Bureau of American Republics, while those going to other parts of the world are placed in touch with those persons in Washington who are thoroughly conversant with conditions in their respective districts. Each officer also spends a few days before leaving the United States in the customhouse at the port of departure, taking up there customs matters, undervaluations, invoicing, and kindred subjects.

It will be seen by this that every effort is now being made to give consular officers as thorough a training as possible in the limited time available before they proceed to their posts. Although this training has been in force but a comparatively short time it is showing its good effect by the improvement in the work and reports of the consular officers, and by the attitude of appreciation and understanding of their duties which the consuls display as a result of the instructions. It is the first time that anything of the kind has been attempted, and is a great step forward and one which can not but work for more uniformity of method and an improved Consular Service.

AMERICAN DIPLOMACY1

BY JOHN HAY

AM asked to say something about our diplomacy. You want from me nothing but the truth; and yet, if I confine myself to the truth, I cannot help fearing I 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 dangerous to the morals as municipal politics. It must be admitted that this conception of the diplomatic function is not without a certain historical foundation.

There was a time when diplomacy was a science of intrigue and falsehood, of traps and mines and countermines. The word "machiavelic" has become an adjective in our common speech, signifying fraudulent craft and guile; but Machiavel was as honest a man as his time justified or required. The King of Spain wrote to the King of France after the massacre of St. Bartholomew congratulating him upon the splendid dissimulation with which that stroke of policy had been accomplished. In the last generation it was thought a remarkable advance in straightforward diplomacy when Prince Bismarck recognized the advantage of telling the truth, even at the risk of misleading his adversary. It may be another instance of that half credulity with which I have often been charged by European critics when I say that I really believe the world has moved onward in diplomacy

1 From "The American Idea," by permission of Dodd, Mead & Company. Copyright, 1902.

as in many other matters. In my experience of diplomatic life, which now covers more years than I like to look back upon, and in the far greater record of American diplomacy which I have read and studied, I can say without hesitation that we have generally told squarely what we wanted, announced early in negotiation what we were willing to give, and allowed the other side to accept or reject our terms. During the time in which I have been prominently concerned in our foreign relations, I can also say that we have been met by the representatives of other powers in the same spirit of frankness and sincerity. Men of large affairs will bear me out in saying there is nothing like straightforwardness to beget its like.

The comparative simplicity of our diplomatic methods would be a matter of necessity if it were not of choice. Secret treaties, reserved clauses, private understandings are impossible to us. No treaty has any validity until ratified by the Senate; many require the action of both Houses of Congress to be carried into effect. They must, therefore, be in harmony with public opinion. The Executive could not change this system even if he should ever desire to. It must be accepted, with all its difficulties and all its advantages; and it has been approved by the experience of a hundred years.

As to the measure of success which our recent diplomacy has met with, it is difficult, if 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. In doing so, one not only commits a vulgarity which transcends all question of taste, but makes all future success impossible. For this reason, the diplomatic representatives of the Government must fre

quently suffer in silence the most outrageous imputations upon their patriotism, their intelligence, and their common honesty. To justify themselves before the public, they would sometimes have to place in jeopardy the interests of the nation. They must constantly adopt for themselves the motto of the French revolutionist: "Let my name wither, rather than my country be injured."

But if we are not permitted to boast of what we have done, we can at least say a word about what we have tried to do, and the principles which have guided our actions. The briefest expression of our rule of conduct is, perhaps, the Monroe Doctrine and the Golden Rule. With this simple chart we can hardly go far wrong.

I think I may say that our sister republics to the south of us are perfectly convinced of the sincerity of our attitude. They know we 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 are 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 request of both parties to it. Not even our earnest desire for peace among them will lead us to any action which might offend their national dignity or their just sense of independence. We owe them all the consideration which we claim for ourselves. To critics in various climates who have other views of our purposes we can only wish fuller information and more quiet consciences.

As to what we have tried to do what we are still trying to do in the general field of diplomacy, there is no reason for doubt on the one hand or reticence on the other. President McKinley in his messages made the

subject perfectly clear. We have striven, on the lines laid down by Washington, to cultivate friendly relations with all powers, but not to take part in the formation of groups or combinations among them. A position of complete independence is not incompatible with relations involving not friendship alone but concurrent action as well in important emergencies.

We have kept always in view the fact that we are preeminently a peace-loving people; that our normal activities are in the direction of trade and commerce; that the vast development of our industries imperatively demands that we shall not only retain and confirm our hold on our present markets, but seek constantly, by all honorable means, to extend our commercial interests in every practicable direction. For this reason we have negotiated the treaties of reciprocity which now await the action of the Senate; all of them conceived in the traditional American spirit of protection to our own industries, and yet mutually advantageous to ourselves and our neighbors. In the same spirit we have sought, successfully, to induce all the great powers to unite in a recognition of the general principle of equality of commercial access and opportunity in the markets of the Orient. We believe that " a fair field and no favor" is all we require; and with less than that we can not be satisfied. If we accept the assurances we have received as honest and genuine, as I certainly do, that equality will not be denied us; and the result may safely be left to American genius and energy.

We consider our interests in the Pacific Ocean as great now as those of any other power, and destined to indefinite development. We have opened our doors to the people of Hawaii; we have accepted the responsibility of the Philippines which Providence imposed upon us; we