Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T10:46:23.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

American Businessmen and Consular Service Reform, 1890's to 1906*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Thomas G. Paterson
Thomas G. Paterson
Affiliation:
Doctoral Candidate in History, University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study demonstrates how business desires to improve information regarding foreign operations and a genuine interest in America's image abroad combined with civil-service reform sentiment to effect change in a vital branch of government service.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , Spring 1966 , pp. 77 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 E.g.: National Civil Service Reform League; Century Magazine,, North American Review, Forum, Nation, Outlook, and World's Work; Representative Robert Adams, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Senator John T. Morgan, Theodore Roosevelt, and Elihu Root; foreign service professionals Wilbur J. Carr, John W. Foster, Oscar S. Straus, Andrew D. White, and Henry White.

2 Tourgee, Albion W., “Our Consular System,” Independent, LIV (January 23, 1902), 208.Google Scholar

3 Department of State, Regulations Prescribed for Use of the Consular Service of the United States (Washington, 1896), 254.Google Scholar

4 Consular Reports were issued monthly beginning in 1880. Advance Sheets were published daily after 1898 and were embodied in the monthly reports. Special Consular Reports began in 1890 and concerned various subjects. For example, a volume for 1892 reported on “Coal and Coal Consumption in Spanish America.” The State Department mailing list for 1894 included 1,200 newspapers and journals, 600 libraries, 150 boards of trade, and 3,000 individuals. All the reports were distributed without charge. Department of State, Bureau of Statistics, General Index to Consular Reports (Washington, 1894), iii.Google Scholar

5 Emory, Frederic, “Our Consuls and Our Trade,” World's Work, II (May, 1901), 755Google Scholar; “Our Consular Service in Foreign Eyes,” Bradstreet's, XXV (May 1, 1897), 277; “The Consular Service Improving,” ibid., XXIX (February 2, 1901), 68–69.

6 E.g.: Asia, Bradstreet's, Iron Age, and Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin. Department of State, Bureau of Foreign Commerce, General Index to Monthly Consular Reports (Washington, 1901), iii.Google Scholar

7 “Our Consuls and Foreign Trade,” Iron Age, LXIII (April 13, 1899), 16; Ayres, Howard, “Certain Aspects of the Export Trade,” Transactions of the National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, 88 (April, 1910), 143Google Scholar; Lane, Jonathan, “Results of Recent Agitation of Consular Service Reform,” Proceedings of the National Civil Service Reform League (1895), 72Google Scholar; Wall Street Journal, March 22, 1906; “Utilize the Consular Service,” American Economist, XVI (July 26, 1898), 40; New England Cotton Manufacturers' Association to State Dept., March 25, 1904, Registers of Miscellaneous Communications Received, X (Washington, 1942) hereafter cited as Registers; Coffee Exchange of New York to SD, December 9, 1897, ibid., VIII.

8 Quoted in Jones, Chester L., The Consular Service of the United States (Philadelphia, 1906), 85.Google Scholar

9 Prudential Insurance Company to SD, November 4, 1901, August 20, 1902, Registers, IX.

10 Digest of Circular Instructions to Consular Officers, January 1, 1897 to May 25, 1908 (Washington, 1908), 24. See also Olney Hough, B., Practical Exporting: A Handbook for Manufacturers and Merchants (New York, 1920), 24.Google Scholar

11 “One Consul's Consular Reform,” Public Opinion, XL (March 31, 1906), 391; Louis C. Hay (banker) to SD, December 18, 1905, Registers, XI; American Electrical Heater Company to SD, February 2, 1906, ibid; Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Annual Report (April, 1901), 98; Donaldson, C. S., “Government Assistance to Export Trade,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, XXXIV (November, 1909), 120.Google Scholar

12 Bishop, Avard L., “The Extension of American Commerce,” Atlantic Monthly, IX (February, 1909), 236Google Scholar; Johnson, Emory R., et al., History of the Domestic and Foreign Commerce of the United States (2 vols., Washington, 1915), II, 29–293Google Scholar; Bishop, , “The Recent Reforms in the Consular Service of the United States,” Yale Review, XVI (May, 1907), 42.Google Scholar

13 Garfield, Harry A., “The Business Man and the Consular Service,” Century Magazine, LX (June, 1900), 270Google Scholar. Of course, consuls performed other important duties besides trade promotion. See Stuart, Graham H., American Diplomatie and Consular Practice (New York, 1936).Google Scholar

14 Osborne, John B., “The Glamour of a Consulship: Reminiscences of an Ex-Consul,” Atlantic Monthly, XCI (June, 1903), 806.Google Scholar

15 The removals of Presidents Cleveland and McKinley serve as glaring examples. Josiah Quincy, Cleveland's Assistant Secretary of State, conducted a “consular debauch” in 1893. Between March 4 and December 31, 1893, 31 of 35 consuls-general, and 133 of 183 consuls and commercial agents were replaced with new appointees. In Europe alone (exclusive of Great Britain) from March 4, 1893 to January 23, 1895, 86 consuls were removed, and only 12 retained. McKinley's record is likewise conspicuous. From March 4, 1897 to November 1, 1898, 238 of 272 salaried consuls were recalled and replaced. The term “consul” refers to the consuls-general, consuls, and commercial agents, who were designated the “full, principal, and permanent officers.” The service had several classes: consul-general, vice consul-general, deputy consul-general, consul, vice-consul, deputy consul, commercial agent, vice-commercial agent, consular agent, consular clerk, interpreter, marshall, and clerk at consulate. White, Henry, “Consular Reforms,” North American Review, CLIX (December, 1894), 712Google Scholar; Proceedings of the National Board of Trade (January, 1895), 42 (Hereafter NBT Proceedings); Department of State, Regulations (1896), 3–4Google Scholar; Johnson, et al., II, 280.

16 Congressional Record (March 19, 1906), p. 3973; “Consuls and the Senate,” LXXXII (May 10, 1906), 380; Senate Report No. 112, 59th Cong., 1st sess., 24; E. Ashcroft to SD, May 13, 1906, Registers, XI; Morison, Elting E. (ed.), Letters of Theodore Roosevelt (8 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1951–1954), VI, 927Google Scholar; Foulke, William D., Roosevelt and the Spoilsmen (New York, 1925), 87.Google Scholar

17 The order was likely promulgated to assuage those disturbed by Quincy's “debauch” Drawn up by Secretary of State Richard Olney, it provided that salaried offices from $1,000 to $2,500 were to be filled, thenceforth, by examination or by transfer. President Roosevelt extended this provision to all those offices paying over $1,000. Cleveland's order was hardly comprehensive; 20 per cent of the consuls at the time received salaries above $2,500, and many offices were on a feed basis. Also, the President still had the power of designating who would take the examinations. The examination became a farce under McKinley and existed in form only. NBT Proceedings (January, 1897), 72; Schurz, Carl, “A Review of the Year,” Proceedings of the National Civil Service Reform League (1898), 16Google Scholar; James, Henry, Richard Olney and His Public Service (Boston, 1923), 173–74.Google Scholar

18 Quoted in Jessup, Philip C., Elihu Root (2 vols., New York, 1938), II, 102.Google Scholar

19 NBT Proceedings (January, 1900), 115; McAneny, George, “How Other Countries Do It,” Century Magazine, LVII (February, 1894), 605Google Scholar; Editorial, ibid., XXIII (February 9, 1895), 81.

20 Washburn, Albert H., “Some Evils of Our Consular Service,” Atlantic Monthly, LXXIV (August, 1894), 243.Google Scholar

21 Quoted in Jessup, II, 101.

22 “The Consular Reform,” Nation, LXI (September 26, 1895), 218; Foulke, Roosevelt, 38–40. General Johnston refused to accept the consulate at Vancouver, and later was removed from the Commission.

23 Quoted in “The Result of Consular Reform,” American Economist, XIII (June 15, 1894), 300.

24 NBT Proceedings (January, 1901), 218.

25 Quoted in Preciado, A. A., Exporting to the World (New York, 1920), 356.Google Scholar

26 “The Manufacturers' Association,” iron Age, LXI (February 3, 1898), 19; Hewitt to SD, November 7, 1901, Registers, IX; Foulke, William D., “On the Need of Able Consuls,” Good Government, XIX (April, 1902), 62Google Scholar; Van Fleet-Mansfield Drug Company to SD, January 5, 1897, Registers, VIII; Habecht, Braun and Company to SD, July 19, 1900, ibid., IX; Crucible Steel Company of America to SD, April 1, 1902, ibid.

27 For praise of the consular service and consuls see: NBT Proceedings (December, 1898), 52–53; ibid. (January, 1905), 133–34; Senate Report No. 1212, 56th Cong., 1st sess., 22; “American Consular Methods,” American Economist, XXIII (May 19, 1899), 236–37; Official Proceedings of the International Commercial Congress (1899), 208; Swift and Company to SD, November 16, 1899, Philadelphia Commercial Museum to SD, September 22, 1899, Gates Iron Works to SD, November 3, 1899, The Goulds Manufacturing Company to SD, March 25, 1899, Registers, VIII.

28 Garfield, , “The Remodeling of the Consular Service,” Independent, LII (March 15, 1900), 659Google Scholar; NBT Proceedings (January, 1895), 44.

29 Ibid., 36; Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Annual Report (April, 1899), 70–71; Dozer, Donald M., “Secretary of State Elihu Root and Consular Reorganization,” MVHR, XXIX (December, 1942), 342.Google Scholar

30 “Our Consular Service,” American Economist, XXI (February 18, 1898), 80; Journal of the American Asiatic Association, V (January, 1906), 358; American Embassy Association, American Embassies, Legations and Consulates Mean Better Foreign Business (New York, 1909).Google Scholar

31 Department of State, Regulations (1896), 192–218 (after 1868, all money collected by consular agents as fees in excess of $1,000 per annum had to be forwarded to the Treasury Department); Herbert H. D, Peirce, inspector of consular posts in Asia in 1904, reported that American consuls there sometimes charged excessive fees to supplement their salaries. Dennett, Tyler, Americans in Eastern Asia (New York, 1922), 671Google Scholar; Official Proceedings of the Eleventh Convention of the Trans-Mississippi Commercial Congress (April, 1900), 89; Merchants' Exchange of St. Louis, Annual Statement (1902); Wall Street Journal, March 22, 1906.

32 NBT Proceedings (January, 1905), 132; (January, 1895), 32; (January, 1896), 70–71. In 1900, consular agencies accounted for 395 of 713 posts. Barnes, William and Morgan, John H., The Foreign Service of the United States (Washington, 1961), 350.Google Scholar

33 NBT Proceedings (December, 1897), 67–68, 70; “Our Consular System,” Nation, LVI (May 18, 1893), 359; Department of State, Regulations (1896), 290–92; Jones, p. 26.

34 White, Gerald T., “The United States and the Problem of Recovery after 1893” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1938)Google Scholar; LaFeber, Walter, The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansionism, 1860–1898 (Ithaca, 1963), passim.Google Scholar

35 NBT Proceedings (January, 1895), 32.

36 Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco, Annual Report (January, 1900), 18–19; “Consular Reform in Germany,” Bradstreet's, XXVII (August 5, 1899), 484–85 (see also Campbell, Charles S., Special Business Interests and the Open Door Policy [New Haven, 1951], 4–5)Google Scholar; Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco, Annual Report (January, 1901), 26–27; House Report No. 1313, 57th Cong., 1st sess., 6.

37 NBT Proceedings (January, 1895), 43; “Consular Reform in Germany,” Bradstreet's, (August 5, 1899), 484–85; “Consular Reform,” Nation, LIX (November 29, 1894), 398–99 (see also NBT Proceedings [January, 1900], 117); Slade, William, “Attractions and Abuses of Our Consular Service,” Forum, XV (April, 1893), 167.Google Scholar

38 Emory, “Our Consuls and Our Trade,” 752–54; Roberts, Chalmers, “The American Trade Invasion of England,” World's Work, I (April, 1901), 607Google Scholar; “The Consular Service Improving,” Bradstreet's, XXIX (February 2, 1901), 68–69; Editorial, ibid., XXXIII (October 14, 1905), 641; Senate Report No. 1202, 56th Cong., 1st sess., 15; Garfleld, “The Remodeling,” loc. cit.; “Utilize the Consular Service,” American Economist, XVI (July 26, 1895), 40; Bolce, Harold, “The Remoteness of Real Consular Reform,” Appleton's Booklovers Magazine, VII (June, 1906), 847Google Scholar; Jones, p. 69.

39 Congressional Record (January 29, 1894), 1623; Lane, “Results of Recent Agitation,” 63; “Consular Reform,” Notion, LIX (November 29, 1894), 398–99; Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, Annual Report (1894–1895), 2–3; NBT Proceedings (January, 1895), 45.

40 Congressional Record (May 9, 1894), 4563; ibid., XXVII, 53rd Cong., 3rd sess., 192, 1405, 1560, 1813, 1814, 1929, 2012, 2275, 2319, 2368; Philadelphia Maritime Exchange to SD, March 1, 1895, Registers, VII; Steigerwalt, Albert K., The National Association of Manufacturers, 1895–1914 (Grand Rapids, 1964), 17, 77.Google Scholar

41 NBT Proceedings (December, 1897), p. 57; Morison, Letters, VI, 1496. For the 1903–1904 inspection in Europe see Senate Document No. 28, 58th Cong., 1st sess.; for that in Asia see Report to the Hon. John Hay, Secretary of State, upon a Tour of Consular Inspection in Asia, by Herbert H. D. Peirce (Washington, 1904).

42 Grubb, Edward B. in “The Consular Service and the Spoils System,” Century Magazine, XLVIII (June, 1894), 308Google Scholar; Lane, “Results of Recent Agitation,” p. 70.

43 NBT Proceedings (January, 1905), 128–29; George Smart, “Good Consuls and Good Consular Service,” American Industries, IV (February 15, 1906), 11.

44 Congressional Record (April 3, 1894), 3410; (April 25, 1894), 4104; see Ilchman, Warren F., Professional Diplomacy in the United States, 1779–1939 (Chicago, 1961), 65–67Google Scholar, for the contents of the bills; see Jones, 29, for a complete list of proposed legislation.

45 Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Annual Report (April, 1899), 70–71; “Consular Service,” American Economist, XV (March 1, 1895), 100; NBT Proceedings (December, 1898), 52; Official Proceedings of the International Commercial Congress (1899), 331; New York State Chamber of Commerce, Annual Report (1898–1899), 84–85; ibid. (1903–1904), 94; Senate Report No. 1202, 56th Cong., 1st sess. (May 3, 1900), 25; Official Proceedings of the Eleventh Convention of the Trans-Mississippi Commercial Congress (1900), 75–76, 216; House Report No. 1313, 57th Cong., 1st sess. (April 2, 1902), 7–13; Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Members' Annual (March, 1904), 17; Hunt, Gaillard, “To Reorganize the Consular Service,” World's Work, III (January, 1902), 1609–10Google Scholar; Buffalo Merchants' Exchange, Annual Report (January, 1903); Merchants' Exchange of St. Louis, Annual Statement (1901); Boston Chamber of Commerce to SD, January 18, 1899, Registers, VIII; New England Shoe and Leather Association to SD, February 5, 1904, ibid., X; American Association of China to SD, April 7, 1900, ibid., IX; National Business League to SD, October 7, 1905, Berkeley Chamber of Commerce (California) to SD, February 2, 1906, ibid., XI; Congressional Record (December 9, 1904), 117; Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco, Annual Report (January, 1901), 44; Railway World, XLIX (April 28, 1905), 341; “Our Consular Service,” Iron Age, LXXVI (November 16, 1905), 1309–10; Merchants' Association of New York, Yearbook (1906), 21; Journal of the American Asiatic Association, VI (March, 1906), 34.

46 “Reform in the Consular System,” Bradstreet's, XXIII (September 28, 1895), 612; Lane, “Results of Recent Agitation,” 65, 68–69; Good Government, XV (March 15, 1896), 28–29; Johnson, II, 280.

47 Croly, Herbert, Marcus Alonzo Hanna (New York, 1923), 297–301Google Scholar; Wayne Morgan, H., William McKinley and His America (Syracuse, 1963), 287–92Google Scholar; Van Riper, Paul P., History of the United States Civil Service (Evanston, 1958), 169–70Google Scholar; Foulke, William D., Fighting the Spoilsmen (New York, 1919), 104–105.Google Scholar McKinley probably agreed with Representative James L. Slayden, who said in 1903: “I do not object to having consular … posts filled by politicians, but I do believe that the best and most capable politicians available should be chosen.” Quoted in Ilchman, p. 64.

48 Hanna to John Hay, April 19, 1899, as quoted from the Hay Papers, Library of Congress, by Thomas E. Felt in “Mark Hanna,” unpublished MS, Wooster, Ohio. Used by permission.

49 NBT Proceedings (January, 1897), p. 78; Steigerwalt, p. 78; NBT Proceedings (December, 1897), pp. 52–53, 61, 64.

50 Roosevelt, Theodore, “Six Years of Civil Service Reform,” Scribner's Magazine, XVIII (August, 1895), 242, 247Google Scholar; NBT Proceedings (January, 1894), 93–99; Foulke, Rooseoelt passim; Morison, Letters, VI, loc. cit.; Van Riper, pp. 179–80; Hart, Albert B. and Ferleger, Herbert R. (eds.), Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia (New York, 1944), p. 97.Google Scholar Root helped draw up the Executive Order of November 10, 1905, which extended the merit provisions of Cleveland's order to all consular posts salaried at more than $1,000. Root's role in the consular reform movement is discussed in Dozer, pp. 339–50 and Morison, Letters, VI, 1497.

51 Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Annual Report (April, 1900), 52, (April, 1902), 55–56, (April, 1903), 85; Van Norman, Louis E., “Consular Service of the United States,” Chautauquan, XXXV (June, 1902), 228Google Scholar; Buffalo Merchants' Exchange, Annual Report (January, 1903); Proceedings of the National Civil Service Reform League (1905), pp. 88, 93; Chamber of Commerce of Buffalo, Annual Report (January, 1904), 22.

52 Bishop, “The Recent Reforms,” 49.

53 Some of the groups represented were: American Protective Tariff League, Silk Association of America, United States Export Association, National Association of Manufacturers, Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast, National Paint, Oil and Varnish Association, National Association of Credit Men, and many chambers of commerce. Other commercial associations from North Carolina, Alabama, Iowa, California, Nebraska, Michigan, West Virginia, Illinois, and Tennessee were unable to attend but sent notices of support. Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, March 3, 13, 1906; New York Times, March 15, 18, 1906; Railway World, L (April 6, 1906), 295.

54 Consular agents excepted. They could receive as compensation one half of the fees collected, but not more than $1,000 a year.

55 Quoted in “Intimations of Consular Reform,” Literary Digest, XXXII (January 27, 1906), 116.

56 “Our Own Opinion,” Public Opinion, XL (February 10, 1906), 169; Editorial, Bradstreet's, XXXIV (January 13, 1906), 17; National Business League to SD, February 6, 1906, Registers, XI.

57 Congressional Record (March 19, 1906), 3971–75; House Report No. 2681, 59th Cong., 1st sess.; Merchants' Association of New York, Yearbook (1907), 19; Railway World, L (April 6, 1906), 295.

58 “A Step Toward Consular Reform,” Bradstreet's, XXXIV (March 24, 1906), 179; see also Wall Street Journal, March 22, 1906; American Lumberman, 1610 (March 31, 1906), 21; “Consular Reorganization Assured,” Dun's Review, XIV (March 24, 1906), 11.

59 Johnson, II, 282–83; Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Annual Report (April, 1907), 104–105; NBT Proceedings (January, 1907), 154–55; National Business League of America, American Universities, American Foreign Service, and an Adequate Consular Law (Chicago, 1909), 56Google Scholar; “Consular Reorganization Assured,” Dun's Review, XIV (March 24, 1906), 11; Donaldson, 119; Freeman, Lewis R., “Trade Scouts Who Capture Millions,” World's Work, XXVI (June, 1913), 201–206Google Scholar; Crane, Katherine C., Mr. Carr of State (New York, 1960), 104–135.Google Scholar

60 “The First Examination under the Reform Law,” Outlook, LXXXV (April 20, 1907), 866. Root spoke of the same response: “As soon as they found I was going to play fair they were perfectly satisfied.” Quoted in Jessup, II, 101.

61 House Report No. 840, 62nd Cong., 2nd sess., 12–52; “Merchant Marine and Consular Service,” American Economist, XXXIX (February 1, 1907), 55; NBT Proceedings (January, 1907), 155; National Business League of America, American Universities, 64; Uchman, 95–110.

62 See Stuart, Graham H., The Department of State (New York, 1949), 95–96Google Scholar; Ilchman, pp. 175–77; Barnes and Morgan, pp. 170–72, 203–210. The question of a consular school was partially answered by the establishment in 1919 at Georgetown University of a School of Foreign Service, and of the Foreign Service School of the State Department in 1924. Other colleges offered similar programs. Ilchman, pp. 88–89, 183; Barnes and Morgan, pp. 210–11.

63 “Nearly Perfected Organization Should Insure Adequate Consular Reform,” 1608 (March 17, 1906), 27.

64 “The Consular Service Improving,” Bradstreet's, XXIX (February 2, 1901), 69; Donaldson, p. 123; Parker, George F., “The Consular Service of the United States: Part I,” Atlantic Monthly, LXXXV (April, 1900), 458.Google Scholar

65 Bolce, 849; Garfield, “The Remodeling,” 657–58; “Our Consuls and Foreign Trade,” Iron Age, LXIII (April 13, 1899), 17.

66 Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Manufactures, Monthly Consular and Trade Reports, No. 304 (January, 1906), 25; Arthur Williams, C., “Consular Reform,” World To-Day, X (April, 1906), 396Google Scholar; Bolce, 847, 849; Halstead, Albert, “A Neglected Factor in Our Commercial Expansion,” North American Review, CLXXIV (January, 1902), 21Google Scholar; Smart, 11; Schuyler, Eugene, American Diplomacy and the Furtherance of Commerce (New York, 1886), 104Google Scholar; Senate Report No. 1202, 56th Cong., 1st sess., 14; Department of State, Consular Reports, No. 222 (March, 1899), 445; Schuyler, loc. cit.; Jones, 117.

67 Wiebe, Robert H., Businessmen and Reform: A Study of the Progressive Movement (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), 33.Google Scholar

68 Ibid., 16–21.

69 Senate Report No. 1202, 56th Cong. 1st sess., 25.

70 Ibid., 8.

71 In 1900, less than 10 per cent of American manufactures, and less than 20 per cent of agricultural products were exported. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Exports of Manufactures … 1800 to 1906 (Washington, 1907), 7Google Scholar; Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1954 (Washington, 1954), 909.Google Scholar