Page images

offices of the foreign service, all missions and consulates alike, under the necessity of being inspected periodically.

Mr. COOPER. “Who shall," under the direction of whom?

Mr. CARR. Under the direction of the Secretary of State inspect the work of officers in the foreign service in both the diplomatic and consular branches; that is, all officers in the foreign service.

Mr. COOPER. You say officers in the foreign service. There is a distinction made here. Ambassadors ,and ministers are officers in the foreign service, but are not foreign-service officers under this.

Mr. CARR. That is true. But in the first section of this bill it states that hereafter the Diplomatic and Consular Service shall be known as the foreign service.

Mr. COOPER. That includes the ambassadors and ministers.
Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. COOPER. Do you want these inspectors to inspect ambassadors and ministers?

Mr. CARR. Their offices.
Mr. COLE. At the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Mr. MOORES. He made the point yesterday that all the legations and embassies ought to be inspected.

Mr. Carr. I think the Secretary of State ought to have an opportunity to know how the affairs of all of the offices are managed.

Mr. ROGERS. I think it is scandalous that we have not hitherto inspected diplomatic offices.

Mr. COOPER. The office of ambassador is of such dignity that I think the fact that a subordinate officer like an inspector was inspecting the ambassador would not add very much to the dignity or the effectiveness of the work in that particular country.

Mr. CARR. As a matter of fact, that is precisely what is done in the British service, through an office that was created within three or four years. They have fashioned their inspection system somewhat like our own consular inspection system and have extended it, and now and then, as occasion requires, they send an inspector into diplomatic missions.

Mr. COLE. We have no sacred white elephants in the Republic?

Mr. COOPER. I am not talking about sacred white elephants. I am simply talking about the effect it would have upon the people of England, or the Diplomatic Service there, to have a subordinate officer going into the embassies inspecting? Would you go into all of his work, or just the financial side of it?

Mr. CARR. You understand that the ordinary embassy nowadays has a large staff, a large clerical staff, a large secretarial staff, and expends a lot of money. During the late war some of those officers spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there has therefore been no method, no machinery, by which their business operations, the correctness of their expenditures, etc., would be examined into on the spot.

Mr. COOPER. These inspectors would be authorized to inspect nothing relating to the diplomatic work, nothing of that sort; just the financial side?

Mr. CARR. I would inspect the management of the office, cost of upkeep, care of Government property, and whether men are working full time or not.

In most of the items of the expenses of a mission you gentlemen are as much interested as the Secretary of State. As we become owners of embassy buildings involving thousands of investment it will become imperative that inspections be both frequent and thorough. I might say further that Mr. Lay calls my attention to the fact that several of our ambassadors have expressed their desire that their offices be periodically inspected, and that is not strange, for all consular officers who are doing well can hardly wait until the inspector gets around to them.

Mr. COOPER. Shall agents under the direction of the Secretary of State inspect the offices of the foreign service, both Diplomatic and Consular?

Mr. CARR. Yes, sir. I should say further that when Mr. Stewart, who is here now and was our inspector for the Near East, when he visited Russia the ambassador himself requested him to make a complete inspection and investigation of the offices of the embassy, its accounts, and the methods of conducting business. On several occasions the Secretary of State, being without any machinery for inspecting diplomatic offices, has detailed a consular inspector to inspect the operation of a particular mission. There is no reason why any head of a mission should object to inspection. It is not a public matter; it does not humiliate or interfere with him, but it aids him.


Mr. ROGERS. Diplomatic officers are not bonded, are they?

Mr. CARR. They are not, and the purpose of the provision in this bill is to bond all foreign-service officers.

Mr. ROGERS. Below the rank of minister?
Mr. CARR. Yes.
Mr. ROGERS. Why should not an ambassador or minister be bonded?

Mr. CARR. The department has not recommended it and has not brought itself yet to pass upon that question, but my own personal opinion is that every man who is responsible for the handling of money in the foreign service ought to be under bond to the Government for a correct accounting for the money, whether he is the head of a mission, an ambassador, minister, or consul general, counselor or vice consul.

Mr. BROWNE. Has the Government ever lost anything by defalcation of an ambassador or minister?

Mr. CARR. I do not recall any case in which the Government has lost.
Mr. MOORES. I think it has lost prestige in one case that I know of.

Mr. CARR. But I do recall that there have been occasions when secretaries, for instance, have not accounted for money which they have drawn from the Treasury and there has been no reimbursement made.

Mr. MOORES. We all understand that a minister and ambassador has manifold diplomatic and social duties; that he has no voice in the selection of his subordinates, unless it be possibly a poorly paid—not secretary—but clerk, and a stenographer or two. Is it fair to put on a minister or an ambassador a pecun'ary liability to the Government for the defalcations of subordinates with whose selection he has nothing to do? I do not think it is.

Mr. CARR. I should think it should be on precisely the same basis as a consul general or a consul, whose subordinates are chosen usually by the department and not by himself, and who are assigned to his office not upon his express request but because the department thinks they should be assigned. It is true that all vice consuls, consular assistants, all interpreters, and men of that kind are bonded. In the diplomatic missions the head of a mission is not bonded, neither are the secretaries bonded. It seems to me that sound business principles should require that the should be bonded.

Mr. MOORES. Let me say, if I give a bond in a State or county office, where I have the selection of my subordinates, I have a perfect right to take from every one of them an indemnity bond.

Mr. CARR. Exactly.

Mr. MOORES. The minister or ambassador could not so indemnify himself, because he has no voice in the selection of his subordinates; and I do not think that is fair.

Mr. ROGERS. How does it differ from the practice that exists in every post office? The postmaster has no voice in the selection of carriers, clerks, or other employees, but is bonded for their acts and omissions.

Mr. MOORES. I think everyone who handles money is under bond to the Goverpment.

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. MOORES. The postmaster is required by law to spend eight hours a day in his place of business and he is supposed to supervise everything. He can not do that without the consent of the Postmaster General or his Assistant. He can not leave his post office; he has got to be there to supervise the business of the Government. With the ambassador or minister, the duties are manifold. He does not have to and it would not be fair to require him to stay and supervise the ordinary business of an embassy or legation. I think there is a very great distinction there. I think you are wrong there. You are not often wrong, but I believe you are wrong in asking bonds from them.

Mr. COOPER. Let me make a suggestion. The title of ambassador; it seems to ine rather strange, to require him to give bond-an ambassador, a plenipotentiary-have him give a bond not to steal money?

Mr. CARR. As I say, that exact point is not involved in this bill.
Mr. COOPER. It is not in the bill, but you suggest that they give bond.

Mr. CARR. The only reply that I can make is that I think it has been almost the uniform practice of Congress to require some form of security for every man who handles Government money.

Mr. COLE. Would it be possible to bond them against making any foolish speeches?

Mr. CARR. That would involve too much of a question of judgment, I am afraid, to be practicable.

Mr. COLE. I am more concerned about that than about the financial transactions.

Mr. CARR. I would like to say in respect to this, that this bill as I understand it does not call for bonds for ministers and ambassadors, but in respect to those below the grade of minister I think they ought to be bonded.

Mr. COOPER. That is right.

Mr. CARR. It works out in this way. In practice the ambassador or the minister entrusts the actual operation of handling money, and the management of 1 his office to one or more of his secretaries. In a large embassy the business of the office is divided up, one secretary having charge of passports, another secretary having charge of commercial matters, another of gathering information, and each with a force of men under him. They are responsible for the work of their sections. They ought to be bonded as much as any consul or vice consul ought to be bonded, in my judgment. Whether you extend it to ambassadors and ministers is a matter for your judgment. But I personally do not see any difference between bonding the head of a mission and bonding the head of a large consulate general.

Mr. ROGERS. I think the committee would like to relieve Mr. Carr froni testifying. He has been at it four days now, and I suggest that we allow him to proceed as rapidly as is consistent with bringing out the information.

Mr. CARR. Going on to section 13, I think I have already discussed that.
Mr. COOPER. Did you discuss section 12?
Mr. CARR. Yes, I discussed section 12 yesterday.

I think it is unnecessary to discuss section 13 further, since I dis('ussed that the other day. I would suggest that after section 13 it would be in the interest of good legislative practice in the future if you should insert an authorization for the payment of post allowances in such sums as Congress may appropriate.

Mr. Moores. Have you anything to add on that? I apprehend that will be the hardest section in the whole bill to save on the floor of the House, and if you have anything to say in favor of it, I would be glad to hear it.

Mr. COOPER. I did not get your last suggestion.

Mr. Carr. I said that I thought that, in addition to section 13, authorizing representation allowances, appropriations for representation allowances in such sums as you may decide to grant in the future-none is asked for at the present time--that you also include another section authorizing the present practice of appropriating post allowances, so that the authorization may exist in the event that some exigency should arise. Our understanding is that if this bill is passed the present post-allowance appropriation would be absorbed in the increase in salaries, and the present appropriation for post allowances would be discontinued. But there might an exigency arise again as it did in 1918 when immediate action would be required, and under the present rules of the House you would have to have a prior authorization, which would be general legislation coming before this committee. It would take considerable time to get that authorization through the House and considerable more time to get the appropriation under such authorizing legislation. If such appropriations could be authorized in a bill like this, it might save much time in the future. You would have entire control as to whether you would appropriate or not, but if you should desire to appropriate you could do it speedily.

Mr. ROGERS. I think you have already fully discussed section 14.

Mr. CARR. I would suggest the insertion of a section between section 14 and section 15, a section to modify that part of the act of July 1, 1916, which authorizes the President to designate and assign any secretary of class 1 as counselor of embassy or legation, and suggest that the act be amended to read :

** Provided, That the President may, whenever he considers it advisable to do so, designate and assign any Foreign Service officer as counselor of embassy or legation."

At present the law reads:

* The President may assign any secretary of class 1 as counselor of embassy or legation.”

I would like to see that amended so as to be the assignment of any secretary that the President may deem proper to assign, and also any consular officer that the President may deem it proper to assign, by simply using the allinclusive term, foreign service officer. That would give complete elasticity by permitting the President to draw on both branches of the service in the designation of men to occupy the position of counselor, which is recognized in all foreign services as a necessary position and which has been heretofore recognized in our own,

Mr. COOPER. Put that at the end of line 23.
Mr. CARR. Yes.
Mr. COOPER. Just what is that language?

Mr. CARR. Provided, That the President may, whenever he considers it advisable so to do, designate and assign any foreign service officer as counselor of embassy or legation."

Mr. ROGERS. That is a new section, is it not?
Mr. CARR. It is really a proviso at the end of section 14.

Mr. ROGERS. Is it a natural proviso to make to section 14, which deals, it seems to me, with quite another subject?

Mr. CARR. Not entirely pertinent to that section, it is true.

Mr. ROGERS. It is really an amendment to the existing law. I should think it would be better-I am asking, not asserting--to make it a section which would read something like this: Section so-and-so, of act so-and-so, is hereby amended to read as follows.

Mr. CARR. You could do it this way: "That part of the act of July 1, 1916, which authorizes the President to designate or assign any secretary of class 1 as counselor of embassy or legation is hereby amended to read as follows: That the President may,” etc. It is immaterial to me how it is done so long as it is done.

Mr. ROGERS. I suppose a proviso ought to have some relation to the subject matter which precedes the proviso.

Mr. CARR. Technically; yes.
Mr. ROGERS. I was not quite clear that this did.
Mr. CARR. I think your point is well taken.

Mr. COOPER. Make the period a year, and then begin a new sentence, " That the President may,” and include it all in section 14, not as a proviso—what you have just suggested.

Mr. CARR. That is all right.
Mr. ROGERS. I think you have not discussed section 15 at all.

Mr. Carr. Section 15 makes it possible for the President to appoint any foreign-service officer 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, subject to the usual constitutional requirements.

What that means is that a foreign-service officer, who is a secretary or consul general, let us say, may be sent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as a minister resident, chargé d'affaires, or diplomatic agent for such time as may be desirable, and when that duty ceases return to his regular functions, meanwhile receiving the salary which the law provides that he shall receive. In other words, it does not disturb his place in his grade, does not take him out of the grade he regularly occupies, and yet makes him available for special service under another appointment.

Mr. COOPER. Will you please define a minister resident as distinct from minister?

Mr. CARR. A minister resident is merely a lower grade of diplomatic agent under the rules defined by the congress of Vienna, a lower grade of diplomatic officer, a grade lower than envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary.

Mr. COOPER. He has not the full powers of a minister plenipotentiary?

Mr. CARR. In practice there is really no distinction made between the actual powers of a minister resident and the envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary. The office of minister resident is employed where an officer of a higher grade than chargé d'affaires or diplomatic agent is desired and a lower grade than that of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. Whether a representative should be appointed as envoy extraordinary or minister resident would be determined largely by the practices of other governments in respect to their representation in a particular capital to which it was desired to send a representative; or it might be that for a special reason a government might desire to increase the importance of its mission by giving the higher designa. tion or the reverse by employing the lower one..

Mr. COOPER. It seems to me the question of duties would-be paramount there. If a minister resident has the power of a minister plenipotentiary, then we are trying to do something which will evade the restriction of the Constitution in the appointment of a minister,

Mr. Carr. No, sir; because this appointment would be made as usual with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Mr. COOPER. Yes.
Mr. CARR. There is no intention of disregarding that requirement.
Mr. ROGERS. Is there more than one minister resident?

Mr. CARR. At the present time there is in our service one, and that is in Liberia. He carries on diplomatic relations in the manner that any minister would.

Mr. Rogers. It is largely a matter of salary. What is the salary?
Mr. CARR. He gets $5,000.

Mr. COOPER. I would like to ask Mr. Carr to take up the paragraph in section 15 : “That within the discretion of the President, foreign-service officers of class 1 may be appointed to act as commissioner, chargé d'affaires," etc.

Would that take the action of the United States Senate?

Mr. CARR. As to commissioners, no, sir. It has been the consistent practice of this Government for the President to appoint commissioners without the advice and consent of the Senate, and it is frequently done now by taking a diplomatic secretary or a consul general and making him commissioner.

Mr. COOPER. A commissioner may be appointed, in the discretion of the President. Then you say chargé d'affaires, minister resident, etc. Would a minister resident require confirmation?

Mr. CARR. My recollection is that it has always been the practice to appoint ministers resident only with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Mr. COOPER. Ought not that to be, then, as it is now, “ within the discretion of the President, he may appoint a commissioner, who does not require confirmation, a chargé d'affaires, minister resident, not minister plenipotentiary, or diplomatic agent, for such period as he may wish ”? Would not that imply that the President could appoint anyone, in his discretion, without regard to confirmation by the Senate? · Mr. CARR. I do not think that the President would presume to interpret that as meaning that he could ignore the well-established practice of submitting nominations of that sort to the Senate, as required by the Constitution.

Mr. ROGERS. I think the Constitution would stop it.
Mr. COOPER. That is true, if the minister resident is the same as a minister.
Mr. ROGERS. He has certainly to be a minister.

Mr. CARR. He has to be a minister under our practice; even a secretary of embassy is under our practice a public minister within the meaning of the Constitution, in so far as nomination and confirmation are concerned.

Mr. COOPER. What does the word “resident" there mean?
Mr. CARR. It means a minister resident at the capital,

Mr. COOPER. The minister plenipotentiary is supposed to reside there. What does the word “ resident” after the word “minister" mean? What does it apply to?

Mr. CARR. In the rules adopted by the Congress of Vienna in 1915 they graded the different diplomatic representatives, beginning with ambassador, coming down then to envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotent'ary. Then again to chargé d'affaires and then by another rule they agreed that minister resident should rank between chergé d'affaires and minister plenipotentiary.

Mr. COCKRAN. That minister resident is not perhaps like the rank of ambassador in the court of Pumpernickel.

Mr. CARR. These different grades are employed according to the character of the representation that a government desires to have in a particular country.

Mr. COOPER. I think it is not the size or the prosperity of the power to which he is sent, but it is the function of the officer himself. That is the point.

Mr. COCKRAN. That is very interesting. As a matter of fact, is it not more a question of dignity in the officer himself?

Mr. CARR. It is a question of dignity. Mr. Skinner reminds me that in former times it was customary to employ the title of " resident” for the permanent representative resident in a country or in a capital, and that when it became desirable to appoint a special representative of greater dignity or for a special negotiation the title "envay extraordinary ” would be employed. At one time these titles were synonymous. Now that of " minister resident” has

« PreviousContinue »