to State secrets, they generally pertain to what is called diplomacy; and even in straightforward, manly diplomacy there is generally no effort at concealment.  In our own country, Congress very often asks the President for information in regard to the negotiations and correspondence of the Executive Department with foreign governments, and almost always the whole correspondence asked for is laid before Congress and published to the country.  It is very seldom that the President answers the call with a declaration that the public welfare requires the correspondence to be kept secret.  Besides this, the concealment is only temporary.  It is never supposed that the secrecy must be perpetual.  It is true that many diplomatists—­perhaps nearly all the diplomatists of Europe—­do endeavor to cover up their doings from the light of day.  It is also true that the secrecy and deceit of diplomatists have made diplomacy a corrupt thing.  Diplomacy is regarded by many as but another name for duplicity.  Talleyrand, the prince of diplomatists, said “the design of language is to conceal one’s thoughts.”  This terse sentence gives a correct idea of the practice of secret negotiators.  With regard, then, to State secrets, we remark that real statesmen do not endeavor to cover up their doings in the dark, and that the practices of diplomatists, and the reputation they have for duplicity, are not such as should encourage individuals or associations to endeavor to conceal their proceedings.  We see nothing in the fact that there may be secrets of State to justify studied and habitual secrecy either in individuals or associations.

2.  The impropriety of habitual concealment may be further illustrated.  An individual who endeavors to conceal the business in which he is engaged, or the place and mode of carrying it on, exposes himself to the suspicion of his fellow-men.  People lose confidence in him.  They feel that he is not a safe man.  They at once suspect that there is something wrong.  They do not ask or expect him to make all his business affairs public.  They are willing that he should say nothing about many of his business operations.  But habitual secrecy, constant concealment, unwillingness to tell either friend or foe what business he follows, or to speak of his business operations, will cause any man to be regarded as destitute of common honesty.  This fact shows that, in the common judgment of men, constant concealment is suspicious and wrong.  Wherever it is practiced, men expect the development of some unworthy purpose.

We regard secrecy just like homicide and other actions that in general are very criminal.  To take human life, as a general thing, is a very great crime; but it is right to kill a man in self-defense, and to take the life of a murderer as a punishment for his crime.  The habitual concealment of one’s actions is wrong, but it may be right at particular times and for special reasons.  It is not a dreadfully wicked thing, like the causeless taking of human life,