the other state, and not a duty to the people at home. Without secrecy during negotiations states would never consent to begin them. "Open covenants openly arrived at" is a phrase the limitations of which have been shown during the recent Peace Conference. Publicity of treaties is a matter altogether desirable, but publicity of negotiations can be only partially achieved. Even though all documents were immediately published, the verbal exchanges in conference remain secret until disclosed piecemeal by the participants, or in compilations of state papers long after the event. The publications of the foreign offices of all states, including our own, hold in abeyance many documents and exchanges of correspondence until long after the period of negotiations. The last volume of United States Foreign Relations, issued in 1919, contains no material later than 1912, and only a selection of documents is printed. The Senate of the United States recognizes the necessity of secrecy every time it goes into executive session for the consideration of foreign affairs; and when it calls on the Department of State for copies of correspondence it qualifies the request with the clause "if not incompatible with public interest."

All of the above emphasizes the necessity of appointing to diplomatic posts only men of the highest character and ability. Such men would, however, not accept these posts if some popular descriptions of diplomats were accurate. "How diplomats make war" is a catchy but misleading phrase. This is to place on representatives the whole burden of state policy, which as has been shown rests on the executive, the legislature, and the people for whom they are the mouthpieces.

The classic example of war made by diplomacy is the episode just prior to the Franco-Prussian war. Bismarck, authorized to make public a telegram sent to him from Ems by William I of Prussia, so condensed it without changing any words as to give it, as Moltke remarked, "a different ring." "It sounded before," said he, "like a parley; now it is like a flourish in answer to a challenge." The revised telegram, which contained the statement that William "had nothing further to communicate to the Ambassador" (Benedetti) concerning Prince Hohenzollern's renunciation of his claim to the

Spanish throne, had the effect, as Bismarck said it would, "of a red rag upon the Gallic bull," and war between France and Prussia was declared on July 19, 1870. The falsifying of dispatches is no longer considered an act of statesmanship. Intrigue, trickery, false-swearing, are not characteristic of the world that has come out of the European war, and are therefore not functions of diplomatic agents. The witticism of Sir Henry Wotton, often quoted to show the evil influence of foreign representatives, should now be recalled only to deny its modern application. The story is told by Satow." When Wotton was on his way to Italy to serve as British ambassador, he stayed for some days at Augsburg, Germany; and was requested by John Christopher Fleckammer to write in his album. Wotton wrote the following: "Legatus est vir bonus peregre missus ad mentiendum Reipublica causa," which he intended to mean: “An ambassador is an honest man, sent to lie abroad for the good of his country." It was a play on words not to be taken too seriously, and it did not come to public notice until eight years later when Jasper Scioppius printed it as a principle of religion professed by King James and Wotton his ambassador who was then at Venice. There it was placarded in the windows. When King James heard of it he called Wotton to account and the latter wrote an apology "so ingenious, so clear, and so choicely eloquent," says Isaak Walton, "that his Majesty (who was a pure judge of it) could not forbear, at the receit thereof, to declare publickly, that Sir Henry Wotton had commuted sufficiently for a greater offence." The spirit of the times was, however, not much misrepresented by the witticism. Walton confirms this by another incident of Wotton. He was asked by a friend about to enter the foreign service for advice as to his conduct. He replied "that, to be in safety himself, and serviceable to his country he should always, and upon all occasions, speak the truth . . . for you shall never be believed; and by this means, your truth will secure yourself, if you shall ever be called to any account; and 'twill also put your Adversaries (who will still hunt counter) to a loss in all their disquisitions and under1Bismarck; The Man and the Statesman, 2: 87-103. "Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 1: 168-170.

takings." The function of the ambassador was, in those days of poor communications, quite as much to collect and to send home information as to conduct negotiations. The office was surrounded by an atmosphere of distrust, of finesse, and of etiquette which did not make for confidence; but this defect was not inherent in diplomacy. It was a reflection from the state of political society. The men who were chosen were fairly representative of their times. Diplomacy had not become a profession, and so they were drawn. from all classes of educated men-lawyers, churchmen, soldiers, as well as men who had been in the civil service of the state. According to Bernard, French missions usually included, besides a layman of high rank, a bishop and a lawyer. In England, many men who had taken Holy Orders and were learned in the canon and civil law entered the service of the state, sometimes serving abroad, and thus obtained preferment to the highest ecclesiastical honors. The attachés of missions were often chosen from young men of rank who desired to see the world and fit themselves for employment at home. They remained only for short periods and usually had no qualifications for their posts.

Gradually the need of special training became apparent, until today, in Europe at least, diplomacy is a profession offering a career of great dignity. In the United States, this is not yet the case, foreign agents often being appointed without previous experience abroad. Appointments are often dictated by political considerations, and the salaries are so small that only wealthy men can afford to accept them. Nevertheless, a list of American ambassadors could be compiled which would do credit to any state. Along with the many advantages of training and experience which professional diplomats possess, comes the disadvantage of being for long periods out of personal touch with conditions at home. To this aloofness have been attributed many of the evils of diplomacy. The American method meets this defect by the selection of men from all walks of life who have come to notice because of notable achievements either in politics, the professions, in business, or in literature. The professional element in American diplomacy is found in the subordi'Lectures on Diplomacy, p. 139.

nate offices, whose incumbents now enter the service while young men, and acquire experience in many capitals. To an increasing extent they are being advanced to the major positions. The selection of diplomats for particular posts does not, however, lie wholly in the discretion of the appointing state. Every state has the right of refusing to accept a particular agent on grounds which are summarized by the words persona non grata. The objection may be as to his personal character, or as to his record. For instance, in 1891, China refused to accept as United States Minister former Senator Henry W. Blair because of opinions concerning China expressed by Him in the Senate.

To-day diplomacy is on a higher plane than it was when Wotton wrote or when Bismarck falsified the Ems dispatch. German diplomacy at the outset of the war was as wholly out of tune with modern feeling and practice as were their methods of making war. With the creation of the League of Nations a further advance is to be expected. If the nations involved are sincere in their declarations a new era for diplomacy has come. Diplomatic agents will be as much needed under the League as heretofore; and their opportunities for coöperation will be greater. Neither the League Assembly nor the Council will be permanently in session, and the Secretariat has no diplomatic functions. The great bulk of the agreements made at meetings of the League will have to be consummated through diplomatic means.

"Diplomacy," says Satow,1 "is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states, extending sometimes also to their relations with vassal states." According to another definition, diplomacy is the art and science of international business. It is not confined to negotiations, however, but includes the conduct of much routine international business in the intercourse of states. A diplomat, according to Littré, is so called because diplomas are official documents emanating from princes, and the word diploma comes from the Greek word meaning "to double", from the way in which they were folded. The word was not used in English until the year 1645. 'Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 1: 1.

Until the Congress of Vienna, no uniformity in titles or in gradation of rank of diplomatic agents existed. The system now generally agreed upon was adopted by that Congress on March 19, 1815, and supplemented by the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1818. There are now four classes:1

(1) Ambassadors, who are the personal representatives of the Heads of State, and are accredited to them. They are supposed to have the privilege of negotiating directly with the sovereign, and they therefore outrank all other agents. The first-class agents of the Holy See are called Papal Nuncios or Legates. The Pope sends agents only to states acknowledging his spiritual supremacy.

(2) Ministers Plenipotentiary and Envoys Extraordinary, and Papal Internuncios, who differ from the first class only in that they are not accredited to the Heads of State personally, and therefore do not enjoy all the special honors of ambassadors.

(3) Ministers Resident enjoy fewer honors than either of the foregoing classes. Their duties are identical, but they are usually sent by the greater to the lesser powers.

(4) Chargés d'Affaires, who are accredited from one chief of foreign office to another, and not to the state or to the Head of State. They rank lowest in diplomatic honors.

A diplomatic mission may include both an official and an unofficial suite. The latter may consist of the families of the diplomatic agents, with private chaplain, physician, secretaries, and servants. The official suite may consist of a counsel, secretaries, military and naval attachés, interpreters, clerks and accountants, couriers, a chaplain, and a physician.

Although consuls should not be confused with diplomatic agents, they should here be included among agencies for international coöperation. Their office is more ancient than that of envoys, and they were formerly intrusted with diplomatic functions. Even to-day, consuls are sometimes sent on diplomatic missions. They deal largely with commercial matters, and they also hold consular courts in states where extra-territorial rights are granted. They represent not so much the state as the interests of the citizens of the state which sends them. Their duties cover all classes of trade, 1Wilson and Tucker: International Law, p. 162-166.