LAWYERS are accustomed to look to the first opinion of a newly appointed justice of the Supreme Court upon a question of constitutional law as the test of his fitness for the Supreme bench. It is presumed that the new Justice is familiar with the ordinary questions of law which have arisen in his practice; but the law administered by the Supreme Court is the law regulating, not merely the rights and duties of men and women in their individual capacities, but the rights and duties of states as members of the Union, as measured by the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, binding the conscience of the nation, the state, and the citizen. The qualities required by this position are much greater and more exacting than the qualities which confer leadership at the bar and which predicate success upon the bench of the highest court of any state of the Union.

In like manner the people await the action of the President in foreign affairs, in the belief that the qualities, however great, required to handle domestic questions, are not necessarily the qualities which he should possess to handle the delicate, intricate, and embarrassing questions which arise between this country and foreign nations. The President has grown up in an atmosphere of domestic affairs, even if he has not had practical experience in their conduct, and he can secure as members of his cabinet men who have had experience in such affairs and who can therefore advise him as to the wise course

to follow or the policy to devise in domestic matters. But the presidents are few who have grown up in an atmosphere of foreign affairs. The capacity of the President is therefore fairly tested by the understanding he shows of foreign situations, the skill and ability with which he handles them, and his choice of a Secretary of State to conduct the relations of the United States with foreign countries; for, although the Secretary can be said to be in charge of foreign affairs, which in ordinary cases he handles, nevertheless the Secretary of State is subject to the supervision and direction of the President, by whom he is selected and of whose cabinet he is a member; and the President is, in fact as well as in theory, responsible to the country for the policy which the United States pursues in foreign affairs, whether devised in the first instance by the Secretary of State and concurred in by the President, or framed by the President and executed by the Secretary of State.

The President cannot be said always to be a free agent in the choice of his Secretary of State. It has been the unwritten law for the President to appoint as such, at the beginning of his administration, the 'uncrowned leader' of the party or a competitor for the presidency. From this point of view, the secretaryship, always a great and worthy office, is looked upon as a consolation prize to the politician or statesman who, for one reason or another, has not reached the presidency. In the case of a vacancy, as distinguished from

an original appointment, the choice is not regarded as so restricted, and the President is, as a result of experience, so desirous of a capable and competent official that questions of political availability and of political geography are given less weight, and greater stress is laid upon the fitness of the official for the duties which, under the President, he is to perform. A single example from recent history may be cited. President McKinley began his first administration with Mr. John Sherman as Secretary of State, who resigned after serving little more than a year. Following a brief tenure of the office by the Honorable William R. Day, now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. John Hay was appointed Secretary of State.

On June 8 the Honorable William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State in Mr. Wilson's Cabinet from March 5, 1913, resigned, and on the day following the Honorable Robert Lansing, Counselor for the Department of State, was appointed Secretary ad interim, and on June 23 Secretary of State. Mr. Lansing, although a Democrat in politics, was not a leader of his party. He was admittedly competent in matters of international law, although he had not, before assuming his duties as counselor on April 1, 1914, had an opportunity to show it in such a way as to attract the attention of the country. The delicate and critical situation of the foreign relations of the United States evidently led Mr. Wilson to disregard precedent if he would have been fettered by. precedent - and to select the man, all things considered, best qualified to work in harmony with him and to coöperate in the execution of their joint policy, so that the legitimate interests of the United States would not suffer, and the prestige of the country would be neither dimmed nor abated.

A mere outline of Mr. Lansing's career before he assumed the counselorship, on April 1, 1914, shows the opportunities which he had had to fit himself for this position. Mr. Lansing was born at Watertown, New York, October 17, 1864. He graduated from Amherst College in 1886. Three years later he was admitted to the bar, and practiced law with his father, as a member of the firm of Lansing and Lansing. Since 1892, when he was first called upon to serve the government, he has represented the United States in a long series of arbitrations and has appeared as associate counsel, counsel, or agent, oftener than any man now living, before arbitral tribunals or mixed commissions, among which may be mentioned the Bering Sea Tribunal (1892), the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal (1903), the Hague Tribunal for the arbitration of the North Atlantic Fisheries (1910), and the Anglo-American Commission (1911) formed under the agreement of 1910 to settle outstanding claims between Great Britain and the United States. He also acted as technical delegate in conferences with British, Canadian, and Newfoundland representatives regarding a modification of the fisheries award, held in Washington in January, 1911, and April, 1912, and was technical delegate in the fur-seal conference at Washington between representatives of the United States, Great Britain, Russia, and Japan (1911). From time to time, he has acted as counsel for the Mexican Legation, later for the Mexican Embassy and the Chinese Legation, and he has also appeared as counsel for private parties in the prosecution of international claims.

Actions speak louder than words, and facts are sometimes more eloquent than either. It is apparent that positions such as Mr. Lansing had held at the hands of Republican and Demo

cratic administrations alike, required, and developed as well, three qualities: skill as an advocate, knowledge of international law, and a thorough understanding of diplomacy and diplomatic procedure.

It would seem that this experience and training were calculated to qualify him for the position of counselor; and Mr. Lansing's success in this position during a period when as counselor he was intimately associated with the Secretary of State and bore a conspicuous part in the conduct of the department relieves us from the necessity of conjecture. He not only met the duties of the office and performed them with tact and loyalty to his chief, but he caused the position of counselor to be known, honored, and respected throughout the length and breadth of the United States, to such a degree that his appointment as Secretary of State appeared rather as the continuance of duties already incumbent upon him and successfully performed, than as the assumption of other and more responsible duties, imposed upon him by the newer and the greater office.

The fitness of a person for the secretaryship of state results from a combination of various elements. That he should be able to handle the business of the department need only be mentioned, as this requirement is so clear that, to use the happy phrase of Lord Mansfield, it can only be obscured by argument. He should be versed in international law and in the practice and procedure of diplomacy, and should have a firm grasp of the foreign policy of the United States. These are the obvious requirements of the office, but others there are, not less necessary, although more subtle and less tangible, and more easily felt than stated and defined. The Secretary should be both easy and dignified in bearing: easy, so as to put the visiting diplomat at ease;

dignified, so as to prevent an undue liberty. He should be sympathetic, so as to court a free expression of views on the part of the diplomat, yet sufficiently reserved, so that a failure to reciprocate may not be regarded either as an unfriendly act or as a mark of opposition. He should know men and men should know him; and he should be able to cooperate with men, just as men should be able to work in harmony with him. It is well that he be familiar with other peoples, that he should have visited the foreign countries where they reside, and that he should know them from personal contact. The attainment of justice should be his aim, whether the principles of justice commend or condemn the proposed policy of the government.

It may be admitted that these are severe requirements. But the circumstances of 1915 the world at war and in a welter of blood are indeed extraordinary circumstances. Mr. Wilson was not embarrassed by precedent and was free to appoint as secretary the person who, in his opinion, best met the requirements of the position. He did so, and the approval with which Mr. Lansing's appointment was received by the press of the country and by the public at large was at least a present justification of the President's choice. It is not, however, the approval of the moment but that of the future that counts; and the approval so generously given in advance must be based upon Mr. Lansing's training for the position and upon his experience in the office of counselor, which justified, if it did not dictate, his appointment as Mr. Bryan's

successor.

Diplomats have keen eyes and, when not engaged in the performance of their official duties, they not infrequently have sharp tongues. Their unofficial comment is often more enlighteningas it is generally more entertaining

than their formal and official statements. A distinguished English judge once said that a little truth leaks out even in the most carefully prepared affidavit. This is especially true of the Diplomatic Corps at parade rest. The unofficial views of diplomats are often their real ones, and it is common knowledge in Washington that the diplomats as a whole were genuinely pleased with Mr. Lansing's appointment; for they saw that he possessed the qualities which are considered to be those of an ideal secretary.

As one accustomed to meet men and to find pleasure in their society, the Secretary should meet the Diplomatic Corps, not as one above them or beyond them, but as one of them, a colleague, a fellow worker in the field of international relations, and as eager as they are supposed to be to introduce into the conduct of nations those principles of justice and of fair play which have approved themselves between man and man. In such a country as ours the government is subordinated to law; and it is natural that an official trained in this atmosphere of law and subordination to it should desire to see the relations of nations conform to international law, which, as the law of the society of nations, should and must in the long run control their conduct. It is to be expected that an American Secretary of State should endeavor so to develop the law of nations as to make it responsive to the needs of nations. 'Justice,' said Mr. Webster, one of Mr. Lansing's most eminent predecessors, 'is the great interest of man on earth'; and Mr. Root laid it down as a rule, when Secretary of State, that we should not only observe justice in our relations with foreign nations, but that we should be just; that is to say, that we should never ask of them what we would not readily grant if the circumstances were reversed, which is but

another way of stating the golden rule,

which Mr. Hay regarded as the foundation of diplomacy.

The lawyer is the servant of the law; the Secretary of State should be the servant of justice. His mind should be well stored, but it should be an open mind. But no charm or grace of manner, no gift of telling speech, no amount of sympathetic consideration for the views of others can, singly or collectively, take the place of character. The word of the Secretary should be, not as good as his bond, it should be his bond; and his character should be so above suspicion that his mere statement should refute an accusation, just as when Lord Althorp in the House of Commons replied to an able and bitter charge of an opponent by saying that he had collected some figures which entirely refuted it, but that he had lost them. Mr. Lansing is an essentially just man. His character is stainless and above reproach, and in his official intercourse, as in private life, he gives the impression of high-mindedness, because he is in fact, and is known to be, a high-minded man and a Christian gentleman.

If it be asked why did this reserved and modest, kindly, and courtly gentleman give up the practice of law at Watertown, where his father was in good practice and where his own success was assured, the answer is that his marriage in 1890 to Miss Eleanor Foster, the daughter of Mr. John W. Foster, a distinguished diplomat and within two years thereafter a no less distinguished Secretary of State, brought him into the atmosphere of foreign relations and determined his career; and it is only fair to say that Mrs. Lansing has helped him to make the career which their marriage determined.

That Mr. Lansing will, as Secretary of State, be successful in handling the questions of law and of fact which are

-

likely to arise during his tenure of office is manifest by the success with which he has handled such questions as Counselor for the Department; that he possesses the qualities which create and sustain confidence, that he has the tact which marks the diplomat and the loyalty which should but does not always characterize the diplomat, is evidenced by his relations both with the President and with Mr. Bryan when Secretary of State. Consulted by the President, he was careful to ascertain the views of the Secretary and to represent him in his interviews with the President. When commended by the press, which often attacked the Secretary over the Counselor's shoulders, Mr. Lansing's loyalty was so transparent as never to be questioned. That he possessed and possesses the confidence of his predecessor, Mr. Bryan, we know on the authority of Mr. Bryan himself, who on June 24 wrote the following letter to Mr. Lansing and printed it in The Commoner for July:

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY:

Allow me to extend to you my cordial congratulations and to let you know how much gratified I am that you have been selected as my successor. The year during which we have been

Mr. Wilson is to be congratulated upon securing the services of a colleague with whom he can work in perfect harmony, as the experience of the past year and more has shown. The country is likewise to be congratulated, because it also knows from the experience of the past year and more that Mr. Lansing is competent to handle the gravest and most delicate questions arising out of the great war, because he has handled these questions since its outbreak. The rare combination of character and loyalty, of ability and tact, suggests that both the President and the country will find in Mr. Lansing a competent public servant and an ideal Secretary of State.