It will be seen that the main reason set forth against the acceptance of Mr.
Keiley by the Imperial Royal Government is the alleged fact of objection to
him by Italy, when he was recently appointed United States minister to that
court, the character of the objection being specially dwelt upon as keenly
affecting the susceptibilities of King Humbert.
The New Free Press article states, in terms less guarded, however, as
respects carefulness of speech, substantially the utterances of Count
Kalnoky made to me on the 23d of June, and I presume there can be no doubt
that the almost simultaneous expression of the Vienna press on the subject
had its inspiration largely at the foreign office.
[Inclosure in No.
106.—Translation.]
From the Vienna New Free Press, Saturday, June
27, 1885.
The most amicable relations exist between Austria-Hungary and the United
States of America, and great effort has always been made in Vienna and
in Washington to foster them. The greater must be, therefore, the
surprise that Mr. Keiley, the newly [Page 31] appointed envoy of the Union, who is already on his
way to his new post of duty, is not accepted by Austria-Hungary. The
facts in the case, however, are such that no fears need be entertained
that this refusal of Mr. Keiley will disturb the good feeling between
Austria-Hungary and the United States. Mr. Keiley once made a most
violent speech at a Catholic meeting at Richmond, Va., denouncing King
Victor Emmanuel, and calling the liberator of Italy and the, creator of
its unity the most insulting names. When Mr. Keiley was appointed
minister to Italy the Quirinal, pointing to his hostile remarks on
Victor Emmanuel, refused to receive him. Mr. Keiley was then appointed
minister to Austria, probably without knowledge on the part of the
President that his candidate had, by his speech, rendered it impossible
for him to be employed in a diplomatic mission to any European state.
Mr. Keiley has not been viewed as a proper representative at Vienna,
firstly, because due respect for the Italian court demands that a man
should be refused who had sullied the memory of the father of the
reigning king of Italy; and, secondly, because Mr. Keiley’s behavior
gives rise to suspicion that he is not a proper person to render good
service in the maintenance of friendly relations between Austria-Hungary
and the United States.
All this would not have occurred if in the diplomatic intercourse of the
United States with European Governments the same rule was applied as
with the latter among themselves, whereby the court to which a minister
is to be sent is first asked whether the appointee is agreeable. But the
Union, on account of the delay to which the correspondence is subject,
has not considered it practicable to adopt this custom, and has not even
adopted it to-day, when the cable, whose absence made the reason
plausible informer times, has removed this objection. Thus it happened
that Mr. Keiley could be appointed, and steps for redress were possible
only after the appointment had been made. These steps were taken, the
Austrian Government through the envoy at Vienna, Hon. John M. Francis,
and the Vienna court through the envoy at Washington, confidentially
informing the United States Government that Mr. Keiley could not be
accepted as diplomatic representative of the North American Union, since
he had so gravely offended the Italian dynasty, and had been refused by
the court of Rome.
Irrespective of all personal considerations, the affair has political
significance of high interest respecting our relations toward Italy. The
ground alleged for the refusal to receive Mr. Keiley is the
consideration due to Italy. Although various symptoms during the past
few years gave rise to the thought that the relations between Vienna and
Rome were slightly disturbed, an assumption made plausible by the fact
that the visit of King Humbert to Vienna had not been returned by the
Emperor Francis Joseph, and that the foreign policy of Mr. Mancini
pointed to an estrangement with Germany and Austria-Hungary, the refusal
to receive Mr. Keiley contradicts all this in a manner whose clearness
leaves nothing to be desired. Not only is a proof of friendship given to
the Italian Government by refusing the lawyer from Virginia to exercise
the functions of envoy at Vienna, but it is also an act of personal and
delicate courtesy which the Emperor Francis Joseph renders to King
Humbert, who must necessarily be indignant that the memory of his father
had been sullied most grossly by Mr. Keiley; and it cannot escape the
King’s notice that the non-approval is due to a regard for these
feelings. Although assurances have occasionally been received from Rome
that the tie which binds Italy to the alliance with Germany and
Austria-Hungary is as firm as ever, yet the approaches made towards
England, the taking of Gladstone’s part in the Egyptian question, and
the East African expedition, seem to confirm the opinion of those who
look upon these manifestations of the foreign policy of Italy as signs
of an approaching rupture with Germany and Austria-Hungary for the sake
of an English alliance. The episode with Mr. Keiley shows that at Vienna
no opportunity is allowed to pass without indicating to Italy every
possible regard, and public opinion of Italy cannot remain blind to this
fact. That the memory of Victor Emmanuel, the liberator of Italy, should
be honored outside of Italy must be gratefully felt by her, and King
Humbert cannot fail to be touched to see that the Vienna court is
reluctant to allow unfavorable criticism of his father by those who are
appointed to represent foreign states here. There would have been no
occasion at Vienna to commence such a delicate diplomatic discussion
with the friendly North American Union, if the fact had been apparent
that Italy was indifferent as to being on good terms with
Austria-Hungary, or if there had been an intention to treat these
relations more coolly. This Keiley case is a barometer which shows that
the desire and inclination exist between Vienna and Rome to leave
nothing un done to strengthen the friendship between the two courts.
On reflection the Cabinet at Washington will find that the reasons which
actuated the Austro-Hungarian Government to refuse Mr. Keiley are such
as to forbid any other course. The conviction that Austria-Hungary has
the sincere desire of remaining on the most friendly terms with the
great transatlantic Republic need not be reiterated at the White House;
the amicable relations between the two countries are traditional. A
personal matter will scarcely change them, the more so as in the present
instance no ill-will towards the United States Government and its
interests has [Page 32] dictated the
course adopted by the Vienna cabinet. The diplomatic custom at
Washington caused the episode of publicity which would otherwise have
been avoided. To remove it from discussion as soon as possible will
surely be the mutual aim of Washington and Vienna. Mr. Keiley, who has
to bear the consequences of his thoughtless manifestation, will find in
the great western Republic another sphere for his talents if it chooses
to profit by them. But to the Vienna cabinet it will not deny the
freedom to accept those foreign representatives only who have not
prejudiced their capability to foster with care and tact the amicable
relations between Austria-Hungary and the United States. The good terms
we sustain with the Union will not suffer by preserving at the same time
our friendship with Italy.
