SEC. 13. That the l'resident is hereby authorized to grant to diplomatic missions and consular offices representation allowances out of any money which may be appropriated for such purpose from time to time by Congress, the expenditure of such representation allowance to be accounted for in detail to the Department of State quarterly under such rules and regulations as the President inay prescribe.

SEC. 14. That any minister or foreign service officer may be assigned for duty in the Department of State without loss of class or salary, such assignment to be for a period of not more than three years, unless the public interests demand further service, when such assignment may be extended for a period not to exceed one year.

SEC. 15. That, within the discretion of the President, foreign service offiers of class one may be appointed to act as commissioner, chargé d'affaires, minister resident, or diplomatic agent for such period as the public interests may require without loss of grade, class, or salary.

SEC. 16. That any foreign service officer of whatever class detailed for special duty outside the city of Washington shall be paid his actual and necessary expenses for subsistence during such special detail not exceeding an average of $8 per day: Provided, That such special duty shall not continue for more than s xty days, unless in the case of international gatherings, congresses, or conferences, when such subsistence expenses shall run only during the life of the international gathering, congress, or conference and the necessary period of transit to and from the place of gathering.

SEC. 17. That the provisions of the Act approved May 22, 1920, entitled "An Act for the retirement of employees in the classified civil service, and for other purposes," are hereby made applicable to foreign service officers with the modifications hereinafter stated, to wit:

(a) The age of retirement, instead of 70 years as provided in section 1 of the said Act, shall be 65 years in the case of foreign service officers.

(b) The maximum and minimum annuities under the several classes, instead of those stipulated in section 2 of the said Act, shall be as follows:

Class A, maximum annuity, $4,800, minimum annuity $1,500; class B, maximum annuity $4,400, minimum annuity, $1,375; class C, maximum annuity $4,000, minimum annuity $1,250; class D, maximum annuity $3,600, minimum annuity $1,125; class E, maximum annuity $3,200, minimum annuity $1,000; class F, maximum annuity $2,800, minimum annuity $875.

(c) In lieu of section 3 of the said act the following provision shall apply: That for the purposes of this act the period of service shall be computed from the date of original oath of office as secretary in the diplomatic service, consul general, consul, vice consul of career, consular assistant, or student interpreter, and shall include periods of service at different times in either the diplomatic or Consular Service, or while on assignment to the Department of State, but all periods of separation from the service and so much of any period of leave of absence as may exceed six months shall be excluded: Provided, That service in the Department of State prior to appointment as a foreign service officer may be included in the period of service, in which case the officer shall pay into the civil service retirement and disability fund a special contribution equal to 5 per centum of his annual salary for each year of such employment after this act goes into effect, with interest thereon to date of payment compounded annually at 4 per centum, less a deduction of the amount of all contributions and accrued interest thereon previously paid by such employee into the civil service retirement and disability fund under the act of May 22, 1920.

(d) Any minister or person holding any official position in the Department of State at the time this act becomes effective who subsequent to November 26, 1909, occupied the position of secretary in the diplomatic service and any foreign service officer who may hereafter be promoted to the grade of minister or appointed to any official position in the Department of State shall be entitled to all the benefits of this act in the same manner and under the same conditions as a foreign service officer.

(e) The rate of deduction in the case of foreign service officers shall be a sum equal to 5 per centum of the basic salary.

(f) In lieu of section 15 of the said act the following provision shall apply: That there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, from any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $50,000 for the payment of annuities provided for in this act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1923.

The Secretary of the Interior shall submit annually to the Secretary of i Treasury estimates of the appropriations necessary to continue this act in full force and effect.

SEC. 18. That all provisions of law heretofore enacted relating to secretaries in the diplomatic service and to consular officers, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, are hereby made applicable to foreign service officers when they are designated for service as diplomatic or as consular officers; and that all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.

SEC. 19. That all money heretofore appropriated for the diplomatic and consular service of the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1923, is hereby reappropriated and made available for the same year for the foreign service of the United States and for the same purposes and in the same amounts as first appropriated.

SEC. 20. That this act shall take effect on January 1, 1923.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will kindly come to order. The committee was called to consider Mr. Rogers's bill, H. R. 12543. The title of the bill is "A bill for the reorganization and improvement of the foreign service of the United States, and for other purposes."

Mr. COCKRAN. Has not this bill been reported?

The CHAIRMAN. Not this bill. The Secretary of State is here, and we would like very much to hear him on the bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Mr. COCKRAN. Before you begin, Mr. Secretary, would you mind letting us know where this bill differs from the other one?

The CHAIRMAN. This bill relates to the foreign service. The other bill was to authorize appropriations. This is an entirely different bill from the one you have in mind. Am I not right in that?

Mr. ROGERS. It has no point in contact with the other bill.
Mr. COCKRAN. I beg your pardon.

Secretary HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the bill before the committee is House bill No. 12543. This bill is a revision of the bill known as House bill No. 17, of the Sixty-seventh Congress, first session, introduced by Mr. Rogers in April, 1921. The present bill, No. 12543, was redrafted after consultation with the Department of State. The changes that have been made in the bill have been made in view of certain recommendations in the interest of the objects of the previous measure which were suggested by the Depart ment of State. In view of the fact that the original bill had been gone over in this way with the desire to secure in the best possible manner the increased efficiency of our foreign service I took the liberty of sending the measure to the President for his suggestions and determination with regard to his own attitude as to the bill. The President examined the proposed bill and, I believe, communicated with the chairman of the committee in both Houses to the effect that the purposes of the bill had his approval.

I desire to discuss it, of course, in its general aspect, and then it will be quite appropriate and in the natural course for the committee to take up particular details which may or may not require, in its judgment, amendments to meet those purposes which I am sure all of us cherish. The desire is to have an improved foreign service. The provisions of the bill are in the interest of a broader basis for the selection of foreign service officers, for greater flexibility in appointment, transfer, and general supervision of the service, and, of course, in those and in other respects to promote the efficiency of the service.

You will observe that in section 2 of the bill it is provided "That the officers in the foreign service shall hereafter be graded and classified as follows, with the salaries of each class herein affixed thereto, ambassadors and ministers as now or hereinafter provided-foreign service officer, class one, $9,000, foreign service officer, class two, $8,000," and so on down to class 9, $3,000.

The effect of that provision, if enacted into law, would be to take, for the purpose of this gradation, the salary classification of our present consular and diplomatic officers below the rank of minister and put them into one class, called foreign service officers." You will observe that this provision does not affect ambassadors or ministers now or hereafter appointed. It only affects the grades of the Consular or Diplomatic Service below the rank of minister.

In order that you may understand the practical bearing of the salary classification at once, before I proceed to discuss the merits of the change I might call your attention to the fact that at present we have in the Diplomatic Service below the grade of ministers four classes; that is, diplomatic secretaries, with salaries ranging from $2,500 to $4,000. In the Consular Service we have a number of classes. We have consuls general and consuls and vice consuls of career in a number of classes. The effect of this provision would be to put all these officials under a classification by the President into these grades of foreign service officers.

Mr. COOPER. May I ask a question? It will not interrupt at all, seriously. The consuls to-day have no diplomatic functions, and to combine both diplomatic and consular service under one title, how would you distinguish consuls from members of the regular diplomatic forces if they are all called foreign service officers of class 1?

Secretary HUGHES. You have anticipated me, Mr. Cooper, in what I was about to say in support of this provision. The object of this provision is twofold-to have an appropriate basis of selection by an improvement in the opportunities and emoluments of the service; and, second, to have a greater flexibility in the appointments and arrangements of the service.

In the first place, let me call your attention to what the bill does not do. The bill does not make a diplomatic officer out of one who is not a diplomatic officer. A diplomatic officer in the view of international law has certain immunities and we can not change those by statute. In other words, you can not, by making a man who is not, from the standpoint of diplomatic usage, a diplomatic officer, you can not make him a diplomatic officer so as to give him or entitle him to recognition and immunities which go with the diplomate appointment.

Secondly, the President, under the Constitution, in accordance with his authority, will, of course, appoint counselors and secretaries and diplomatic persons who would have diplomatic standing and who would have the function: associated with their work. Similarly he would appoint consuls who would have the work which consuls have had to do. This classification into foreign service officers simply has the effect of a gradation for the purpose of establishing the salary relation of groups of men.

Now, I have said that there were two reasons for that, and in view of your question, Mr. Cooper, I will discuss the reason I put second in the first place; that is greater flexibility. you know; the particular duties of consular officers. Since 1906 consular officers have been selected in the Department of State, under rules prescribed by the President, upon a merit basis. Politics have been taken out of the Consular Service years ago, so that men have been selected upon an examination devised in the department, under those intimately familiar with the necessities of the work, to discover the applicant's special attention for that work. Similarly, since 1909, we have had diplomatic secretaries below the rank of ministers selected upon a merit basis under rules prescribed by the President for the determination of their fitness for that work. In 1915 the practice received legislative support by the provision that secretaries and consuls of various sorts should be commissioned to a class, and the selection should be in accordance with the rules prescribed by the President. Now, while there is a very clear distinction between the Consular Service and the Diplomatic Service, each conceived simply as such, you have in both cases a great deal of actual work which does not differ in the one case from that of the other. For example, you have consuls in many places where there are no ministers, and they keep in touch with affairs and they will advise the department as to the course of events. In some places they are called upon, if American citizens get into trouble, immediately for what a minister might be called upon if they were at a place where a minister was available.

Again, at this time, with economic questions so closely fitting in with political questions and all political questions, you might say broadly, have some economic aspect or some economic force lying back of them-diplomatic officers must acquaint themselves very intimately with a great many commercial or business or economic questions.

Now, selecting young men on a merit basis through examinations, one having applied for the Consular Service, another having applied for the Diplomatic Service, you get men who have had training in language, in history, in the science of politics, so far as it can be taught. They show by the'r general knowledge an aptitude for the foreign service. It is impossible, however, accurately to foretell just what that man's special ability should lead him to in

the future. Consequently, you may discover in the Consular Service a man who ought to be available for diplomatic work. His work shows this, his knowledge and his experience show it. In other words, by a rigid distinction between the two classes you make it impossible to avail yourselves many times of a service which would be of great importance to the country, which has a different name or, in a broad sense, another aspect. You will find that there is a diplomatic agent or a secretary who may be very useful as a diplomatic agent in a way, but yet he has shown by his experience and by the character of his work that there are places in the Consular Service where he would be much better employed and could give a wider play to his natural and acquired ability. Now, what is the sense of having your service so arranged that you can not adjust this within reasonable limits, within constitutional limits? You should have a class that you can qualify as such and then have an interchangeableness which is of the greatest importance in efficiency.

I have not, of course, any desire to blur the distinction between the Conular Service and the Diplomatic Service, but we are in a very practical world. We want to have the foreign service of the United States as well equipped as any, and the way to have that is to have a service by which you can draw upon the right men who have had a large experience in one class of work or another class of work, and who are fitted for a certain post, to serve in that post. That is what I mean by flexibility.

1

The other reason that I gave was to provide an appropriate basis of selection, or a field of selection. Now, you will observe that these salaries called for in the bill run from $9,000 to $3,000, or from $3,000 to $9 000. In the Consular Service we have at this time two consuls general at $12,000-one in London and one in Paris. We have our Liverpool consul receiving $8 000. There is a provision in the bill which safeguards during their terms of office the present incumbents. As to reduction, therefore, there would be a reduction of these highest salaries, because the highest under this bill would be $9,000; but the reduction would not be effective as to the present appointees because of the saving provision.

In regard to diplomatic secretaries, our present classification gives us from $2 500 to $4,000. The new classification would embrace both consuls and diplomatic officers and the classification would be in charge of the President and would be based on efficiency and experience, and, of course, a considerable number of those in our Consular Service would go into the higher grades. It does not mean that there would be a general elevation of diplomatic secretaries to the highest grade. It does, however, mean this, that you would democratize the selection of diplomatic secretaries. Now, there is nothing in which I am more interested than this. Let me assure you this has no political or partisan bearing whatever.

Mr. COCKRAN. Did I understand that these two officers--the consuls at Liverpool and at Paris, the present incumbents-shall finish out their terms and not be reduced to $9,000?

Secretary HUGHES. Yes.

This is not a matter that has the slightest personal tinge to it. It is simply my desire, while I happen to be spokesman for the Department of State, to use my influence to the highest degree to put this foreign service on the basis on which it should be. We have to-day more than twice as much work in the Department of State as we had before the war. It is not only double in volume but far more important with respect to the quality of the work demanded, because of the problems presented in every part of the world, because of the intricacies of the questions left by the war, because of the kaleidoscopic character of conditions all over the world, the instability which is unfortunately presented to us in many parts of the world. You have the minimum of diplomatic service required when you have the maximum of stability. You have the maximum service required when you have unstable conditions, new developments, and a constant need for the protection of American interests.

There are some who have had the idea that because of the increase in the fac lities of intercourse--by cable, by radio, and in every way by which communication is made easy--the importance of the diplomatic agent is diminished. That, from my point of view, is a very erroneous conception. The more you develop the facilities of intercourse the more you develop the very situation in which the need for an agency is increased, because you multiply the opportunities for questions to arise. There is not any business house of importance in the United States who in any matter of difficulty will send a "wire" if they can send a man. They will send their "wire' and the man. It is, of course.

a matter familiar to everyone who has had any wide connection with affairs that the personal contact in the last analysis is the vital and determining contact. I might send an instruction; I might write out in detail, textually, just what is to be said, but much will depend upon the man who presents that, upon his manner and his exper.ence, and whether he is persona grata-whether he is a man who has won the esteem and confidence of the foreign office with which he is called upon to deal.

This great country can not afford to be represented by any service less than the best attainable. It is not an expensive service. When we consider the responsibilities resting upon the Department of State, the vast interests of our citizens and of the Nation itself that are at stake, I think it is the least expensive service in the Government.

Now, what do you need to make this service more efficient. I am not talking here about ambassadors and ministers. It will not be for a moment questioned that we ought to have the opportunity-that the President should have the opportunity to call distinguished citizens, men of wide familiarity with business and politics and affairs, well-read, cultivated men whose personality gives prestige to their country wherever they may be; the President should call such men to service at foreign posts, particularly at the more important posts. But a man of that sort, I do not care who he is, can not function without a staff. The more intelligent he is, the more skillful he is, the more he appreciates the necessity of that staff. Take a lawyer in a busy office crowded with clients, at the front rank of his profession, with men coming to him with the most important concerns; does he sit there as a repository of all knowledge, dependent upon his individual efforts, which he must put forth between calls on the telephone, between interviews? He has a trained staff, and the more skillful and able he is the better staff he will have, not to supply what he gives-no staff can do that. No one could give his intelligence, his acumen, his analysis, his ability to deal with complicated situations, calling to his aid experiences .which others know nothing of; but he must have the technical aid, the researches necessary to the particular case, the information as to office precedents as to all the matters which go into the final action for which he will be responsible. I do not have to argue that to men of affairs. So that however skillful or able the ambassador or minister may be, you do not get rid of the necessity for a staff.

What should that staff consist of? Of course, it should consist of men who have natural aptitude and knowledge of languages. I think our ministers should know the languages. Certainly, there must be somebody who knows the languages of the countries where they are, and who knows their history, knows all those things which constitute the "common law" of any office or any department. I mean by that the world of things that have been done the rou ́ine, the hundreds of interviews, the revelations of attitudes, disclosures of motives, expositions of personalities.

To accomplish these results you must have men of career, and unless you provide for the career, what would happen to a young man who enters the service? I speak now candidly and directly to you: what do you offer to a young man who has no fortune, who has just got God-given abilities and a desire to serve, who is interested in international relations, who has the qualifications that come through specializing in history, in languages, and in study of world politics? What would lead him to enter upon a diplomatic career now, when all that he sees before him is a salary at a maximum of $4,000? He knows, however, that by having an Executive who is keen for the service of the country he may have a remote chance to get an appointment as minister. He might get it, but in the main he can not look forward to it, and, otherwise, he has got there a limit of $4,000.

I do not go at all upon the theory that men of spirit, of high ideals, are entirely influenced by money or money considerations. It would be a sad day for the country if our best young men had no other ambition. It is not true that they have no other ambition. Of course, you can not compete with what engineering will give or what the practice of law will give, or what the practice of medicine will give to the brightest minds. It would be folly to attempt a thing of that sort. But this country has always been able to draw upon its best blood to a considerable extent because of the desire for distinction, the desire for cultural opportunities, for the relations that are congenial, because of the ideal of public service that a technical opportunity of a professional sort or a business sort might not satisfy. That is the reason why during the last generation, or two generations, when America has jumped forward, when 24470-22- 2