The New York herald., 1879-01-04
Reform OF the Diplomatic Service.

mercial relations, to have with them as
little political connection as possible. -"
He explained this advice by reference to
our detached and distant situation,
which separates us from any real
interest in the political affairs OF
Europe. Jefferson, who had served as an
ambassador and knew by personal observa-
ton the contrast between European insti-
tutions and our own, adopted the sentiment
of Washington on this subject in language
SO pointed and striking that it was taken up
and repeated until it became proverbial:-
'.Peace, commerce and honest friendship
with all nations entangling alliances with
none" In order to maintain commerce we
must have the official facilities of COM
merce-t that is, foreign consuls to attend to
the interests of trade. Other means of
official intercourse do not need to be
constant and habitual, but only occa-
sional. When treaties must be negotiated
it is best done by special ENJOYS composed
of citizens or statesmen of weight OF char
acter and possessing special knowledge of
the subject matter in question. In point
of fact the greater part of our really i'm
portant treaties have been negotiated out
side the regular channels Of diplomatic in
tercourse. Washington, for example, sent
the Chief Justice Of the United States to
England to negotiate the most important
treaty Of his administration Henry Clay
was the most important of the special
ENJOYS sent to negotiate the Treaty
of Ghent Lord Ashburton came to
this country to settle the Northeast
ern boundary by direct communica-
ton with Mr.. Webster, our Secretary of
State; the Alabama Claims Treaty was
formed by a joint high commission The
last two instances show that even England,
which has trained diplomatic service,
recognizes the wisdom of conducting i'm
portant negotiations by special ENJOYS.
Her famous commercial treaty with France
was negotiated by Mr.. Golden and not by
the English Minister to Paris, Golden hav-
ing been selected on account Of his un-
equalled knowledge Of commercial interests.
We desire to see large retrenchment Of
diplomatic expenses, and shall support all
intelligent efforts made in Congress to that
end. This desirable retrenchment will be
best accomplished by suppressing all the
minor missions. We would spare the six
principal ones, but abolish all the others.
Our diplomatic service is, in the main,
hospital for decayed politicians or re-
ward for electioneering activity. Men are
appointed to foreign missions who do not
know the language of the country to which
they are accredited, and have but an i'm
perfect acquaintance with their own who
are ignorant Of the history and policy of
foreign governments who have neither the
accomplishments of scholars nor the man
ners of cultivated society. All the minor
missions would be useless even if they were
filled by competent diplomatists /; but when
we fill these useless places with vulgar poll
ticans, who reflect discredit on the country
they represent, the money which we spend
on them is worse than wasted.
We would curtail the expenses even of the
six chief missions which it may be expe-
dient to maintain. We regard this as the
most promising method of elevating the
character Of the service. The few foreign
missions which it is expedient to retain
should be regarded as high posts of honor,
and the honor should form the chief part
of the compensation. There will always be
citizens of eminence who would willingly
serve their country in the highest missions
for very modest compensation. The same
motives which make Englishmen covet seats
in Parliament and cause them to incur
heavy election expenses for the privilege
of serving without pay the same motives
which impelled our Washington to decline
any compensation beyond the bare reim-
bursement of his expenses, would give us
competent men for our chief missions. if
our diplomatic service could be rescued
from the degradation which has been
brought upon it by making it political hos
pital. We have distinguished men enough
who are willing to fill posts of honor at
pecuniary sacrifice. What Secretary of
State in our time has lived on his modest
salary Of eight thousand dollars? But no
one advocates an increase of compensation
for the head Of the Cabinet or fears that
eminent men will not always be found
to fill post of SO much dignity and
luHueuces AHeio 10 PeiH"po oomo HIS
conception respecting the pecuniary sacri-
flee. Abbott Lawrence spent fifty thousand
dollars in excess of his salary as Minister to
England, and Mr. Fish is said to have ex-
ceedcd his salary as Secretary of State to
an equal amount. But Mr.. Fish as a
private gentleman has always lived in
about the same style in New York that he
did in Washington. His salary was a
slight diminution OF his ordinary expenses,
aud he really sacrificed nothing but his
case. Modest diplomatic salaries would
not exclude eminent men of letters, be-
cause man like Mr.. Longfellow would
be secure of every kind of social attentions,
and would be an honorsd and coveted guest
everywhere, in spite of n simple style of