The failure to respect this obligation has led to the recall or censure of American diplomatic officers; and neglect in this regard has led to the dismissal or recall of ministers accredited to the United States. If legislative or other action proposed by the State of his sojourn is deemed to be hostile to the rights of his own country, objections on the part of the minister should be confined to appropriate representations to the Secretary of State or Minister for Foreign Affairs.3

A minister may be in fact instructed by his government to participate to a degree in political affairs; and American diplomatic officers have at times been the recipients of instructions in such a sense. In such a situation the impropriety, if any, of the course of action which the minister obediently pursues is to be attributed to his government rather than to himself.5 The cir

1 Case of Mr. Schuyler, Moore, Dig., IV, 573–574, and documents there cited.

Rev. Stat. § 1751 prohibits an American diplomatic or consular officer, without the consent of the Secretary of State previously obtained, from recommending any person, at home or abroad, for any employment of trust or profit under the government of the country in which the officer is located. Also Instructions to the Diplomatic Officers of the United States, § 70, and in this connection the Case of the American Minister to Bolivia in 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 54-56.

Request for Recall, Dismissal, supra, § 424.

'Secretary of State as Organ of Correspondence, supra, § 410.

In a communication to Mr. Beaupré, American Minister to Colombia, June 2, 1903, regarding the ratification by Colombia of a convention in relation to the Panama Canal, Mr. Hay, Secy. of State, declared in part: "You should, when the time seems opportune, in so far as you discreetly and properly may, exert your influence in favor of ratification. It is also expected that you will know what hostile influences, if any, are at work against the ratification of the treaty, and whether or not there is opposition to it from European sources. The situation is seemingly a grave one, but the Department has confidence that you will rise to the full measure of its requirements." For. Rel. 1903, 146. Also Same to Same, telegram, June 9, 1903, id., 146.

"That a government will resent attacks made upon its minister on account of his faithful execution of his instructions, see Mr. Hay, Secy. of State, to Señor Blanco, March 23, 1901, MS. Notes to Venezuelan Legation, II, 53." Moore, Dig., IV, 536.

The abrupt dismissal of Mr. Russell, American Minister at Caracas, by a note of the Venezuelan Minister for Foreign Affairs, Jan. 28, 1877, was resented by Mr. Evarts, Secy. of State, inasmuch as such action was without explanation and not preceded by any request for the recall of the Minister. Mr. Evarts announced to the Venezuelan Minister at Washington that unless a satisfactory explanation were forthcoming, "the dignity of this Government will require that your relations with it shall also terminate, and your passports will be sent to you accordingly.' The note of dismissal was withdrawn and cancelled. Later Mr. Russell being advised through official channels that he was persona non grata at Caracas, resigned. It was the substance of an official despatch from Mr. Russell to the Secretary of State, later communicated to the House of Representatives in response to a resolution, and duly printed, that gave offense to the Venezuelan Government. The publication of matter necessary for Mr. Russell to communicate to the Department of State, and yet which if known at Caracas was calculated to render the writer thereafter unacceptable, rather than any impropriety of

NON-INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS.

SPEECHES [§ 452

cumstance, however, that his action is the faithful execution of a specific instruction rather than a personal indiscretion neither authorized nor sought to be condoned, may be carefully concealed; and if it is, the minister bears the brunt of the charge of wrongdoing.

Public utterances by its own ministers have oftentimes been a source of embarrassment to the United States. Hence its present instructions wisely prohibit public addresses by American diplomatic officers save on exceptional festive occasions in the country of official residence. Upon such occasions any reference to political issues pending in the United States or elsewhere is to be carefully avoided by the speaker.1 Public expressions of opinion upon local political or other questions arising within the State of sojourn are expressly enjoined.2

The statutory law of the United States forbids a diplomatic (as well as consular) officer to correspond in regard to the public affairs of any foreign government with any private person, newspaper or other periodical, or otherwise than with the proper officers of the United States.3

The same law forbids American diplomatic officers from asking or accepting from any foreign government, for themselves or other persons, any present, emolument, pecuniary favor, office or title of any kind. Consequently the previous authority of Congress conduct on his part, served to end his usefulness as a diplomatic representative in Venezuela. Documents in Moore, Dig., IV, 535-537, and statement based thereon.

1 Instructions to Diplomatic Officers of the United States (1897), § 69. See speeches of Mr. Bayard, Ambassador to Great Britain, in 1895, which resulted in a resolution of censure by the House of Representatives the following year. For. Rel. 1895, I, 581, Moore, Dig., IV, 575.

2 Instructions to the Diplomatic Officers of the United States (1897), § 68. Act of June 17, 1874, Chap. 294, 18 Stat. 77, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1918, § 3199.

Id.; also Instructions to Diplomatic Officers of the United States (1897), § 70. See the requirements of the Constitution, contained in Art. I, Section 9, paragraph 8, to the effect that "No person holding any office of profit or trust" under the United States, "shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state."

See Act of July 9, 1918, Chap. 143, 40 Stat. 845, 872, permitting all members of the military forces of the United States serving in the then existing war to accept within a specified period, from the government of any of the countries engaged in war with any country with which the United States was or should be concurrently likewise engaged in war, such decorations, when tendered, as were conferred by such government upon the members of its own military forces.

Also Act of March 4, 1919, Chap. 123, 40 Stat. 1325, 1326, permitting specified persons formerly connected with the American embassy at Berlin, to accept pieces of plate presented to them by the British Government in recognition of services rendered by the embassy while in charge of British interests in Germany.

is necessary in order to enable such an officer to accept any presents, orders or other testimonials in acknowledgment of services rendered to a foreign State or its nationals.1

§ 453. Marriages.

(3)

The laws of the United States do not confer on diplomatic officers any power to celebrate marriages, to act as official witnesses at the ceremony of marriage, or to grant certificates of marriage.2 It is not unusual for Americans abroad to ask permission to have a marriage ceremony performed in the embassy or legation and in the presence of their diplomatic representative. While there is no reason generally why such a request should be denied, the Department of State declares that the parties making the application should be informed that in its opinion, the ceremony of marriage, performed within the precincts of the legation, should, with certain limitations, comply with the requirements of the laws of the country within which the legation is situated.3 Upon application for the use of a legation for such a purpose, it is made the duty of the American diplomatic representative to inquire whether the parties may lawfully marry according to the laws of the country in which the legation is situated; and whether the proper steps

1 Instructions to the Diplomatic Officers of the United States (1897), § 71; For. Rel. 1907, II, 1016-1018, concerning decorations conferred on American citizens prior to their receiving appointments in the diplomatic service; also For. Rel. 1909, 541.

ENGAGING IN BUSINESS: PRACTICE OF LAW. According to § 7, Chap. 23, Act of Feb. 5, 1915, 38 Stat. 807, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1918, § 3130d: “No ambassador, minister, minister resident, diplomatic agent, or secretary in the Diplomatic Service of any grade or class shall, while he holds his office, be interested in or transact any business as a merchant, factor, broker, or other trader, or as an agent for any such person to, from, or within the country or countries to which he or the chief of his mission, as the case may be, is accredited, either in his own name or in the name or through the agency of any other person, nor shall he, in such country or countries, practice as a lawyer for compensation or be interested in the fees or compensation of any lawyer so practicing."

2 The language of the text is that contained in Instructions to American Diplomatic Officers (1897), § 177, Moore, Dig., II, 514. See, also, documents in Moore, Dig., II, 506–514; also Mr. Knox, Secy. of State, to Mr. Ide, Minister to Spain, Feb. 24, 1910, For. Rel. 1910, 855; Consuls, Miscellaneous Duties, infra, § 488.

3 Instructions to American Diplomatic Officers (1897), § 182, Moore, Dig., II, 514.

The Department of State has found it necessary, however, to instruct American diplomatic and consular officers in China to refrain from permitting the use of their offices for the performance of marriage ceremonies unless satisfied that they are bona fide, and not employed as a cloak or means to foster a nefarious traffic. See instructions to the American Diplomatic and Consular Representatives in China, June 16, 1905.

MARRIAGES

[§ 453 have been taken to enable the marriage ceremony to be legally performed according to such laws. If either of such inquiries is answered in the negative, and the case does not fall within one of the exceptions stated in the Instructions (to American Diplomatic Officers, section 179), it is said to be the duty of the diplomatic representative to inform the applicant that the former cannot permit the ceremony to be performed at the legation, as there may be grave doubts respecting its validity.1

American diplomatic as well as consular officers are deemed to be incompetent to certify as to the legal requisites of marriage in the United States, because no such power is conferred upon them either by the laws of the United States or by international law. Although such an officer may possess private knowledge respecting the laws of marriage, he is not authorized to certify them upon that knowledge; for it is not a question of individual knowledge, but of official competency.2

1 Instructions to Diplomatic Officers of the United States (1897), § 183, Moore, Dig., II, 514. Also Mr. Uhl, Acting Secy. of State, to Mr. Baker, Minister to Nicaragua, Feb. 24, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 447, Moore, Dig., II, 513.

For. Rel. 1907, I, 519–526, and id., 1908, 360–365, concerning the marriage of American citizens in Germany and on German territory.

2 The language in the text is substantially that of Mr. Olney, Secy. of State, to Mr. Runyon, American Ambassador to Germany, Dec. 9, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, I, 538, Moore, Dig., II, 535. See, also, Mr. Bayard, Secy. of State, Circular to Diplomatic and Consular officers, Feb. 8, 1887, to which was appended the following order: "It is not competent, without the special authority of this Department, for diplomatic agents, consuls, or consular agents, to certify officially as to the status of persons domiciled in the United States and proposing to be married abroad, or as to the law in the United States, or in any part thereof, relating to the solemnization of marriages." For. Rel. 1887, 1133, Moore, Dig., II, 526, 527.

TITLE E

OFFICIAL NEGOTIATIONS

1

§ 454. The Diplomatic Channel.

In negotiations between States, official correspondence should doubtless be confined on both sides to the diplomatic channel.1 In 1815, Secretary Monroe declared that the Department of State can receive no communication from subjects of another country on international matters, except through the minister of such country. Conversely, it has been announced that "no officer, civil, military, or naval, can properly carry on an official correspondence with a foreign government, except through the Department of State, or its diplomatic representative at the seat of such government." 3

While the Department of State has declared that "all usage and precedent make it entirely competent and proper" for a government to present a diplomatic claim against another, either through the ambassador thereof or through the ambassador of the former at the capital of the latter, at least one European State has announced that as a matter of principle and according to prevailing practice, it "receives complaints or suggestions from friendly governments only when they are presented by the diplomatic representatives of such governments accredited to it." 4

1 See The Secretary of State as Organ of Correspondence, supra, § 410, with special reference to occasions when the President of the United States holds direct communication with the heads of foreign States or with the ambassadors thereof. Also Ambassadorial Privileges, infra, § 459; Communications through Non-Governmental Channels, supra, § 409.

2 The language of the text is that contained in Moore, Dig., IV, 693, citing Mr. Monroe, Secy. of State, to Admiral Cochrane, April 5, 1815, MS. Notes to Foreign Legations, II, 80.

3 Communication of Mr. Fish, Secy. of State, to Mr. Wines, Jan. 25, 1872, 92 MS. Dom. Let. 299, Moore, Dig., IV, 691. Also Mr. Olney, Secy. of State, to the Secy. of the Navy, Jan. 2, 1896, respecting certain letters from Admiral Selfridge, U. S. N., to local Turkish officials, For. Rel. 1895, II, 1440, Moore, Dig., IV, 620; Mr. Hill, Act. Secy. of State, to Mr. Finch, Minister to Uruguay, No. 180, Jan. 7, 1901, MS. Inst. Uruguay, II, 71, Moore, Dig., IV, 622.

Mr. Olney, Secy. of State, to Baron von Thielmann, German Ambassador, Oct. 7, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, I, 480, 481; Baron von Thielmann to Mr. Olney, Oct. 14, 1895, id., I, 486, Moore, Dig., IV, 692–693.