Part 1

Transcriber Notes

Obvious typos corrected. Inconsistencies in punctuation kept as in original. Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation made consistent, e.g.: handbook, shipboard, to-day, chargé(s) d’affaires. Spelling of Quebec and Colombia made consistent, but otherwise spellings of city and country names left as printed in the original. Unclear name suffix in the original was confirmed as Jacob Meyer Jr. elsewhere. Page number in Table of Contents for Lecture III—Consular Service—Duties changed to 83 to match actual start of chapter. The Diplomatic Service and Consular Service tables in the Appendix have footnotes that are referenced in multiple entries across the original pages in the text. Rather than retain multiple footnotes with identical content, multiple anchors in the text may refer to a single note. P. 208 in the original indicates a footnote * that has no corresponding anchor on that page, so it does not appear here. The column headers with vertical text in the Synopsis of Commercial Treaties table on pp. 212-213 have been moved to a Key. The Synopsis of Commercial Treaties table uses Unicode characters dagger (U+2020) and double dagger (U+2021). If the device font does not support these characters, † and ‡, they may not appear correctly. Indent of Lethbridge, Alberta in table on p. 226 made to match surrounding entries since it falls in alphabetical order of those. If the device allows, some full page images can be clicked on to view a larger version. Italic text indicated by underscores surrounding _italic text_. Small capitals have been converted to ALL CAPS. Some descriptions of illustrations have been added.

UNCLE SAM ABROAD.

Uncle Sam Abroad By J. E. Conner

_Illustrated by Clyde J. Newman_

Chicago and New York Rand, McNally & Company

Copyright, 1900, by J. E. Conner.

CONTENTS.

The Professor Has an Idea Page 7

Lecture I—The State Department 11

Lecture II—Consular Service—Officers 43

Lecture III—Consular Service—Duties 83

Lecture IV—Diplomatic Service 121

Lecture V—Uncle Sam and Expansion 159

Appendix 197

UNCLE SAM ABROAD.

The Professor

Has

An Idea.

It is the opinion of Professor Loyal of the University of ---- that the average American, to put it bluntly, knows little or nothing about Uncle Sam’s foreign service.

He is also of the opinion that the time is at hand when the aforesaid average American _must_ know more about it, owing to the growth in importance of our foreign relations, both politically and commercially.

Now if the good Professor could only work miracles he would take the dry details which he has in mind upon this subject, and make them as interesting as fiction. Instead, however, he chose a method to which he was more accustomed, the “university extension” plan, aiming primarily to stimulate interest in his subject, and secondarily, in some small measure to gratify it.

The reader is indebted to the notes of a shorthand reporter who happened to hear the entire course, both for the text here given and for the illustrations with which it is adorned. If he thinks that the latter are not always in harmony with the text he must remember that the Professor and the Scribe did not see things from the same standpoint. Moreover he must not hold the Professor too strictly to account for his language, for it is not to be wondered at if he occasionally forgets himself and uses large words, which might be considered out of place in a popular lecture; and again, in his effort to impart life and present-day interest to his subject he at times introduces a levity which he hopes will not too seriously offend the sober-minded, or make them distrust his statements of fact.

On the evening of the first lecture the speaker, having been presented with the usual complimentary remarks, first spoke briefly in explanation of the nature of the course and of such courses in general. He mentioned among other matters that syllabi or leaflets containing outlines of the lectures, together with copies of the “Diplomatic and Consular Register,” would be distributed to all in attendance. He also announced that opportunity would be given at the close of each lecture for questions from the audience, and he promised to attempt to answer the same. Then he turned to the subject of the evening.

LECTURE I

THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:

What is the attitude of Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia or the United States upon this or that question?

Such a query you often hear, and perhaps you stop to wonder how it is when the collective opinion of any one country cannot be known in a short time, that there can be such a thing as a German attitude, an English or an American attitude, or who has a right to determine upon this or that as our attitude.

Well, it is evident that in domestic affairs, that is to say in national affairs, we as a people can take time to deliberate and choose our path; and it is just as evident that in international affairs we cannot always do so. “It is the unexpected that happens”, and we must have some means of meeting emergencies that will not wait. Hence a free people is least free, theoretically, when it has to do with the claims of treaties and international law, for it cannot take time to consider and decide upon all the facts; nay, even legislatures may interfere seriously with the proper discharge of such duties; so that in actual practice, even the most democratic nations have found it best to entrust the management of foreign affairs, or in other words, the preservation of their national equilibrium, to a Premier, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary, who is generally the ablest statesman that the country can afford.

This officer, with slightly differing functions, is known in our country as the Secretary of State, and he presides over the State Department. Probably there is no office under our Constitution that requires greater sagacity, greater breadth of intellectual grasp and practical training than this one of Secretary of State, and the fact that it has been held by such men as Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, William H. Seward and James G. Blaine is sufficient evidence of its importance.

It was intended at first that the cabinet officers should be as nearly equal as possible, and the salaries were fixed and remain the same to this day; but in the nature of the case they could not remain of equal importance, for the Department of State is more intimately associated with the President than any other. Washington would not allow foreign ministers to address him—they must reach him properly through the State Department,—hence, if for no other reason, it is easy to see how the Secretary of State assumed an official dignity that does not belong to the other cabinet officers.

Let us see how he stands related to the general government. Suppose we assume the attitude of an intelligent foreigner, looking at the “Great Republic” from the outside, and trying to discover into whose hands the logical working out of the Constitution has placed the real power.

It has been said[1] that we will at length discover that in all ordinary times of peace the government is practically in the hands of six men, namely,—

the President and two men whom he appoints— the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of the Treasury; the Speaker and two men whom he appoints— the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and the Chairman of the Committee of Appropriations.

Of these six, one-half are concerned with the finances of the government; and of the other half, one is the Chief Executive, another may be called the chief legislative factor, while the third is our official representative to the rest of the world. This practical division of the functions of government does not seem to agree very well with the more theoretical division into legislative, executive and judicial. In other words, finance has assumed an importance it was not intended to have, just as was observed concerning the Secretary of State.

Footnote 1:

See “American Diplomacy,” by Eugene Schuyler.

* * * * *

It may seem rather strange to speak of one of our officials as the chief _social_ functionary in our governmental machinery, but we have such a one, and he is no other than the Secretary of State. The office of functionary host for the government might be supposed to belong naturally to the President, who is spared this duty, however, owing to the multiplicity of others that are unavoidable. Consequently the Secretary of State, because of the breadth of the field of his operations, bringing him into touch with representatives of other nations as well as the principal statesmen of our own, and because, moreover, diplomacy’s natural atmosphere has always been that of society, must “keep open house”, as it were, for the Republic. This alone would be a sufficient burden for any one man, but it is expected that the Assistant Secretaries of State shall share it with him. Thus our Secretary maintains the only semblance of a court that will be tolerated by our “fierce democracie”, and even for this we do not contribute a cent of support, though around it and through it operate vast interests, both national and international. It is a manifest injustice to these officials that we do not provide for such legitimate expenses as must necessarily occur on these semi-official, semi-social occasions.

* * * * *

Now let us see what is the scope of the State Department, for it is much more than a foreign office, though that is its principle function. It embraces the duties which in other countries are given to the Keeper of the Seal, the Minister of Justice, etc., such as—

(1) keeping, promulgating and publishing the laws, (2) custody of the Great Seal, (3) preservation of the Government Archives, and (4) charge of all official relations between the general Government and the several States.

Its scope is more particularly indicated by the bureaus into which it is divided, namely,—

the Bureau of Indexes and Archives; the Bureau of Accounts of the State Department; the Bureau of Rolls and Library; the Bureau of Appointments; the Bureau of Statistics, or Foreign Commerce; the Consular Bureau; the Diplomatic Bureau.

Each of these bureaus is presided over by a chief, and at the head of them all is the chief clerk, who is “the executive officer of the Department of State under the direction of the Secretary.”

* * * * *

The Bureau of Indexes and Archives is a sort of postoffice and recorder’s office combined, for it receives the incoming mail, opens it and classifies it as either diplomatic, consular or miscellaneous, then indexes it so that if necessary it can be readily traced, and then turns over to the Chief Clerk the diplomatic correspondence and the more important consular and miscellaneous correspondence. This the Chief Clerk reads, and the most important is submitted to the Assistant Secretaries of State, while the remainder is turned over to the various bureaus for their attention. Likewise after the Secretary and his Assistants have signified the replies which are to be made to the most important of the mail and have examined and signed the same, it is collected from all the bureaus, and the out-going mail is indexed in another set of books.

* * * * *

The Bureau of Accounts of the State Department classifies its business as follows:

(1) International indemnities, or trust funds. If you are an American citizen living abroad and suffer a loss of property unlawfully, you may expect the loss to be made good through this Bureau of Accounts; that is unless you happen to be a missionary, for Uncle Sam doesn’t always extend, or try to extend, to missionaries the same protection that is enjoyed by other citizens living abroad.

(2) Diplomatic and consular accounts, i. e., the salaries paid to these officers, together with all expenses incidental to the service.

(3) Accounts of the Department proper.

(4) Passports. If you wish to secure passports before going abroad, it must be done through the State Department, as they are issued nowhere else in the United States.

The telegraphic correspondence of the State Department, mostly in cipher, is conducted by this bureau.

* * * * *

The Bureau of Rolls and Library has the custody of the laws and treaties of the United States, together with the Revolutionary archives, etc. Its chief business is the “publication of the laws, treaties, proclamations and executive orders, work which must be performed with the utmost attainable promptness, speed and accuracy”, and its busy time is just after the adjournment of Congress. It is this Bureau that is honored with the custody of the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States. It also has charge of the following:

The records and papers of the Continental Congress, The Washington papers, The Madison papers, The Jefferson papers, The Hamilton papers, The Monroe papers, The Franklin papers, The papers of the Quartermaster General’s Department during the Revolutionary period.

* * * * *

The Bureau of Appointments receives applications and recommendations for office. It issues commissions, exequaturs and warrants of extradition—terms to be explained in connection with the consular service.

It also has charge of the Great Seal of the United States, a symbol of authority which has been carefully guarded by one faithful man for nearly fifty-three years.

* * * * *

The Bureau of Statistics, or of Foreign Commerce as it is now called, takes charge of the data gathered all over the world by the consular service. Whatever is of immediate importance is published without delay in the “Advance Sheets” of the Consular Reports, and these are distributed to boards of trade, the press and elsewhere. This prompt distribution of valuable information was begun in January, 1898, and since that time the American system of Consular Reports is freely acknowledged the best in the world.

* * * * *

The Consular Bureau is charged with correspondence with the consular service. The variety of this correspondence cannot be guessed by those unfamiliar with the Consular Reports, but its extent may be inferred from the fact that out of 1,000 officers in this service, perhaps half of them correspond with the Department. In addition to the above, this bureau has much to do by way of interview with consular officers coming and going. Moreover, this bureau has charge of examinations of applicants, and after a candidate is appointed it furnishes the particular instructions for the position in view. This Bureau must keep itself informed as to the personnel of the service, and must even send inspectors to the various consulates and report thereupon. “Recently”, we are told, “the Chief of the Bureau personally visited over one hundred consulates in Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Europe, India, China, and Japan”.

* * * * *

Last and most important of all, politically, is the Diplomatic Bureau. Its dealings are with our own diplomatic officials at foreign capitals, and with foreign diplomats at Washington. It is chiefly concerned, as we are told, with the “examination, consideration and discussion of diplomatic subjects, such as treaties, claims, questions of international law, and policy, etc.”

So this last sentence is the only tantalizing peep we are allowed to have within the sanctuary of the State Department. This Bureau with which the Secretary and his three Assistants are chiefly concerned shares its secrets with very few. The expediency of observing secrecy in international politics was noticed before; but there is another side to the question which most of us see and perhaps some of us talk about, and that is the point in negotiations at which the government may take the public into its confidence.

For the public feels, and has a right to feel, that it has a proprietary interest in public affairs. More than this, it is in an unhealthy state when it doesn’t feel such an interest. The public, at least the enlightened public, knows that secrecy is apt to be troublesome anywhere, especially in government. It knows of many a historic instance of corruption fostered by secrecy, of intrigue, cabal, plot and counterplot, until the whole fabric of the state became vitiated. The public,—that is, the American public,—may have some reason to dread secrecy in local government, for many an alderman wants nothing better than to be let alone, and many a “convention boss” with a few “ring” associates would prefer to “fix the ticket” without any inspection by the public whom he expects in a few days to browbeat into supporting it.

Granting that we haven’t been watchful enough as to local politics, how is it nationally? How about the Department of State—for that alone is the place where secrecy is justifiable?

It was said by an authority on American diplomacy about fifteen years ago that “there is scarcely a country, even Russia or Germany, where so little is known by the public of the negotiations carried on at any one time by the Secretary of State”. What did this indicate? the efficiency of our government as a negotiating machine? Did it indicate an indifference of our people to their welfare? Well, however it may have been at that time, it is certain that there has been a growing and insistent demand during the present decade that negotiations shall be revealed at the earliest possible moment. Public opinion has even been known to dictate foreign policy—nay, more, to reverse it after it had once been determined upon by the State Department, as in the case of the notorious “Queen Lil”. Indeed, this instance in our diplomatic history shows very satisfactorily that no administration can stand or ought to stand against the overwhelming volume of enlightened public opinion raised against an unpopular measure or a distrusted service. The public is bound to know whenever it can, and when it can not it is bound to guess, and its guessing may be more disturbing to foreign negotiations than a knowledge of the facts. Thus, while it may not always be able to determine the course of negotiations, it is always in its power to seriously affect them and ultimately to overthrow them.

But such cases as that of the Hawaiian queen are rare, and the American public fortunately has seldom had reason to apprehend that state affairs were being grossly mismanaged. Perhaps, on the other hand, it has needed at times to be cautioned against over-insistence upon its right to news—a vulgar itching for a sensational stimulant. Perhaps it has needed the reminder that it “had its say”, directly or indirectly, in the choice of officers, and that having chosen them, it should, as a rule, reserve criticism until election time returns; for between an eternal “nagging” of public officials and a profound indifference to public affairs there isn’t much to choose. The New England town-meeting has often been justly commended for cultivating an interest in public affairs; but, on the other hand, it frequently sets up its select-men merely to be targets of abuse. No nation and no community can have, or deserves to have, the best possible government when its officials are subjected to a perpetual cross fire of criticism.

The Secretary of State should have as free a hand as possible in the great game of world politics, for the state being a gigantic business firm, must, like all such firms, keep its business to itself.

It has long been a standing objection to federal governments such as ours that they are “weak in the conduct of foreign affairs”, the imputation being that they are weak because the Secretary of State lacks the initiative afforded by a more centralized government. But, as a matter of fact, the same official in England, France, Italy, or Spain, is more likely to be called upon for the progress of foreign negotiations than in our own country.

But the Constitution does not grant the Secretary, that is to say, the Executive, entire freedom in foreign affairs, for it explicitly states that “_the President shall have power, by and with the consent and advice of the Senate_, to make treaties ... to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,” etc. However, this restraint is not always irksome, and it may sometimes prove salutary. It is always a measure of assurance to the people that the administration will not commit the government to an unwise policy; and more than this, it is an assurance to a power with which we may be dealing that the result of the negotiations is not likely to be repudiated by the people when the chief executive is backed by the legislature.

The Senate entrusts its diplomatic functions, except in the ratification of treaties and the approval of the appointments of ambassadors, to its Committee on Foreign Affairs. This Committee leaves the initiative in diplomacy to the State Department, taking care, nevertheless, to keep track of any negotiations that may be pending. Whenever the Senate wishes to know the progress of negotiations it passes resolutions calling for them, the Chief Clerk of the Department gets them ready, and the Senate then meets in closed session during their consideration. Thus diplomatic business is fairly well guarded and at the same time a reassuring degree of legislative oversight is maintained. To be sure, we hear more or less criticism of Senate control, which in the nature of the case must mean a sacrifice of expediency, yet it remains to be seen whether or not our system is too cumbersome for prompt, prudent and adroit statesmanship when brought into closer rivalry with Europe.