MR. JOHN HAY. [To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR:"] Sia,—As
an American, I thoroughly enjoyed the cordial appre- ciation of President Roosevelt's Secretary of State which appeared in the Spectator of August 22nd; as a friend of Mr. Hay, I agree with the writer that the eulogy, though richly deserved, is likely to shock the modesty of the able but un- pretentious statesman at Washington. English praise of an American official charged with the conduct of his country's foreign affairs has sometimes proved politically embarrassing to its subject ; but the diplomatic achievement that prompted your remarks is one in which England is not directly con- cerned, so that Mr. Hay's embarrassment in reading your generous words must be purely personal. While the Secre- tary's most important training in public affairs was received, as you point out, at Lincoln's side during the Civil War, his subsequent connection with the Diplomatic Service at home and abroad helped largely to fit him for the post of Ambassador to England, and to make him, when he was recalled to America, the best equipped head the Department of State has ever had,—just as Mr. Roosevelt's varied experience has made him the best trained of our Presidents. Perhaps, as a newspaper man, I attach undue importance to Mr. Hay's training as a journalist ; yet I cannot but think that the alertness, if not the breadth, of mind for which he is conspicuous is attributable in part to his former connection with a great daily journal, the New York n Mune. What you say of the need of thoroughly trained statesmen in America is true and timely. The Secretary of the newly created Department of Commerce, Mr. Cortelyou, was "Secretary to the President" under Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. McKinley, and had previously been private secretary to the latter official. Mr. Lamont, Secretary of War in President Cleveland's second Cabinet, had been his chief's private secretary during his first term at Washington, and previously when he was Governor of New York. Instances might be cited of other American public men who have held private secretaryships, but they are too infrequent to invalidate your argument. If American statesmen do not oftener, as you suggest, employ the sons of the rich as their secretaries, it is largely, perhaps, because these young gentle- men are more profitably employed—from a utilitarian stand- point—in acquiring in their fathers' offices the experience necessary to fit them for carrying on the business when they shall inherit it. Moreover, the number of statesmen by profession is relatively, if not absolutely, smaller in America than in England; and the tenure of office is usually briefer and more precarious there than here. Now that steps have been taken to make the Consular Service less insecure than it used to be, and consequently more attractive to young men of ability, a school for the training of Consuls, and incidentally, I believe, of diplomats, has been founded by private means at Washington. Its graduates could not better begin their life- work than as the private secretaries of such men as President Roosevelt and Secretary Hay.—I am, Sir, &c., J. B. G.
Previous page
