While the United States has adopted the European system of a diplomatic and consular service, in one important particular the general practice of other nations has not been followed. The service is not made a life career, and no examination or previous experience is required for admission to the posts of minister or am bassador. Appointments are made of persons usually from civil life, and without any pre vious diplomatic experience. The two sys tems have their advantages. It does not necessarily follow that because a young man can pass a successful examination he is destined to make an able minister or ambassador. The British and other gov ernments have frequently found it necessary to appoint to the highest posts in the diplomatic service persons from other branches of the administration or from civil life. On the other hand, the system followed by the United States exposes the government to mistakes and some times to mortification and ridicule because of the inexperience or inaptness of its representa tives. But appointments to the higher posts are generally who have served and gained distinction in legislative bodies or in the professions, and although not experienced in the arts of diplomacy, they are usually able to cope with their colleagues on all subjects where great principles are involved. There is a grow ing sentiment, however, in the country in favor of at least placing the appointments as secre taries of legation and to the consular service upon a permanent basis. Under rules estab lished by executive order no person is now admitted to the places of secretary of lega tion or in the consular service without first successfully passing a civil service examination, and promotions from the lower to the higher grades Are based upon merit. This action has tended to give stability to these branches of the service.
Up to recent years the highest grade in the diplomatic service of the United States his been that of minister plenipotentiary, but these rep resentatives sometimes complained that they were often humiliated and their usefulness sometimes impaired by the lower positions to which they were assigned in the diplomatic corps. The remedy suggested was to raise the rank to that of ambassador. Secretary Marcy declined to make the recommendation to Con gress in 1856. A similar position was taken by Secretary Frelinghuysen in 1884, who said it would he an injustice to the ministers to give them higher rank without increasing their sal aries, and that Congress would not vote the allowance commensurate with the mode of life of an ambassador. Later Secretary Bayard claimed that serious inconveniences would arise from introducing ((into our simple social democ racy . . . an extraordinarily foreign privileged class." Notwithstanding these objections, in 1893 Congress authorized the appointments of am bassadors to countries whose governments would reciprocate in such grade, and ambassa dors are now sent by the United States to London, Paris, Berlin, Petrograd, Vienna, Rome and Mexico.• Soon after the reception of ambassadors in Washington the question was raised whether they should have precedence over the Vice-President, but it has been decided against them. The ((inconveniences" anticipated by Secretary Bayard have been experienced on more than one occasion, but the innovation seems to be permanently established.
The fiction of international law that ambas sadors represent the person of their sovereign in a greater degree than ministers was created at an epoch when there was a recognized dis tinction between empires and monarchies, and between these two grades and republics. All
distinction between sovereign nations has been abolished and they now stand on an equality, but the ambassadorial pre-eminence is still rec ognized, even in the American democracies.
The diplomatic dress or uniform of an American representative, although an apparently trivial matter, has occasioned considerable dis cussion and a varied action on the part of the government. In the early years of its history the diplomatic representative was left without any instruction upon the subject, but when the commissioners to negotiate peace with Great Britain in 1814 went to Europe a simple uni form was adopted, and by a circular of the Department of State in 1817 this uniform was prescribed for the diplomatic representatives at foreign courts. This order continued in force, with some modification during the administra tion of President Jackson, up to the advent of Secretary Marcy, who prided himself on his republican simplicity. In 1853 he issued a circular which became famous in diplomatic annals, in which the representatives of the United States were advised to appear on public occasions "in the simple dress of an American citizen" unless such costume was objected to by the court to which the representative was accredited. The circular was much criticized, but its spirit was practically approved by Con gress in the passage of an act in 1867 prohibiting officials in the diplomatic service from wearing any uniform or official costume not previously authorized by Congress. As by law only officers who have served in the army or navy are authorited to wear a uniform in the diplomatic service, the great body of the corps come under this prohibition.
From the time of Dr. Franklin, the first minister to France, American diplomatic repre sentatives have sought to be distinguished by entire frankness and straightforward conduct. This is indicated in the instruction to John Jay when he was sent abroad on an important mis sion by President Washington. The Secretary of State wrote: °It is the President's wish that the characteristics of an American minister should be marked on the one hand by a firmness against improper compliances, and on the other by sincerity, candor, and prudence, and by a horror of finesse and chicanery' Much is said in disparagement of the Amer ican diplomatic representatives abroad, and it is not to be disguised that under the system of appointments some unfit and uncultured persons have been found in the service who have reflected little credit on the country. But their discreditable acts have been outdone by the misconduct of the representatives of foreign governments accredited to Washington. This misconduct has embraced flagrant violations of international law and practice, intermeddling with domestic politics, and official and social improprieties of various kinds. Within the first century after the organization of the govern ment, a list •was created of foreign diplomats dismissed by the government of the United States, or recalled in disgrace, which embraces three British ministers, two French, two Span ish, one Russian and one Austrian minister. 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.