“Art. III. Diplomatic agents on an extraordinary mission have not, on that account, any superiority of rank; (e. g., our commissioners at the Hague conference would not for that reason outrank our diplomatic representative there, supposing the latter not to be a commissioner). “Art. IV. Diplomatic officers shall take precedence in their respective classes according to the date of the official notification of their arrival. The present regulation shall not cause any innovation with regard to the representative of the Pope. “Art. V. A uniform mode shall be determined in each state for the reception of diplomatic agents of each class. “Art. VI. Relations of consanguinity or of family alliance between courts confer no precedence on their diplomatic agents. The same rule applies also to political alliances. “Art. VII. In acts or treaties between several powers which grant alternate precedence, the order which is to be observed in the signatures shall be decided by lot between the ministers.” Q. “Are these the only international rules concerning diplomats”? A. “They are the only ones given in the Diplomatic and Consular Register”. Q. “Are they universally accepted”? A. “By all except Turkey, which recognizes but three grades—ambassadors, ministers and chargés d’affaires”. Q. “Suppose we send a diplomat of the second rank to any country: have we a right to receive one of the same grade in return”? A. “Certainly, and no more. Italy, however, sends us an ambassador, while our representative to Italy is a minister”. Q. “Professor, you will allow me to disagree with you upon the propriety of wearing a uniform”? A. “Certainly, what have you to say”? Q. “Well, nothing new; it is only that as a people we have taken a wise stand in favor of simplicity as opposed to meaningless conventionalities, and that it should characterize all our official relations with foreign powers, otherwise we would seem to compromise our position”. A. “I’ll admit,” said the Professor, “that yours is the view ordinarily taken and officially adopted in our country. But I still maintain that it is a wrong view because it is founded upon a wrong principle, namely that ‘the rule should emanate from home’. Why, suppose you go to visit a neighbor and you find that the rules of his household are somewhat unlike your own: would you not as far as possible try to conform to them? Of course you would; and the complaisance that is to be expected between neighbors is a duty as between ambassadors, because it is their business to remove friction, not to create it. Oh, well, these are trifles and need not be dwelt upon were it not that they are conspicuous trifles.