Mr. COOPER. That is the most inaccurate language that I ever seen in a statute. Who is he? He is a Japanese secretary of our legation. Nine hundred and ninety-nine men out of a thousand, and intelligent, too, would understand that he is a Japanese. Who is that man? He is a Japanese secretary of our legation.

Mr. TEMPLE. But the phrase is defined by statute. In law, for instance, a man may have four or five or six parents, because it recognizes grand-parents. And here we have a phrase defined by statute.

Mr. CONNALLY. This is the statute we are making now.

Mr. TEMPLE. No; already existing law.

Mr. COOPER. "And the said offices are hereby established." Established in this law. I would establish it by a different name.

Mr. COCKRAN. That can be corrected by us after this hearing. I agree with you.

Mr. TEMPLE. We went into that carefully three or four years ago and there were reasons given them for perpetuating that title. I do not recall what they were.

Mr. CARR. The committee has struggled with that title for a number of years and has varied it from time to time, and the last time it took this form, which was done on my own representation, because the committee had chosen the title of "secretary and interpreter," which is usually understood in China and Japan as giving to our Chinese or Japanese secretary a position lower than that which he ought occupy in order to be of the greatest use. The reason for this is that the term Chinese secretary or Japanese secretary" has a local meaning which nothing else will supply and give the man the same position. In other words, a Japanese secretary, let us say, has acquired a certain position in respect to Japanese diplomatic circles in Tokyo. The same is true in China. Give him some other title and he is always under the necessity of explaining who he is.

66

66

Mr. ROGERS. Does he rank next to the ambassador or minister, as the case may be?

Mr. CARR. No; he ranks with but after the counselor.

Mr. ROGERS. He ranks ahead of all the permanent secretaries?

Mr. CARR. Yes; I wish to say by way of overcoming what Mr. Cooper has in mind that in the first part of section 3 it might be specified that the President shall be and that he is hereby authorized to appoint a secretary and assistant secretary of embassy or legation in each of the following countries American citizens proficient in the use of the language.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. Instead of the word " persons."

Mr. CARR. That would be more specific and would be in accordance with the facts, since we never appoint a subject of either of those countries.

Mr. COOPER. That would be satisfactory, instead of the word "persons" to make it read "American citizens," in line 18, section 3. That would cover it

exactly.

Mr. CARR. Yes, sir; that is the explanation.

Mr. ROGERS. Is there any change in the law in section 4? Mr. CARR. There is no change in the law in section 4. Section 5, abolishing certain sections of the Revised Statutes, I can explain very hurriedly to amount to this. Section 1677 fixes or creates the office of consul general and secretary of legation in Turkey. That has not been followed for many years, and Congress has ignored the statute in the appropriation act, so there is no reason for that statute existing any longer.

In the case of section 1678-" the interpreter of legation to Turkey shall be entitled to receive $3,000 a year "-that is replaced by this provision, which has been carried in the appropriation act for a Turkish secretary of legation. Therefore that has no reason for existing.

Section 1679, interpreter to the legation of Japan. That has been replaced by the creation of the office of Japanese secretary. Section 1682 provides there should be but one resident minister to Guatemala and Nicaragua, etc.

That is rendered obsolete by the fact that Congress has created the position of minister to each of the Central American countries. Therefore, that has no reason for existing longer.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Now, they have come back into one federated union of those countries.

Mr. CARR. The situation, however, is quite different from that which prevailed at the time the original act was passed.

Section 1683 provides there shall be a diplomatic representative of the United States to each of the Republics of Haiti and Liberia, who shall be appointed

by the President, etc., and there shall be accredited as minister residents and consul general. Congress has ceased to observe that statute or section and has created the position of minister extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Haiti.

1

Mr. CONNALLY. By statute or appropriation?

Mr. CARR. By appropriation.

Mr. CONNALLY. Then that is only by appropriation; it is not permanent law. Mr. CARR. It was by appropriation.

Mr. CONNALLY. Ought we to put something in here to authorize that cr will it not be subject to a point of order?

Mr. CARR. I do not think it is subject to a point of order. If section 1 of this bill goes through and is adopted, that will give the Appropriations Committee authority to appropriate.

Mr. CONNALLY. Does that number 30 include those two?

Mr. CARR. Yes, sir.

Section 1686 provides that when any diplomatic office held by any person is superadded to that held by another, such person shall be allowed additional compensation for his service in such superadded office, etc. That is an obsolete statute; it has gradually become obsolete through other statutes and appropriation acts. This bill provides that no salary appropriated for any ambassador or minister shall be paid to any officer receiving any other salary from the Government. As section 1686 is inconsistent with this, it ought to be repealed.

Section 1693 provides for the salary of interpreter at Bangkok, Siam. There is another provision in here relating to the appointment of interpreters, which has been carried each year in the appropriation act. As the appropriating practice is now inconsistent with the statute, section 1693 has become obsolete and should be repealed.

Section 1696 provides that the only allowance to any vice-consulate or consular agency for expenses shall be an amount sufficient to pay for stationery and postage on official letters.

As this provision is now obsolete all recent appropriation acts have properly authorized the payment of other expenses for vice consulates and consular agencies. This statute ought to be repealed.

That covers all the obsolete statutes.

The next section, section 6 of this bill, is in accordance with existing law except that instead of $2,500 the current appropriation act calls for $2,000 as the salary of interpreters in Persia and Bangkok, Siam. If the committee thinks wise, I am sure it would be of advantage to the service to make that $2,500. Quite obviously it is practically impossible now to get a qualified man for that amount.

Mr. COOPER. What is the salary in Persia now?

Mr. CARR. $2,000. It is very difficult to find an American citizen of the proper qualifications to serve at $2,000 in those countries. As this bill would establish the amount definitely, I think it should be fixed at a maximum of $2,500.

Mr. ROGERS. I will say, parenthetically, as to sections 6, 7, and 8, that while they are substantially in accord with the appropriating practice ever since I have been on the committee, those sections have always been subject to a point of order in the House and a point of order has been made year after year. While these sections embody appropriating practice they do not embody existing law.

Mr. CARR. Section 9 is an enlargement of the old statute 1748 to agree with the current practice of Congress in making appropriations for the foreign service. Congress has been adding year after year an item specified in that section as originally enacted, and this brings it up to include the items which Congress has been accustomed to approve in appropriation bills for several years. Mr. CONNALLY. You skipped sections 7 and 8.

Mr. COCKRAN. Those are existing laws.

Mr. ROGERS. I thought I had sufficiently indicated why those were here. Sections 6, 7, and 8 are in accord with existing appropriating practice for many years.

Mr. CONNALLY. The amounts?

Mr. CARR. The amounts are the same in all respects. That is the only thing to be said, I believe, about 1748; it simply brings the old statute into conformity with the present practice.

Mr. COCKRAN. Take section 8:

"That annual allowance for the rent of quarters and for the payment of the cost of tuition of student interpreters shall be made from such appropriations as may be provided therefor by Congress, which are hereby authorized." That is to meet the Appropriations Committee, is it? All right.

Mr. ROGERS. Are you ready to proceed with section 10?

Mr. COCKRAN. How does section 9 change existing law?

Mr. CARR. That changes existing law by merely adding to the old basic act those items which have been covered from year to year by appropriations in agreement with the existing requirements of the Diplomatic and Consular Service.

Mr. COOPER. And authorizes the appropriation?

Mr. CARR. And authorizes those items in such amounts as Congress may appropriate.

Mr. CONNALLY. I notice our old friend, "Loss on bills of exchange to officers of the United States court for China." It just authorizes an appropriation and does not fix the amount.

Mr. CARR. It authorizes an appropriation in whatever amount Congress may deem proper.

Mr. ROGERS. Take up section 10.

Mr. CARR. Section 10, for transfer of diplomatic and consular officers, is the exact language that is now carried in the appropriation bills. This provision simply establishes the legality of the appropriation for that purpose.

Section 11 authorizes the President to make appropriate awards and acknowledge services of masters and crews of foreign vessels in rescuing American seamen or citizens from shipwreck or other catastrophe at sea, etc. That is in accordance with existing appropriations made for the purpose. This is merely to authorize the appropriations.

The same is true with section 12.

66

That the President shall defray, at the public expense, the expenses of transporting the remains of diplomatic and consular officers of the United States, including consular assistants and clerks, who have died or who may die abroad or in transit. while in the discharge of their official duties, to their former homes in this country for interment, and for the ordinary and necessary expenses of such interment at their posts or at home; and appropriations for such purposes are hereby authorized."

That is authorizing the existing legislative practice.

Mr. CONNALLY. Is not that the effect that when you direct the President he shall do it are you not absolutely obligating the Government, morally at least, to pay all expenses that may be incurred in all cases?

Mr. CARR. I suppose it might be held that this is a direction to the President.
Mr. CONNALLY. It. can not be very much stronger-the word "shall."
Mr. CARR. To make an obligation against the United States for that purpose.
Mr. CONNALLY. Why not use the word "may"?

Mr. COOPER. The whole statute would be construed-the whole section. rather and the language in sections 17 and 18 would be construed and in sections 10 and 11, "appropriations for such purpose as hereby authorized." That means the President shall defray when appropriations have been made. It does not mean that he shall do it.

Mr. CARR. I may say this much for this section, that this is precisely what Congress has been doing for years and years, except as to the form. This language follows the language that has been carried in the appropriation acts since 1873.

Mr. TEMPLE. In sections 10, 11, and 13 the Secretary of State is authorized to pay. In section 11 the President is authorized to make appropriate award. In section 13 the Secretary of State is authorized. Section 12 reads "the President shall defray."

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. TEMPLE. What will be the objection to using the same language in each of these sections?

Mr. COCKRAN. I think it is a more peremptory necessity. I think a man who dies abroad is entitled to the right to have his remains brought home.

Mr. COOPER. I think it ought to be mandatory in the law.

Mr. CARR. I think, Mr. Temple, that the positions are quite different in those three things. It is one thing to be authorized to pay transportation or to reward somebody for rescuing American seamen, but it is quite another thing

to be able to transport the remains of an officer of the Government, who dies abroad, in respect to which there can not be delay. Action has to be taken immediately, if taken at all.

Mr. TEMPLE. I have no objection to letting it stand as it is.

Mr. CARR. In fact, we have had one or two cases, almost scandalous, in their nature arising from the fact that we were not able immediately to take care of the remains of deceased officers for whom no other means were available.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. How about the expression "while in the discharge of their official duties"? Isn't that rather narrow? Supposing a diplomatic clerk or officer for a day is away from the discharge of his official duties-not actually in the discharge of his official duties--and is in bathing at a seaside resort, and is drowned?

Mr. CARR. We do not interpret that as literally as might appear to you-that is, a man regularly assigned to the office at Naples and who should die in transit to or from that office during his assignment would be entitled to the relief provided in this section.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. A different interpretation is given in the Navy Department if a seaman is drowned under just such circumstances abroad. I had one case that came to my attention where a United States vessel was at a foreign port, and one of her seamen was permitted to get off for a day from the vessel and went in bathing and was drowned. He was buried over there and they will not transport his body to this country and say they can not, because at the time of the accident he was off on a one-day pass. His family are so poor that the expense is large to them. They are so poor that they can not bring his body back and they are grieving because of that situation.

Mr. CARR. There have been for many years-always, perhaps-laws of our own Government, and also, I think, the same principle is generally recognized in foreign countries, that a seaman would have no claim for relief under those circumstances, unless at the time of his injury or death he was actually in the service of the vessel; that is to say, was on the vessel.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. This says "while in the discharge of official duties."

Mr. CARR. This has been used in our appropriation bill for a long, long time, and has a very definite administrative construction.

Mr. ROGERS. And it "gets by " the comptroller.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. I think that is a cruel ruling. Here is an American boy passing down the street of an American city and the Navy recruiting officer induces him to enlist in the service. He is taken abroad on a vessel and is buried over there because they will not pay the expense of transporting his body home.

Mr. COOPER. What would they have done in the case of that sailor if he had gone to church and a chandelier fell on him and killed him?

Mr. CARR. They would not have paid the expense under the ruling.

Mr. COOPER. That strikes me as a very narrow ruling.

Mr. CARR. Ought we not to consider it as an injury to the United States to have the body of a deceased officer on the other side? It is very desirable to take care of this in foreign countries and to bring them out of the foreign country. Mr. FAIRCHILD. I would like to see included in this particular section a provision that includes men in the service of the Army or Navy of the United States. Mr. CONNALLY. We can not do it in this bill.

Mr. ROGERS. We will meet again at 10.30 o'clock Friday morning.

(Thereupon the committee adjourned to meet again at 10.30 o'clock a. m. Friday, January 20, 1922.)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, January 20, 1922.

The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. John Jacob Rogers presiding. Mr. ROGERS. The committee will please come to order. On Wednesday, when we adjourned, I think we had completed the preliminary discussion of the first 13 sections.

Mr. COOPER. Something further was to be said about the qualification on the word "commissioner," on page 3. What was finally agreed upon?

Mr. ROGERS. It had not occurred to me at the time that the word "commissioner," as applied to diplomatic usage, had been in the law for a good many years and that the officer is an established and recognized one. Under those circumstances the word "commissioner," as it stands, is perhaps perfectly safe to employ. What do you think about that, Mr. Carr?

STATEMENT OF MR. WILBUR J. CARR, DIRECTOR CONSULAR SERVICE, STATE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. CARR. I was going to point out section 1675, in its original form, the dating of which I do not remember, but it must have been back in the sixties or seventies, I do not know, but it has this language," and unless otherwise provided by law, ministers resident and ministers "--the word "commissioner" is used without further qualification or further description.

Mr. COOPER. There must have been in the mind of that legislator some definition of the word "commissioner." Otherwise he would not have used the word "commissioner."

Mr. CARR. I do not think so, because, I think, going back to those days, it was not uncommon to appoint a diplomatic representative as a representative to a country with which the United States did not maintain relations, and call him a 66 commissioner." For instance, the man who went to China

Mr. COOPER. There are different kinds of commissioners, a commissioner to do a thing not strictly diplomatic or consular in its character, as to perform some specific act.

Mr. CARR. A State appoints a commissioner to take testimony, of course. The United States Government, so far I know, has no such official.

Mr. COOPER. The United States Government, Congress, has exclusive jurisdiction over this territory.

Mr. CARR. Would not a commissioner of that sort be specifically described as a commissioner of deeds, or a commissioner of an exposition, or a commissioner for something of that sort, whereas the context here, in which this word appears, I believe would place an effective limitation upon the function of that commissioner. It could not mean anything else in this context than that which it is intended to mean.

Mr. COOPER. All right.

Mr. ROGERS. Are there any further questions up to and including the end of section 13? If not, will you make a statement concerning section 14?

Mr. CARR. With reference to section 14, it was the purpose to draft a general statute which would authorize in general terms those appropriations for the participation of the United States in international commissions, conferences, and so on, of which there are a considerable number. and from time to time others occur by reason of legislation or treaties to which this Government becomes a party.

Those that are specified are subject to a point of order under the rules of the House, such as the Pan American Union, International Commission on Annual Tables of Constants, Bureau of Interparliamentary Union, for promotion of International arbitration, International Railway Congress, International Sanitary Bureau, United States section of the Inter-American High Commission, International Research Council, International Hydrographic Bureau, International Prison Commission. The participation of the United States in these establishments or enterprises has been explained many times before this committee and on the floor of the House, but each year somebody raises a point of order against one or more of them during the consideration of the appropriation bill. The language here, I believe, would so establish the authority for those objects as to make them not liable to a point of order.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. That is right as to the second paragraph of section 14, but, as to the first, is that not a sweeping authority? If that had been put on the statute books when Mr. Wilson was President, over in Paris it could have been construed as authorizing the League of Nations.

Mr. CARR. I do not think so.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. He could appoint a commissioner to that league.

Mr. CARR. We could not get into that without going into it the way the Constitution prescribes. For instance, most of the commissions under this paragraph would be commissions or congresses or conventions, in which we could participate by virtue of the treaties ratified by the Senate. There are certain other things where Congress itself duly authorizes, but there is no general statute. Mr. FAIRCHILD. At the present time?

Mr. CARR. At the present time.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. This would be a general statute?

Mr. CARR. This would be a general statute, that is true.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. And under that sweeping authorization, while we might not be a member of the League of Nations, the President could get us involved in the League of Nations by appointing a commissioner or representative.