Mr. CARR. A minister resident is a lower grade officer than a minister.
Mr. FAIRCHILD. What means the expression "minister resident "?

Mr. CARR. The expression "minister resident" is a technical term for an officer of lower grade than a minister.

Mr. ROGERS. Will you proceed to indicate the changes in the law or practice? Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. COOPER. You notice that ambassadors' salaries are $17,500? You do not use the word "annual," nor do you say "at the rate of," but when you get over to Liberia and Tangier you say "at the rate of so much, at the rate of $7,500."

Mr. CARR. I think the words "at the rate of" should be put in section 1. Mr. COOPER. Annual salaries at the rate of. It ought to be uniform, the same for each.

Mr. CARR. Surely.

Mr. MOORES. Do that at the start in your salaries in each class.

Mr. COOPER. Yes; and that one for Liberia should be changed to "whose annual salary shall be $5,000 per year."

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Lay suggests that the language which is here set forth has been carried in the law in several places, although, of course, that does not prove it is correct legislation. An act for the improvement of the foreign service approved February 5, 1915, has this exact language. Section 3 reads that secretaries in the Diplomatic Service and consuls-general and consuls shall be hereafter graded and classified as follows-with the salaries of each class herein affixed thereto : Secretaries of class one, $3,000, etc. Perhaps we can improve the 1915 statute. I do not believe, however, there is any real ambiguity as it stands.

Mr. COOPER. There is no ambiguity except there ought to be uniformity. Mr. ROGERS. If there are no more questions on section 1 or 2, you may proceed.

Mr. CARR. Section 1675. That is a proposed reenactment with some changes of part of the old section 1675. Those changes are changes very largely in language. They provide:

"That a commissioner appointed to act in any country shall be entitled to receive 75 per cent of the amount of salary received by the last ambassador or minister accredited to that country, or, in the absence of previous diplomatic representation, to receive 75 per cent of the salary of a minister of class 2." That is a lower grade minister.

Mr. COCKRAN. What does he get?

Mr. CARR. $10,000; and this gives the commissioner 75 per cent of the salary of that officer in case there has never been a diplomatic representative in that country. If put into practical operation at the present time the man who has been serving as commissioner in Berlin would under this statute get 75 per cent of $17,500 because there has been an ambassador there. The man representing us in Riga would get 75 per cent of the lowest grade minister, namely, 75 per cent of the $10,000, because there has never been a diplomatic representative there. I think that is fair. There is no question but that a man representing this country in a place like Berlin, where there has been an embassy, ought to have much more salary than a man representing us in a country like Esthonia, where there has never been a diplomatic representative and which is a small country.

Mr. CONNALLY. You say here, "Any chargés so appointed shall be entitled to receive the same salary as a commissioner." That is, if he is temporarily acting. Does he get that for that period of time?

Mr. CARR. That is taken care of in the proviso beginning on line 8:

66

Provided, That any diplomatic or consular officer may be designated to act as commissioner without loss of class or salary, and when so designated shall if his salary is less than the salary of a commissioner as herein provided, be entitled to receive, in addition to his diplomatic or consular salary, compensation equal to the difference between such salary and that of a commissioner." Mr. CONNALLY. This is a change. Does it do that?

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. CONNALLY. Do you think that is wise?

Mr. CARR. I do.

Mr. CONNALLY. Would not that have a tendency to encourage absences from post and the chargés get increased compensation while away

Mr. CARR. I think it would not, because in the first place the cases in which commissioners are appointed are very few. For instance, looking back over

the period before the war you will find very few commissioners of the kind that. are here described who were appointed by our Government. The war brought on extraordinary conditions and called for the appointment of a number of commissioners.

Mr. TEMPLE. Mr. Connally perhaps does not understand, as he was not here, that the commissioners are appointed only in cases where we have no accredited representative.

Mr. CONNALLY. I understand that, but you say also that chargés so appointed shall be entitled to receive the same salaries as commissioners. I ask if that would apply to temporary absence of an ambassador, during whose absence the chargé would take charge for that period of time? And if so, would he receive that. compensation?

Mr. TEMPLE. In that case he would not be appointed a commissioner at all. Mr. CARR. That is covered by existing law, which provides that if an ambassador or minister is temporarily absent the secretary in charge, being chargé d'affaires ad interim gets enough salary in addition to his regular salary to make his compensation equal to half that of his chief.

Mr. CONNALLY. Why do you add, then, in lines 6 and 7 that chargés d'affaires shall be entitled to receive the same salaries as a commissioner?

Mr. CARR. Because these chargés are not. chargés d'affaires ad interim, as in the case of the secretary we are discussing. The secretary would take temporary charge of the legation or embassy during the temporary absence of his chief and become chargé d'affaires ad interim. He is entitled under the law to a total compensation of 50 per cent of his chief's salary. But the chargé d'affaires, as indicated in lines 6 and 7, is an officer who is appointed chargé d'affaires where there is no other diplomatic representative.

Mr. CONNALLY. He has two names, commissioner and chargé d'affaires, both? Mr. CARR. No. He would be either a commissioner or chargé, and would represent us like Mr. Dressel, who has been commissioner in Berlin. Up to the time of the ratification of our treaty he was commissioner, but now, after the ratification of the treaty and until we can send a regularly appointed diplomatic representative, he has been appointed chargé d'affaires. Under this section he would receive exactly the same compensation for each office. Mr. CONNALLY. That is right. I understand that.

Mr. CARR. But those cases where we appoint chargé-not chargé ad interim―are very, very few, and it was just to bridge over a difficulty of the kind I have described that the provision was inserted.

Mr. ROGERS. Can you state, offhand, where we now have either chargés of this kind or commissioners?

Mr. CARR. We have at the present time a chargé in Berlin. That is the only chargé we have in the service. We have a commissioner at Riga and an acting commissioner at Constantinople.

Mr. CONNALLY. How about Austria?

Mr. ACKERMAN. And Hungary?

Mr. CARR. In Austria and Hungary we have chargés also, or, rather, chargés d'affaires ad interim. The officers serving us in those countries are regularly appointed diplomatic secretaries serving as chargés d'affaires ad interim.

Mr. CONNALLY. Have you mentioned Turkey?

Mr. CARR. We have an acting commissioner.

Mr. ROGERS. Admiral Bristol?

Mr. CARR. Admiral Bristol is acting as commissioner.

Mr. MOORES. How about John Lind and David Hill? Were they commissioners?

Mr. CARR. No.

Mr. MOORES. Buchanan?

Mr. CARR. I think they were all special agents or special representatives. Mr. ACKERMAN. What is the precise change in section 1676, as amended over the former section?

Mr. CARR. The precise change is to change that language in lines 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 as to how to arrive at 75 per cent of the compensation which the incumbent commissioner gets.

Mr. COCKRAN. What is the existing statute in that respect?

Mr. CARR. The old section 1675 says that unless otherwise ordered ministers resident and commissioners shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of 75 per cent of these other places, which would be abolished by the first part of this section 1 by the classification; and chargés d'affaires at the rate of 50 per

cent, and secretaries of legation at the rate of 15 per cent of the amount. That section has been very largely discontinued by other legislation.

Mr. COCKRAN. Is this not a codification of existing laws?

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. COCKRAN. A reenactment of existing laws?

Mr. CARR. A reenactment of existing laws, without any substantial change. Mr. COCKRAN. You do not change existing laws?

Mr. CARR. Change them slightly.

Mr. COCKRAN. What I want to get at, if I might explain, is that this is a grouping together in one general scheme of appointments several scattered statutes to be found in various session laws?

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. COCKRAN. If there is to be a change I would like that point brought out. Mr. CARR. There is no change in the first two lines.

Mr. COCKRAN. Speaking now whereabouts on page 3?

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. COCKRAN. Does the first part of the section provide, in section 1675, for amending, or does it change existing law?

Mr. CARR. The first part of 1675?

Mr. COCKRAN. The first part of the statute here?

Mr. CARR. That is page 1?

Mr. COCKRAN. Yes.

Mr. CARR. Yes; it does. The old 1675 prescribed $17,500 for ambassadors and ministers in certain countries-France, Germany, Great Britain, and Russia— and $12,000 for certain other countries, such as Austria, China, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Spain, etc., and $10,000 for the rest. Meanwhile appropriation acts have departed from this basic statute and have rearranged some of those salaries in different amounts, and special acts have created new ambassadorships at $17,500, also contrary to this. Therefore this revision of 1675 undertakes to fix the salary of ambassadors, and provide a classification of ministers, in accordance with existing salaries, leaving it open for the Appropriations Committee hereafter, as Congress may deem proper, to increase the number appropriated for or reduce the number appropriated for without specifying places, as was done in the old legislation.

Mr. COCKRAN. Then the change, as I understand it, is that it does not attach a specific salary to a particular post?

Mr. CARR. Quite so.

Mr. COCKRAN. It leaves it to the State Department to apportion those salaries as it chooses and make certain appropriations. That is the actual change?

Mr. CARR. That is the actual change. The principle involved is the principle which Congress has already adopted, applying to diplomatic secretaries and consuls.

Mr. ROGERS. I think Mr. Carr misunderstood your question. Did you understand Mr. Carr to say that Congress hereafter was not to attach specific salaries to the different posts?

Mr. COCKRAN. I do not think Mr. Carr puts a limit on what Congress should do. What I meant to say was, in the absence of action by Congress, did it hitherto give authority to the State Department to assign salaries to different places and appoint them, as distinguished from the present condition attaching specific salaries to specific places? That is the present condition. Mr. COOPER. This certainly provides for specific salaries.

Mr. COCKRAN. It does not mention the post. In other words, this eliminates the mention of the posts and provides specific salaries for ambassadors wherever they may be assigned. Am I right about that?

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. To whatever country the ambassador may be appointed.
Mr. COCKRAN. Yes.

Mr. CARR. Yes; but you understand, the President can not assign an ambassador to a country except by the advice and consent of the Senate.

Mr. COCKRAN. I understand all that.

Mr. CARR. Therefore, Congress has the authority.

Mr. COCKRAN. The Senate is not Congress.

Mr. CARR. It has that authority.

Mr. COCKRAN. The Senate is not Congress. I am only asking for information. What I want to get at is that the existing law assigns the ambassadors to certain posts and attaches a salary to each one. That is existing law. This

95885-22- -2

attaches certain salaries to the ambassadorial office and leaves discretion to be exercised as to the places.

Mr. CARR. Exactly so.

Mr. TEMPLE. But it can not be exercised to any place that has not been raised under the law to the rank of ambassador, and the President can not raise a legation to the rank of an embassy.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. With the advice and consent of the Senate.

Mr. COCKRAN. That was a feature of the appropriation act of 1909 or 1908. It was passed with a view to covering it. Congress and President Roosevelt were not very friendly at that time, and he had been raising two or three places to the dignity of ambassadorships. It was a subject of discussion with the Executive at that time and Congress passed a law forbidding that, so that under the existing statute the President would need authority of Congress to raise a ministership, as I understand it, to ambassadorial dignity. For the purpose of the act, does it not have the effect of repealing that act?

Mr. CARR. I do not think so, because this other law is mandatory: " Hereafter no new ambassadorship shall be created unless the same shall be provided for by act of Congress."

Mr. COCKRAN. That is the 1908 or 1909 act.

Mr. CARR. March, 1909.

Mr. COCKRAN. I thought so. It is distinctly a different provision on the subject than this act. The general rule of interpretation of statutes provides that a subsequent act dealing with a subject different from the former act shall prevail over it. Under this what is the limitation on the President to appoint an ambassador wherever he pleases? As I understand it, he has 14 ambassadors assigned to him and can send them where he likes under this act, can he not?

Mr. CARR. Congress limits all of that now by appropriation.

Mr. COCKRAN. That is what we have been trying to get away from.

Mr. CARR. This bill fixes a limit of the appropriation. The President has the power now to appoint 17 ambassadors if he chooses.

Mr. COCKRAN. Only to certain places.

Mr. CARR. And Congress has itself ignored the statute of 1909. But Congress controls the matter of compensation through appropriations.

Mr. COCKRAN. The President has the right now to appoint ambassadors only to certain places.

Mr. CARR. Only so far as compensation is concerned.

Mr. COCKRAN. Of course, he can send anybody and call him what he likes, the Grand High Pan-Jorum, and let him go to China or anywhere, and if he goes he goes without pay.

Mr. COOPER. Here is the language of the Constitution: "And by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ambassadors and other public ministers."

Mr. COCKRAN. Of course he can.

Mr. COOPER. All that Congress has done is to pass a law, which, in my judgment, is not valid. It provides that he shall not appoint an ambassador until Congress has provided a salary. That is not, in my judgment, a constitutional law. I think he could appoint an ambassador to any country, and if he is nominated, and if the Senate should confirm the nomination, that man could go there and act as ambassador without any salary at all.

Mr. COCKRAN. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. COOPER. I thought at the time it was passed that that law of Congress was not valid at all. It provides in effect that he shall not appoint an ambassador until Congress has provided the salary. That is not constitutional at all.

Mr. CONNALLY. How many ambassadors have we now?
Mr. CARR. Fourteen.

Mr. CONNALLY. The effect of this bill is to raise the salaries of several of them?

Mr. CARR. NO; there is no change in salary at all over existing appropriations. Mr. CONNALLY. I thought you said that some of them drew $17,500 and some of them drew $12,000.

Mr. CARR. I said the old statute has been changed from year to year by appropriation acts, or, rather, the appropriation acts have departed from the old basic statute. This proposes to fix these positions at those salaries which are the salaries fixed by the existing appropriation.

Mr. TEMPLE. The appropriation acts have ignored the statutory limitations?

Mr. CARR. Quite so.

Mr. TEMPLE. We are making a statute now in harmony with the custom which Congress has been following.

Mr. CARR. Precisely so.

Mr. TEMPLE. So that those appropriations will no longer be subject to a point of order.

Mr. COCKRAN. According to Mr. Cooper, and I think there may be force in it, we have no act whatever creating ambassadors. The President does that. on his own hook and we can then provide funds for them.

Mr. COOPER. This is for fixed salaries.

Mr. COCKRAN. That is, assuming by fixing salaries that we assume the existence of the offices, which, according to that, is at the discretion of the President. It attempts to give status, to fix under an appropriation an officer of the Government who, after all, is not a fixed officer.

Mr. COOPER. It recognizes that there are now 14 ambassadors representing this country.

Mr. COCKRAN. According to that contention, there is no such officer as a permanent ambassador. The ambassador is ambassador only so long as the President commissions him, but this makes him a permanent officer of the Government and has no effect at all.

Mr. TEMPLE. This determines that there shall be 14 ambassadors at a salary of $17,500.

Mr. COCKRAN. What right have we to fix that?
Mr. TEMPLE. It is fixed by Congress.

Mr. COCKRAN. You are assuming that. The difficulty about this legislation is that instead of providing an appropriation from year to year for things necessary and that are in existence, you are stabilizing as practically a fixed service of the country an ambassadorial office which in the nature of things is not fixed.

Mr. TEMPLE. It practically has been.

Mr. COCKRAN. I am not speaking about the practice. The President of the United States commissions an ambassador, who stays there only as long as the President of the United States wants him to stay. You do not provide for any ambassadors; you provide for the salaries.

Mr. ROGERS. May I suggest that this is a hearing, and that these questions may be thrashed out in executive session? Will you proceed, Mr. Carr, if the committee is ready?

Mr. COCKRAN. The chairman is perfectly right. I had forgotten that for the moment.

Mr. CARR. The next is section 3, which corresponds to existing appropriating practice, with one exception, and that is this proposes to pay the Turkish secretary of legation to Turkey $5,500 and the Turkish assistant secretary of legation to Turkey $4,000, or, in other words, the same as the secretaries in Japan and China, which is in accordance with the estimates of the State Department for the next fiscal year.

Mr. COOPER. Are we going to pay a Turk, a Japanese, and a Chinese to act as secretaries of our embassies?

Mr. CARR. No.

Mr. COOPER. This provides for a Japanese secretary of embassey in Japan. Mr. CARR. Yes; but the Japanese, Turkish, and Chinese secretaries are all American citizens trained in the language of those countries.

Mr. COOPER. But this says Japanese secretary.

Mr. CARR. That is the title.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. "Who shall bear titles and receive compensation as follows." Mr. ACKERMAN. Not a Japanese subject, however.

Mr. CARR. Genuine native-born citizens.

Mr. COOPER. A secretary of embassy to Japan would be sufficient. If you say

a Japanese secretary of the United States embassy you mean a Japanese. Mr. CARR. No.

Mr. TEMPLE. It means merely the secretary.

Mr. CARR. That is a local designation.

Mr. COCKRAN. That could be remedied to make it clear.

Mr. CARR. It is a local designation. The title is chosen and it has a local meaning.

Mr. COCKRAN. There is no question about the fact that he is a white man and an American.

Mr. CARR. A white man and an American, and a very capable one always.