New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-12-29
MINISTER OR NO MINISTER?
STIR CAUSED IN LONDON BY A WASHINGTON
INTERVIEW.
THEY THINK IN ENGLAND THAT THE STATE DE-
PARTMENT is GOING BACK ON ITS OWN
REPRESENTATIVE, AND THAT THE
UNITED STATES Is BEING TREATED
ID
PRETTY BADLY.
rBY CABLE TO THE TRIsrNE.l


PRETTY BADLY.
lBY CABLE TO THE TRIBuNE.l
Copyright: 1888 By The Netr York Tribune
London, Dec. 2S.-A dispatch from NewYork is
published to-day in London which may have grave
consequences. This dispatch processes TO quote
from Philadelphia Press" interview between a
Washington correspondent and an official of the
State Department In what have to say as
sumo the correctness of the report. 1t raises two
distinct points-frst, the relations between the
State Department and the American Minister to
England: secondly, the relations between England
aud America. This State Department official is
reported saying that Mr. Phelps's suggestions
regarding his withdrawal are the sheercst nom
sense. Such an insult that never before was
flung in the face of an American any other
Minister. To telegraph it here TO be read by the
Nation 10 which that Minister is accredited is one
Of those Outreges propriety which The Daily
News" correspondent has so often committed
But. who is this official? Tie is not named 1t
matters little who he is. He stabs from behind.
What he says is either the opinion of the State
Department, or it is not II it is, Mr. Phelps will
beyond question resign within twenty-four hours
II il is not, it viii have TO be publicly repudiated
and the author of il publicly disavowed pre-
ciseiy the same result must follow. No Minister
can sit down under such an afTront Public
oplilOn ntrt. ABOVE al uplOudtlc oplIoI, WOulu
make it impossible for him to remain. He would
remain on suferance. His position, difficult
enough now, would berome intolerable. Mr.
Phelps is the representative Of his country at the
most Important Court Of Europe. II he is TO be
officially charged with talking nonsense, the only
place for him to talk it in future is clearly at home
not abr,ad
The question whether he has as alleged, made
any Suggestions regarding his withdrawal by the
President may also be asked. That is matter
between aim and the Department But suppose it
should tJnn out that this anonymous official had
invented these suggestions in order to ridicue a
Minister against whom he has personal grievance
Now as % the relations between England and
America, and the question Of Lord Saclville's
successor. This official expressly undertakes to
speak in ths name of the State Department and
announces taat the Department cares not rap
what England may may not do. Does Mr.
Bayard indotse that? Are we to conduct our
diplomatic intercourse like tribe of ChoctawS !?
II is better II be polite, said Prince Bismarck
even in declaring war. Mr. Bayard is not Prince
Bismarck, and are not declaring war; but
polteness in peace ought still to be possible.
Can anybody imagine the English Foreign Office
announcing urb ct orbi that il cares not rap
what America may do? Is this Mr. Bayards
way of expressing his resentment at recent Eng
lish victories in diplomacy and recent English
anger at Lord SaclIville's dismissal? America,
continues our ansnymous official does not send
Ministers 20 foreign courts for the sake Of show,
but mainly TO lock after its business interests
abroad. This is said with reference to the pro
posed recall of Nh Phelps account of Lord
Salisbury's refusal to send Minister to Wash
ington Well. if W. wish to figure before Europe
as a people who care for nothing but business,
and who will pocket any provocation rather than
let business be interrupted, we have only 10 adopt
this official view
But Mr. Bayard must adopt it first. He must
avow or disavow his subordinate Which will
he do? VIII he say he does not for slap
in the face? 1t wouh not incapacitate him for
business VIII he let the flag be insulted? Why
not, if Minister is only here for business? But
people in America says this interviewed official
do not care whether England sends Minister
or not / want better authority than his for
such statement The same thing is said in
other quarters according 10 this same dispatch
We can get on without a British Minister,
cries a third oracle OF course can. But
the point for the people of America is far diff
ferent from this What the President and Sec
retary of State have 10 consider is the meaning
and intention Of Lord Saksbury's act, the reason
why he keeps the British Legation in washington
vacant / repeat, he does il as an act OF retalla-
ton for Lord Sackville's dismissal 1t Is meant
as an offence il Will be deemed all over Europe
a humiliation 70 the United States. 1t IS not
a question of business. but Of dehcacy, OF self
respect of National dignity. Unless Mr. Phelps
is recalled, and recalled at once Europe VIII
say. and Americans will have TO admit, that their
Government cares nothing for the National aug
nifty and is devoid of self-respect u W. ..