Page images
PDF
EPUB

bassadors, secretaries, and consuls in the light of what you believe to be responsive to the opinion of the country. I do not think I can stress too much the importance of this bill being enacted into law.

Mr. COOPER. Following it up, the changes that are made can not be done solely upon the initiative of the State Department or the Executive. Congress will have to be consulted each time.

Mr. CARR. Yes; I mean that. I mean to say that here is a basic measure on which Congress can build.

Mr. COOPER. I simply wanted that interpretation to be made clear.

Mr. Carr. Congress can add year by year such improvements or alterations as it wishes, and can use this measure as a basis for 50 years to come.

Mr. COOPER. This will be the basis for subsequent improvements. Mr. Carr. The basis for future improvements.

The CHAIRMAN. In making this estimate as to the increased cost of this service, have you classified the men in the Diplomatic and Consular Service according to the bill?

Mr. CARR. According to the bill tentatively, for the purposes of estimate only.

The CHAIRMAN. For purposes of the bill?
Mr. CARR. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. There might be something said about that on the floor. You do not fix the number in the bill, in class 1, class 2, or any of the classes?

Mr. CARR. I understand Mr. Connally has an amendment to fix the maximum in each class.

Mr. MOORES. That is unfortunate because an emergency may arise in which it is necessary to change that.

Mr. CARR. There will be a sufficient margin to take care of those emergencies. I have always, as you know, before this committee, objected quite strongly to fixing the number of men in each class, because I think it interferes with effective administration, but provided a reasonably sufficient margin is left in each class I have no objection.

Mr. O'CONNELL. I think we have gone sufficiently into this subject, and I move that the hearings be closed.

(The motion was adopted, and thereupon, at 12.05 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned, to meet again at the call of the chairman.)

At the request of the committee, I have obtained from the War, Navy, anil Commerce Departments data regarding the salaries, allowances, etc., of the military, naval, and commercial attachés attached to missions of this Government abroad. The following is a brief gest of this information:

Military attachés.

Mission.

Salary of
military
attaché.

Salary of
assistant
military
attaché.

Oxpense allowance to office.

London..
Paris.
Tokyo..

$6,997
7, 200
5,607

$5, 797
6, 997
4,038

$1,000

900 1,000

The above are chosen as representative examples. The salaries in each case depend on rank of the officer filling the position. The average annual pay of all military attachés is $4,900. The average expense allowance per annum for all military attachés' offices is $300.

[blocks in formation]

Salaries in each case depend on the rank of officers filling the positions. Expense allowances must be fully accounted for.

[blocks in formation]

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Washington, D. C., December 23, 1922. Hon. JOHN J. ROGERS, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. ROGERS: With regard to your bill (H. R. 12543) for the re. organization and improvement of the Diplomatic and Consular Services, I desire to express to you the attitude of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. Our tenth annual meeting, held in May of this year, made the following declaration on the part of the 1,300 and more chambers of commerce and trade associations which constitute this chamber :

“ The business men of our country are most appreciative of the valuable services rendered to them day by day both in the diplomatic and consular branches of the Department of State. For these services adequate support should at all times be given."

Our organization is, therefore, solidly committed in favor of adequate support for the Consular and Diplomatic Services. Adequate support” means recognition of the present defects in organization, in compensation, and in personnel. We feel that the increased importance of our international relationships, particularly in view of the unsettled conditions abroad, makes it necessary for the United States Government to follow foreign affairs more closely in all sections of the world. While our membership, as broadly representative of business, takes especial interest in the development of the expert commercial service under the Department of Commerce, we are, nevertheless, appreciative of the fact that our consular and diplomatic officers under the Department of State are a great force through which our public and private interests abroad generally, including our commercial interests, are protected

and furthered. We have noted the improvement of the foreign services of other Governments, and we have felt that our own Consular and Diplomatic Services should not be allowed to remain largely on a pre-war basis, no longer adequate to meet the pressing needs of representation of the United States. With the chamber committed by resolution in annual meeting in favor of such a program of adequate support for the Consular and Diplomatic Services, we have taken a special interest in H. R. 12543. That bill has been examined by our staff and by our board of directors, and our board decided that the chamber should support the main principles in that bill as tangibly carrying out the chamber's announced policy.

We have, accordingly, not hesitated to call this measure to the attention of the chambers of commerce and trade associations in our membership and to invite their approval. For your information I may say that we have had indication, not only from organizations here at home, but likewise from American chambers of commerce established in foreign countries, that the improvement of the Consular and Diplomatic Services promised by congressional action along the lines now proposed will mean much for American business: !!

We believe that the things that need doing at this time include the following: 1. Reclassification of the Consular Service on a better organization basis.

2. Reclassification of the service of diplomatic secretaries on a basis of salaries comparable to those paid in the consular branch.

3. Breaking down the water-tight compartments of the Consular and Diplomatic Services, enabling the Secretary of State to use good men in either branch of the foreign service as events may make advisable, and opening up broader careers to the men in the service.

4. Opening up the career of diplomatic secretary to men other than those of independent means.

5. Enactment of retirement legislation for the career men both in the Diplomatic and Consular Services, thus providing for the retirement of men grown old in the service, retaining good men, and attracting men who can not afford to enter the services under the present system.

6. Giving recognition in basic law to needed post expense allowances, including necessary representation allowances for officers in the foreign service of the United States in direct connection with their official duties.

If you and your colleagues will put through legislation bringing about improvement on these lines, I believe it will be of direct and undoubted benefit to American business; will give us a more competent foreign service all round; and will place our foreign service on a basis more in harmony with the democratic ideals of the United States than at present. Very truly yours,

JULIUS H. BARNES, President.

REORGANIZING OUR FOREIGN SERVICE.

men

(A paper read by John Jacob Rogers, member of the Committee on Foreign

Affairs, House, of Representatives, at the Institute of Politics, Williamstown, Mass., August 21, 1923. ]

The foreign service of a nation is its first line of defense. Before armies or navies are requisitioned, before the decision where there shall be peace or war is arrived at, diplomacy has been diligently seeking a way out of the controversy. Skilled and efficient diplomacy has many times in history averted war. Bungling or misdirected efforts by novices in diplomacy have many times precipitated the conflict.

It is truly said that an army or navy can rise no higher than its personnel. No matter how efficient the engines of war or the battle cruisers, it is the behind” who determine the issue. But diplomacy, as it defends its country, has no engines of war or battleships. Diplomacy is man power-or, more accurately, the brain power of man power-and nothing else. It would seem to follow, then, that a sagacious nation, considering the supreme importance of the quest, would strain every nerve, and go to almost any length, to secure the services of those among its population who were most capable and most skilled in the arts and practices of diplomacy. The additional cost which would result is the merest trifle when compared with the certain return to the nation. Why, the total annual cost of our foreign service is only about one-fourth the cost of a dreadnought; and the cost of certain changes, to be discussed later in this paper, amount to less than that of a single gun on that dreadnought.

In spite of these considerations, the United States has pursued a penny-wise and pound-foolish policy of economy in appropriations for its foreign service. We have not materially increased the attractiveness of the service to the right men-men of the first rank in experience and ability—for half a century. “ Why must the American Government," asks Secretary Hughes, “ go about its business in foreign capitals in a shamefaced and humiliating fashion because of inferior equipment?” I know of no sufficient reason. I do know that the cause is a spirit of foolish economy which at times—only at times—besets Congress. And the attitude of Congress is attributable to the attitude of the public, who know little and care less concerning the tasks and the personnel of our diplomatic service.

What elements make a career attractive to a young man of ability and education as he looks about him on leaving his university? The dominating ele ments would, on averages, be three: (1) Prospects of steady promotion ; (2) an adequate salary scale, present and future; (3) interesting and congenial work.

Let us scrutinize the Diplomatic Service of the United States in the light of these three requirements. The applicant must, in practice, have at least a college education; he should have more than average ability; he must possess, if he is to succeed, an agreeable address and personality. If he succeeds in passing the stiff examination for diplomatic secretary, he may ultimately be offered a position as secretary of the fourth class, at a salary of $2,500. With this salary he steps forth into the world—to La Paz or Bangkok or Teheran. Unless he has private means, he must support himself and his family upon this salary. The cost of living for a diplomat in a foreign capital is always high. He can not forever receive and never give. He can not always be entertained and never entertain. If he does not “ see people,” he will fail from the start. Manifestly he can not live on his salary and do his work. If he has not private means, which he is prepared to spend freely, our fourth-class secretary will be useless—useless to himself, useless to his country. Could anything be more undemocratic?

Let us trace his career along a few years. After two years or so in the fourth class, he may, if found worthy, be promoted to the third class. This carries with it a salary increase of $500-$3,000 in all. It usually involves a transfer to another post. While the Government pays part of the expenses of moying, there are many elements, especially in the case of a married man, for which reimbursement is not received. A transfer to a new post is usually a costly luxury for the service men, even when accompanied by a salary increase.

After our third secretary has been in the service four, five, or six years he may, if he has proven notably efficient and successful, hope for promotion to second secretary, at a salary of $3,625. And after he has been in the service 8 or 10 years the crowning reward may be his—a first secretaryship at $4,000. However, this effulgence comes to only a few of those who start bravely out as fourth secretaries. The first secretary is at the top of the ladder of promotion on the basis of merit and proven ability. He is counselor of embassy or legation, usually in some one of the great capitals; his work is interesting and important. Upon it may depend issues of peace or war. His expensesthe necessary expenses involved in decently representing a great country—are very large-several times his salary. Above him is the minister or ambassador, an office given, usually, for political reasons and at the whim of the Presi. dent or his Secretary of State. The first secretary may hope to be made a minister, but, like kissing, this appointment goes by favor, not by right, seniority, or even merit. The Diplomatic Service owes much to Secretary Lansing for the frequency with which he rewarded proven merit among first secretaries by recommending their promotion to minister. The present administration has, I believe, retained all these men, and has promoted several other secretaries to minister or to high positions in the Department of State. It is certainly safe to say that the policy of promoting first secretaries on merit has within five years taken great strides. Nevertheless it remains optional with each new administration, and can hardly be built upon yet as a reliable permanency.

We are now in a position to appraise the attractiveness of a diplomatic secretary's career. From the financial standpoint it is a losing venture from the start. Only rich young men under present conditions wisely undertake it. From the standpoint of steady promotion the story is not much better. It takes 10 years or so to get to the $4,000 top-a subordinate's position with no assurance of advancing further after a lifetime. From the standpoint of interest the career is attractive for a time. But this wears off, when unattended by the other factors.

can

of oil,

We should expect, them, to find that rather few seek appointment as secretary. We do find this: In the last three or four years only about 100 in all from the entire United States have taken the diplomatic examination and only about 50 have passed. The narrower the field of selection, the lower the standard of ability is apt to be. The field of selection is here very narrow; it is most undemocratically narrow, because wealth is a prerequisite. As a result many undesirable have crept in-small men, men who were or who became snobs, and men who entered the service to play and not to work. This was most natural, not to say inevitable. The surprising thing is that on the whole, considering the narrowness of the appeal, the service has attained such a high standard. The desirables—the worth-while men of characer and power-have far .exexceeded in number the undesirables. Nevertheless all will agree that the range of selection should for every reason be expanded, and that an improved service would thereby result.

Let us consider, much more briefly, the career aspects of the consular side of the foreign service. The salary maximum is here $12,000_or, barring London and Paris, $8,000. The expenses of maintaining the josition are not so great as in the Diplomatic Service. A good man, after 10 years' service, or even less, may hope for a berth in an important commercial city with a salary of $5,000 or so, and after 15 years, for one of the great cities of the world at a salary of $8,000. While the return is small as compared with similar positions in private business, it is more nearly equivalent at least to the cost of maintenance. The difference in this regard between the Diplomatic and the Consular Services is reflected in the fact that very many more applicants present themselves yearly for the latter than for the former.

Of course the traditional distinction between the work of the diplomat and of the consular officer is that the former deals with questions involving political relations between States, while the latter concernes himself with matters of international trade. But of late years this distinction has become much blurred. Every diplomatic question of importance has an economic aspect; and every great question of international trade has a political aspect. Think

coa embargoes, tariffs, blockades, or a thousand other things, and you think of a mixed question of diplomacy and trade. So the diplomat should have a business training and the counsel should have some knowledgethe profounder the better-of diplomacy and what lies behind it.

For historical and perhaps some other reasons our diplomatic and our consular services have developed along different and quite independent lines. In the foreign field they are in virtually watertight compartments. Here and there a litte water of intercommunication is permitted to trickle through, but this happens only as a result of the personal efforts of enlightened officials who are eager for cooperation for the national well-being. The esprit de corps of consuls is for the Consular Service; that of the diplomatic secretary for the diplomatic corps. The Jew and the Gentile have the slightest contact, each with the other.

And now, after this long introductory statement, I am ready to deal with the real subject of my paper. The bill which passed the House of Representatives last January was unanimously and without amendment reported to the Senate by the Committee on Foreign Relations, but was caught in the Senate filibuster and died when Congress adjourned March 4.

A few men in the State Department and in Congress have for years been imbued with the conviction that our foreign service ought to be improved; that the way to improve it was, first, to draw in more good men by increasing the attractiveness of the service in respect to salary and promotion; and, second, to make less rigid the separation between the two sides of the service.

Let me expand the second point. I have shown how nowadays the segregation of the diplomatic from the consular functions is in a degree artificial. Nevertheless there will probably always be diplomatic officers and consular officers, operating more or less independently. The point is that in these times a good diplomat must know business and a good consul must know diplomacy. As the system now works, a young man of 25 who once becomes a diplomat remains, in title at least, always a diplomat; and once a consul, always a consul. The bill which I have mentioned proposed an interchangeability between the two sides of the service. It did not in any sense propose an obliteration of the line between the two. It simply took cognizance of the obvious fact that every man would ultimately be more useful to himself and to his country if he had had some acquaintance with the two major fields of foreign intercourse. It took cognizance also of the fact that a bad consul may be a good secretary or vice

« PreviousContinue »