were men of the first order of talents and of the highest character. Franklin and Jefferson at Paris, Adams and Gouverneur Morris at London, and Jay and Pinckney at Madrid, were unsurpassed among their contemporaries in any land for intellectual attainments and statesmanship. They were well fitted to inaugurate the diplomatic service of the new republic.

It will be the purpose of this volume to set forth the character of that service, to describe in some detail its methods and duties, and to record the achievements and mistakes of American diplomats abroad.

International law is of modern origin and recent growth, the attempt at its codification dating from the seventeenth century only, and it scarcely came to be recognized as binding upon nations before the nineteenth; but the practice of sending and receiving ambassadors or diplomatic representatives has existed among nations from the earliest recorded history. The ancient Egyptians are known to have frequently observed the practice; early biblical history contains references to the custom; it was quite common among the Greek states; and observed by Rome during both the Republic and the Empire.

But in all these cases and during the early period of modern European nations embassies or missions were used on special or extraordinary occasions only, and were of a temporary character. Not until late in the fifteenth century did the diplomatic service become permanent in its character and the governments establish resident missions or embassies. This stage of organized growth was reached, however, a century and a half

before Grotius began the task of giving shape and authority to international law. Nevertheless, the rights and duties of diplomatic representatives were at that period imperfectly defined. The great congresses or conferences following the long wars of the European powers, such as those of Westphalia, Ryswick, and Utrecht, had a marked influence in fixing more accurately their status; but not until the Congress of Vienna in 1815, at the close of the Napoleonic wars, did the grade of ambassadors and ministers become authoritatively established.

The United States, when it entered the family of nations, accepted the existing practice, and has maintained a diplomati service similar to that of the European countries. But the question has often been raised, in and out of Congress, whether or not, in the existing conditions of the world, the system is necessary and whether its utility justifies its expense. As early as 1783, John Adams, who had just participated in the negotiation of the treaty of peace and independence, wrote Mr. Livingston, the Continental Secretary of Foreign Affairs: "I confess I have sometimes thought that after a few years it will be the best thing we can do to recall every minister from Europe, and send embassies only on special occasions." 1

It is claimed that, with the present development of steam communication, the rapid transmission of intelligence by electricity, and the general diffusion of news by the press, diplomatic negotiations and correspond

18 The Works of John Adams, edited by Charles Francis Adams (1853), 37.

ence might readily be carried on directly between the foreign offices of the various governments, that the interests of our citizens might be attended to by consuls, and that on extraordinary occasions the business might be intrusted to special temporary missions. With many in our country the diplomatic service is regarded as hardly more than a showy appendage of the government, and its maintenance a useless expenditure of public money. Whenever the question has been made the subject of inquiry by Congress, the various presidents and secretaries of state have given their opinion in favor of the utility and necessity of the service, and Congress has continued to authorize it. The controlling judgment is well expressed in the language of Secretary Frelinghuysen to Congress: "Diplomatic representation is a definite factor in the political economy of the world; and no better scheme has yet been devised for the dispatch of international affairs, or for the preservation of friendly relations between governments." President Harrison, after his retirement from public life, left on record his view of it as follows:

"The diplomatic service has sometimes been assailed in Congress as a purely ornamental one; and while the evident necessity of maintaining the service is such as ought to save it from the destructionists, it is quite true that our diplomatic relations with some of the powers is more ceremonious than practical. But we must be equipped for emergencies, and every now and then, even at the smallest and most remote courts, there is a

1 House of Reps. Executive Document No. 146, 48th Congress, 1st Session, p.

1.

critical need of an American representative to protect American citizens or American interests." 1

This subject was some years ago considered by a special committee of the Parliament of Great Britain. Lord Palmerston, the prime minister and the best informed and the most experienced statesman of his day in international affairs, was examined. John Bright put to him the question "whether it would not be practicable to transact the ordinary business by means of written communications between the two foreign offices, and when anything arose requiring particular attention to have a special mission of some member of the cabinet?" Lord Palmerston replied, "I do not think it would,” and he proceeded to give the reasons for his belief.

Mr. Cobden propounded the following: "If you go back two or three hundred years, when there were no newspapers, when there was scarcely such a thing as international postal communication, when affairs of state turned upon a court intrigue, or the caprice of a mistress, or a Pope's bull, or a marriage, was it not of a great deal more consequence at that time to have ministers at foreign courts. . . than it is in these constitutional times, when affairs of state are discussed in the public newspapers and in the legislative assemblies ... under these circumstances are not the functions of an ambassador less important now than they were two or three hundred years ago ?"

Lord Palmerston replied: "I should humbly conceive that they are more important on account of the very circumstances which have just been stated. . . . I should 1 This Country of Ours, Benjamin Harrison, 196.

think that the change which has taken place with regard to the transaction of public affairs in Europe tends to make diplomatic agents of more importance rather than of less importance." 1

One reason why the value and importance of the diplomatic service is not readily recognized is because its work is carried on quietly and usually without the knowledge of the public. It is almost always the handmaid of peace and good-will. Very many more international controversies are settled by the unobtrusive or secret methods of diplomacy, than by either arbitration or war. The English historian, Goldwin Smith, states that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, ambassador at Constantinople, piqued because he had been rejected as ambassador at St. Petersburg, was in large measure responsible for the Crimean War, which involved questions susceptible of a friendly settlement. But such instances are rare, and make more conspicuous the ordinarily peaceful methods of diplomacy.

2

Secretary Frelinghuysen, in the communication to Congress from which an extract has already been made, in discussing the utility of the service says: "The successes of diplomacy are usually known but to a few, which, perhaps not unnaturally, has led to the belief, held by many, that with the introduction of the steamship and the telegraph the duties of a minister have ceased. However fast the mail or efficient the telegraph, neither can ever supply the place of the diplomatic agent who advises his government of the disposition of

1 Senate Executive Document No. 93, 32d Congress, 1st Sess., 9. 2 New York Independent, December 28, 1905.