Mr. Loomis to Mr. Conger.
Washington, April 13, 1903.
Sir: Your dispatch, No. 1219, of the 21st of February, inclosing correspondence with Consul Fowler at Chefoo, relative to the right of consular officers (being resident merchants or professional men) to take a part in the deliberations of the regular consular body has been received.
The Department approves the view you express to Mr. Fowler that [Page 84] the regular consular officers at Chefoo can not properly exclude consuls engaged in other occupations from full participation in the consular functions.
The conditions reported by Mr. Fowler are doubtless unfortunate and constitute a strong argument against the policy of appointing unsalaried officers engaged in trade or professions. All governments, however, appoint such officers as their commercial agents, and while these appointments may be at times the subject of abuse, the matter can not be remedied except by a general agreement among the powers. The Department does not see that the question of the compensation and rights granted to them by their governments can properly put them outside the pale of the consular body. Such officer, being appointed by a foreign government, duly commissioned and granted exequatur by the government to which he is accredited, can not be refused recognition by the consular body, nor has the consular body any jurisdiction over the conditions under which he acts.
An appointing government might very justly resent any such attempt to deny him the rights and privileges which pertain to his office. The United States Government might feel it its right to protest in such case.
Neither is it perceived that the question of the visible commercial interest which one country may have in another has any bearing upon the standing of the consul. If a foreign government desires to establish a consulate, that is a matter entirely with that government and the government in which the consulate is to be established. Consulates are not infrequently established with a view to future commercial relations and interests.
It would therefore seem that the attitude which Mr. Fowler and his colleagues representing the great commercial powers would wish to assume toward those consuls engaged in trade or professions and representing powers with minor interests is at variance with the accepted principles of international representation. It may be recalled that the congress of Vienna decided that no question of the wealth or political importance of a power gave to its diplomatic representative any right of precedence over his colleagues of the same rank in the diplomatic corps of the capital to which he is accredited.
I am, etc.,