J RIGHT OF WAY ACROSS VANCOUVER MILITARY JULY 27, 1912.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. HAY, from the committee of conference, submitted the following CONFERENCE REPORT. [To accompany S. 4663.] The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 4663) granting to the Washington-Oregon Corporation a right of way for an electric railroad, and for telephone, telegraph, and electric-transmission lines across the Vancouver Military Reservation, in the State of Washington, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its amendment numbered 3. That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the House numbered 1 and 2, and agree to the same. JAMES HAY, S. H. DENT, Jr., Managers on the part of the House. F. E. WARREN, Managers on the part of the Senate. STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE. The managers on the part of the House make the following statement with regard to the action of the conferees on S. 4663: The amendments of the House Nos. 1 and 2 struck out of the Senate bill the words "the right" and the word "grant" and inserted the word "license," and the Senate receded. The House inserted the words "at the discretion of the Secretary of War" in place of the words "during the pleasure of Congress,' and the House recedes. JAMES HAY, S. H. DENT, Jr., Managers on the part of the House. ACQUISITION OF EMBASSIES AND CONSULATES IN CERTAIN COUNTRIES. JULY 27, 1912.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. FLOOD, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 22589.] The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 22589) to provide for the acquisition of premises for the diplomatic establishments of the United States at the City of Mexico, Mexico; Tokyo, Japan; and Berne, Switzerland; and for the consular establishment of the United States at Hankow, China, having had the same under consideration, reports it back without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill do pass. The United States is credited with being one of the richest and most democratic nations in the world, and yet in the maintenance of its diplomatic and consular representatives it ranks far behind every great power. This is poor economy and is manifestly inconvenient, for the location of diplomatic offices in particular is changing from time to time at the will of owners of property or according to the private fortunes of the diplomatic representative for the time. Moreover, the willingness of an ambassador with a large private fortune to maintain an embassy upon a scale which his successor can not afford to continue can not but result in injury to the prestige of the Government, particularly in those quarters of the world where appearance counts for so much. There are two reasons in particular why American representatives abroad are not on an equality with the representatives of other Governments. In the first place, the salaries paid by the United States to its diplomatic representatives are far below those paid by other first-class powers. The salary of an American ambassador is $17,500 a year. The salaries of the British ambassadors at Vienna, Rome, St. Petersburg, Berlin, and Paris are said to range from $35,000 to $45,000 a year. The salaries of the German ambassadors at the places named range from $25,000 to $37,500 a year. The salaries of the French ambassadors range from $24,000 to $40,000 a year; the salaries of the Austrian ambassadors from $31,000 to $45,000 a year; the salaries of the Italian ambassadors from $22,000 to $23,000 a year; and the salaries of the Russian ambassadors from $32,000 to $40,000 a year. In addition, an official residence is provided by the Government in each place. The second reason for the unequal position of American diplomatic representatives abroad is the fact that the principal foreign nations own official residences and offices in each important capital. For example, in Vienna official residences are owned by France, Italy, Germany, England, and Russia. In Paris they are owned by Austria, Germany, England, Russia, Sweden, Belgium, and Greece. In Berlin official residences are owned by Austria, France, England, and Russia. In St. Petersburg, Austria, France, and Germany provide their diplomatic representatives with official residences. The Governments of Austria, France, Germany, England, Italy, and Russia have both summer and winter residences at Constantinople. The disadvantageous position in which our diplomatic representatives are placed will be apparent from the following statement: At London, where the Austro-Hungarian ambassador receives a salary of $45,000 a year, there is furnished an official residence and offices which cost approximately $280,000; at Berlin, where the French ambassador receives a salary of $28,000, an official residence is furnished which originally cost $102,290, but is now valued at $579,000; at Berlin, where the British ambassador receives a salary of $40,000, an official residence is furnished which cost $291,600; at Paris, where the British representative receives $45,000 a year in salary, an official residence is provided which in 1814 was purchased for $155,520, and is now worth more than 10 times as much; at St. Petersburg, where the German ambassador receives a salary of $37,500, the German Government has recently appropriated $562,500 for the purchase of a residence. From the point of view of the officers concerned, the disadvantages of the existing methods or lack of method in housing American ambassadors, ministers, and consuls abroad are many. It is well known in all capitals that officers of the foreign service are not likely to remain at one post a great number of years, and are subject to being ordered elsewhere at any time, consequently they are usually required to pay a high rental. Then, too, they are obliged to assume the great burden of fitting and furnishing the houses or apartments, involving much trouble and a great deal of expense. This must be done at each post, although the residence at each may not exceed a few years, and when they terminate their period of service at one post they must suffer great loss in disposing of the furnishings acquired, prior to undergoing similar difficulties at the next post to which they may be assigned. One of the most distinguished of American ambassadors has confessed that upon his arrival at his post of duty he was obliged to make outlays for furniture, fittings, and repairs to the value of more than his first year's salary, and even after consuming much time in obtaining and furnishing his house, which, after all, was inferior in every respect to that of every other ambassador at the capital, he was, two years afterwards, suddenly notified that the house had been sold and that he would have to move elsewhere, and again undergo the burden of house hunting and the expense of adapting his furniture and fittings to other premises. Moreover, in many cities it is at times impossible to obtain properly furnished apartments, and in some it is very difficult to find any suitable house or apartments at all, whether furnished or unfurnished, and not infrequently are American representatives compelled by circumstances to reside in an unfit quarter of the city remote from the residences of other foreign representatives, from the public offices, and from everybody and everything related to their work. From the point of view of the Government the indirect cost of not owning appropriate residences for its representatives abroad is enormous. In the first place every representative upon his arrival at a new post must consume a vast amount of time and effort and money in procuring a proper residence and office. The country not only loses the value of his time, but it loses vastly in prestige and dignity by constant changes in the location of its offices, and by the fact that American representatives not infrequently are obliged to take up residence in unfit apartments or in unsuitable parts of the city. The usefulness of an ambassador or minister or consul depends in large measure upon the respect in which he is held in the country in which he resides and upon the extent of his acquaintance with public men and persons of influence. One of the most important and indispensable duties of a foreign representative is to make the acquaintance of the official world, the diplomatic representatives of foreign nations, the local officials, and the leaders in public life. To this end he must give receptions and dinners and take part in the social life of the country. Obviously for these purposes he must have a suitable residence, and in this respect American representatives are in a position inferior to that of any representative of a first-class nation. In the great capitals of Europe the general public knows the British, French, Austrian, Italian, German, and other important embassies and legations except that of the United States. The American representative has no settled home. He sometimes resides in one quarter of the town and sometimes in another. Sometimes in a suitable house, but more often in an unsuitable one. In the oriental countries where appearances count for so much and have such a direct bearing upon the efficiency of diplomatic and consular officers, the American representatives, with the exception of those of the ambassador at Constantinople and the minister at Peking, are at an enormous disadvantage with like representatives of other governments. No loyal American desires his country's representatives abroad to be thought less well of than the representatives of other countries or to possess less ability or to be less useful. Yet it is a fact that the existing conditions under which the foreign service, and especially the diplomatic branch, is maintained are rapidly making the primary qualification of an ambassador or minister not his ability or culture or skill but a sufficient private fortune which he is willing to expend in maintaining a dignified and appropriate establishment. It is not democratic or even self-respecting to permit an American representative to live in an unsuitable apartment when his colleagues are provided with commodious and dignified residences; nor, on the other hand, to permit him to live in a lavish way when everyone knows that he is doing so at his own expense, and thus embarrassing his successor |