassadors and ministers, is a service

with a property qualification; that it is not a democratic

service resting upon merit, but an aristocratic service resting

largely upon wealth,--a very important--indeed,

essential--qualification for it being that any American who

serves as ambassador must, as a rule, be able to expend, in

addition to his salary, at least from twelve to twenty thousand

dollars a year, and that the demands upon ministers

plenipotentiary are but little less.

And yet, if Congress would seriously give attention to the

matter, calling before a proper committee those of its own

members, and others, who are well acquainted with the necessities

of the service, and would take common-sense advice, it could

easily be made one of the best, and quite possibly the best, in

the world. The most essential and desirable improvements which I

would present are as follows:

I. As regards the first and highest grade in the diplomatic

service, that of ambassadors, I would have at least one half

their whole number appointed from those who have distinguished

themselves as ministers plenipotentiary, and the remaining posts

filled, as at present, from those who, in public life or in other

important fields, have won recognition at home as men fit to

maintain the character and represent the interests of their

country abroad.

II. As regards the second grade in the service,--namely, that of

ministers plenipotentiary,--I would observe the same rule as in

appointing ambassadors, having at least a majority of these at

the leading capitals appointed from such as shall have especially

distinguished themselves at the less important capitals, and a

majority of the ministers plenipotentiary at these less important

capitals appointed from those who shall have distinguished

themselves as ministers resident, or as secretaries of embassy or

of legation.

III. As to the third grade in our service, that of ministers

resident, I would observe the general rule above suggested for

the appointment of ambassadors and ministers plenipotentiary;

that is, I would appoint a majority of them from among those who

shall have rendered most distinguished service as first

secretaries of embassy or of legation. When once appointed I

would have them advanced, for distinguished service, from the

less to the more important capitals, and, so far as possible,

from the ranks of ministers resident to those of ministers

plenipotentiary.

IV. As to the lower or special or temporary grades, whether that

of diplomatic agent or special charge d'affaires or commissioner,

I would have appointments made from the diplomatic or consular

service, or from public life in general, or from fitting men in

private life, as the President or the Secretary of State might

think the most conducive to the public interest.

V. I would have two grades of secretaries of legation, and three

grades of secretaries of embassy. I would have the lowest grade

of secretaries appointed on the recommendation of the Secretary

of State from those who have shown themselves, on due

examination, best qualified in certain leading subjects, such as

international law, the common law, the civil law, the history of

treaties, and general modern history, political economy, a

speaking knowledge of French, and a reading knowledge of at least

one other foreign language. I would make the examination in all

the above subjects strict, and would oblige the Secretary of

State to make his selection of secretaries of legation from the

men thus presented. But, in view of the importance of various

personal qualifications which fit men to influence their

fellow-men, and which cannot be ascertained wholly by

examination, I would leave the Secretary of State full liberty of

choice among those who have honorably passed the examinations

above required. The men thus selected and approved I would have

appointed as secretaries of lower grades,--that is, third

secretaries of embassy and second secretaries of legation,--and

these, when once appointed, should be promoted, for good service,

to the higher secretaryships of embassy and legation, and from

the less to the more important capitals, under such rules as the

State Department might find most conducive to the efficiency of

the service. No secretaries of any grade should thereafter be

appointed who had not passed the examinations required for the

lowest grade of secretaries as above provided; but all who had

already been in the service during two years should be eligible

for promotion, without any further examination, from whatever

post they might be occupying.

VI. I would attach to every embassy three secretaries, to every

legation two, and to every post of minister resident at least

one.

One of the thoroughly wise arrangements of every British embassy

or legation--an arrangement which has gone for much in Great

Britain's remarkable series of diplomatic successes throughout

the world--is to be seen in her maintaining at every capital a

full number of secretaries and attaches, who serve not only in

keeping the current office work in the highest efficiency, but

who become, as it were, the ANTENNAE of the ambassador or

minister--additional eyes and ears to ascertain what is going on

among those most influential in public affairs. Every embassy or

legation thus equipped serves also as an actual and practical

training-school for the service.

VII. I would appoint each attache from the ranks of those

especially recommended, and certified to in writing by leading

authorities in the department to which he is expected to supply

information: as, for example, for military attaches, the War

Department; for naval attaches, the Navy Department; for

financial attaches, the Treasury Department; for commercial

attaches, the Department of Commerce; for agricultural attaches,

the Department of Agriculture; but always subject to the approval

of the Secretary of State as regards sundry qualifications hinted

at above, which can better be ascertained by an interview than by

an examination.

I would have a goodly number of attaches of these various sorts,

and, in our more important embassies, one representing each of

the departments above named. Every attache, if fit for his place,

would be worth far more than his cost to our government, for he

would not only add to the influence of the embassy or legation,

but decidedly to its efficiency. As a rule, all of them could

also be made of real use after the conclusion of their foreign

careers: some by returning to the army or navy and bringing their

knowledge to bear on those branches of the service; some by

taking duty in the various departments at Washington, and aiding

to keep our government abreast of the best practice in other

countries; some by becoming professors in universities and

colleges, and thus aiding to disseminate useful information; some

by becoming writers for the press, thus giving us, instead of

loose guesses and haphazard notions, information and suggestions

based upon close knowledge of important problems and of their

solution in countries other than our own.

From these arrangements I feel warranted in expecting a very

great improvement in our diplomatic service. Thus formed, it

would become, in its main features, like the military and naval

services, and, indeed, in its essential characteristics as to

appointment and promotion, like any well-organized manufacturing

or commercial establishment. It would absolutely require

ascertained knowledge and fitness in the lowest grades, and would

give promotion for good service from first to last. Yet it would

not be a cast-iron system: a certain number of men who had shown

decided fitness in various high public offices, or in important

branches of public or private business, could be appointed,

whenever the public interest should seem to require it, as

ministers resident, ministers plenipotentiary, and ambassadors,

without having gone through examination or regular promotion.

But the system now proposed, while thus allowing the frequent

bringing in of new and capable men from public life at home,

requires that a large proportion of each grade above that of

secretary, save a very small number of diplomatic agents,

commissioners, and the like, shall be appointed from those

thoroughly trained for the service, and that all secretaries,

without exception, shall be thoroughly trained and fitted. Scope

would thus be given to the activity of both sorts of men, and the

whole system made sufficiently elastic to meet all necessities.

In the service thus organized, the class of ambassadors and

ministers fitted by knowledge of public affairs at home for

important negotiations, but unacquainted with diplomatic life or

foreign usages and languages, would be greatly strengthened by

secretaries who had passed through a regular course of training

and experience. An American diplomatic representative without

diplomatic experience, on reaching his post, whether as

ambassador or minister, would not find--as was once largely the

case--secretaries as new as himself to diplomatic business, but

men thoroughly prepared to aid him in the multitude of minor

matters, ignorance of which might very likely cripple him as

regards very important business: secretaries so experienced as to

be able to set him in the way of knowing, at any court, who are

the men of real power, and who mere parasites and pretenders,

what relations are to be cultivated and what avoided, which are

the real channels of influence, and which mere illusions leading

nowhither. On the other hand, the secretaries thoroughly trained

would doubtless, in their conversation with a man fresh from

public affairs at home, learn many things of use to them.

Thus, too, what is of great importance throughout the entire

service, every ambassador, minister plenipotentiary, or minister

resident would possess, or easily command, large experience of

various men in various countries. At the same time, each would be

under most powerful incentives to perfect his training, widen his

acquaintance, and deepen his knowledge--incentives which, under

the old system,--which we may hope is now passing away,--with its

lack of appointment for ascertained fitness, lack of promotion

for good service, and lack of any certainty of tenure, do not

exist.

The system of promotion for merit throughout the service is no

mere experiment; the good sense of all the leading nations in the

world, except our own, has adopted it, and it works well. In our

own service the old system works badly; excellent men, both in

its higher and lower grades, have been frequently crippled by

want of proper experience or aid. We have, indeed, several

admirable secretaries--some of them fit to be ambassadors or

ministers, but all laboring under conditions the most depressing

--such as obtain in no good business enterprise. During my stay

as minister at St. Petersburg, the secretary of legation, a man

ideally fitted for the post, insisted on resigning. On my

endeavoring to retain him, he answered as follows: "I have been

over twelve years in the American diplomatic service as

secretary; I have seen the secretaries here, from all other

countries, steadily promoted until all of them still remaining in

the service are in higher posts, several of them ministers, and

some ambassadors. I remain as I was at the beginning, with no

promotion, and no probability of any. I feel that, as a rule, my

present colleagues, as well as most officials with whom I have to

do, seeing that I have not been advanced, look upon me as a

failure. They cannot be made to understand how a man who has

served so long as secretary has been denied promotion for any

reason save inefficiency. I can no longer submit to be thus

looked down upon, and I must resign."

While thus having a system of promotion based upon efficiency, I

would retain during good behavior, up to a certain age, the men

who have done thoroughly well in the service. Clearly, when we

secure an admirable man,--recognized as such in all parts of the

world,--like Mr. Wheaton, Mr. Bancroft, Mr. Charles Francis

Adams, Mr. Marsh, Mr. Townsend Harris, Mr. Washburne, Mr. Lowell,

Mr. Bayard, Mr. Phelps, and others who have now passed away, not

to speak of many now living, we should keep him at his post as

long as he is efficient, without regard to his politics. This is

the course taken very generally by other great nations, and

especially by our sister republic of Great Britain (for Great

Britain is simply a republic with a monarchical figurehead

lingering along on good behavior): she retains her

representatives in these positions, and promotes them without any

regard to their party relations. During my first official

residence at Berlin, although the home government at London was

of the Conservative party, it retained at the German capital, as

ambassador, Lord Ampthill, a Liberal; and, as first secretary,

Sir John Walsham, a Tory. From every point of view, the long

continuance in diplomatic positions of the most capable men would

be of great advantage to our country.

But, as the very first thing to be done, whether our diplomatic

service remains as at present or be improved, I would urge, as a

condition precedent to any thoroughly good service, that there be

in each of the greater capitals of the world at which we have a

representative, a suitable embassy or legation building or

apartment, owned or leased for a term of years by the American

Government Every other great power, and many of the smaller

nations, have provided such quarters for their representatives,

and some years ago President Cleveland recommended to Congress a

similar policy. Under the present system the head of an American

embassy or mission abroad is at a wretched disadvantage. In many

capitals he finds it at times impossible to secure a proper

furnished apartment; and, in some, very difficult to find any

suitable apartment at all, whether furnished or unfurnished. Even

if he finds proper rooms, they are frequently in an unfit quarter

of the town, remote from the residences of his colleagues, from

the public offices, from everybody and everything related to his

work. His term of office being generally short, he is usually

considered a rather undesirable tenant, and is charged

accordingly. Besides this, the fitting and furnishing of such an

apartment is a very great burden, both as regards trouble and

expense. I have twice thus fitted and furnished a large apartment

in Berlin, and in each case this represented an expenditure of

more than the salary for the first year. Within my own knowledge,

two American ministers abroad have impoverished their families by

expenditures of this kind. But this is not the worst. The most

serious result of the existing system concerns our country. I

have elsewhere shown how, in one very important international

question at St. Petersburg, our mistaken policy in this respect

once cost the United States a sum which would have forever put

that embassy, and, indeed, many others besides, on the very best

footing. If an American ambassador is to exercise a really strong

influence for the United States as against other nations he must

be properly provided for as regards his residence and

support,--not provided for, indeed, so largely as some

representatives of other nations; for I neither propose nor

desire that the American representative shall imitate the pomp of

certain ambassadors of the greater European powers. But he ought

to be enabled to live respectably, and to discharge his duties

efficiently. There should be, in this respect, what Thomas

Jefferson acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence as a

duty,--"a decent regard for the opinions of mankind." The present

condition of things is frequently humiliating. In the greater

capitals of Europe the general public know the British, French,

Austrian, Italian, and all other important embassies or

legations, except that of our country. The American embassy or

legation has no settled home, is sometimes in one quarter of the

town, sometimes in another, sometimes almost in an attic,

sometimes almost in a cellar, generally inadequate in its

accommodations, and frequently unfortunate in its surroundings.

Both my official terms at St. Petersburg showed me that one

secret of the great success of British diplomacy, in all parts of

the world, is that especial pains are taken regarding this point,

and that, consequently, every British embassy is the center of a

wide-spread social influence which counts for very much indeed in

her political influence. The United States, as perhaps the

wealthiest nation in existence,--a nation far-reaching in the

exercise of its foreign policy, with vast and increasing

commercial and other interests throughout the world,--should, in

all substantial matters, be equally well provided for. Take our

recent relations with Turkey. We have insisted on the payment of

an indemnity for the destruction of American property, and we

have constantly a vast number of Americans of the very best sort,

and especially our missionaries, who have to be protected

throughout the whole of that vast empire. Each of the other great

powers provides its representative at Constantinople with a

residence honorable, suitable, and within a proper inclosure for

its protection; but the American minister lives anywhere and

everywhere,--in such premises, over shops and warehouses, as can

be secured,--and he is liable, in case of trouble between the two

nations, to suffer personal violence and to have his house sacked

by a Turkish mob. No foreign people, and least of all an Oriental

people, can highly respect a diplomatic representative who, by

his surroundings, seems not to be respected by his own people.

The American Government can easily afford the expenditure needed

to provide proper houses or apartments for its entire diplomatic

corps, but it can hardly afford NOT to provide these. Full

provision for them would not burden any American citizen to the

amount of the half of a Boston biscuit. Leaving matters in their

present condition is, in the long run, far more costly. I once

had occasion to consider this matter in the light of economy, and

found that the cost of the whole diplomatic service of the United

States during an entire year was only equal to the expenditure in

one of our recent wars during four hours; so that if any member

of the diplomatic service should delay a declaration of war

merely for the space of a day, he would defray the cost of the

service for about six years.

Mr. Charles Francis Adams, by his admirable diplomatic dealing

with the British Foreign Office at the crisis of our Civil War,

prevented the coming out of the later Confederate cruisers to

prey upon our commerce, and, in all probability, thus averted a

quarrel with Great Britain which would have lengthened our Civil

War by many years, and doubtless have cost us hundreds of

millions.

General Woodford, our recent minister at Madrid, undoubtedly

delayed our war with Spain for several months, and skilful

diplomatic intervention brought that war to a speedy close just

as soon as our military and naval successes made it possible.

The cases are also many where our diplomatic representatives have

quieted ill feelings which would have done great harm to our

commerce. These facts show that the diplomatic service may well

be called "The Cheap Defense of Nations."

When, in addition to this, an American recalls such priceless

services to civilization, and to the commerce of our country and

of the world, as those rendered by Mr. Townsend Harris while

American minister in Japan, the undoubted saving through a long

series of years of many lives and much property by our ministers

in such outlying parts of the world as Turkey and China, the

promotion of American commercial and other interests, and the

securing of information which has been precious to innumerable

American enterprises, it seems incontestable that our diplomatic

service ought not to be left in its present slipshod condition.

It ought to be put on the best and most effective footing

possible, so that everywhere the men we send forth to support and

advance the manifold interests of our country shall be thoroughly

well equipped and provided for. To this end the permanent

possession of a suitable house or apartment in every capital is

the foremost and most elementary of necessities.

And while such a provision is the first thing, it would be wise

to add, as other nations do, a moderate allowance for furniture,

and for keeping the embassy or legation properly cared for during

the interim between the departure of one representative and the

arrival of another.

If this were done, the prestige of the American name and the

effectiveness of the service would be vastly improved, and

diplomatic posts would be no longer so onerous and, indeed,

ruinous as they have been to some of the best men we have sent

abroad.

And in order fully to free my mind I will add that, while the

provision for a proper embassy or legation building is the first

of all things necessary, it might also be well to increase

somewhat the salaries of our representatives abroad. These may

seem large even at present; but the cost of living has greatly

increased since they were fixed, and the special financial

demands upon an ambassador or minister at any of the most

important posts are always far beyond the present salary. It is

utterly impossible for an American diplomatic representative to

do his duty upon the salary now given, even while living on the

most moderate scale known in the diplomatic corps. To attempt to

do so would deprive him of all opportunity to exercise that

friendly, personal, social influence which is so important an

element in his success.

To sum up my suggestions as to this part of the subject, I should

say: First, that, as a rule, there should be provided at each

diplomatic post where the United States has a representative a

spacious and suitable house, either bought by our government or

taken on a long lease; and that there should be a small

appropriation each year for maintaining it as regards furniture,

care, etc. Secondly, that American representatives of the highest

grade--namely, ambassadors--should have a salary of at least

$25,000 a year; and that diplomatic representatives of lower

grade should have their salaries raised in the same proportion.

Thirdly, that an additional number of secretaries and attaches

should be provided in the manner and for the reasons above

recommended.

If the carrying out of these reforms should require an

appropriation to the diplomatic service fifty per cent. higher

than it now is,--which is an amount greater than would really be

required by all the expenditures I propose, including interest

upon the purchase money of appropriate quarters for our

representatives abroad,--the total additional cost to each

citizen of the United States would be less than half a cent each

year.

The first result of these and other reforms which I have

indicated, beginning with what is of the very first

importance,--provision for a proper house or apartment in every

capital,--would certainly be increased respect for the United

States and increased effectiveness of its foreign

representatives.

As to the other reforms, such as suitable requirements for

secretaryships, and proper promotion throughout the whole

service, they would vastly increase its attractiveness, in all

its grades, to the very men whom the country most needs. They

would open to young men in our universities and colleges a most

honorable career, leading such institutions to establish courses

of instruction with reference to such a service--courses which

were established long since in Germany, but which have arrived

nearest perfection in two of our sister republics--at the

University of Zurich in Switzerland, and in the ecole Libre des

Sciences Politiques in Paris.

It seems certain that a diplomatic service established and

maintained in the manner here indicated would not only vastly

increase the prestige and influence of the United States among

her sister nations, but, purely from a commercial point of view,

would amply repay us. To have in diplomatic positions at the

various capitals men thoroughly well fitted not only as regards

character and intellect, but also as regards experience and

acquaintance, and to have them so provided for as to become the

social equals of their colleagues, would be, from every point of

view, of the greatest advantage to our country materially and

politically, and would give strength to our policy throughout the

world.

And, finally, to a matter worth mentioning only because it has at

sundry times and in divers manners been comically argued and

curiously misrepresented--the question as to a diplomatic

uniform.

As regards any principle involved, I have never been able to see

any reason, a priori, why, if we have a uniform for our military

service and another for our naval service, we may not have one

for our diplomatic service. It has, indeed, been asserted by

sundry orators dear to the galleries, as well as by various

"funny-column" men, that such a uniform is that of a lackey; but

this assertion loses force when one reflects on the solemn fact

that "plain evening dress," which these partizans of Jeffersonian

simplicity laud and magnify, and which is the only alternative to

a uniform, is worn by table-waiters the world over.

Yet, having conceded so much, truth compels me to add that,

having myself never worn anything save "plain evening dress" at

any court to which I have been accredited, or at any function

which I have attended, I have never been able to discover the

slightest disadvantage to my country or myself from that fact.

Colleagues of mine, clad in resplendent uniforms, have, indeed,

on more than one occasion congratulated me on being allowed a

more simple and comfortable costume; and though such expressions

are, of course, to be taken with some grains of allowance, I have

congratulated myself with the deepest sincerity on my freedom

from what seems to me a most tiresome yoke.

The discussion of a question of such vast importance--to the

censors above referred to--would be inadequate were mention not

made of a stumbling-block which does not seem to have been

adequately considered by those who propose a return to the

earlier practice of our Republic--and this is, that the uniform

is, at any European court, but a poor thing unless it bears some

evidence of distinguished service, in the shape of stars,

crosses, ribbons, and the like. A British ambassador, or minister

plenipotentiary, in official uniform, but without the ribbon or

star of the Bath or other honorable order, would appear to little

advantage indeed. A representative of the French Republic would

certainly prefer to wear the plainest dress rather than the most

splendid uniform unadorned by the insignia of the Legion of

Honor, and, in a general way, the same may be said of the

representatives of all nations which approve the wearing of a

diplomatic uniform.

But our own Republic bestows no such "decorations," and allows

none of its representatives, during their term of office, to

receive them; so that, if put into uniform, these representatives

must appear to the great mass of beholders as really of inferior

quality, undistinguished by any adornments which indicate good

service.

All this difficulty our present practice avoids. The American

ambassador, or minister, is known at once by the fact that he

alone wears plain evening dress; and this fact, as well as the

absence of decorations, being recognized as in simple conformity

with the ideas and customs of his country, rather adds to his

prestige than diminishes it, as far as I have been able to

discover. Perhaps the well-known case of Lord Castlereagh at the

Congress of Vienna is in point. In the midst of the throng of his

colleagues, all of them most gorgeously arrayed in uniforms,

stars, and decorations of every sort, he appeared in the simplest

evening attire; and the attention of Metternich being called to

this fact, that much experienced, infinitely bespangled statesman

answered, "Ma foi! il est bien distingue."

Of course we ought to give due weight to the example set by

Benjamin Franklin when presented to Louis XVI, and the fact that

his simple shoe-strings nearly threw the court chamberlains into

fainting-fits, and that his plain dress had an enormous influence

on public opinion; but, alas! we have also to take account of the

statement by an eminent critic to the effect that Franklin, at

his previous presentation to Louis XV, had worn court dress, and

that he wore similar gorgeous attire at various other public

functions, with the inference that he was prevented from doing

so, when received by Louis XVI, only by the fact that somehow his

court dress was inaccessible.[10]

[10] See Sainte-Beuve, "Causeries du Lundi," Vol. VII, Article of

November 29, 1852.

All these facts, conflicting, but more or less pertinent, being

duly considered, I would have the rule regarding dress remain as

it is, save in the rare cases when the sovereign of a country, at

some special function, requests some modification of it. In such

case the Secretary of State might, one would suppose, be allowed

to grant a dispensation from the ordinary rule without any danger

to American liberty.

For the more profound considerations which this vast subject

suggests, the judicious reader may well consult "Sartor

Resartus."

PART VI

SUNDRY JOURNEYS AND EXPERIENCES

CHAPTER LI

EARLIER EXCURSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES--1838-1875

From my boyhood I have been fond of travel, and at times this

fondness has been of great use to me. My constitution, though

never robust, has thus far proved elastic, and whenever I have at

last felt decidedly the worse for overwork or care, the best of

all medicines has been an excursion, longer or shorter, in our

own country or in some other. Thus it has happened that, besides

journeys into nearly every part of the United States, and

official residences in Russia, France, Germany, and the West

Indies, I have made frequent visits to Europe--among them ten or

twelve to Italy, and even more to Germany, France, and England,

besides excursions into the Scandinavian countries, Egypt,

Greece, and Turkey. To most of these I have alluded in other

chapters; but there are a few remaining possibly worthy of note.

The first of these journeys was taken when I went with my father

and mother from the little country town where we then lived to

Syracuse, Buffalo, and Niagara. This must have been in 1838, when

I was about six years of age. Every step of it interested me

keenly. Like the shop-girl in Emile Souvestre's story, who

journeyed from Paris to St. Cloud, I was "amazed to find the

world so large." Syracuse, which now has about one hundred and

twenty thousand inhabitants, had then, perhaps, five thousand;

the railways which were afterward consolidated into the New York

Central were not yet built, and we traveled mainly upon the

canal, though at times over wretchedly muddy roads. Niagara made

a great impression upon me, and Buffalo, with its steamers,

seemed as great then as London seems now.

Four years later, in 1842, I was taken to the hills of middle

Massachusetts to visit my great-grandfather and

great-grandmother, and thence to Boston, where Faneuil Hall, the

Bunker Hill Monument, Harvard College, and Mount Auburn greatly

impressed me. Returning home, we came by steamer through the

Sound to the city of New York, and stayed at a hotel near Trinity

Church, which was then a little south of the central part of the

city. On another visit, somewhat later, we were lodged at the

Astor House, near the City Hall, which was then at the very

center of everything, and thence took excursions far northward

into the uttermost parts of the city, and even beyond it, to see

the newly erected Grace Church and the reservoir at Forty-second

Street, which were among the wonders of the town. Most of all was

I impressed by the service in the newly erected Trinity Church.

The idea uppermost in my mind was that here was a building which

was to last for hundreds of years, and that the figures in the

storied windows above the altar would look down upon new

generations of worshipers, centuries after I, with all those

living, should have passed away. My feeling for religious music

was then, as since, very deep; and the organ of Trinity gave

satisfaction to this feeling; the tremulous ground-tone of the

great pedal diapasons thrilling me through and through.

At this period, about 1843, began my visits with the family to

Saratoga. My grandfather, years before, had derived benefit from

its waters, and the tradition of this, as well as the fact that

my father there met socially his business correspondents from

different parts of the State, led to our going year after year.

Drinking the waters, taking life easily upon the piazzas of the

great hotels festooned with Virginia creepers, and driving to the

lake, formed then, as now, the main occupations of the day. But

there was then one thing which has now ceased: in many of the

greater hotels public prayers were held every evening, some

eminent clergyman officiating; and a leader in these services was

David Leavitt, a famous New York bank president, shrewd, but

pious. Now and then, as the political campaigns drew on, we had

speeches from eminent statesmen; and I give in the chapters on

"My Religion" reminiscences of speeches on religious subjects

made by Archbishop Hughes and Father Gavazzi. An occasional visit

from Washington Irving or Senator (afterward President) Buchanan,

as well as other men of light and leading, aroused my tendencies

toward hero-worship; but perhaps the event most vividly stamped

into my memory was the parade of Mme. Jumel. One afternoon at

that period she appeared in the streets of Saratoga in an open

coach-and-four, her horses ridden by gaily dressed postilions.

This was regarded by very many visitors as an affront not merely

to good morals, but to patriotism, for she had the fame of having

been in relations, more intimate than edifying, with Aaron Burr,

who was widely considered as a traitor to his country as well as

the murderer of Alexander Hamilton; and on the second day of her

parade, another carriage, with four horses and postilions, in all

respects like her own, followed her wherever she went and

sometimes crossed her path: but this carriage contained an

enormous negro, black and glossy, a porter at one of the hotels,

dressed in the height of fashion, who very gravely rose and

doffed his hat to the applauding multitudes on either side of the

way. Mme. Jumel and her friends were, of course, furious; and it

was said that her postilions would in future be armed with

pistols and directed to fire upon the rival equipage should it

again get in their way. But no catastrophe occurred; Mme. Jumel

took one or two more drives, and that was the end of it.

In my college days, from 1849 to 1853, going to and from New

Haven, I frequently passed through New York, and the progress of

the city northward since my earlier visits was shown by the fact

that the best hotel nearest the center of business had become

first the Irving House, just at the upper end of the City Hall

Park, and later the St. Nicholas and Metropolitan hotels, some

distance up Broadway. Staying in 1853 at a hotel looking out upon

what was to be Madison Square, I noticed that all north of that

was comparatively vacant, save here and there a few houses and

churches.

Going abroad shortly afterward, I gave three years to my

attacheship and student life in Europe, traveling across the

continent to St. Petersburg and back, as well as through Germany,

Switzerland, Austria, and Italy, all of which were then under the

old regime of disunion and despotism. To these journeys I refer

elsewhere.

Interesting to me, after my return home, were visits to Chicago

in 1858 and at various times afterward. At my first visits the

city was wretchedly unkempt. Workmen were raising its grade, and

their mode of doing this was remarkable. Under lines of brick and

stone houses, in street after street, screws were placed; and,

large forces of men working at these, the vast buildings went up

steadily. My first stay was at the Tremont House, then a famous

hostelry; and during the whole of my visit the enormous

establishment, several stories in height, was going on as usual,

though it was all open beneath and rising in the air perceptibly

every day. Years afterward, when Mr. George Pullman had become

deservedly one of the powers of Chicago, he gave me a dinner, at

which I had the pleasure of meeting a large number of the most

energetic and distinguished men of the city. Being asked by a

guest as to the time when I first visited Chicago, I stated the

facts above given, when my interlocutor remarked, "Yes, and if

you had gone down into the cellar beneath the Tremont House you

would have found our host working at one of the jack-screws." I

had already an admiration for Mr. Pullman; for he had told me of

his creation of the Pullman cars, and had shown me through the

beautiful artisan town which bears his name; but by this remark

my respect for him was greatly augmented.

My first visit to the upper Mississippi left an indelible

impression on my mind. No description of that vast volume of

water slowly moving before my eyes ever seemed at all adequate

until, years afterward, I read Mark Twain's "Tom Sawyer," and his

account of the scene when his hero awakes on a raft floating down

the great river struck a responsive chord in my heart. It was the

first description that ever answered at all to the picture in my

mind. Very interesting to me were sundry later excursions to

Boston, generally on university or other business. At one of

these I purchased the library of President Sparks for the

university, and, staying some days, had the pleasure of meeting

many noted men--among them Mr. Josiah Quincy, whose reminiscences

were to me very interesting, his accounts of conversations with

John Adams perhaps more so than anything else. At various clubs I

met most charming people, the most engrossing of these being

Arthur Gilman, the architect: then, and at other times, I sat up

with him late into the night,--once, indeed, the entire

night,--listening to his flow of quaint wit and humor. The range

of his powers was perhaps best shown in a repetition of what he

claimed to be the debate in the city council of Boston on his

plans for a new city hall, which were afterward adopted. The

speeches in Irish brogue, Teutonic Jargon, and down-east Yankee

dialect, with utterances interposed here and there by solemnly

priggish members, were inimitable. His pet antipathy seemed to be

the bishop of the diocese, Dr. Eastburn. Stories were told to the

effect that Gilman, early in life, had desired to take orders in

the Protestant Episcopal Church, but that the bishop refused to

ordain him, on the ground that he lacked the requisite

discretion. Hence, perhaps his zeal in preaching what he claimed

to be the bishop's sermons. Dr. Eastburn was much given to

amplification, and Gilman always insisted that he had heard him

once, when preaching on the parable of Dives and Lazarus, discuss

the prayer of Dives in torments for a drop of water, as follows:

"To this, my brethren, under the circumstances entirely natural,

but, at the same time, no less completely inadmissible request,

the aged patriarch replied."

The bishop, who enjoyed a reputation for eloquence, was wont to

draw his lungs full of air at frequent periods during his

discourses, thus keeping his voice strong, as skilful

elocutionists advise; and on one very warm summer afternoon,

according to Gilman's account, a little boy in the congregation,

son of one of the most distinguished laymen in the diocese,

becoming very uneasy and begging his mother to allow him to go

home, she had quieted him several times by assuring him that the

bishop would soon be through, when, just at one of the most

impressive passages, the bishop having drawn in his breath as

usual, the little boy screamed so as to be heard throughout the

church, "No, he won't stop, mama; no, he won't stop; don't you

see he has just blowed hisself up again?"

Gilman also told us a story of the bishop's catechizing the

children in a Boston church, when, having taken the scriptural

account of Jonah and carried the prophet into the whale's belly,

he asked very impressively, "And now, children, how do you

suppose that Jonah felt?" Whereupon little Sohier, son of the

noted lawyer, piped out, "Down in the mouth, sir." Gilman

insisted that the bishop was exceeding wroth, and complained to

the boy's father, who was unable to conceal from the bishop his

delight at his son's answer.

At one visit or another, mainly during the years of my connection

with Cornell University, I met at Boston, pleasantly, the men who

were then most distinguished in American literature. One of

these, who interested me especially, was Ticknor, author of the

"History of Spanish Literature." Longfellow always seemed to me a

most lovely being, whether at Nahant or at Cambridge. Lowell was

wonderfully brilliant as well as kindly, and Edward Everett Hale

delightful. It was the time of Hale's short stories in the

"Atlantic Monthly," which seem to me the best ever written.

Oliver Wendell Holmes I met so rarely that I have little memory

of his brilliant conversation. Emerson I met then and at other

times,--once, especially, in a railway train during one of his

Western lecture tours; he was then reading the first volume of

Carlyle's "Frederick the Great," and, on my asking him how he

liked it, instead of showing his usual devotion to the author, he

burst forth into a stream of protests against Carlyle's

"everlasting scolding at Dryasdust." A man who was as much

overrated then as he is underrated now was Whipple, the essayist;

he was always bright, and often suggestive; but too reliant upon

a style which is now out of date,--frequently summoning

"alliteration's artful aid," and resorting to other devices,

fashionable then, but now discarded. Perhaps the best of all his

sentences was the one on the three great statesmen of that

period, to the effect that Webster was INductive, Calhoun

DEductive, and Clay SEductive; which was not only well stated but

true. Very vividly comes back to me a supper-party given early in

1875 at the house of James T. Fields, in celebration of Bayard

Taylor's birthday. Besides Mr. and Mrs. Fields and Taylor were

present Richard H. Dana, eminent in law and letters; Cranch, then

known both as a painter and poet; Mr. Osgood; and myself. Taylor

recited, as I had heard him do at other times, from the

productions of the Georgia poet, Chivers, and especially from the

"Eonx of Ruby." Chivers, according to Taylor's showing, had

become infatuated with Poe, and adorned his verses with every

sort of beautiful word which he could coin, the result being as

nonsensical a medley as was ever known. Earlier in the evening,

Taylor, Fields, and myself had each of us been giving a lecture,

and this led Taylor to speak of a recent experience of his while

holding forth in one of the smaller towns of Massachusetts. The

chairman of the lecture committee, being seated beside him on the

platform, and wishing to entertain him with edifying conversation

while the audience was coming in remarked that they had had

rather a trying experience during the lecture of the week before.

On Taylor's asking what it was, the chairman answered: "The

lecturer was seized by a virago on the stage." He meant vertigo.

Dana told good stories of old Dr. Osgood of Medford, whose hatred

of Democracy was shown not only in his well-known reading of

Governor Gerry's proclamation, but in his bitter sermon at the

election of Thomas Jefferson. At this some one gave a story

regarding our contemporary Dr. Osgood, the eminent Unitarian

clergyman, who, toward the end of his life, had gone into the

Protestant Episcopal Church. I had known him as a man of much

ability and power, but with a rather extraordinary way of

asserting himself and patronizing people. He had recently died,

and a legend had arisen that, on his arrival in the New

Jerusalem, being presented to St. Paul, he said: "Sir, I have

derived both profit and pleasure from your writings, and have

commended them to my congregation."

Our host, Fields, was especially delightful. He gave

reminiscences of his stay with Tennyson on the Isle of

Wight--among others, of taking a walk with him one dark evening

when, suddenly, the great poet fell on his knees, and seeming to

burrow in the grass called out gutturally and gruffly: "Man, get

down on your marrow-bones; here are violets." Fields also gave

reminiscences of Charles Sumner, showing the great senator's

utter lack of any sense of humor, and among them a story of his

summoning his office-boy to his presence on the eve of the Fourth

of July and addressing him on this wise: "Patrick, to-morrow is

the natal day of our Republic; it is a day for public rejoicing,

a time of patriotic festivity. You need not come to the office;

go out and rejoice with our fellow-citizens that your lot is cast

in so happy a country. Here are fifty cents; I advise you to pass

the day at the cemetery of Mount Auburn."

Very interesting to me were sundry excursions in the Southern

States, the first as far back as 1864. After attending the

Baltimore Convention which renominated Mr. Lincoln, and paying my

respects to him at Washington, as stated in my political

reminiscences, I went somewhat later to Richmond. Libby Prison

had a sad interest for me, as for many at that time, and on all

sides was seen the havoc of war; but perhaps the most curious

feature of my stay was a visit to the house which had served as

the White House of the Confederacy--the dwelling of Jefferson

Davis, for, just as I entered the door I met one of the arch

antislavery men of New England, Dr. Leonard Bacon of New Haven.

Both of us were happy at the outcome of the war, but it was with

a very solemn sort of joy that we thus met in such a place. I

seemed to hear, as so often in the South of that day, and,

indeed, in the North also, that fearful prophecy of Thomas

Jefferson--when speaking of slavery in the Southern

States--beginning with the words, "I tremble when I remember that

God is just." Halting at Gettysburg on my return northward, I

found marks of the terrible contest of the previous year still

vivid. For miles, in all directions, on the roads and through the

fields, were fragments of shell, of cannon, of harness, of

clothing, and equipments of every sort. The trees, especially

those near the great centers of the struggle, where the cemetery

now is, were gashed and torn in trunk and branches, and here and

there were to be seen fragments of human bodies which, having

been too hastily buried, had been washed out by the rains.

About ten years later,--February, 1875,--being much worn with

labor and care at the university, I made a short stay in the more

Southern States, my first stop being at Washington, where I

passed an interesting evening at the Executive Mansion with

President Grant, who was as simple and cordial in manner as ever.

The next day I left Washington for Richmond and the far South,

and on the morning following was aroused at one of the

way-stations by hearing negroes singing in a neighboring car.

They were happy at the prospect of breakfast, but a curious

preliminary was that each came out upon the platform, and, taking

a currycomb which was hung up for the purpose, curried himself,

much as an ostler administers that treatment to a horse--every

negro grasping in his turn the large wooden handle and pulling

the iron teeth through his plentiful wool.

Stopping next at Columbia in South Carolina, I saw flagrant

examples of carpet-bag rule; but of those in the State-house I

have already spoken. Here was a focus of Southern feeling; and at

the State University, which was charmingly situated, and

altogether a most fitting home for scholars and thinkers, I was

taken into the library where formerly stood the bust of Francis

Lieber, once a professor in the institution. Never had the South

a wiser or better friend. In after years I knew, loved, and

respected him. No man with a deeper knowledge of free

institutions, or with greater love for them, has ever lived in

our country; but when the news came to his old university, where

he had been so greatly admired, that he was true to the Union,

his marble bust was torn from its place, dishonored, and

destroyed. There could be no better illustration of Bishop

Butler's idea of "a possible insanity of States."

On Sunday, having been taken by one of the professors in the

university to a Protestant Episcopal church for colored people,

of which he was rector, I was surprised at the light color and

real beauty of many of the women present: nowhere, save in

Jamaica, had I seen people of mixed races so attractive. In

Charleston there were on all sides ruins, due not only to the

Civil War, but to the more recent fire and earthquake. It all

seemed as if the vengeance of Heaven had been wrought upon the

city. My sympathies were deeply enlisted; I felt no anger over

the past, no exultation. I was taken to a home for Confederate

orphans and to another for widows, and in both were pointed out

to me members of families, now hopelessly destitute, who before

the war lived in luxury. In no city, at home or abroad, have I

ever seen a line of stately mansions which seemed more fitting

abodes for wealth and culture than those upon the esplanade at

Charleston; in the days gone by a noble hospitality had centered

there, but all was now silent and distressed.

On the 4th of March we arrived in Florida and found it

fascinating. Never before had I been farther south upon the

mainland of the United States than Charleston, and never had I

seen anything of this region, save when the frigate bearing the

Santo Domingo Commission touched at Key West. Among the most

characteristic things at Jacksonville was a large church

belonging to the negro Baptists, who were evidently the leading

sect. The church was large, but unfinished, and a main feature of

every service was passing the hat for contributions. The services

were singular indeed. There was one old negro pastor who, though

he could read little if at all, had schooled himself to look into

the Bible while reciting parts of chapters, and to keep his eyes

upon the pages of his hymnal while repeating the hymns; and a

very weighty function was the reading of notices of every sort of

social gathering, especial prominence being given to meetings of

fire-engine companies. The number of Northern visitors was very

large, and it was evident that the negro managers of the

congregation felt the importance of keeping on good terms with

all of them without regard to party; for, on one occasion, as the

pastor was giving these notices, slowly deciphering them, with

the aid of a younger minister, and reading them mechanically, he

began as follows: "Dere will be a meetin' of de Republikins of

dis ward"--and instantly a number of the brethren started to

their feet, and put up their hands with a long "Hu-u-u-sh!" The

preacher was greatly embarrassed and passed on immediately to

"There will be a meeting of No. 2 Fire Company," etc., etc. Most

hearty of all was the singing, in which the whole congregation

joined loudly and with voices clear and silvery. After the

services were over there came regularly what was called the

"sperritual part." Some one of the more gifted singers--of whom,

perhaps, the most satisfactory was a young colored man in a black

velvet coat and a brilliant red tie--came forward, stood before

the pulpit, and began a long solo--as a rule, with scores of

verses. One was on the creation, another on the flood, each verse

paraphrasing the scriptural account; and the refrain, in which

the whole congregation joined, was as follows:

"Ole Pharaoh he got law-s-t--

Got law-s-t, got law-s-t--

Ole Pharaoh he got drownded

In the Re-e-e-e-d Sea."

But soon came a song which amazed me. It was totally different in

character from any of the others, and was called "The Seven

Glories of Mary." One of the verses ran as follows:

"An' de berry next glory dat Mary she had,

It was de glory of sebben--

It was dat her Son Jesus he tolled de bells of hebben;"

and then, as at the end of each verse, came from the whole

congregation the refrain:

"Oh, trials an' tribulashuns!

I'm gwine to quit dis world."

Next day I sent for the singer and asked him where he had learned

his songs. His answer was, "Boss, I made 'em up myself." To this

I answered, "Quite likely, some of them; but not 'The Seven

Glories of Mary.'" He thought a moment, and then said, "Yes,

boss, you 're right; dat song I brought down from ole Virginny."

It was as I had thought. The song was an old Christmas carol,

evidently brought from England in Colonial times; and the

negroes, having substituted here and there a word or a phrase

which struck them as finer than the original had preserved it.

Strange, indeed, were the devotions of this great congregation.

Occasionally some old plantation negro, gray-headed and worn with

labor, would rise and lead in the prayers with a real

inspiration, pouring out his whole heart, with all its hopes and

sorrows. Never have I heard more pathetic supplications. More

than once I have seen tears streaming from the eyes of the

Northern visitors, and then, almost in a moment, the same faces

wreathed in smiles at some farce in giving out the notices or in

taking up the collections.

A charming episode in this Florida stay was an excursion up the

St. John's River, through beautiful semi-tropical vegetation. But

one thing was exceedingly vexatious. On the deck of the steamer

were various tourists who enjoyed themselves by shooting the

beautiful birds and interesting saurians of the region--mere

wanton killing, with never any stop to pick up the bodies of

these creatures. It reminded me of the old wastefulness in the

North,--the exhaustive fishing of the rivers and streams,

especially the trout-streams; the killing of deer by hundreds;

and the wanton extermination of the buffalo. Wonderful to me were

the great springs of the region--springs so large that the little

steamer could make its way to them and upon them, so that from

the deck we could look far, far down into the depths as through

clear crystal. Most interesting of the people I met were

Professor and Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe, who were passing the

winter in their house at Mandarin near by, and invited us to

visit them. Theirs was a happy-go-lucky sort of life, in a simple

cottage surrounded by great orange orchards, beyond which was a

fringe of palmettos. On the morning after our arrival, Mrs. Stowe

came in and said, "Well, we shall have dinner." To which I said,

"Of course we shall." "No," said she, "not 'of course,' for when

I awoke this morning there was nothing for dinner in the house,

and no prospect of anything in the village; but, taking my walk,

I met a negro with a magnificent wild turkey which he had just

shot, and that we will have." Just before dinner, our hostess and

I walked out into the orange orchard and there picked from the

trees a large market-basket full of the most beautiful oranges

ever seen,--large, sweet, and juicy; and these, embedded deftly

by her in a great mass of rich green leaves, glorified the table

during the discussion of the turkey, and became our dessert.

Never was there a more sumptuous dinner, and never better talk.

Mrs. Stowe was at her best, and the Doctor abounded in quaint

citations from French memoirs, of which he was an indefatigable

reader.

On the way North I stopped again at Charleston, visiting Drayton

Hall, a fine old mansion dating from 1740, but never completed,

surrounded by beautiful gardens filled with great azaleas in full

bloom, the most gorgeous I have ever seen in any part of the

world; but a cloud seemed to rise over it all when we were told

that, except in winter, remaining on the island was for white

people certain death. In all this journey through the South I

added much to my library regarding Secession and the Civil War;

accumulating newspapers, tracts, and books which became the

nucleus of the large Civil War collection at Cornell. Then, too,

there were talks with people on the train and in the hotels,

sometimes profitable and sometimes amusing. As to the feeling

between the whites and the negroes, a former master said to me,

"My old niggers will do anything I wish except cast their ballots

for me; they will give me anything they have in this world except

their votes; they would starve themselves for me, but they won't

vote for me." Among myriads of stories I heard one which seemed

to argue more philosophic power in the negro than many suppose

him to possess. A young planter at one of the Southern

watering-places appeared every day terribly bitten by mosquitos,

so that, finally, some of the guests said to his negro

body-servant, "Bob, why don't you take pains to protect your

master with mosquito curtains?" To which the negro answered, "No

use in it, sah; de fact is, sah, dat in de night-time Mars Tom is

too drunk to care for de skeeters, and in de daytime de skeeters

is too drunk to care for Mars Tom." There was also a revelation

of negro religious feeling in a story told me regarding "Thad"

Stevens. Mr. Stevens was in his day, on many accounts, the most

powerful member of the House of Representatives--at times a very

stern mentor to Mr. Lincoln, and to President Johnson a terror. I

remember him as rough and of acrid humor, but with a sort of

rugged power. The story was that one day, while at dinner, he

heard at the sideboard the crash of a platter, and immediately,

in a fury, called out, with a bitter oath, "Well, you idiot

--------, what have you broken now?" To which the negro woman

answered, "Bress de good Lord, it ain't de third commandmunt."