366 DIPLOMACY 



" diplomatic agent," but no uniformity of action is observed. France, 

 for instance, accredits an ambassador to Switzerland, but ministers 

 plenipotentiary are sent by the other neighboring powers Ger-r 

 many, Austria, and Italy. On the other hand, France accredits 

 only a minister plenipotentiary to its neighbor, Belgium. Another 

 illustration of irregularity or inconsistency is found in the diplomatic 

 body to the independent government of Morocco. There are minis- 

 ters plenipotentiary from Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, 

 and Spain, ministers resident from Austria and Russia, charges 

 d'affaires from Denmark, and the United States is represented by 

 a consul-general, who acts in a diplomatic capacity, but in grade 

 stands below all other powers. 



Each government determines for itself the grade of representative 

 it will send to other countries, but the government to which the 

 representative is sent claims and exercises the right of receiving or 

 rejecting such person because of grade. But reciprocity of grade is 

 not always observed. A representative of a lower grade is some- 

 times received from a country to which one of a higher grade is sent. 

 The irregularity of rank is likely at any time to create diplomatic 

 embarrassments, as it already has in more than one instance. We 

 have seen that the reception at Washington of an ambassador from 

 Mexico was resented by the ambassadors of the European powers. 

 As one of them remarked to me, they did not regard Mexico as suffi- 

 cient in population and importance to exercise the right of ambassa- 

 dorial appointment. Suppose China, embracing more than one 

 fourth of the population of the earth, older by thousands of years 

 than the oldest of the so-called great powers of Europe, and possessing 

 a high grade of civilization and intellectual attainments, should 

 accredit ambassadors to those powers upon what reasonable 

 ground could they be rejected? And yet should they have an inti- 

 mation that such was the intention of that ancient empire, it is 

 more than probable that its foreign office would receive such repre- 

 sentations as would lead it to desist from its intention. 



The most serious embarrassment resulting from this difference 

 in grade of diplomatic representation is furnished by the relations 

 at present existing between the United States and Turkey. For a 

 number of years past these relations have been in a most unsatis- 

 factory condition. In no country of the Western world could the 

 old fiction of the ambassador as the personal representative of the 

 sovereign to-day approach so nearly a reality as in Turkey, as the 

 Sultan is more fully than any other monarch the personal ruler of 

 the state. All the great powers of Europe, and even the Shah of 

 Persia, are represented at Constantinople by ambassadors, and they 

 exercise the right of access to the Sultan at will to discuss official 

 matters. The American ministers plenipotentiary have represented 



