The committee this day met, Hon. John Jacob Rogers pres ding.

Mr. ROGERS. The committee will please come to order. We have before us H. R. 9937, a bill relative to the foreign intercourse of the United States, which I introduced day before yesterday. This bill is intended to form the basis for appropriation bills hereafter, to protect them against wanton points of order and to bring up to date our foreign-service legislation. There are few important departures proposed in the bill from existing appropriating practice. That statement, however, is subject to one exception which will be developed in connection with section 1. Mr. Carr has assisted me in the preparation of this bill. Mr. COOPER. May I ask a question?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. COOPER. I have not read section 1675 in a long time. That makes specific mention of the ambassadors and ministers who are to receieve these respective salaries. There is no mention of the countries here, but it says, ambasadors not exceeding 14 in number.

Mr. ROGERS. Section 1675 specifically mentions the four countries which are the original embassy countries.

As I was saying, Mr. Carr is very familiar with this bill. He is very much occupied at the moment with the annual consular examinations of the department, which are in his charge. I asked him to come here this morning to make a general statement about the bill and to answer general questions that the committee might propound. Then I hope, for the sake of Mr. Carr's duties at the department, the committee will release him and Mr. Lay, his associate, who has been before this committee a number of times, will be glad to sit with the committee if desired in a detailed consideration of the bill. If there is no objection I will ask Mr. Carr to make a general statement.

Mr. COCKRAN. I will not be able to stay here, so I would like to ascertain in advance if this bill is to obviate wanton points of order. Is that the purpose of the bill?

Mr. ROGERS. That is one purpose of it.

Mr. COCKRAN. Then it is not necessary for me to be here, because on a former occasion I recorded my objection to rules by legislation, and I reserve that to myself if favorable action is taken on this bill.

Mr. ROGERS. I recall very well your previous position.

Mr. FAIRCHID. This bill is a surrender to the position you took, and no longer involves doing away with the rules, but involves conforming to the rules?

Mr. COCKRAN. Do you have to pass a law in order to conform to the rules? I simply just record that objection to this method of getting around the rules. Mr. ROGERS. This bill modernizes statutes which have become obsolete and out of date. It is designated to bring the old laws up to date and in conformity with appropriating practice of recent years. For example, the only statutory authority, as Mr. Cooper suggested a moment ago, for ambassadors is for the four ambassadors in the statute passed in 1893. What has been done by gradual growth in appropriation bills since that time has been to raise the number of ambassadors to 14. But the old authorization for four is still the law of the land. This bill proposes to collect all instances where the organic law is obsolete and to represent the actual legislative and executive practice of to-day. To that extent and to that degree, I think, it will serve a useful purpose.

Mr. COCKRAN. What do you mean by organic law? I do not quite understand that.

Mr. ROGERS. By organic law I mean the law which creates the fundamental powers of the State Department and the foreign service.

Mr. COCKRAN. As I understand it, that is the specific act passed creating four ambassadorships.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes; that is an example of the organic powers of the department.

Mr. COCKRAN. Since that, the number has been extended under successive provisions of appropriation bills.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. COCKRAN. Why is not a provision on an appropriation bill law as any other law?

Mr. ROGERS. So far as its validity from year to year is concerned, of course, it is of the same value; but it does not represent a permanency. It is a yearto-year bite at the subject.

Mr. COCKRAN. That is true with every ambassadorship, because if we did not appropriate from year to year they would go out of existence, ipso facto.

Mr. ROGER. Yes.

Mr. COCKRAN. I think the essence of such an appropriation for them, provide funds for that purpose, is quite another question. What I want to get at now is the point that this measure frankly is to get around the points of order that might be raised under existing law.

Mr. ROGERS. It goes a great deal further.

Mr. COCKRAN. That is one of its objects.

Mr. ROGERS. We will be glad to bear in mind your objection.

Mr. COCKRAN. If I can get back from this other meeting, I will come in to see what progress you have made. But I want to preserve my right to present to the House the question of whether rules can be obviated or whether they ought to be.

Mr. ROGERS. We shall be glad to hear from Mr. Carr now.

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

Mr. CARR. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, this bill, as I understand it, in most respects is intended to enact into general legislation the various items in the appropriation bills as they stand at present for the current year. There are a few exceptions to that statement. The first section of the bill is a revision of section 1675 of the Revised Statutes. Section 1675 created or, rather, authorized the payment of salaries to ambassadors and ministers at the following rates: Those to France, Germany, Great Britain, and Russia, $17,500 each; those to Austria, Brazil, China, Italy, Japan, Mexico, and Spain, each $12,500; those to all other countries, unless a different compensation is prescribed by law, $10.000.

Since that statute was enacted, various appropriation bills have made changes and, indeed, there have been special acts of Congress creating embassies in certain countries as, for example, in Spain, Peru, Brazil, and several other places, so that section 1675, as it stands in the Revised Statutes, is obsolete when considered from the standpoint of the present appropriation act and appropriation acts that have been enacted for a number of years. Likewise the salaries of ministers have been considerably changed by appropriation acts, so that we have some ministers at $12,000 and the remainder at $10,000. It is proposed by this act to apply to embassadors and ministers the same principle that Congress applied a few years ago to promote consuls and secretaries, namely, to classify them and stipulate the salary for each class, leaving the appropriation to vary from year to year with the number, as Congress may see fit. This leaves the entire control of the matter in Congress. It does not have to be revised from time to time as would be the case of the appropriations were made for specific purposes as they appear in the appropriation bills. By this method I think that Congress would gain a great deal in handling the matter. I think the President would gain a great deal by being able to transfer a minister from one place to another in the same class without changing his compensation, in precisely the same manner that is now done for consular officers and for secretaries in the diplomatic service.

There are two changes I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, on further consideration, and one is that I question the wisdom in lines 9 and 11, page 1, of placing a limitation upon the number of ambassadors and ministers that the President may appoint. It occurs to me that it may raise a rather serious constitutional question to place a limitation of that sort. The Appropriations Committee will naturally place a limitation. Congress will appropriate for as many as in its judgment ought to be appropriated for, but this language restricts the President from appointing more than a certain number. I believe we all agree that, in so far as the actual appointment is concerned, the President has the right to appoint ambassadors and ministers by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, although he can not pay them anything unless Congress appropriates the money.

Mr. COOPER. Could not that be construed as part of 1675, that not more than 14 of them shall have a salary of $17,500. He might employ other ambassadors, who get less salary than some of them have been getting under the appropriation bills. That would be the construction that would have to be placed on it, because if the question ever came up I have no doubt that the construction would be that the President still retains his right of appointment.

Mr. MOORES. It is the only construction the courts could give to it. The court would have to give that construction; it is the only construction that would be constitutional.

Mr. ROGERS. This language does not say the President shall appoint not exceeding the following number of ambassadors; it says that hereafter ambassadors and ministers shall be graded and classified as follows:

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. It would lend itself very easily to your construction, Mr. Cooper? Mr. COOPER. Yes.

Mr. MOORES. That is how any court would construe it.

Mr. COOPER. Yes; I think so.

Mr. ROGERS. What is the other suggestion?

Mr. CARR. The other suggestion is with respect to ministers. It occurred to me that you might want to leave out that language.

Mr. ROGERS. You suggest leaving out the words "not exceeding three in number" at the bottom of page 1 and "thirty" at top of page 2?

Mr. CARR. As being better legislation.

Mr. ROGERS. How long has the class system as distinguished from the post system been in the law as to consuls?

Mr. CARR. It came under the law in 1915 by the act of February 5, and applied it to secretaries and consuls.

Mr. ROGERS. Before that time every designation by the President must have been to a given post, both in the case of consuls general and consuls?

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. Has the change worked well?

Mr. CARR. The change has worked exceedingly well. It has relieved the department and Congress; in fact, of a lot of unnecessary machinery, detail, etc.. and accomplishes exactly the result which the other did not accomplish, and has given the department a leeway in handling it.

Mr. COOPER. Do you think that the President should be allowed to appoint ambassadors as he can, of course, under the Constitution? Or shall we provide by law that any ambassadors that he appoints shall receive $17,500, or do you want not more than the 14 now authorized by law to receive $17,500-only those to receive the $17,500. What is the point in the use of those words, "not exceed ing "?

Mr. CARR. NO. My thought is this: That you would annually appropriate, for those ambassadors who are now getting $17,500, and that you would determine from time to time whether you would have 15 or 16 or 18; and if so, then you would appropriate for them; but if the President should appoint an ambassador beyond the number for which you appropriate, that ambassador would serve without compensation, of course.

Mr. COOPER. Let me ask you this question-and the answer to it will determine the whole thing. Suppose the 14 now appointed receive $17,500 each. Suppose the President would appoint three more. What salaries would they receive if we would enact this into law?

Mr. MOORES. We would have the right of appropriation.

Mr. COOPER. But if you do not limit it to 14.

Mr. CARR. I do not see that they would receive any.

Mr. COOPER. You say ambassadors, etc., shall receive the salary herein fixed, and you strike out "not exceeding 14 in number," and just say "ambassadors at $17,500." Then you would have any ambassador-the ones now in existence or those customarily appointed-all ambassadors to receive $17,500.

Mr. ROGERS. I suppose, as a matter of fact, these four gentlemen who are representing us at the Arms Conference, and who have the rating of ambassador, would come within this language if there were no limitation on the number.

Mr. CARR. They might; but it is assumed that Congress, in appropriating for an arms conference, would place a limitation upon the use of the funds in each individual case. For instance, I can not conceive of Congress appropriating a sum for the Arms Conference and using language in a general bill of legislation like this enabling the President and Secretary of State out of that appropriation to pay the salary of an ambassador fixed by this particular law. I should think in every case of an appropriation of that sort Congress would definitely, as is its habit, place a limitation upon the use of the appropriation. Mr. COOPER. Suppose you strike out the words "not exceeding 14 in number." Then you have as permanent law section 1675, the statute reading that ambassadors shall be graded, and with the salaries affixed thereto, at $17,500. Now, we appropriate this time, say, for 14-those that have already been appointed. Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. COOPER. Under this the President appoints other ambassadors. Then, the next appropriation bill comes up and then there is permanent law providing that they shall receive $17,500. That is the law that will be on the statute books.

Mr. CARR. Yes; that is true. It will make all ambassadors that may be appointed and appropriated for by Congress receive the same salary.

Mr. COOPER. The law will be permanent law; and the Appropriations Committee will, of course, give them $17,500, because that is permanent law, or will be.

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. COOPER. Do you think we ought to appropriate or provide that all ambassadors, those existing and those hereafter appointed, shall get $17,500?

Mr. CARR. As a matter of fact, I do not see any objection to that; it is small enough as it is.

Mr. COOPER. I thought that was what you wanted; that is the reason I was getting down to it.

Mr. CARR. I think that an ambassador to any country is worth at least $17,500. Mr. ROGERS. Is there any reason which occurs to you why in this particular respect ambassadors and ministers should be treated in one way and secretaries and consuls in another? I mean in the matter of using what we call the class system as opposed to the post system.

Mr. CARR. There have been suggestions made that ambassadors and ministers fall in a class apart from secretaries and consuls, because their appointments were of a more personal nature and that it was a matter of greater importance that in the confirmation, for example, consideration be given to the place to which the ambassador or minister was to be appointed. I think we have tested that out very carefully in the matter of secretaries and in the matter of consuls and consuls general, and I think the result is substantially the same whether you appoint them by the class system in this fashion or whether you appoint them by the post system. The Executive is going to send the man of his choice in any event, or practically so, and it makes in the long run very little difference.

Mr. ROGERS. In recent years there have been many instances where an ambassador or minister has been transferred from time to time to a considerable number of different posts as chief of mission.

Mr. CARR. Yes. In the last five years that has happened quite frequently. A man has served well at one post and a good man is needed at another post. That man is promoted or transferred, as the case may be. It has been done quite frequently in the last 10 years. This would facilitate the practice rather than retard it.

Mr. ROGERS. If there are no other questions on section 1 we will proceed to other places where existing appropriating practice is departed from in this proposal.

Mr. CARR. At the end of section 1, lines 18 to 22, page 2 of the bill, there is a provision for the compensation of the agent and consul general at Tangier and at Cairo. In existing legislation Tangier has a salary of $7,500 and Cairo a salary of $6,500. This bill gives both the same. As a matter of fact, both ought to have the same salary. If anything the living expenses, etc., are much heavier in Cairo than they are in Tangier, and it is really unfair to establish Cairo permanently at a lower salary than Tangier.

Mr. COOPER. Is the word "commissioner" in the first line at the top of page 3-"That a commissioner appointed to act in any country "-definite in that meaning, used in that way-"That a commissioner "?

Mr. CARR. I think it is. It means only one thing in the parlance of the State Department. It means an officer who is neither a minister, nor ambassador, nor chargé d'affaires, and who is not a member of the regular establishment. Mr. MOORE. That commissioner has the meaning of a diplomatic commissioner. We have United States commissioners in a number of countries, who are not diplomatic commissioners, to take acknowledgments of deeds and things of that sort, such as those in the Court of Claims.

Mr. COOPER. The kind of commissioner I have in mind ought to be specified definitely, whatever it means.

Mr. CARR. Mr. Lay suggests commissioners of the Department of State." I am not quite sure that that is a broad enough term. The commissioner, as I understand it. means this sort of an officer: An officer who is sent by the Secretary of State to a country that we have not recognized.

Mr. COOPER. Why not say a commissioner appointed by the Secretary of State?

Mr. ROGERS. He is appointed by the President.

Mr. CARR. Nominally, he is appointed by the President. Actually, the commissioners recently appointed have been officers of the foreign service designated to act as commissioners. The designation was really made by the Secretary of State in the name of the President.

Mr. TEMPLE. That covers all these missions that we have been maintaining in the countries.

Mr. CARR. Yes. Those commissioners were men appointed to countries we had not recognized, and, therefore, to which we could not send a member of the regular establishment, as ambassador, minister, secretary, or agent. Therefore, they are designated as commissioners?

Mr. TEMPLE. How do they get their appointments?

Mr. CARR. With the exception of Mr. Dresel, who was at Berlin-I think he was appointed by the President-the others were men bearing Presidential appointments, consuls general or secretaries in the Diplomatic Service. They were designated as commissioners by the Secretary of State.

Mr. COOPER. Would this do: "That a commissioner duly appointed to act for the United States in any country"?

Mr. CARR. Duly appointed to act for the United States in any country? Mr. COOPER. In any foreign country.

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. TEMPLE. Is not that a temporary situation?

Mr. CARR. Invariably a temporary situation.

Mr. TEMPLE. Then what objection can there be to defining it as a diplomatic commissioner? What is the objection to the use of the word diplomatic? Mr. CARR. I think there is an objection if that is required to go into his title. Mr. TEMPLE. A commissioner to be appointed in any country to act in lieu of an ambassador or minister.

Mr. CARR. Or to act in maintaining relations? That is just what we do not want.

Mr. COOPER. To perform any diplomatic or consular service for the United States?

Mr. CARR. That is precisely what we do not do.

Mr. COOPER. What do they do?

Mr. CARR. They keep us informed and maintain an informal relationship with a people whose Government we have not recognized.

Mr. COOPER. Sort of a morganatic diplomat.

Mr. CARR. We can not define it as diplomatic, and we can not define it as maintaining relations. That is what we do not want to do.

Mr. MOORES. Why not give them another name? Call them legatees.

Mr. CARR. I am sorry I can not think of language to accomplish that.
Mr. COOPER. They ought to be in the law identified accurately.

Mr. CARR. Mr. Lay suggests a commissioner appointed to act for the Department of State in a country in which there is no diplomatic representative. Mr. TEMPLE. It seems to me that hits it.

Mr. MOORES. That is very clear.

Mr. CARR. A commissioner appointed to act for the Department of State in any country in which there is no United States diplomatic representative. Mr. TEMPLE. Or representation.

Mr. ROGERS. It seems to me that these officers do not act for the Department of State in any sense. They act for the Nation.

Mr. CARR. That was the objection I first made to the suggestion that by making them commissioners of the Department of State it is rather too narrow.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Would it not be better to put in some words like accredited representative of the United States because there may have been a minister or consul removed? He might be actually in the country.

Mr. CARR. "An accredited representative." That is very good.

Mr. ROGERS. We might pass that temporarily and proceed, coming back to it if any further suggestions are forthcoming.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. Coming back to the last paragraph of section 1, a minister resident and consul general to Liberia. You have already provided at the bottom of page 1 and at the top of page 2, that ministers shall be divided into two classes, the $12,000 class and the $10,000 class. Is not that a contradiction in terms to first provide that ministers shall be divided into the $12,000 class and the $10,000 class and then to provide that the minister to Liberia shall get $5,000?