Diplomatic Pay and Clothes
VIENNA, January 5--I find in this morning's papers the statement that theGovernment of the United States has paid to the two members of the PeaceCommission entitled to receive money for their services 100,000 dollarseach for their six weeks' work in Paris.I hope that this is true. I will allow myself the satisfaction ofconsidering that it is true, and of treating it as a thing finished andsettled.It is a precedent; and ought to be a welcome one to our country. Aprecedent always has a chance to be valuable (as well as the other way);and its best chance to be valuable (or the other way) is when it takessuch a striking form as to fix a whole nation's attention upon it. If itcome justified out of the discussion which will follow, it will find acareer ready and waiting for it.We realise that the edifice of public justice is built of precedents,from the ground upward; but we do not always realise that all the otherdetails of our civilisation are likewise built of precedents. Thechanges also which they undergo are due to the intrusion of newprecedents, which hold their ground against opposition, and keep theirplace. A precedent may die at birth, or it may live--it is mainly amatter of luck. If it be imitated once, it has a chance; if twice abetter chance; if three times it is reaching a point where account mustbe taken of it; if four, five, or six times, it has probably come tostay--for a whole century, possibly. If a town start a new bow, or a newdance, or a new temperance project, or a new kind of hat, and can get theprecedent adopted in the next town, the career of that precedent isbegun; and it will be unsafe to bet as to where the end of its journey isgoing to be. It may not get this start at all, and may have no career;but, if a crown prince introduce the precedent, it will attract vastattention, and its chances for a career are so great as to amount almostto a certainty.For a long time we have been reaping damage from a couple of disastrousprecedents. One is the precedent of shabby pay to public servantsstanding for the power and dignity of the Republic in foreign lands; theother is a precedent condemning them to exhibit themselves officially inclothes which are not only without grace or dignity, but are a prettyloud and pious rebuke to the vain and frivolous costumes worn by theother officials. To our day an American ambassador's official costumeremains under the reproach of these defects. At a public function in aEuropean court all foreign representatives except ours wear clothes whichin some way distinguish them from the unofficial throng, and mark them asstanding for their countries. But our representative appears in a plainblack swallow-tail, which stands for neither country, nor people. It hasno nationality. It is found in all countries; it is as international asa night-shirt. It has no particular meaning; but our Government tries togive it one; it tries to make it stand for Republican Simplicity, modestyand unpretentiousness. Tries, and without doubt fails, for it is notconceivable that this loud ostentation of simplicity deceives any one.The statue that advertises its modesty with a fig-leaf really brings itsmodesty under suspicion. Worn officially, our nonconforming swallow-tailis a declaration of ungracious independence in the matter of manners, andis uncourteous. It says to all around: 'In Rome we do not choose to doas Rome does; we refuse to respect your tastes and your traditions; wemake no sacrifices to anyone's customs and prejudices; we yield no jot tothe courtesies of life; we prefer our manners, and intrude them here.'That is not the true American spirit, and those clothes misrepresent us.When a foreigner comes among us and trespasses against our customs andour code of manners, we are offended, and justly so; but our Governmentcommands our ambassadors to wear abroad an official dress which is anoffence against foreign manners and customers; and the discredit of itfalls upon the nation.We did not dress our public functionaries in undistinguished raimentbefore Franklin's time; and the change would not have come if he had beenan obscurity. But he was such a colossal figure in the world thatwhatever he did of an unusual nature attracted the world's attention,and became a precedent. In the case of clothes, the next representativeafter him, and the next, had to imitate it. After that, the thing wascustom; and custom is a petrifaction: nothing but dynamite can dislodgeit for a century. We imagine that our queer official costumery wasdeliberately devised to symbolise our Republican Simplicity--a qualitywhich we have never possessed, and are too old to acquire now, if we hadany use for it or any leaning toward it. But it is not so; there wasnothing deliberate about it; it grew naturally and heedlessly out of theprecedent set by Franklin.If it had been an intentional thing, and based upon a principle, it wouldnot have stopped where it did: we should have applied it further.Instead of clothing our admirals and generals, for courts-martial andother public functions, in superb dress uniforms blazing with colour andgold, the Government would put them in swallow-tails and white cravats,and make them look like ambassadors and lackeys. If I am wrong in makingFranklin the father of our curious official clothes, it is no matter--hewill be able to stand it.It is my opinion--and I make no charge for the suggestion--that, wheneverwe appoint an ambassador or a minister, we ought to confer upon him thetemporary rank of admiral or general, and allow him to wear thecorresponding uniform at public functions in foreign countries. I wouldrecommend this for the reason that it is not consonant with the dignityof the United States of America that her representative should appearupon occasions of state in a dress which makes him glaringly conspicuous;and that is what his present undertaker-outfit does when it appears, withits dismal smudge, in the midst of the butterfly splendours of aContinental court. It is a most trying position for a shy man, a modestman, a man accustomed to being like other people. He is the moststriking figure present; there is no hiding from the multitudinous eyes.It would be funny, if it were not such a cruel spectacle, to see thehunted creature in his solemn sables scuffling around in that sea ofvivid colour, like a mislaid Presbyterian in perdition. We are all awarethat our representative's dress should not compel too much attention; foranybody but an Indian chief knows that that is a vulgarity. I am sayingthese things in the interest of our national pride and dignity. Ourrepresentative is the flag. He is the Republic. He is the United Statesof America. And when these embodiments pass by, we do not want themscoffed at; we desire that people shall be obliged to concede that theyare worthily clothed, and politely.Our Government is oddly inconsistent in this matter of official dress.When its representative is a civilian who has not been a solider, itrestricts him to the black swallow-tail and white tie; but if he is acivilian who has been a solider, it allows him to wear the uniform of hisformer rank as an official dress. When General Sickles was minister toSpain, he always wore, when on official duty, the dress uniform of amajor-general. When General Grant visited foreign courts, he wenthandsomely and properly ablaze in the uniform of a full general, and wasintroduced by diplomatic survivals of his own PresidentialAdministration. The latter, by official necessity, went in the meek andlowly swallow-tail--a deliciously sarcastic contrast: the one dressrepresenting the honest and honourable dignity of the nation; the other,the cheap hypocrisy of the Republican Simplicity tradition. In Paris ourpresent representative can perform his official functions reputablyclothed; for he was an officer in the Civil War. In London our lateambassador was similarly situated; for he, also, was an officer in theCivil War. But Mr. Choate must represent the Great Republic--even atofficial breakfasts at seven in the morning--in that same old funnyswallow-tail.Our Government's notions about proprieties of costume are indeed very,very odd--as suggested by that last fact. The swallow-tail is recognisedthe world over as not wearable in the daytime; it is a night-dress, and anight-dress only--a night-shirt is not more so. Yet, when ourrepresentative makes an official visit in the morning, he is obliged byhis Government to go in that night-dress. It makes the very cab-horseslaugh.The truth is, that for awhile during the present century, and up tosomething short of forty years ago, we had a lucid interval, and droppedthe Republican Simplicity sham, and dressed our foreign representativesin a handsome and becoming official costume. This was discardedby-and-by, and the swallow-tail substituted. I believe it is not nowknown which statesman brought about this change; but we all know that,stupid as he was as to diplomatic proprieties in dress, he would not havesent his daughter to a state ball in a corn-shucking costume, nor to acorn-shucking in a state-ball costume, to be harshly criticised as anill-mannered offender against the proprieties of custom in both places.And we know another thing, viz. that he himself would not have woundedthe tastes and feelings of a family of mourners by attending a funeral intheir house in a costume which was an offence against the dignities anddecorum prescribed by tradition and sanctified by custom. Yet that manwas so heedless as not to reflect that all the social customs ofcivilised peoples are entitled to respectful observance, and that no manwith a right spirit of courtesy in him ever has any disposition totransgress these customs.There is still another argument for a rational diplomatic dress--abusiness argument. We are a trading nation; and our representative is abusiness agent. If he is respected, esteemed, and liked where he isstationed, he can exercise an influence which can extend our trade andforward our prosperity. A considerable number of his business activitieshave their field in his social relations; and clothes which do not offendagainst local manners and customers and prejudices are a valuable part ofhis equipment in this matter--would be, if Franklin had died earlier.I have not done with gratis suggestions yet. We made a great deal ofvaluable advance when we instituted the office of ambassador. That loftyrank endows its possessor with several times as much influence,consideration, and effectiveness as the rank of minister bestows. Forthe sake of the country's dignity and for the sake of her advantagecommercially, we should have ambassadors, not ministers, at the greatcourts of the world.But not at present salaries! No; if we are to maintain present salaries,let us make no more ambassadors; and let us unmake those we have alreadymade. The great position, without the means of respectably maintainingit--there could be no wisdom in that. A foreign representative, to bevaluable to his country, must be on good terms with the officials of thecapital and with the rest of the influential folk. He must mingle withthis society; he cannot sit at home--it is not business, it butters nocommercial parsnips. He must attend the dinners, banquets, suppers,balls, receptions, and must return these hospitalities. He should returnas good as he gets, too, for the sake of the dignity of his country, andfor the sake of Business. Have we ever had a minister or an ambassadorwho could do this on his salary? No--not once, from Franklin's time toours. Other countries understand the commercial value of properly liningthe pockets of their representatives; but apparently our Government hasnot learned it. England is the most successful trader of the severaltrading nations; and she takes good care of the watchmen who keep guardin her commercial towers. It has been a long time, now, since we neededto blush for our representatives abroad. It has become custom to sendour fittest. We send men of distinction, cultivation, character--ourablest, our choicest, our best. Then we cripple their efficiency throughthe meagreness of their pay. Here is a list of salaries for English andAmerican ministers and ambassadors:City SalariesAmerican EnglishParis $17,500 $45,000Berlin 17,500 40,000Vienna 12,000 40,000Constantinople 10,000 40,000St. Petersburg 17,500 39,000Rome 12,000 35,000Washington -- 32,500Sir Julian Pauncefote, the English ambassador at Washington, has a veryfine house besides--at no damage to his salary.English ambassadors pay no house rent; they live in palaces owned byEngland. Our representatives pay house-rent out of their salaries. Youcan judge by the above figures what kind of houses the United Statesof America has been used to living in abroad, and what sort ofreturn-entertaining she has done. There is not a salary in our listwhich would properly house the representative receiving it, and, inaddition, pay $3,000 toward his family's bacon and doughnuts--the strangebut economical and customary fare of the American ambassador's household,except on Sundays, when petrified Boston crackers are added.The ambassadors and ministers of foreign nations not only have generoussalaries, but their Governments provide them with money wherewith to paya considerable part of their hospitality bills. I believe our Governmentpays no hospitality bills except those incurred by the navy. Throughthis concession to the navy, that arm is able to do us credit in foreignparts; and certainly that is well and politic. But why the Governmentdoes not think it well and politic that our diplomats should be able todo us like credit abroad is one of those mysterious inconsistencies whichhave been puzzling me ever since I stopped trying to understand baseballand took up statesmanship as a pastime.To return to the matter of house-rent. Good houses, properly furnished,in European capitals, are not to be had at small figures. Consequently,our foreign representatives have been accustomed to live in garrets--sometimes on the roof. Being poor men, it has been the best they coulddo on the salary which the Government has paid them. How could theyadequately return the hospitalities shown them? It was impossible. Itwould have exhausted the salary in three months. Still, it was theirofficial duty to entertain their influentials after some sort of fashion;and they did the best they could with their limited purse. In return forchampagne they furnished lemonade; in return for game they furnished ham;in return for whale they furnished sardines; in return for liquors theyfurnished condensed milk; in return for the battalion of liveried andpowdered flunkeys they furnished the hired girl; in return for the fairywilderness of sumptuous decorations they draped the stove with theAmerican flag; in return for the orchestra they furnished zither andballads by the family; in return for the ball--but they didn't return theball, except in cases where the United States lived on the roof and hadroom.Is this an exaggeration? It can hardly be called that. I saw nearly theequivalent of it, a good many years ago. A minister was trying to createinfluential friends for a project which might be worth ten millions ayear to the agriculturists of the Republic; and our Government hadfurnished him ham and lemonade to persuade the opposition with. Theminister did not succeed. He might not have succeeded if his salary hadbeen what it ought to have been--$50,000 or $60,00 a year--but hischances would have been very greatly improved. And in any case, he andhis dinners and his country would not have been joked about by thehard-hearted and pitied by the compassionate.Any experienced 'drummer' will testify that, when you want to dobusiness, there is no economy in ham and lemonade. The drummer takes hiscountry customer to the theatre, the opera, the circus; dines him, wineshim, entertains him all the day and all the night in luxurious style; andplays upon his human nature in all seductive ways. For he knows, by oldexperience, that this is the best way to get a profitable order out ofhim. He has this reward. All Governments except our own play the samepolicy, with the same end in view; and they, also, have their reward.But ours refuses to do business by business ways, and sticks to ham andlemonade. This is the most expensive diet known to the diplomaticservice of the world.Ours is the only country of first importance that pays its foreignrepresentatives trifling salaries. If we were poor, we could not findgreat fault with these economies, perhaps--at least one could find a sortof plausible excuse for them. But we are not poor; and the excuse fails.As shown above, some of our important diplomatic representatives receive$12,000; others, $17,500. These salaries are all ham and lemonade, andunworthy of the flag. When we have a rich ambassador in London or Paris,he lives as the ambassador of a country like ours ought to live, and itcosts him $100,000 a year to do it. But why should we allow him to paythat out of his private pocket? There is nothing fair about it; and theRepublic is no proper subject for any one's charity. In several casesour salaries of $12,000 should be $50,000; and all of the salaries of$17,500 ought to be $75,000 or $100,000, since we pay no representative'shouse-rent. Our State Department realises the mistake which we aremaking, and would like to rectify it, but it has not the power.When a young girl reaches eighteen she is recognised as being a woman.She adds six inches to her skirt, she unplaits her dangling braids andballs her hair on top of her head, she stops sleeping with her littlesister and has a room to herself, and becomes in many ways a thunderingexpense. But she is in society now; and papa has to stand it. There isno avoiding it. Very well. The Great Republic lengthened her skirtslast year, balled up her hair, and entered the world's society. Thismeans that, if she would prosper and stand fair with society, she mustput aside some of her dearest and darlingest young ways andsuperstitions, and do as society does. Of course, she can decline if shewants to; but this would be unwise. She ought to realise, now that shehas 'come out,' that this is a right and proper time to change a part ofher style. She is in Rome; and it has long been granted that when one isin Rome it is good policy to do as Rome does. To advantage Rome? No--toadvantage herself.If our Government has really paid representatives of ours on the ParisCommission $100,000 apiece for six weeks' work, I feel sure that it isthe best cash investment the nation has made in many years. For it seemsquite impossible that, with that precedent on the books, the Governmentwill be able to find excuses for continuing its diplomatic salaries atthe present mean figure.P.S.--VIENNA, January 10.--I see, by this morning's telegraphic news,that I am not to be the new ambassador here, after all. This--well, Ihardly know what to say. I--well, of course, I do not care anythingabout it; but it is at least a surprise. I have for many months beenusing my influence at Washington to get this diplomatic see expanded intoan ambassadorship, with the idea, of course th--But never mind. Let itgo. It is of no consequence. I say it calmly; for I am calm. But atthe same time--However, the subject has no interest for me, and neverhad. I never really intended to take the place, anyway--I made up mymind to it months and months ago, nearly a year. But now, while I amcalm, I would like to say this--that so long as I shall continue topossess an American's proper pride in the honour and dignity of hiscountry, I will not take any ambassadorship in the gift of the flag at asalary short of $75,000 a year. If I shall be charged with wanting tolive beyond my country's means, I cannot help it. A country which cannotafford ambassador's wages should be ashamed to have ambassadors.Think of a Seventeen-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ambassador!Particularly for America. Why it is the most ludicrous spectacle, themost inconsistent and incongruous spectable, contrivable by even the mostdiseased imagination. It is a billionaire in a paper collar, a king in abreechclout, an archangel in a tin halo. And, for pure sham andhypocrisy, the salary is just the match of the ambassador's officialclothes--that boastful advertisement of a Republican Simplicity whichmanifests itself at home in Fifty-thousand-dollar salaries to insurancepresidents and railway lawyers, and in domestic palaces whose fittingsand furnishings often transcend in costly display and splendour andrichness the fittings and furnishings of the palaces of the sceptredmasters of Europe; and which has invented and exported to the Old Worldthe palace-car, the sleeping-car, the tram-car, the electric trolley, thebest bicycles, the best motor-cars, the steam-heater, the best andsmartest systems of electric calls and telephonic aids to laziness andcomfort, the elevator, the private bath-room (hot and cold water on tap),the palace-hotel, with its multifarious conveniences, comforts, shows,and luxuries, the--oh, the list is interminable! In a word, RepublicanSimplicity found Europe with one shirt on her back, so to speak, as faras real luxuries, conveniences, and the comforts of life go, and hasclothed her to the chin with the latter. We are the lavishest andshowiest and most luxury-loving people on the earth; and at our mastheadwe fly one true and honest symbol, the gaudiest flag the world has everseen. Oh, Republican Simplicity, there are many, many humbugs in theworld, but none to which you need take off your hat!
zpostcode
Recruit
weather
mreligion
Yellowpages
sport
constellation
shopping
name
game
directory
literature
Word
tour
furnish
Lottery
tftnews
lyrics
News
digital
car
dir
Edu
Finance
