of the present day contrary, not merely to the law of nations, but your own municipal law! "Under these circumstances, the Government and people of the United States, who have never committed or sanctioned a violation of the law of nations against any other power, may well think it out of place that they should be instructed by an English minister in 'the utility of those rules which for centuries have been known to Europe by the name of the law of nations.' "There are several other points in your dispatch, some of great pub lic moment, which, if I were still in office, I should discuss on this occasion. I have, however, deemed it proper, at present, to confine myself to such remarks as seemed necessary to vindicate my letter of the 1st December from your strictures, leaving the new aspects of the case which your dispatch presents, especially in its opening and closing paragraphs, to those whose official duty it is to consider them. "You will not, I hope, misapprehend the spirit in which this letter is written. As an American citizen, I do not covet the acquisition of Cuba, either peaceably or by force of arms. When I cast my thoughts back upon our brief history as a nation, I certainly am not led to think that the United States have reached the final limits of their growth, or, what comes to very much the same thing, that representative gov ernment, religious equality, the trial by jury, the freedom of the press, and the other great attributes of our Anglo-Norman civilization are never to gain a further extension in this hemisphere. I regard the inquiry under what political organization this extension is to take place, as a vain attempt to penetrate the inscrutable mysteries of the future. It will, if we are wise, be under the guidance of our example. I hope it will be in virtue of the peaceful arts by which well-governed states extend themselves over unsettled or partially settled continents. My voice was heard, at the first opportunity, in the Senate of the United States, in favor of developing the almost boundless resources of the territory already in our possession, rather than seeking to enlarge it by aggressive wars. Still I cannot think it reasonable-hardly respect ful-on the part of England and France, while they are daily extending themselves on every shore and in every sea, and pushing their dominions, by new conquests, to the uttermost ends of the earth, to call upon the United States to bind themselves, by a perpetual compact, never, under any circumstances, to admit into the Union an island which lies at their doors, and commands the entrance into the interior of their continent." Mr. Everett to Lord John Russell, Boston, Sept. 17, 1853, Pamph. Ed. See re- On July 2, 1866, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives reported a bill to the effect, that when the Department of State should be officially informed that Great Brit ain and the several British provinces in Canada accepted the proposi tion of annexation, the President shall declare by proclamation that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Lower Canada, Upper Canada, and the territories of Selkirk, of Sasketchewan, and of Columbia should be admitted into the United States as States and Territories. (Amer. Ann. Encyclop., 1866, 78.) This resolution was not acted on, but on March 27, 1867, a resolution from the Committee on Foreign Affairs was passed in the House without opposition, to the effect that the people of the United States regarded with extreme solicitude the confederation proposed on the northern frontier without the assent of the people of the provinces to be confederated, such a measure being likely to increase the embarrassment already existing between Great Britain and the United States. Amer. Ann. Encyclop., 1867, 275. 2 Lawrence Com. sur droit int., 313. It is not the policy of the United States to undertake in Africa the management of movements within the particular range of private enterprise. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Sir E. Thornton, Apr. 8, 1873. MSS. Notes, Gr. Brit. "The policy of this Government, as declared on many occasions in the past, has tended toward avoidance of possessions disconnected from the main continent. Had the tendency of the United States been to extend territorial dominion beyond intervening seas, opportunities have not been wanting to effect such a purpose, whether on the coast of Africa, in the West Indies, or in the South Pacific. No such opportunity has been hitherto embraced, and but little hope could be offered that Congress, which must in the ultimate resort be brought to decide the question of such transmarine jurisdiction, would favorably regard such an acquisition as His Excellency proposes. At any rate, in its political aspect merely, this Government is unprepared to accept the proposition without subjection to such wishes as Congress and the people of the United States through Congress may see fit to express." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Langston, June 20, 1883. MSS. Inst., Hayti. "A conviction that a fixed policy, dating back to the origin of our constitutional Government, was considered to make it inexpedient to attempt territorial aggrandizement which would require maintenance by a naval force in excess of any yet provided for our national uses, has led this Government to decline territorial acquisitions. Even as simple coaling stations, such territorial acquisitions would involve responsibility beyond their utility. The United States have never deemed it needful to their national life to maintain impregnable fortresses along the world's highways of commerce. To considerations such as these prevailing in Congress the failure of the Samana lease and the St. Thomas purchase were doubtless due. During the years that have since elapsed there has been no evidence of a change in the views of the national legislature which would warrant the President in setting on foot new projects of the same character." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Langston, Feb. 1, 1884. MSS. Inst., The proposed annexation of San Domingo is discussed, supra, §61; that of St. Thomas, supra, §61a. "The policy of the United States, declared and pursued for more than a century, discountenances and in practice forbids distant colonial acquisitions. Our action in the past touching the acquisition of terri tory by purchase and cession, and our recorded disinclination to avail ourselves of voluntary proffers made by other powers to place territories under the sovereignty or protection of the United States, are matters of historical prominence." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pendleton, Sept. 7, 1885. MSS. Inst., Germ. "Maintaining, as I do, the tenets of a line of precedents from Washington's day, which proscribe entangling alliances with foreign states, I do not favor a policy of acquisition of new and distant territory, or the incorporation of remote interests with our own." President Cleveland, First Annual Message, 1885. 580 CHAPTER IV. DIPLOMATIC AGENTS. I. EXECUTIVE THE SOURCE OF DIPLOMATIC AUTHORITY, § 78. II. FOREIGN MINISTERS TO RECOGNIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE AS THE III. CONTINUITY OF FOREIGN RELATIONS NOT BROKEN BY PARTY CHANGES, IV. EXECUTIVE DISCRETION DETERMINES THE WITHDRAWAL OR REMOVAL OF V. NON-ACCEPTABLE MINISTER MAY BE REFUSED, § 82. VI. NOT USUAL TO ASK AS TO ACCEPTABILITY IN ADVANCE, § 82a. CONDITIONS DEROGATORY TO THE ACCREDITING GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE VIII. MINISTER MISCONDUCTING HIMSELF MAY BE SENT BACK, § 84. X. INCUMBENT CONTINUES UNTIL ARRIVAL OF SUCCESSOR, § 86. XI. HOW FAR DOMESTIC CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT OPERATES TO RECALL, XII. DIPLOMATIC GRADES, § 88. XIII. CITIZENS OF COUNTRY OF RECEPTION NOT ACCEPTABLE, § 88α. XIV. DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE CONFIDENTIAL, EXCEPT BY ORDER OF De- XV. (1) Confined to official business, § 89a. (2) Usually in writing, § 896. DIPLOMATIC AGENTS TO ACT UNDER INSTRUCTIONS, $90. COMMUNICATIONS FROM FOREIGNERS ONLY TO BE RECEIVED THROUGH DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES, §91. XVII. DIPLOMATIC AGENTS PROTECTED FROM PROCESS. (1) Who are so privileged, § 92. (2) Illegality of process against, § 93. (3) Exemption from criminal prosecution, § 93a. (4) What attack on a minister is an international offense, § 93b. XVIII. AND FROM PERSONAL INDIGNITY, § 94. XIX. AND FROM TAXES AND IMPOSTS, § 95. XX. PROPERTY PROTECTED, § 96. XXI. FREE TRANSIT AND COMMUNICATION WITH, SECURED, $97. XXII. PRIVILEGED FROM TESTIFYING, § 98. XXIII. CANNOT BECOME BUSINESS AGENTS, 99. XXIV. NOR REPRESENT FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, § 100. XXV. SHOULD RESIDE AT CAPITAL, § 101. XXVI. JOINT ACTION WITH OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENTS UNADVISABLE, § 102. XXVIII. RIGHT OF PROTECTION AND ASYLUM, § 104. XXIX. MAY EXTEND PROTECTION TO CITIZENS OF FRIENDLY COUNTRIES, § 105. XXXI. COURTESY, FAIRNESS, AND SOCIAL CONFORMITY EXPECTED. (2) Social intercourse, § 107a. (4) Expenses, § 107c. XXXII. CONTINGENT FUND AND SECRET-SERVICE MONEY, § 108. XXXIV. PRESENTS NOT ALLOWABLE, 110. I. EXECUTIVE, THE SOURCE of DIPLOMATIC AUTHORITY. § 78. "A motion had been made in the Senate on the 5th of August, 1789, 'that it is the opinion of the Senate that their advice and consent to the appointment of officers should be given in the presence of the President. This motion was postponed till the next day, when it was ordered that Mr. Izard, Mr. King, and Mr. Carroll be a committee to wait on the President of the United States, and confer with him on the mode of communication proper to be pursued between him and the Senate in the formation of treaties and making appointments to offices.' The committee accordingly waited on the President, and had the con ference mentioned in the above letter. It does not appear, however, that the plan of communicating nominations orally was adopted in any instance, or that the President was ever present when they were considered by the Senate. (See appendix No. V.) "In regard to treaties, a practice was at first begun which was not pursued. On the 21st of August, 1789, the following message was sent to the Senate, 'The President of the United States will meet the Senate in the Senate Chamber at half past 11 o'clock to-morrow, to advise with them on the terms of the treaty to be negotiated with the southern Indians.' He accordingly took his seat in the Senate, attended by General Knox, the Secretary of War, for two days in succession, when the outlines of a treaty proposed by the Secretary were discussed. But this practice, being found inconvenient and subject to various objections, particularly in regard to treaties with foreign powers, was soon discontinued. (Story's Commentaries, vol. iii, p. 371.)" 10 Washington's Writings, 25. Note by Sparks. The Constitution having declared that the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint embassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, the President desired my opinion whether the Senate has a right to negative the grade he may think it expedient to use in a foreign mission, as well as the person to be appointed. "I think the Senate has no right to negative the grade." Opinion of Mr. Jefferson, Apr. 24, 1790. 7 Jeff. Works, 465. President Washington's message to the Senate of February 18, 1791, relative to the institution of a mission to Portugal, and nominating Mr. Humphreys thereto, will be found in 1 Am. State Papers, (For. Rel.) 127. President John Adams's action, in sending, on February 18, 1798, without consulting his Cabinet, the nomination of Mr. William Vans Murray to the Senate, is told in 1 Schouler's History of the United States, 430. |