the execution of the king, the rapid succession of Republican governments, and the bloody reign of terror. No minister could have so conducted himself as to be persona grata to all these rapidly succeeding governments, but Mr. Morris was especially unfortunate and far from circumspect in his conduct. He had warm sympathy for Louis XVI and allowed his feelings to lead him into a plot for the king's escape; he counselled with the Monarchists and did not conceal his disgust at the bloody excesses of the Republicans, by whom he was regarded as hostile. Finally, in 1794, when Washington was forced to ask for the recall of the intemperate French minister, Gênet, the French Directory requested the recall of Morris, and he was forced to leave France." 1 "The practice of some retired American ministers of making a public vindication of their conduct in cases where they have differed from their government is to be reprehended. So much abuse has grown out of the practice that the department in its 'Printed Instructions' has forbidden retiring diplomatic officers from retaining any draughts or copies of official correspondence. A minister should trust to time and the official publication of the correspondence for his vindication. It has been well said that a diplomatist who necessarily assumes confidential relations to his government is not at liberty to dissolve that confidential connection for his own vindication. The interests of the country have suffered more from the exposure than the character of the minister could possibly have done from his silence."2 101. Agents of the State Without Diplomatic or Consular Character. Besides diplomatic and consular officers, it may and does happen that states send to other countries agents of various character. They may be political agents, public or secret, or commissioners to obtain information or to enter into negotiations independently of the duly accredited diplomatic 1 Foster's "Practice of Diplomacy," p. 179. agent of the state. They may be sent to peoples in a state of insurgency or revolution or to the authorities of a de facto government in a state which has not been recognized as such. A public political agent of this class may be sent to another duly recognized state or government for purposes of special negotiations. As they are not invested with a diplomatic character, they are given a commission for the special purpose or a letter of recommendation but no letters of credence. For this reason they are often designated as commissioners. They are not often given or requested to be given the full diplomatic privileges of diplomatic agents, but they are entitled, nevertheless, as public agents, to the protection of the state, and as a matter of comity or courtesy it would not be improper for the receiving state to grant them full privileges. A sufficient inviolability of person and residence and of papers should be granted them so as to enable them to execute their office. Secret political agents, of course, will not be in this category. In the history of the United States such agents have been used upon a number of occasions. Probably the first case on record was the appointment by President Washington of Mr. Gouverneur Morris as a “private agent" to London, in 1789, before either country was represented in the other by a minister. As he was directed to converse with the ministers of the British Government as to certain matters concerning the relations between the two countries, his status approached that of a political or diplomatic agent. In 1849 Mr. A. Dudley Mann was appointed by President Taylor as a special and confidential agent to Hungary, then in a state of insurrection against Austria, in order to determine the question of recognition of its independence. The United States had at the time a diplomatic representative at Vienna. In 1852 Commodore M. C. Perry, U. S. N., was appointed by the President to conclude a treaty with Japan. In 1861 Archbishop Hughes and Bishop McIlvaine were sent to Europe by the secretary of state with the approval of President Lincoln as confidential agents in relation to questions growing out of the Civil War. In 1893 Mr. James H. Blount was appointed a special commissioner to the Hawaiian Islands with paramount authority, a letter of credence, etc., there being a minister to the islands at the time. In 1900 Mr. W. W. Rockhill was appointed commissioner to China with diplomatic privileges and immunities, owing to the state of affairs and isolation of the legations at Peking during the Boxer War. An unusual mission in our history occurred in 1902, as follows: "The United States Commission in the Philippines having recommended, as a means of allaying certain native discontents of long standing, the purchase by the government of the lands of the religious orders in the islands, it was deemed essential definitely to ascertain the attitude of the Vatican on the subject. To that end it was decided to send to Rome Governor Taft, the head of the Philippine Commission, who was then in Washington. His commission, which was dated May 9, 1902, was a letter of instructions, addressed to 'Hon. William H. Taft, Civil Governor of the Philippines,' and signed by 'Elihu Root, Secretary of War.' After adverting to the apparent impossibility of arranging a purchase directly with the friars, it authorized Governor Taft to ascertain what 'church authorities' had the power to negotiate for and determine upon a sale of the lands; and if he should find, as the information at hand indicated, that 'the officers of the church . at Rome' possessed such power, he was to endeavor to reach at least a basis of negotiation along lines which would be satisfactory to them and to the Philippine Government. Certain rules were laid down for his guidance, and it was expressly declared that his errand would 'not be in any sense or degree diplomatic in its nature,' but would be 'purely a business matter of negotiation' by him 'as governor of the Philippines for the purchase of property from the owners thereof and the settle ment of land titles in such manner as to contribute to the best interests of the people of the islands.' In conclusion he was assured of any assistance which he might desire to enable him to perform his duties in a manner satisfactory to himself; and he called to his aid Judge James S. Smith, then a member of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, and Major Porter of the judge advocate's bureau in the United States army. "Governor Taft bore with him a friendly letter from President Roosevelt to the Pope, asking him to accept a set of the President's works, and an American bishop of the Catholic Church arranged for an audience. Governor Taft was duly received by his Holiness, and he then entered into communication with Cardinal Rampolla, papal secretary of state, Major Porter acting as his bearer of despatches. Each step in the correspondence was duly reported to the secretary of war, who gave fresh instructions as they were needed. The negotiations at Rome were concluded late in July, 1902, with the understanding that the Holy See would send, as afterward was done, an apostolic delegate to Manila to treat with the local government." The case of the appointment of the Hon. John Lind as a commissioner or agent to observe upon and report as to the affairs of Mexico is an instance of a mission of this kind in recent times. The question of such appointments and their validity without confirmation by the Senate has been discussed in the Senate several times, but on the whole the precedents are that the President has the right to make such appointments espe-. cially for the negotiation of treaties. Members of arbitration and other conferences are also appointed and employed by the President without reference to the Senate. 1 Moore's "Digest," vol. IV, pp. 447, etc. TOPICS AND REFERENCES 1. Position and Immunities of the Head of a State in a General and Diplomatic Sense Phillimore, 3d ed., vol. II, 133-153. Hall, 6th ed., 169, 170, 291. 2. Diplomatic Intercourse Between States- Bernard, "Lectures on Diplomacy," 1868. Foster, "Practice of Moore's "Digest," vol. IV, chap. XV, sec. 620, etc. Schuyler's 3. The Appointment and Reception of Embassies and Diplomatic AgentsHalleck, 4th ed., vol. I, 290-2; 385-390. Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. I, 446-456. Hannis Taylor, 324–334. 4. Rank and Classification of Diplomatic Officials— Moore's "Digest," vol. IV, 430-1. Oppenheim, vol. I, 2d ed., 4436. Twiss, vol. I, secs. 204-9. 5. The Duties of Diplomatic Envoys Foster's "Practice of Diplomacy," chaps. V and VI. Hershey's "Essentials," 277. Moore's "Digest," vol. IV, 553, 565, 570, 572-4, 583, 615, 618-622, 680-726. 6. Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents Foster's "Practice of Diplomacy," chap. VIII. Phillimore, 3d ed., vol. II, 186–193, 199-218. Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. I, 457–472. 7. Right of Asylum Hall, 6th ed., pp. 178-182. Right of Asylum," 1906. 307. Sibley and Elias, "The Alien Act and 8. Agents of the State Without Diplomatic or Consular Character— Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. I, 508-512. Moore's "Digest," vol. IV, 447-458. Foster's "Practice of Diplomacy," 197-204. |