Omaha daily bee., 1899-04-02
4 SCHOOL or DIPLOMACY.

ne euldIElng scope OF American Ill
plomacy and the certainty that in the
| future the diplomatic service of the
United States is to have greater de-
mands made upon it than hitherto, nat
urally suggests the question whether we
should not follow the example of Euro
pean countries in training men for
diplomatic duties. \ writer in one of
the magazines urges the establishing Of
a national school of diplomacy, under
the auspices of the government. He
correctly observes that in the past the
diplomatic service has been left too
much in the control of politicians and
spoilsmen. Henceforth the foreign
policy OF the United States will be closer
and more technically watched by other
nations than it has ever been in the
past, "and the surest and best way"
says this writer, Ito obtain competent
men to represent this natior abroad as
ambassadors, ministers and consuls, is
10 give them a diplomatic education.
This can be gained only in an institu-
tion founded expressly for the purpose"
He points out that the diplomats of
Europe are prepared for their careers
as practical school for young English
men who are ambitious to pursue the
diplomatic profession. They begin at
the lowest rung of the ladder as unpaid
attaches; later on they receive small
salaries and are shifted from one post
to another, so that by the time they are
finally promoted to an ambassadorship
they have gone through every grade Of
the service and are thoroughly equipped
in languages, customs and court usages
of various countries, and especially with
information concerning those countries
that often proves of inestimable value
to them in their position as ministers
plenipotentiary.
Undoubtedly there is much to be said
in favor of school of diplomacy and
possibly in the course of time such a
school will be established, with the
countenance, if not under the control,
of the government. But it cannot he
said that as yet the United States has
experienced any necessity for such an
institution. 1t is unquestionable that
men have been appointed to the diplo-
matte service who were totally untitled
for it and such men have brought more
CT less discredit to the government
They were merely politicians, who per-
formed their duties perfunctorily
knowing that their tenure Of office
would continue only during the term OF
the administration which appointed
them. Such diplomatic representatives
are admittedly a reproach to the coun-
try. But they have not been very
numerous in our history and they did
no very serious harm. Very few such
have been accredited to the more I'M
portant countries. With rare eXcep
tions the diplomatic representatives of
the United States to the principal Euro.
pean nations have been men of ability,
dignity and high character who per-
formed their duties with credit to them.
selves and honor to their country, com
manding the respect of the govern
ments to which they were accredited.
We think of but one representative to
the British court in the last fifty years
of whom this cannot be said, while our
representatives at the other principal
courts of Europe have been without eX-
ception capable and worthy. The am
bassadors and ministers of other nations
may be better trained in the arts and
usages of diplomacy than are those Of
the United States, but no country today
has in its diplomatic service men of
greater ability or higher character than
the men who are representing this gov
ernment at European courts.