is there nothing due to that from which he comes? Is he to be
justified in discrediting the principles, denying the facts, or
mystifying the results of his own system, in order to ingratiate himself
with those with whom he treats? Are rights thus to be purchased by
concessions so unworthy and base? I will not believe that we have yet
reached the degraded state that renders a policy so questionable, or a
course so mean, at all necessary. It really appears to me, that the
conduct of an American minister on all these points ought to be governed
by a very simple rule. He should in effect tell the other party,
"Gentlemen, I wish to maintain a rigid neutrality, as is due to you; but
I trust you will manifest towards me the same respect and delicacy, if
not on my own account, at least on account of the country I represent.
If you drag me into the affair in any way, I give you notice that you
may expect great frankness on my part, and nothing but the truth." Such
a man would not only get a _treaty_ of indemnity, but he would be very
apt to get the _money_ into the bargain.

The practice of naming _attaches_ to our legations leads to great abuses
of this nature. In the first place the Constitution is violated; for,
without a law of Congress to that effect (and I believe none exists),
not even the President has a right to name one, without the approval of
the Senate. In no case can a minister appoint one legally, for the
Constitution gives him under no circumstances any such authority; and
our system does not admit of the constructive authority that is used
under other governments, unless it can be directly referred to an
expressly delegated power. Now the power of appointment to office is
expressly delegated; but it is to another, or rather to another through
Congress, should Congress choose to interfere. This difficulty is got
over by saying an _attache_ is not an officer. If not an officer of the
government, he is nothing. He is, at all events, deemed to be an officer
of the government in foreign countries, and enjoys immunities as such.
Besides, it is a dangerous precedent to name to any situation under a
pretence like this, as the practice may become gradually enlarged. But I
care nothing as to the legality of the common appointments of this
nature, the question being as to the _tone_ of the nominees. You may be
assured that I shall send you no idle gossip; but there is more
importance connected with these things than you ma