not exist until permanent legations had become a general institution. In this as in other cases, the office has created the class of men necessary for it."1 The right of legation, as a general rule, extends only to full sovereign states. Other states, such as part-sovereign states and uncivilized peoples, possess the right in a conditional way alone. No state is obliged to send diplomatic agents, although practically all states do send them where the intercourse justifies it. It is, of course, impossible for any state to receive diplomatic agents from two claimants to the headship of the same foreign state. On account of the growth and rapidity of communication between nations caused by railways and steamships, by telephone and telegraph, it has been argued that the use of diplomatic agents has greatly diminished in value, or in minor countries entirely passed away. But, on the other hand, it can be said that this rapidity of communication creates a greater interchange of persons between countries and a greater interweaving of interests, of trade, and of all matters that are capable of transit. As a former secretary of state has well said: "One reason why the value and importance of the diplomatic service are not readily recognized is because its work is carried on quietly and usually without the knowledge of the public. It is almost always the handmaid of peace and good-will. Very many more international controversies are settled by the unobtrusive or secret methods of diplomacy than by either arbitration or war." The existence of war between two countries does not excuse a state from receiving an embassy from the other belligerent. Such embassy would be for negotiation but not for other than temporary residence. In the relations with the navy there is independence on both sides in both the diplomatic and naval services. Any 1 Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. I, p. 439. joint action carries with it separate responsibility on the part of each official to the head of his department. The regulations of the navy covering this subject are given in full under the head of consuls, to whom such matters equally apply. 95. The Appointment and Reception of Embassies or Diplomatic Agents. States which have the right to send embassies or diplomatic agents have the right to receive them. Although a state may have the right to receive and to send an embassy, there is no obligation to send or to receive an embassy without regard to circumstances. If an embassy should have a mischievous purpose or an especially objectionable ambassador or diplomatic agent, that particular embassy can be refused entry into a territory of a state or a reception at its capital or court. The reasons for such refusal or, rather, a reason for such refusal should be given, and arbitrary action without reason is regarded as improper. Most countries decline to receive their own subjects or citizens as diplomatic agents. The term persona non grata is generally applied to those whose reception is refused, which expression can be defined as meaning a person who is not acceptable on political or personal grounds. The laws of the United States forbid the appointment of any one other than a citizen of the United States to the diplomatic service. Generally it is a rule with the State Department that no citizen of the United States shall be received as a diplomatic representative of a foreign government. This rule was, however, suspended in the case of Mr. Burlingame, who was the head of a diplomatic delegation from China, and in the case of Mr. Camacho, a native of Venezuela but a naturalized citizen of the United States, who was received as a minister from Venezuela in 1880. No state is bound to receive a papal legate or nuncio, especially if his instructions, or the general canon law, give him powers injurious to an established church, or one of another faith, or to the sovereignty of the state over all causes ecclesiastical as well as civil. The Protestant states have never received a permanent legation from the popes, even when the latter were heads of a state, and they still observe this rule, although one of them, Germany, keeps a permanent legation at the Holy See. Italy refused, in 1885, to receive Mr. Keiley as minister from the United States of America because he had, as an individual, in 1871, protested against the annexation of the Papal States by Italy. The sex of the diplomatic agent is not essentially objectionable, as women have at times acted in the capacity of ambassadors or diplomatic agents. The league of Cambrai, in 1508, was signed by Margaret of Austria in the name of her brother, Charles V. In the same place, Louisa of Savoy, mother of Francis, signed a peace sometimes called Les Traités des Dames. The fact of the ambassador not being a native of the state which sent him would not alone afford a reasonable cause for refusal. In 1871 Count Beust, who had been a subject of the King of Saxony and very recently prime minister of that country, was received by Great Britain as ambassador from Austria. In order to prevent unpleasant incidents arising from rejection of a diplomatic agent by the state to which he is accredited, it is customary to make confidential inquiries as to his acceptability to the government of the country. This practice is usually known as that of l'agréation. Another case as to rejection by a foreign country of an appointed minister was that of the Honorable H. W. Blair, who after a long and successful career in the United States Senate was appointed and confirmed as minister to China. The Chinese Government refused to accept him on the ground that he had voted for the Chinese exclusion act. As China persisted in holding that his assuming the position of minister at Peking "might be detrimental to the intercourse of the two nations," Mr. Blair finally resigned his commission before he had sailed from the United States. If a diplomatic agent is obliged to pass through a third country on the way to his post, he is accorded as a matter of comity the immunities of an envoy while in transit. In case of war in the country through which he is passing, or for other circumstances, this privilege of free and unrestricted transit may be limited. The case of Mr. Soulé, American minister to Spain in 1854, illustrates a case of restriction. Mr. Soulé was born in France but became a naturalized citizen of Louisiana; after his arrival in Spain he took affront at the conduct of the French ambassador and two duels resulted in which Mr. Soulé and his son were engaged. Afterward, when en route from England to Spain, he was detained in France at Calais. Upon complaint, the French Government stated that the government recognized the privilege of the envoy to traverse French territory, but that Mr. Soulé's antecedents awakened the attention of the authorities, and that in the interests of public order if he went direct to Madrid the route by France was open to him, but that a stay in Paris would not be allowed. Mr. Soulé returned to England and reached Spain by another route and the incident was thus closed. Mr. Foster states that this affair "simply afforded Louis Napoleon the opportunity and gratification of manifesting his hostility toward an intemperate diplomatist."1 "In case a state does not object to the reception of a person as diplomatic envoy accredited to itself, his actual reception takes place as soon as he has arrived at the place of his designation. But the mode of reception differs according to the class to which the envoy belongs. If he be one of the first, second, or third class, it is the duty of the head of the state to receive him solemnly in a so-called public audience with all the usual ceremonies. For that purpose the envoy sends a copy of his credentials to the foreign office, which arranges a special audience with the head of the state for the envoy when he delivers Foster, "The Practice of Diplomacy," pp. 53-54. in person his sealed credentials. If the envoy be a chargé d'affaires only, he is received in audience by the secretary of foreign affairs, to whom he hands his credentials. Through the formal reception the envoy becomes officially recognized and can officially commence to exercise his functions. But such of his privileges as exterritoriality and the like, which concern the safety and inviolability of his person, must be granted even before his official reception, as his character as diplomatic envoy is considered to date not from the time of his official reception but from the time when his credentials were handed to him on leaving his home state, his passports furnishing sufficient proof of his diplomatic character."2 96. Rank and Classification of Diplomatic Officials.—“For the sake of convenience and uniformity in determining the relative rank and precedence of diplomatic representatives, the Department of State has adopted and prescribed the seven rules of the congress of Vienna found in the protocol of the session of March 9, 1815, and the supplementary or eighth rule of the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle of November 21, 1818. They are as follows: "In order to prevent the inconveniences which have frequently occurred, and which might again arise, from claims of precedence among different diplomatic agents, the plenipotentiaries of the powers who signed the treaty of Paris have agreed on the following articles, and they think it their duty to invite the plenipotentiaries of other crowned heads to adopt the same regulations: "Article I. Diplomatic agents are divided into three classes: that of ambassadors, legates, or nuncios; that of envoys, ministers, or other persons accredited to sovereigns; that of chargés d'affaires accredited to ministers for foreign affairs. "Article II. Ambassadors, legates, or nuncios only have the representative character. 1 Twiss, I, sec. 215, and Rivier, I, p. 467. |