"The practice of granting general introductory letters to facilitate travel will be discontinued." Circular, Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, Apr. 25, 1881. MSS. Inst., Arg. Rep. § 89b. The misunderstandings likely to result from reliance on oral communications between Secretaries of State and foreign ministers are noticed, though with his usual suppressed sarcasm, in a letter from Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney, then minister at London, September 23, 1808. 3 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 230. Mr. Pinkney's reply is given in same work, 233, On October 9, 1809, Mr. Robert Smith, then Secretary of State, proposed to Mr. Jackson, British minister at Washington, that their correspondence should be in writing, and on this being objected to by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Smith, on October 19, cited the similar proposition previously made by Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney. The position that important diplomatic correspondence is to be in writing is reiterated by Lord Wellesley in an interview with Mr. J. S. Smith, chargé d'affaires of the United States at London, on June 16, 1811. Mr. J. S. Smith to the Sec. of State, June 16, 1811. MSS. Dispatches Gr. Brit. 3 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 421. As to the correspondence with Mr. Jackson, and his subsequent recall, see supra, § 84; infra, § 107. "No foreign Government or its representative can take just offense at anything which an officer of this Government may say in his private capacity. Official communications only are to be regarded as indicating the sentiments and views of the Government of the United States." Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. McCurdy, Jan. 8, 1852. MSS. Inst. Austria. That official communications must be to the Secretary, see supra, § 79. "In connection with your dispatch permit me to offer you a word of caution with regard to cipher telegrams. You should never give both the cipher and the text, as in the present instance. The latter is all that is requisite. * Such telegrams should either be paraphrased or their import conveyed in a written note, in order that no clue whatever to the Department's cipher may be obtained." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morgan, May 26, 1886. MSS. Inst., Mex. XV. DIPLOMATIC AGENTS TO ACT UNDER INSTRUCTIONS. § 90. For personal instructions, see ₫ 89. A minister, unless in an extraordinary case of an indignity offered to him in his character as an individual, or as a minister, cannot, without the authority of his Government, threaten to break off diplomatic intercourse with the sovereign to whom he is sent. Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jackson, Apr. 8, 1856. MSS. Inst., Austria. When war was carried on between South American countries in which we were represented by resident ministers, and in whose waters we had ships of war, watching our interests, it was held "inconvenient to give specific instructions for the Government of either its (our) political representatives or its naval agents in regard to many possible contingencies. Powers concerning political questions distinguished from naval affairs are intrusted to the care of the ministers of the United States; and the President's instructions are communicated through this DepartResponsibilities of a peculiar character are devolved upon the commander of the squadron; and the President's instructions are conveyed through the Navy Department. In the absence of instructions, the agents of the two classes, if practicable, will confer together and agree as to any unforeseen emergencies which may arise, and in regard to which no specific instructions for the common direc tion of both may be given by the President." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Asboth, May 18, 1867. MSS. Inst., Arg. Rep. "Diplomatic agreements, between agents of foreign powers, hastily gotten up in a foreign country, under the pressure of revolutionary dangers, may be entirely erroneous in their objects, as they must be incomplete in form, and unreliable for want of adequate authority. Moreover, they unavoidably tend to produce international jealousies and conflicts. You will, therefore, carefully abstain from entering into any such negotiations, except in extreme cases, to be immediately reported to this Department." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pruyn, Aug. 22, 1868. MSS. Inst., Venez. See infra, § 102. The inconvenience of disagreement between a diplomatic agent in a foreign land and the commander of our naval forces "is less than the inconveniences which must result from giving authority to a minister in one state to control the proceedings of a fleet of whose condition he is not necessarily well informed, and whose prescribed services are required to be performed not only in the vicinity of its minister, but also in distant fields over which he Las no supervision. Nor would it be more expedient to give a general authority to the commanding officer of a squadron to control or supersede the proceedings of political representatives of the United States in the several states which he might have occasion to visit." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Asboth, May 18, 1867. MSS. Inst., Arg. Rep. As to Mr. Jefferson's withdrawal of treaty with England by Messrs. Monroe and XVI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM FOREIGNERS ONLY TO BE RECEIVED THROUGH DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES. § 91. That self-constituted missions to foreign states are illegal, see infra, § 109. General Washington, when President, declined to receive publicly Messrs. Talleyrand, Beaumetz, and Liancourt, who were then refugees from France, on the ground that "the French Republic would have learnt with disgust that they had been received by the President. He having resolved not to receive them, I held it to be my duty to do violence to my individual regard for their characters by merging it in polit ical considerations." Mr. Randolph, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pinckney, Dec. 23, 1794. MSS. Inst., Ministers. They had letters of introduction from Messrs. Pinckney and Jay. As to Washington's reception of "young Lafayette," see App., vol. III, § 91. The Department of State can receive no communication from subjects of another country on international matters, except through the minister of such country. Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to Admiral Cochrane, Apr. 5, 1815. MSS. Notes, "Several days ago I received information through a confidential channel that Joseph Bonaparte, with several companions, had arrived incog. at New York. And yesterday I received the further information that he was on his way, accompanied by Lewis, to report himself to me personally, still under this disguise. Whatever motives may have produced this step, the palpable impropriety of it, especially as its success would involve my participation in a clandestine transaction, determined me at once to guard against it. I have accordingly written to Mr. Rush to have the travelers diverted from their purpose on their arrival at Washington." Mr. Madison, President, unofficial, to Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, Montpelier, "To have come at any time to the seat of your public residence with the ulterior view of a personal visit, without a previous sanction derived through the usual channel, might have been thought not entirely respectful, if prudent. But so to invade the sanctity of your domestic retreat really looks to me, independent of all other considerations, as scarcely less than an outrage. I remember that when Talleyrand was in Philadelphia, as ex-bishop of Autun, General Washington declined being visited by him, although he made known a wish to wait on him." Mr. Rush, Atty. Gen., to Mr. Madison, President, (unofficial), Sept. 17, 1815. Monroe Pap., Dept. of State. See, as to the reception of Kossuth, supra, § 48. "Although it is usual for this Department to forward letters to persons abroad, which may be sent hither by members of Congress for that purpose, the punctilio required in Europe in communication with 635 [CHAP. IV. crowned heads renders it necessary to make letters to such personages an exception. The rule there is that no communication intended for the sovereign, even a letter accrediting a foreign minister, can be presented to the person to whom it is addressed, unless a copy shall previously be communicated to the proper minister of the sovereign. The reason for this rule is understood to be to prevent any letters of an improper character from being received by the sovereign.” Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rice, July 16, 1861. MSS. Dom. Let. No officer, civil, military, or naval, can properly carry on an official correspondence with a foreign Government, except through the Depart ment of State, or its diplomatic representative at the seat of such Government. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wines, Jan. 25, 1872. MSS. Dom. Let. "In reply, I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that the usages of foreign intercourse require that communications from citizens or subjects of foreign Governments to the President should be addressed through the minister of the nation of which the writer is a subject or citizen. Moreover, it is not the province of the executive branch of this Government, as a general rule, to give attention to a claim or interest involving private rights only." Mr. Hale, Asst. Sec. of State, to Mr. Kullmann, May 21, 1872. MSS. Dom. Let. A foreigner abroad, desiring to communicate with this Government, must do so through the accredited representative of his Government at Washington. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mantilla, Feb. 16, 1875. MSS. Notes, Spain. "Where addresses were to be presented on behalf of the people, or a body of the people, of a foreign country, it was usual that an application should be made through the foreign minister accredited to the United States, and, in any event, that the minister should be consulted, and the contemplated proceeding prove acceptable to him.” Mr. Cadwalader, Acting Sec. of State, to Messrs. Parnell and Power, Oct. 19, 1876. MSS. Dom. Let. On October 11, 1876, Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Connor Power, members of the British Parliament, "sent their cards to the President, at his hotel, when on a visit to New York, and, being admitted, requested an opportunity to present an address on the occurrence of the Centennial with which they stated they were charged; and the President there. upon replied that he would shortly be in Washington when the matter might be disposed of. They were informed (on October 17, 1876,) by a note that before they could be so received, it would be neces sary that they should submit the address for approval to the Department of State. At this date the address appeared in the public prints. "Upon the 18th of October, a communication was received at this * Department, signed by these gentlemen, asking an opportunity to present the address, and shortly after, and before the address had been examined, they called upon Mr. Cadwalader, then Acting Secretary of State in my absence, stating the object of their mission. Their attention was called to the fact that the Department of State could not properly act in such a matter unless the address had been submitted to the British minister. They stated their unwillingness to do so directly, but were understood to acquiesce entirely in the propriety of its being submitted by the Department to Her Majesty's representative. "A copy of their note of October 17, with the address, was thereupon immediately sent to Sir Edward Thornton, for his perusal, who replied upon the same day that it would have afforded him pleasure to have asked permission to present these gentlemen to the President, had they applied to him for that purpose as was usual; but with regard to the address, that it contained such reflections on the conduct of Her Majesty's Government that he should not feel justified in taking part in its presentation without express instructions from his Government to do so. "Mr. O'Connor Power and Mr. Parnell were thereupon informed by the Acting Secretary of State, by note dated the following day, of the substance of the reply of the British minister, and that it would not seem courteous to their own representative or their own Government to take any steps for a formal presentation of the address under such circumstances, but that arrangements would gladly be made for their personal presentation to the President if it were desired. "Upon the 20th of October, these gentlemen again addressed the Department, renewing the request that the address be received, and suggesting that their representative did not appear to have any objection to the language of the address, and that it might still be presented, although he declined to take part therein; whereupon they were informed that as the British minister had based his refusal to take part in any presentation of the address upon the contents of the address itself, it was not possible to comply with their wishes. "No further communication of any kind has taken place upon the question, and in making to you this statement, and in forwarding to you, as I do, at your request, a copy of all the correspondence herein referred to, including a copy of the proposed address, I have furnished you with all the information in my possession on the subject. "The position which the Department was compelled to assume was that, while it was quite competent to present Mr. O'Connor Power and Mr. Parnell to the President individually, they being gentlemen of standing and position at home, and members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in order that an opportunity might be afforded them of expressing, as individuals, the good wishes of the persons at whose instance they were sent to the United States on the occasion of the Centennial, at the same time a proper respect for the Government of |