Duke in his visits to the President, the latter would hold no conversation with him (the minister). After the Grand Duke had left Washington, Mr. Catacazy wrote Mr. Fish that the Emperor had granted him a leave of absence, and that as soon as the Grand Duke had concluded his journeyings in the United States, he, the minister, would take advantage of his leave. Mr. Fish replied that such was not the agreement as to the manner in which his mission was to be terminated, and that, in view of "the continued and recurring acts of interference and impropriety on his part," his passports would be transmitted to him at an early day. The Grand Duke, however, soon thereafter took his departure, and Catacazy was allowed to leave the country without the intimated expulsion.1 The reader will recall the repeated instances I have narrated of public scandal occasioned by the misconduct of the diplomatic representatives of foreign governments accredited to this country. This misconduct has embraced flagrant violations of international law and practice, intermeddling with domestic politics, and official and social improprieties of various kinds. If the case of Lord Sackville West, for intermeddling in the presidential campaign of 1888 is included, there is a list of foreign diplomats dismissed by our government or recalled in disgrace, embracing three British ministers, one French, one Spanish, and one Russian minister. Much is said in disparagement of the American 1 For official correspondence, S. Ex. Doc. 5, 42d Cong. 2d Sess. 3 H. Ex. Doc. 150, 50th Cong. 2d Sess. diplomatic representatives abroad, and it is not to be disguised that under our system of appointments some unfit and uncultured persons have been found in the service, who have reflected little credit on the country; but in the past century of history under review no such record of dishonor can be compiled against American representatives as that made at the seat of government of the United States by the representatives of the most polished nations of the old world. Reference has already been made to the attitude assumed by Mr. Webster in 1842 and by succeeding secretaries of state, respecting the control of the Hawaiian Islands by any European power. The position assumed was in effect a virtual protectorate on the part of the United States. While Mr. Marcy was secretary, an effort was made to bring about the annexation of the islands to the United States, but the movement was frustrated by the death of the king of the islands. Secretary Fish, in discussing annexation, said it was clear that we could not consent to the transfer of the islands to any powerful maritime or commercial nation. "Such transfer," he said, "would threaten a military surveillance in the Pacific, similar to that which Bermuda has afforded in the Atlantic. The latter has been submitted to from necessity, inasmuch as it was congenital with our government, but we desire no additional similar outposts in the hands of those who may at some future time use them to our disadvantage." 1 1 Soon after the Civil War a commercial reciprocity treaty with Hawaii was advocated, one of the strongest 1 1 Wharton's Int. Dig. 423. motives for its celebration being a desire to bind these islands more strongly to our country. In 1875 such a treaty was negotiated by Secretary Fish, and it was renewed and continued in existence until the final consumation of annexation in 1898. Another step in the extension of American influence into the Pacific Ocean was taken in 1872, when Commander Meade of the United States navy negotiated with the chief of Tutuila, one of the Samoan group, a commercial agreement, with provision for the use of the port of Pago-Pago as a naval station. This agreement took the shape of a formal treaty in 1878, and that brought about the tripartite government by the United States, Great Britain, and Germany of the whole of the Samoan group. From the latter we were happily released in 1899, and continue only in possession of Tutuila, with its commodious harbor and naval station at PagoPago. Mr. Fish, while not a man of exceptional talent, was one of the most useful secretaries who ever administered the affairs of the Department of State. He possessed a well-trained mind, was methodical, painstaking, and industrious, actuated by a high sense of honor and a conscientious devotion to the duties of his office, conservative but thoroughly American in his decision of questions, and prompt in the dispatch of business. He was possessed of an independent fortune, was a refined and courtly gentleman, and dispensed the hospitalities of his position with such good taste as to earn the encomiums of both the diplomatic corps and his own countrymen. This review of our diplomatic history has now reached the memory of the younger generation of today, and may properly be brought to a close, as the events following this period cease to be history, and are, in a certain sense, a part of the current affairs of the day. The century, since 1776, has been active in moulding the code of international law, and this review has shown what an important part of that work has been wrought by the nation which had its birth in that year. The chief actors in the work done by the United States of America have been the secretaries of state and its diplomatic representatives abroad. It has been seen that our foreign relations have been usually in the hands of the ablest men whom our country has produced. But they have had worthy coadjutors in giving shape and permanence to this international code. The exposition of the law of nations, as set forth in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, has had a great influence in moulding that law, and its opinions are recognized as of the highest authority by foreign publicists. Among authors in this department of law none carry greater weight throughout the world than Story, Kent, Wheaton, Halleck, Woolsey, Wharton, and other American writers. When we recall the services of these diplomatic, judicial, and scholastic representatives of the United States, it is no vain boast to say that no body of men in any country have exercised a more salutary influence on the affairs of the globe, or done as much to improve and enlarge the principles of international law. CHAPTER XII THE MONROE DOCTRINE THE Monroe Doctrine, popularly so-called, is univer sally recognized by Americans as a wise policy for our government; but when an attempt is made either to accurately define it or put it in practice, it usually gives rise to discussion and to wide divergence of views on the part of political writers and public men. I can hardly flatter myself that what I shall write on the subject will have any effect in bringing about a consensus of opinion, but as it is embraced in the topics which we are considering, I shall attempt to pass in review the origin of the doctrine and the history of its application or practice, in the hope that I may throw some light on this much debated and important ques tion. Three declarations are cited in the history of our country, which are devoid of the character or authority of public law, either national or international, and yet which have exercised the most potent influence on our destiny as a nation, and have mightily controlled the conduct of many other nations of the earth. I refer to the Declaration of Independence, the portion of Washington's Farewell Address respecting our foreign relations, and the Monroe Doctrine. All of these may |