The sun., 1893-03-26
Why Ambassadors7

Why Ambassadors7
II seems that Sir JULIAN PAUNoEFoTR
has been raised from the rank OF Minister
Plenipotentiary to that OF Ambassador. and
IL is reported that President CLEvELASD,
in recognition Of tho change. will send an
Ambassador to London. It IL further al
legged that our Chief Magistrate is author
lied to take this step by clause In che
Diplomatic and Consular bill passed on
a.Narch 1. 1898. as follows:
.whsnsvsr the President shsl Be advised inst any
esssga Government 10 reprsssntsd 10 about to be
ssSrsssntsd in the United States by an Ambsssador
kavoy Extraordinary. Minister fieniposnsiary. xnis
~ nssadsnt Special Bnvoy. Charge dAdares he 10
sthorised In his discretion to direct that the repre-
ssatativs Of the United States to such Government
sAAb the designation This provision shall In
- wise afscs the dutiss powers or salary OF such rep
osssusastva"
Now Congress might refuse to appropriate
money for the pay OF Ambassadors. but it
has not the power either to authorize or for
bid the President to appoint them. The Con-
i'stitution Of the United States expressly en-
powers the Executive to appoint "Ambas-
ysadors" as well as other diplomatic and
Soorsuiar officers. The power was OCCASION
sally exercised in the earlier years OF the
II Federal Government: but since the advent
NOT democratic simplicity In JEFFERsoN's
su Administration. our Presidents. rejecting
sin this respect the feeling OF the people.
> have considered that the interests OF re-
: public would be most appropriately served
Sby a Minister Plenipotentiary.
: We do not, indeed, agree with those who
:, hold that there Is something historically
\ and essentially incongruous in the repre-
sentation OF republic by an Ambassador.
1910 . hat ,Eoa-
sador represents the person OF a sovereign.
: and that. where there Is no sovereign. an
Ambassador is necessarily out OF place. But
1.-THE truth is that the Dutch States General,
!, even while the Stadtholderate was in abey-
.ance. commissioned Ambassadors. and 1t
, was undoubtedly this precedent which
i caused the insertion in our Constitution OF
.fths clause to which we have referred. In
:: our own day We observe that NJ. CARNoT.
: the President Of the French republic. is rep
resented ut many courts by Ambassadors.
though he is much less a sovereign than
is tho President of the United States. be-
cause his Cabinet Ministers are practically
selected for him and removed by the popu-
lar branch Of the legislature.
But. while Mr.. CLEvELAND's appointment
of Ambassadors can be justified by our Con-
sitution and by precedents furnished by
other republics. it Is not warranted by the
practice Of preceding American Admins
trations during the present century. There
is nothing in the pretext that Ministers
Pienipotentiary Of the United States have
been compelled to yield precedence in OIL
ciA business to the representatives OF
smaller countries holding higher titular
rank. Does any one imagine that the Brit
ish Foreign Office would. at the close Of the
nineteenth century. delay the transaction
OF business with such q country as the
United States. in order to listen to . whin-
ing e1postulation from Portugal. merely
because that petty power chooses to be rep
resented by an Ambassador What the
people who put forward this prete1t really
mean is that our Ministers have to go in to
dinner after Ambassadors. and that the fact
Is wounding to their vanity.
1t was by Ministers that we were repre-
scented at the court OF st. James's and tho
: court Of the Tuileries throughout the civil
war. when the existence OF the Union
hinged on our ability to avert an intcrven-
{, tion OF France and England on behalf Of the
Southern Confederacy. II Ministers were
good enough to transact that business. what
show Of reason is there for supersedlng
them by Ambassadors at this time?