avenues of distinction that the country offers, namely, its service in connection with its foreign relations. I am not one of those who has the delusion that you can by any salaries that the Government will provide compete with the opportunities of professional life, or the opportunities that are offered in many of the lucrative callings. That is out of the question. Men who can have great opportunities in engineering can never find them duplicated in the War Department or the Interior Department under any system that Congress may set up. Men who have great aptitude for legal work can never find in Government service any pecuniary rewards at all commensurate with the time and effort and ability they put into their work, or at all equal to the compensation which they could readily obtain even in the earlier years outside. But it is a mistake to suppose that because the Government can not compete with the opportunities of private life that, therefore, it can not hold out a reasonable inducement to the men who think of higher ends than those associated with the mere making of money, and who ought to be put beyond the strain of being confined within unnecessarily narrow limits so that they feel they are the victims of injustice and must look ahead to a life deprived of those resources and opportunities which their classmates in college and their associates in the community are readily able to enjoy.

There is a great difference between attempting to compete with the opportunities of private professional life and providing a reasonable compensation, which makes one feel that he can, at least, meet his expenses, raise a family, and enjoy a position which, considering the distinction of his services, is agreeable to his self-respect. Fortunately, in our colleges, in many professions, which give very little reward from the pecuniary standpoint, we have always been able to draw upon our very best youth for the reenforcement of important positions, because so many of our young men are not intent upon mere money gain, but prize other rewards which lie along the line of distinguished public service. It is absurd at this time--I use a strong expression as I think it is justified to have diplomatic secretaries who have served many years with the utmost fidelity and conspicuous ability, see a limit of $4,000 for their work. You know what salaries are now paid in our law offices. You know how soon it is that a young man is able to command that amount, if he is worth anything at all, and yet that is the maximum which the Government provides. It is unjust and we ought to open up a more satisfactory career. I have spoken of this from the standpoint of the desire to get the right kind of men into the service and to have a broader basis for that service, and I have spoken of the immunity from some petty annoyances, from some of the extreme difficulties, which should be provided by an increased salary scale. There should be also the inducement of a career, so that men can look forward to proper promotion. They can see ahead of them a reasonable recognition for work well done. All our promotions in the State Department are on a merit basis. Efficiency records are kept and men know that they are going to be judged by their records.

I have not spoken at all of the grade of minister, to which the bill does not apply. It is true that every once in a while someone is promoted from the Diplomatic Service to the post of minister. I am gratified at that. It has been exteremely agreeable to me to have had

the opportunity while I have been in office, occasionally to secure such an appointment. We have a man present here Mr. Hugh Gibson, our Minister to Poland-who represents one of the best records that has been made on the Diplomatic Service. Now, unfortunately, I would say, those cases are rare, because, as you know, the political pressure for appointments of the grade of minister and ambassador is strong, and from the standpoint of the Department of State if one can secure a few representatives of the service in the higher diplomatic posts he must be well satisfied with the achievement. That pressure and demand are not entirely unjustified. The reason is that this country must always be able to call upon men for its higher diplomatic work, who have had the great advantage of contact with the experience of American life and who come out of other callings with a ripened judgment which, perhaps, could never be obtained in a more limited career in the Diplomatic Service. We illustrate that frequently in the highest diplomatic posts, calling to them the best men that can be found in the country. I do not disparage that course. I think it is all that we can expect, that there should be a recognition of the service to a reasonable extent, in order that men in the service should not feel that they could never aspire to the higher posts, and at the same time it would not be expected that the higher posts should be entirely filled by men of career. That would be to deprive the country of the benefit of the services of other men conspicuously fitted for such work, although they have not from the start engaged in diplomatic work.

We need in the United States the very best representation abroad that we can get. Instead of getting out of difficulties, I mean, international difficulties, they multiply. Whatever the future may be, the present shows a constant increase of important situations, of new interests, of new problems, to which we must address ourselves with all the ability that we have at our command. It is perfectly idle to believe that we can get along without diplomatic representatives, because we have increased facility in communication. We need the man. We can not rely on paper; we can not rely on direct messages. We need the man in the personal contact with other men, transacting the business of their Government. That is the way business houses get along. In important matters they never send a message without a man if they can send both. The United States Government is entitled to the very best representation it can have. But if we could have in our posts as diplomatic representatives, ambassadors, and ministers, the ablest men the country provided, still they would go to their posts under the absolute necessity of depending upon a trained staff. You can not get along without a staff in any line of important work. It is not that the members of the staff can supply the exact experience, the judgment, or wide vision, or personal acquaintance that the head of the mission may have, but it is that the head of the mission, if he is to do his work, must have men at his call who are fully equipped with information, able to take his instructions and transmute them into actual contacts with others in foreign offices, able to give his energy, his force, his point of view, a trained and expert presentation. It is hardly necessary to talk to men of affairs as to the necessity of a staff, or to explain that the efficiency of the diplomatic service depends upon building up the staff of our embassies and legations.

Probably I am putting a great deal of unnecessary earnestness and enthusiasm into a very obvious appeal. This measure from the standpoint of the Government is really a simple matter. The question really is, Is it advisable to have a more flexible organization? The money involved is very small.

There are one or two other matters in connection with the bill that I might mention. One is the representation allowance which is provided for in section 12. We have found in recent years that it was necessary to supplement salaries by a post allowance to take care of the increased cost of living and in certain places to take care of differences in exchange, etc. I understand that the highest of these allowances, most of which are made to consuls, is $1,400. They do not go to highly salaried men. They go to help out in particular exigencies that have arisen in recent years. There ought to be a representation allowance; that is, a legislative basis for a representation allowance, because at different posts there are all kinds of exigencies. It may be in connection with the matter of renting an office; it may be in connection with matters of entertainment; it is all to promote, under regulations and under strict accountability as to expenditure, the efficiency of the officer at that post. Of course, even after the increases, that I have spoken of, are made in salaries, you are going to have men pretty close to the struggle for existence in almost all of these posts. After all is done that has been suggested, you are going to have men who will feel that there is not very much, if any, margin for them. They are called upon, of course, in connection with their work "to hold up their end,' not in any extravagant way.

Of course, if a man wants to live in a very free way and has the money to do it, and can extend the influence of this country without any inappropriate lavishness or demonstration, very well. He spends his own money in doing it. But there is the poor man, and I know many of them, who has not a cent but what he gets from his salary or his allowances, and he is in contact with the representatives of other countries who are far more liberal, I mean the countries are far more liberal than this country has ever been in connection with such matters. Representatives of the department are here who will give you a variety of details, but if you will take what the British Government allows its representatives, you will see it has a very keen appreciation of the value of maintaining a certain prestige in these diplomatic and consular posts. I hear every little while of the sagacity of the British in the conduct of their foreign affairs. I have no desire to detract from that reputation, but I call your attention to the fact that it has a very definite pecuniary basis, and in our case, too often that basis is lacking. Here again there is nothing extravagant about the present suggestion. It is kept within limitations which I hope you will think are entirely reasonable.

I have said that there should be provided a career as more of an inducement to the right men, who do not happen to have private means, to enter the service. But it is not enough to give them a mere living wage as they go along. Having entered this service as a career, it means that when they get through they are unfitted for anything else. They are down and out. Under no salary scale that this Government will ever give, certainly not under the one that is here suggested, will anybody lay up money. They can not do it.

What are they going to do when they come to 65 years of age, after thirty-odd years in the service? They can not go into anything else; they are through. There ought to be some provision for retirement allowances. What is the consequence at the present time? It is a consequence which is observed not only in our service, in the Department of State, but throughout the Government service, and that is, we train men for other enterprises. They enter young, they are promising, they do good work, and just as they have got the experience which should reinforce their native ability and their acquisition of knowledge, they say, "Well, what is before me?" They are picked up by private enterprise. You can not absolutely prevent that result, but you can make a man feel that he has the protection of his Government in his career if he serves the Government with fidelity, and that when he gets through with the career, in which the Government has not enabled him to save anything, in his old age the Government will give him reasonable protection. The bill provides for that. I shall not go into the detail of it. It is different from the present general retirement measure in that the contribution that has to be made from the salaries of the various incumbents is 5 instead of 24 per cent. It takes effect at 65 instead of 70 years, although after 65 the man may be assigned, if he is useful, for a period of five years longer. These differences inhere in the character of the service. The amounts that are paid of course, are quite different, and much larger than those which are paid to the ordinary grades of clerks and others who are in the regular civil service. There have been various suggestions in regard to this retirement provision, which I will not attempt to discuss. That can be put upon an acturial basis, and I believe the actuary has made a report which will show just what can be accomplished in that direction. It will not be a serious matter for the Government; it will be a great reinforcement of the service itself.

I ought to have said with regard to these changes in the salary classifications that the financial results are these. At the present time the total salaries in the Consular Service of the 520 present officers amount to $1,924,600, and of the 121 diplomatic secretaries $387,000, making a total of $2,311,600. Under the proposed combined service the 641 officers will receive a total of $2,807,100, which, you will see, is about $495,000 increase. That is the charge to the Government on the salary scale.

I am deeply interested in this measure and the whole service is. I think nothing can be done which is better for the United States at this time than to tone up the Diplomatic and Consular Service, and I want to do it by giving it the feeling that it is properly appreciated by the Government, fairly compensated, and affords a reasonable prospect of a satisfactory career.

I might add the observation that we have constantly before us in this country the need of improvement in administration. To my mind it is the most important thing. We have talk of laws, laws, and laws. But one well-administered law, competently administered law, is better than 100 new laws. Our whole strength abroad, the prestige and honor of this Nation, undoubtedly depend to a great degree upon general appreciation of our resources, upon the contacts with Americans throughout the world, upon the knowledge of what we have achieved, but to a very important degree,

which should not be neglected, upon the impression abroad of the respect we have for the men who represent us, the way in which we equip them, the way in which we protect them, and the quality and fidelity of the men themselves, who undertake these various tasks.

STATEMENT OF HON. HUGH GIBSON, MINISTER OF THE UNITED STATES TO POLAND.

Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Gibson, before you begin your statement I wish you would give to the committee in brief the story of your diplomatic life that they may have some knowledge of your acquaintance in detail with what you will discuss.

Mr. GIBSON. I began in Central America as secretary of the legation at Tegucigalpa, Honduras, in 1908. That was followed by assignment as second secretary to the embassy in London. After that I served in the Department of State and went from there to Havana as first secretary of legation, then on some special missions to Santo Domingo and Haiti and at the beginning of the war to Brussels where I remained until 1916. Then I spent a year as first secretary of embassy in London, and another year as chief of the Division of Foreign Intelligence in the Department of State. I was for about one year first secretary in Paris with special duties at general headquarters of the American Army, served as a member of the first interallied mission to the countries of the old AustroHungarian Empire and finally in 1919 I went as minister to Poland, where I still remain.

Now, to begin with, I should like to make clear that my personal interests are in no way served by this bill and, therefore, I hope that I may be privileged to speak very frankly and if desirable indiscreetly as to the various features of the bill, without my motive being misunderstood.

I find that there is a general impression that the Diplomatic Service is against the Rogers bill, and that, furthermore, it is opposed to any form of reorganization. This is not true, and it is perhaps just as well for me to begin by correcting this misapprehension. It may serve to clarify the situation and expedite matters if I submit a brief statement of the attitude of the Diplomatic Service as I understand it.

Opinion on this subject is not a matter of conjecture. It is based on a rather full correspondence with as many members of the service as I have been able to reach in the past two months, and I have asked and secured from each and every one of them specific answers on a number of questions. Every man of them from whom I have heard approves the principles of the Rogers bill, as I understand them, and every man expresses himself as enthusiastically in favor of a thorough-going reorganization of the service. There is nothing new in this. Indeed, I think Mr. Rogers will bear me out in saying that for years the professional diplomats have given enthusiastic approval to his effort to create a real Diplomatic Service for our country.

Nobody can be more anxious than we are for a complete shake-up in the Diplomatic Service and for the improvements which Mr. Rogers has suggested. Our reasons are not far to seek. There are a lot of us who have been in the service for a long time-15 to 25