The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-11-20
SECRETARY HAYS ADDRESS.
Trend of American DipIomacy-This
Country Not n Bully.

Secretary Hay took the place on the
programme originally assigned to President
Mckinley In opening Mr.. Hay said:
II need not dwell upon the mournful and
tragic event by virture of which L am
here. When the President lay stricken
in Buffalo, though hope beat in our hearts
that his life might be spared for future
usefulness TO his country. is was still rec
ognized as improbable that he should be
able TO keep the engagement he had made
TO be with you tonight and you do me
the honor TO ask me TO come in his place.
This / have sometimes done, in his life
time. though always with diffidence and
dread, but how much more am daunted
by the duty OF appearing before you when
that great man, loved and revered above
all even while living. has put on the august
halo of Immortality. Who could worthily
come into your presence as the shadow
of that iliustrfOus shade?
After an eloquent tribute To the memory
of President Mckinley, Mr.. Hay said: 81
asked me, and he would have wished il,
for he held that our personal feelings
should never be considered when they con-
nicted with a public duty. And if I fall
tmmeasurably below the standard to which
he has accustomed you. the very compar-
fsons you draw will be tribute to his
memory.
~ am asked to say something about our
diplomacy. You want from nothing
but the truth, and yet If l confine myself
TO the truth l cannot nelp feeling that /
shall do my profession a wrong in the
minds of those who have been in the habit
of considering diplomacy an occult science,
as mysterious as alchemy and as dan
gerous 10 the morals as municipal politics.
1t must be admitted that this conception
OF the diplomatic function is not without
q certain historical foundation.
REFORM IN DIPLOMACY
There was a time when diplomacy was
a science of intrigue and falsehood. of traps
and mines and counter-mines, but that
Il
moved onward in diplomacy as in many
other matters. In my experience of diplo-
matte life. which now covers more years
than like 10 look back upon, and the far
greater record of American diplomacy
which L have read and studied, 1 say
without hesitation that We have generally
told squarely what we wanted. announced
early in negotia tiOns what were willing
TO give and allowed the other side TO ac-
cept or reject our terms. During the
time which I have been prominently con-
cerned I'm our foreign relations 1 can also
say that we have been met by representa-
tives of other powers in the same spirit OF
frankness and sincerity.
LAS 10 the measure OF success which our
recent diplomacy has met with, IL is diff
cult II not impossible. for me TO speak.
There are two important lines of human
endeavOr in which men are forbidden even
TO allude TO their success-affairs of the
heart and diplomatic affairs.
But IL we are not permitted to boast OF
what we have done. we can at least say a
word about what we have tried 10 do. and
the principles which have guided our action.
The briefest expression OF our rule OF con-
duct IS, perhaps. the Monroe doctrine and
The golden rule With this simple chart
we can hardly go far wrong.
Il think / may say that our sister re-
publics 10 the south OF US are perfectly
convinced OF the sincerity of our attitude.
They know desire the prosperity OF each
OF them. and peace and harmony among
them We no more want their territory
than We covet the mountains OF the moon.
We grieved and distressed when there
are differences among them. but even then
We should never think OF trying TO compose
any Of those differences unless by the re-
quest OF both parties 10 IL. Not even our
earnest desire for peace among them will
lead Us 10 any action which might offend
their national dignity OF their just sense
OF independence. We would endow them
with all the consideration We claim for
ourselves.
WHAT WE HAVE TRIED TO DO.
AS TO what have tried 10 do-what
are still trying to d0-ln the general