Year: 1872

We have had in this Office for week pass
the original and translation of the pamphlet
in which Mr.. de Catacazy attempts to defend
himself against the imputations cast upon him
by the President Of the United States and the
Secretary of State. We have not regarded
this document as worth the space it would
require, nearly two pages of THE TRIBUNE.
1t is personal matter between Mr.. Catacazy
and the Secretary of State into which the
President was unfortunately dragged, and in
duced to incorporate into one Of his messages
an indecorous and needless reference to an
insignificant scandal. Had it not been for
this, and for the inciviity with which tho
President thought proper to treat the Grand
Duke Alexis by way of marking his displeasure
with the Russian Envoy, the matter would never
have arisen to the hight of an international ques-
ton. And even as it was, it ought never to have
gotten into print. If it had not been that
both Mr.. Catacazy and Mr. Fish were deficient
in some of the higher qualities Of the diplo-
matte character, the subject would never have
become public scandal. In this apology and
in the accompanying correspondence there Is
shown on the one side a rudeness and dis
courtesy, and on the other subservience and
want of dignity which we may safely regard
as unparalleled in diplomatic annals. Mr.. Fish
over and over tells Mr.. Catacazy he does not
believe him, and Mr.. Catacazy continues to
beg for the good Will Of the man who has
put upon him this insuflerable affrOnt. During
all this most unsavOTy controversy, neither
side seemed desirOus to keep it between them
selves. Mr.. Fish and the President published
to the world the whole story, and inspired at
tacks against Catacazy in friendly newspapers
while the Russian PlenipOtentiary, with equal
disregard of propriety, lost no opportunity OF
pleading his own cause in papers hostile TO
the Administration.


1t was reported soon after Mr.. Catacazy's
recall that he had been granted pension on
condition that he should make no publication
of the matters at issue between him and our
Department of State. 1t is easy to conceive
the reason for this prohibition. Whatever
damage might result to the Government of
the United States from Mr.. Catacazy's denun-
Citations would be nothing in comparison with
the reproach which that diplomatist would
bring upon himself and his nation by the con-
fession of the part he played in the discredit-
able drama. For the space Of a year Mr..
Catacazy submitted to a series of sights
and insults at the hands Of the Secretary



credible if he had not himself given
them publicity. He says in rather
pretentious preface, that " this country has
produced few diplomats that they are i'm
"provised from day to day, and enter upon
"the most delicate and difficult Of careers
"without any special preparation. A diplo-
"mat is precisely the most difficult of all things
"to 'improvise'-that is to say, man COM
"pleting the technical knowledge necessary,
"with the tact and suppleness which are
"acquired only by long and laborious, ex-
"periencen This is a thing which diDlo-
matists are fond of saying, but most people
who read Mr. Catacazys pamphlet will be in
clined to think that if thorough diplomatic
education cultivates the qualities therein dis
played it is not an excellence to be desired.
One might rather prefer to go into history
with the record of the imperfect successes
achieved by Franklin and Adams and Clay
than to give up his life to the acquisition of
" the tact and suppleness" displayed by tho
Russian Envoy in this case