which you are accredited, to make it, giving immediate notice of it to this Department." Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Brown, Dec. 24, 1823. MSS. Inst., Ministers. A report by Mr. Clay, Secretary of State, January 31, 1827, on the position of chargés d'affaires is contained in House Doc. No. 452, 19th Cong., 2d sess. In this report, after enumerating a series of cases of persons. appointed as chargés d'affaires, with their respective terms of office, Mr. Clay proceeds as follows: "Most of the preceding appointments of chargés d'affaires were made whilst we had ministers appointed to reside near the same Government. Mr. Purviance was so appointed by Mr. Monroe, being the regular minister of the United States in London at the time. Mr. Erving, being the secretary of legation at Madrid, was intrusted with the charge of our affairs until the arrival of Mr. Bowdoin, our minister. Mr. Harris, at St. Petersburg, was left in charge of our affairs whilst Mr. Adams was absent on the duty of assisting in the negotiation of peace with Great Britain. Mr. Lawrence was left chargé d'affaires by Mr. Russell whilst this gentleman was absent from Stockholm on the same service of treating of peace. Mr. Jackson was left chargé at Paris after Mr. Gallatin's appointment, but before his arrival in France, as the minister of the United States. Mr. Brent was intrusted with the charge of our affairs during Mr. Forsyth's return to the United States. In the same character, at Stockholm, Mr. Hughes was left by Mr. Russell on his return home. Mr. Pinkney was left by Mr. Campbell in charge of our affairs in July, 1820, Mr. Middleton having been appointed minister the preceding April. Mr. Appleton was left in charge of our affairs by Mr. Forsyth, at Madrid, in March, 1823, Mr. Nelson having been ap pointed minister the preceding January. Mr. Watts was left at Bogota, in charge of our affairs, in the year 1825, during Mr. Anderson's absence on a visit to the United States. And, lastly, Mr. John A. King was left by Mr. Rufus King in charge of our affairs after the appointment but before the arrival of Mr. Gallatin at London. The necessity of confiding temporarily to a chargé the affairs of a Government, which is ordinarily represented by a minister plenipotentiary, arises out of the absence of a minister, no matter from what cause. It is supposed not to be affected by the fact of a minister's having notified his intention to return and the appointment of his successor. "The authority under which the above appointments were made is believed to be furnished by the Constitution of the United States, and the public law and usage of nations. So important is it regarded to preserve, without interruption, the diplomatic intercourse between nations which are mutually represented by ministers, that upon the death of a minister the secretary of legation becomes, by established usage, ipso facto, chargé d'affaires until his Government is advised and provides for the event. The period during which they respectively continued to act in the character of chargé d'affaires will be seen by an inspection of the annexed abstract from the books of the Treasury, marked A, to which a reference is respectfully requested. "The duties to be performed by a chargé d'affaires, so appointed, are to be found in the same public law and usage, and may be stated, in the general, to be the same as those of the minister whose place he supplies. He transacts the ordinary business of the legation; keeps its archives and an office; corresponds with the Government where he is accredited, and with his own; and sustains an expense and maintains an intercourse with the diplomatic corps corresponding to the new station to which he is elevated. "The compensation received by the several persons so appointed (with the exception of Mr. John A. Smith and Mr. Watts, whose accounts are not yet closed, but will be finally liquidated on the same principles), may be seen in the above extract from the Treasury. From that abstract it appears: First, that the allowance of salary in the character of chargé, in the cases there stated, has been uniform; second, that the allowance of an outfit has been most usually, but not always, made; third, that in some instances the temporary appointment has been continued after the intervention of a session of the Senate, as in the cases of Mr. Purviance, Mr. Russell, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brent, Mr. Hughes, and Mr. Sheldon, and in two cases (those of Mr. Erving and Mr. Harris) after the intervention of several sessions of the Senate; and fourth, that in the case of Mr. John A. King, the allowance made to him was a medium between the highest and lowest allowances that had been previously made. The highest was made in the cases of Mr. Russell and Mr. Jackson, to each of whom, besides the outfit and salary of a chargé, a quarter's return salary was allowed. Mr. King was not allowed salary as a chargé during the absence of Mr. Gallatin on his visit to Paris last fall, nor was he allowed a quarter's return salary as chargé. He was, moreover, the bearer of a convention, the first intelligence of the conclusion of which reached the Department by his delivery of the instrument itself. Such a service is always regarded in the transactions of Governments as one. of peculiar interest. He might have been, but was not, allowed the usual compensation made to bearers of dispatches." 6 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 555. "The object of diplomatic missions is to adjust differences and conduct affairs between Governments in regard to their political and commercial relations, and to furnish the Government at home with information touching the country to which the mission is accredited more full and accurate than might be obtained through the ordinary channels, or more promptly than the same information might otherwise be received. The grade of a mission may be higher or lower, according to the estimate of its importance. "As a general rule, no Government sends to, or at least continues in, another country a minister of a higher grade than that country may reciprocate. This rule, however, is by no means invariable, and for various reasons it seems to be proper to leave it to the President to determine the cases in which exceptions ought to be made. There are not sufficient advantages in having ministers of the highest grade accredited to all Governments-the most inconsiderable as well as the most important-to justify a departure from a long prevalent and common usage, with many good reasons to sustain it." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pennington, chairman of the Committee on "Your dispatch No. 61, of the 16th ultimo, relative to the question of precedence which has arisen among the representatives of foreign powers of Tangier, has been received. In reply I have to state that every nation may consult its own pleasure in regard to the grade of its diplomatic or other representative in a foreign country. That grade must be presumed to be measured by its sense of the importance of its relations with the power to which the representatives may be accredited. "Consuls have diplomatic functions in the Barbary states. The United States consul is accredited to the Emperor of Morocco. His predecessors were accredited in the same way, and the consuls at Tripoli, Tunis, and in Egypt are, respectively, accredited to the heads of the Governments of those countries. "It is customary, where the rules of the treaty of Vienna and the protocol of Aix-la-Chapelle are acknowledged, for the eldest of the chief grade to take precedence of all others, and the eldest also when they are all of the same grade. Is this rule binding and operative at Tangier ? "The French have thought proper to accredit a minister plenipotentiary to the Emperor of Morocco, who resides at Tangier, and who claims precedence over the representatives of other Governments there solely in virtue of the superiority of his official grade. Is this claim indefeasible? The rules in regard to precedence above referred to, having been embodied in a treaty and in a protocol, may be technically binding only on the parties to those instruments. The United States were not a party to them. The Emperor of Morocco might disregard them for a similar reason. Those rules, however, may be said to have been merely a formal recognition by the chief powers of Europe of a custom which had been the law of nations upon the subject ever since diplomacy began in modern times. As such they have hitherto been practically accepted even by this Government, whenever it may have had occasion to send representatives of any of the grades to which they refer. We have never had any officer at Tangier of a higher grade than consul. If, however, we should accredit a minister plenipotentiary to the Emperor of Morocco, we certainly should expect him to have precedence on public occasions, and in official proceedings, over the repre sentatives of lower grade from other powers. Should not the same privilege be conceded to other states? "The advantage, if it be one, is accidental now in the case of France. It may be claimed by ourselves, or by Mexico, or by Switzerland, to morrow. "If, as cannot be denied, the grade of a diplomatic agent implies the opinion entertained by his Government of the importance of his relations with the Government to which he may be accredited, this may, it seems, be properly allowed. It may, however, be taken for granted that, whatever may be the grade of such an agent, his social or public efficiency is by no means always in proportion to his grade, but will be influenced by the comparative importance of the country he may represent, and will also comport with the strength of his character and of his abilities. "It is not supposed that the tardiness of the minister of France in asserting the privileges of his grade precludes him from assuming them whenever he may deem it advisable. "Under these circumstances, the impression is entertained that it will not be contrary to your official dignity, or that of the Government which you represent, to acquiesce in the application at Tangier of the conventional rule which prevails here and everywhere else." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. McMath, Dec. 30, 1868. MSS. Inst., Morocco; Dip. Corr., 1868. "A chargé d'affaires can only be legally and properly recognized when officially accredited to the Department by the minister of foreign affairs of the country which he claims to represent." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Squier, Nov. 4, 1869. MSS. Notes, Honduras. "Whilst in the official and private intercourse between a minister and his secretaries it is undoubtedly among the first of his duties to observe a frank, courteous, and kindly demeanor towards them, on the other hand, it is no less incumbent on the secretaries to fulfill with alacrity and dispatch, in the best manner they are able, the general and occa sional instructions of the minister touching the affairs of the legation, and to maintain in their intercourse with him an unvarying due observance of all the deference which characterizes the gentleman, and which is prescribed by the rules of good breeding. No servility, however, on their part, or any compromise of that self-respect which they owe to themselves, is expected." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Vignaud, Jan. 18, 1876. MSS. Inst., France. A "political agent," sent as such by a foreign Government to the United States, is not to be regarded as a diplomatic character, entitled to the immunities of such, even though he is at the same time consulgeneral. Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Totten, Apr. 12, 1881. MSS. Dom. Let. "As long as the minister is present the secretary of legation is not recognized by any foreign Government whatever as being authorized to perform a single official act other than as directed by the minister himself." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wurts, Feb. 28, 1883. MSS. Inst., The Department cannot, under present circumstances, "in justice to its ministers abroad, ask Congress to give them higher rank with their present salaries; neither could it with propriety appeal to Congress for an allowance commensurate with the necessary mode of life of an ambassador." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hunt, Jan. 31, 1884. MSS. Inst., Russia. "The question of sending and receiving ambassadors, under the existing authorization of the Constitution and the Statutes, has on several occasions had more or less formal consideration, but I cannot find that at any time the benefits attending a higher grade of ceremonial treatment have been deemed to outweigh the inconveniences which, in our simple social democracy, might attend the reception in this country of an extraordinarily foreign privileged class. • "It seems hardly necessary to point out in detail considerations which will doubtless readily suggest themselves to your discernment. "I infer from your statement that the position of the United States minister in the order of precedence, especially after a change in the mission, when the newcomer necessarily falls to the foot of the list, may entail delay in obtaining access to the secretary of foreign affairs in the ordinary transaction of business. This is regulated in Washington and in several other capitals by the adoption of the rule detur priori, with entire acceptability. "In 1871, when Mr. George Bancroft was minister of the United States at Berlin, the question of his yielding the pas at the foreign of fice in everyday intercourse to representatives of higher grade or longer residence came up for consideration. I inclose transcript of a dispatch from Mr. Bancroft, reporting the rule then adopted by Prince von Bismarck." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, July 2, 1885. MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit. The rule adopted by Prince von Bismarck, as reported in Mr. Bancroft's dispatch of January 20, 1872, is as follows: "The chief of a mission who arrives first [at the Foreign Office] is first admitted, be his rank that of ambassador, minister or chargé." "For the sake of convenience and uniformity in determining the relative rank and precedence of diplomatic representatives, the Depart S. Mis. 162-—VOL. I- -40 625 |