reflected the personal opinions of a private individual who in no way
was an accredited representative of the United States."

This "official rebuke" was of course intended for Mr. William G. Sharp,
whose interview was printed in today's _Herald_. According to
European custom, diplomacy is a special calling or profession like those
of the soldier, sailor, lawyer, or physician. Amateur diplomacy has no
place in Europe, and to the French mind, the presence in Paris of an
unaccredited, although designated, ambassador, who expresses his
personal opinions on every subject, while there is a duly accredited
ambassador here, is an anomaly, causing no little annoyance to the
authorities, and tending to hamper and discredit the official
representative of the United States in Paris.

It is whispered that this "diplomatic indiscretion" of Mr. Sharp may
lead to a refusal of the French Government, when the time comes, to
grant his credentials. All the more so, because when Mr. Sharp was first
spoken of as a possible ambassador to Russia, the Russian Foreign Office
notified Washington that Mr. Sharp was not exactly a _persona
grata_, owing to certain public statements attributed to him
concerning the attitude of the Russian Government in regard to passports
to Jews of American and other nationalities. When Mr. Sharp was
nominated as American Ambassador to France, the French Foreign Office
discreetly inquired at St. Petersburg whether the Russian Government had
any objection to Mr. Sharp being accepted in Paris as the United States
Ambassador. The reply from St. Petersburg was that "there were no
objections," consequently the usual intimation was given by the Quai
d'Orsay that Mr. Sharp would be an agreeable person in Paris. The
arrival here of Mr. Sharp, in the midst of the war, and his interview on
the situation, however, has not influenced the French officials at the