a better feeling which I trust may become deep and permanent throughout the country, and that is that our citizens are to be fully protected in all parts of the world at any cost. The famous boast "I am a Roman citizen," which was the passport and armor of the Roman in any part of the world gives the idea of what ought to be the claim of the American citizen. Our own history in this respect has at times been creditable to us, but here too our mother country sets the world an example. Let any British subject in any part of the world be maltreated and immediately it is a matter of interest to the home government. The resident minister feels himself false to his duty, or, if he does not feel so, knows that he will surely be denounced by the press and in Parliament, if he be remiss in securing redress for any wrong thus committed. with the Still another of the functions of an American diplomatic repre- Coöperation sentative is to coöperate with the consuls of his government, pro- consuls. moting by all honorable means the interests of American agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. The value of this kind of service was amply shown by the late Townsend Harris in Japan. ... To him, more than to any other man, is due the opening of Japan to the commerce of America and of the world. His high character and skill inspired a confidence which enabled him to make that great treaty which marks a new point of departure in modern civilization. 121. Expenses Connected with Ambassadorial Rank Until 1893, the United States was content to be represented abroad by the more modest official bearing the title of minister, but in that year the dignity of ambassador was established without any provision for larger salaries. The increased expense connected with the maintenance of this higher dignity has been the subject of great discussion in and out of Congress. The necessity of making adequate provision for our ambassadors is thus urged by Mr. Lodge in a speech made in the Senate in 1908. The demands on the It is impossible practically for an ambassador to live in a small apartment in Paris or Berlin and transact the business of the govern- ambassador. Government residences standardize the scale of living. Mr. Choate's story. ment of the United States as it ought to be transacted. The demands do not come simply from the court or the society in which he finds himself, but the demands made by his own people are very great indeed. They expect certain public receptions to be held on Washington's birthday and on the Fourth of July; they expect hospitality from the ambassador. The number of Americans who go to these great capitals in Europe is very large; it is said that there are sixty thousand Americans normally in London alone; and an ambassador cannot escape the expenditure of a large amount of money. Now, Mr. President, if we give to our ambassadors their rent in addition to the salary they already have, it would certainly make living much easier for them; also it would give to the United States a definite place in the city; it would give the embassy a definite home; and it would establish what I consider a proper scale because it is not merely that an ambassador is forced, if he is a poor man, to live below the scale that he would like to adopt, but there are cases I have in mind where men of great wealth have taken houses and established a scale of living which puts the successor in a position of great embarrassment. At least we should secure that the successive American ambassadors to any one country should live in the same house and should maintain substantially the same scale. I do not think it is decent for a country as rich as the United States to send its ambassadors abroad as they are sent now, even if they have abundant money, to pass six months, a year or eighteen months in looking for a suitable place to house themselves. You have all heard the story of Mr. Choate and what he is reported to have said in a speech at a dinner. He said he wished to compliment the police of London; that on the night of his arrival in London it was very rainy. He was wandering about the streets and a policeman stopped him and said, "What are you doing here?" He said, "I am just wandering about the streets." The policeman said, "You must not do that; you must go home." "Why," said Mr. Choate, "I have no home; I am the American ambassador." [Laughter.] That is an exaggerated way of stating what is an actual fact. excluded The really serious thing to my mind is that the inevitable Poor men tendency of this perfectly inadequate salary is to compel the giving from the of these offices exclusively to men of great wealth. The average service. man, even a man who has got a fair income of his own, knowing what expenditure these places require, does not want to go there, and live in a "two pair back." If he is going to represent his country at all, he wants to do it properly and generously and as it should be represented, and men decline those places because they cannot face the great expense. 122. The Negotiation of Treaties The power of making treaties "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" is conferred on the President by the Constitution, but it is nowhere definitely stated that the necessity of having the advice and consent of the Senate requires the President to consult that body during the negotiation of any particular treaty. In the following paper, Mr. Lodge shows how the Senate has shared in the making of treaties from the beginning of our government: of the Senate to advise and negotiations. The Senate, being primarily a legislative body, cannot in the The right nature of things initiate a negotiation with another nation, for they have no authority to appoint or receive ambassadors or ministers. But in every other respect, under the language of the Con- disapprove stitution and in the intent of the framers, they stand on a perfect equality with the President in the making of treaties. They have an undoubted right to recommend either that a negotiation be entered upon or that it be not undertaken, and I shall show presently that this right has been exercised and recognized in both directions. As a matter of course, the President would not be bound by a resolution declaring against opening a negotiation, but such a resolution passed by a two-thirds vote would probably be effective and would serve to stop any proposed negotiation, as we shall see was the case under President Lincoln. In the same way the Senate has the right to advise the President to enter upon The right of the Senate to share in treaty making at any stage. Washington's practice. a negotiation, and has exercised this right more than once. Here, again, the President is not bound to comply with the resolution, for his power is equal and coördinate with that of the Senate, but such an action on the part of the Senate, no doubt, would always have due weight. That this right to advise or disapprove the opening of negotiations has been very rarely exercised is unquestionably true in practice, and the practice is both sound and wise; but the right remains none the less, just as the Constitution gave it, not impaired in any way by the fact that it has been but little used. The right of the Senate to share in treaty making at any stage has always been fully recognized, both by the Senate and the Executive, not only at the beginning of the government, when the President and many Senators were drawn from among the framers of the Constitution and were, therefore, familiar with their intentions, but at all periods since. A brief review of some of the messages of the Presidents and of certain resolutions of the Senate will show better than any description the relations between the two branches of the treaty-making power in the United States, the uniform interpretation of the Constitution in this respect, and the precedents which have been established. On August 21, 1789, President Washington notified the Senate that he would meet with them on the following day to advise with them as to the terms of a treaty to be negotiated with the Southern Indians. On August 22, in accordance with this notice, the President came into the Senate Chamber, attended by General Knox, and laid before the Senate a statement of the facts, together with certain questions, in regard to our relations to the Indians of the Southern district, upon which he asked the advice of the Senate. On August 24, 1789, he appeared again in the Senate Chamber with General Knox, and the discussion of our relations with the Southern Indians was resumed. The Senate finally voted on the questions put to it by the President, and in that way gave him their advice. President Arthur, on June 9, 1884, asked the advice of the Senate as to directing negotiations in process with the King of Hawaii Later precedents. for the extension of the existing reciprocity treaty with the Hawaiian Islands. On March 3, 1888, the Senate passed a resolution asking President Cleveland to open negotiations with China for the regulation of immigration with that country. President Cleveland replied that such negotiations had been undertaken. From these various examples it will be seen that the Senate has been consulted at all stages of negotiations by Presidents of all parties, from Washington to Arthur. . . . to amend. The power of the Senate to amend or to ratify conditionally The right is of course included in the larger powers expressly granted by the Constitution to reject or to confirm. It would have never occurred to me that anyone who had read the Constitution and who possessed even the most superficial acquaintance with the history of the United States could doubt the right of the Senate to amend. . . . ... Notwithstanding the general practice of coöperation between the President and Senate in the negotiation of treaties, Mr. Spooner ably contends that, as a matter of constitutional right, the Senate has no claim to interference in treaty negotiations: The words "advice and consent of the Senate are used in the The absolute Constitution with reference to the Senate's participation in the making of a treaty and are well translated by the word "ratification" popularly used in this connection. The President negotiates the treaty, to begin with. He may employ such agencies as he chooses to negotiate the proposed treaty. He may employ the ambassador, if there be one, or a minister or a chargé d'affaires, or he may use a person in private life whom he thinks by his skill or knowledge of the language or people of the country with which he is about to deal is best fitted to negotiate the treaty. He may issue to the agent chosen by him and neither Congress nor the Senate has any concern as to whom he chooses - such instructions as seem to him wise. He may vary them from day to day. That is his concern. The Senate has no right to demand that he shall unfold to the world or to it, even in executive session, his instructions, power of vested negotiation in the President. |