Page images
PDF
EPUB

The pay now given to a chief of mission is not his own, and to all intents and purposes, instead of being paid, a diplomatic official pays for the privilege of representing his country. `I, for instance, am paid the very respectable sum of $10,000 a year as minister in Warsaw. If this were my own money to be spent on my own affairs and part of it to be set aside to provide for my future, I should consider myself suitably paid. Instead of this, I spend all this money in order to represent the United States Government in a decent and dignified way. By this I do not mean that I endeavor to dazzle the people of Poland by a magnificent establishment--that is not only beyond my means, but foreign to my ideas. This money goes merely to maintain the sort of establishment which is required if the representative of the United States Government is to afford proper support to American interests, American business, and American citizens. If I had twice as much income as I now have available it could all be used advantageously for the same purpose, and with increased results for the people who have to look to me for support and protection.

I feel that the discussion is on a false footing, if we talk about increasing the pay of chiefs of mission. This sounds too much like asking for favors. We don't want any favors.

We don't want any favors. All we want is equipment to do our work. It seems to me that we shall have a much clearer idea of what we are driving at if we discuss the proposition that the rates of pay now in force are suitable but that these sums are to be considered, as they would be in any normal private business, as remuneration for services rendered, sums belonging to the officers who earn them, to be disposed of as they see fit, if they so choose on their personal needs and requirements. This being so it is necessary to give them a proper equipment to carry out the duties of their office-duties which require considerable expenditure. The present system is very much as if we were to say to one of our admirals, "We are appointing you commander in chief of the Atlantic Fleet. You will have a salary appropriated by Congress of $10,000. You will now make a trip around the world, calling at the ports specified by the Secretary of the Navy, doing such entertaining as may be necessary for the good of the service; you will make necessary purchases of provisions, coal, and other supplies, and fight any battles that may be necessary, but you need not render an accounting for any of this, as you will pay it out of your salary.” Nobody would be surprised if the admiral said he was unable to work on these terms-but that is exactly what the Government expects from diplomatic officers to-day.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. And that is called salary?
Mr. GIBSON. That is called salary.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Are any fees allowed to you or do they go to the Government ?

Mr. GIBSON. They go to the Government. The collection of fees is done almost entirely by the Consular Service.

Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. You call yourself a professional diplomat? Mr. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. You do not regard it as a term of reproach?

Mr. GIBSON. Hardly.

a

Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. What do you say about the advantage of appointing men in the Diplomatic and Consular Service, compared with the advantage of getting the sort of men from private life that Mr. Hughes described? We frequently hear Benjamin Franklin mentioned as a pretty good type of the untrained diplomat and as some one whom we should emulate for all time because of his success.

Mr. GIBSON. I think this, that we have got to retain a very full opportunity to have at our command any citizen whether inside or outside the service. There is nothing that would be more demoralizing than to have the practice to grow up of having nobody but service men for chiefs of mission. It would be a deadening influence on the service to protect people against their own incompetency. On the other hand, where a man has had training and has worked up in the service, it is to be assumed that in a large number of cases he will be manifestly better than a casual man. We have fallen into the habit of talking about nonservice men, speaking of these appointments from private life, as though there were some special merit in not having training. That will not bear scrutiny.

Benjamin Franklin is frequently cited as an example of wholly untrained man who made a brilliant success in diplomacy. As matter of fact, Franklin was one of the best trained diplomats we ever had. From an early age he concerned himself with political and diplomatic languages, French, Italian, Spanish, and Latin--a remarkably good equipment. In 1757 he was sent to London by the Pennsylvania Assembly to negotiate with the English Government. This was purely a diplomatic mission, involving questions of great importance and lasted for five years until 1762. From 1764 to 1775, a further period of 11 years, Franklin represented in London not only the Pennsylvania, but New Jersey, Georgia, and Massachusetts and handled a wide range of subjects calculated to develop his powers of negotiation and persuasion. He had to develop these powers as he had nothing else to help him achieve success in his mission. These two missions, extending over a period of 16 years, are really Franklin's period of training, although it is the custom to look upon France as his only diplomatic experience. Upon Franklin's return to America at the outbreak of the Revolution, he was entrusted with several diplomatic missions, such as that to Canada to invoke the support of those colonies in the Revolution, and again when he was appointed by the Congress to negotiate terms of peace with Admiral Howe.

In 1776 Franklin was appointed commissioner to France. He was chosen for this highly important mission precisely because he was the most experienced and successful negotiator who could be found in other words because he was our most highly trained diplomat. He was chosen for exactly the same reason we should like to have our men chosen to-day. Franklin remained in France until 1785, a further period of nine years. There is perhaps nobody in our service to-day who had such a good background of experience and training as Franklin had when he went to France, and it is wrong to speak of him as an untrained diplomat. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind, that quite aside from the question of training or the lack of it, he was Benjamin Franklin, that is to say, one of the ablest and most resourceful men our country has produced in the past two centuries. If we could find enough Benjamin Franklins to staff the Diplomatic Service we might be able to use untrained diplomats

with impunity, but I don't know of any Benjamin Franklins who are available to-day. In the absence of such material, it is obvious that we ought to train the material we have so as to get the best results out of it.

Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. If you were administering this service, assuming that the bill before us had become law, what would your view be as to the ideal use of the interchangeability provision ?

Mr. Gibson. Interchange between the two services is certainly desirable as far as it is in the public interest. This is purely a matter of common sense in administration, and it is difficult to say how free that interchange should be. It can not be stipulated in any bill, but must be left to the judgment and discretion of the Secretary of State.

As regards transfers from the Diplomatic to the Consular Service, the question will probably arise in very few instances. Most diplomats have chosen the Diplomatic Service because of their special liking for that work, and I know of none of them now in the service would care to transfer to the other branch.

As regards transfer from the Consular to the Diplomatic Service, I am thoroughly in favor of it if it is wisely done. The Diplomatic Service would be greatly benefited by the acquisition of a number of men now in the Consular Service. The only condition I would suggest is that the volume of such transfers should not be so great as to discourage the lower ranks of the Diplomatic Service in the belief that their advancement was blocked by people who had worked up in the other branch. That is purely a matter of common sense. I believe in taking a properly qualified consular officer, wherever he is to be found, and making him ambassador or minister. This would react to the benefit of the whole governmental service, because the individual consul has presumably had training in orderly governmental methods, has pride of service, and will be more effective as an official than a man casually taken from private life without previous training in this sort of work.

There is some criticism of this provision of the bill, but I think this is directed almost entirely not against the idea of having consuls brought into the Diplomatic Service, but against the idea which has been far too generally advocated of pooling the two branches of the service, so that we lose our identity, bringing in such numbers of consular officers as radically to change our make-up, block normal advancement for efficient diplomats, and prevent the development of highly trained specialists. Any such change would be discouraging, but a free interchange to improve the service would encounter no opposition. On the contrary, it would be welcomed by all reason

I don't think anybody disagrees with the idea that consuls should be generously treated as regards promotion to be chiefs of mission. This is based on the perfectly sound theory that if a consul has done efficient work as a consul and has displayed qualities desirable in a diplomat, he can render a larger measure of service to the Government by being given a broader field of activity and responsibility; that, to my mind, is the essential consideration, not any consideration of reward for a deserving man. If the interests of the public service are taken care of, there will be plenty of reward for those that deserve it and plenty of encouragement for those that need it.

able people.

Constant interchange between the two services is undesirable because it would prevent them from specializing to the extent that is essential to effective work. The knowledge that changes were impending at all times would also serve to destroy that pride of service which is essential if either the Diplomatic or the Consular Service is to be up to the standard we should be able to exact from it.

The same effect would result if we were to begin a constant interchange between the branches of the Army, requiring both officers and men to be equally proficient in infantry, cavalry, artillery and aviation. The only result would be an Army with a smattering of universal knowledge but completely lacking in specialists.

There are times when changes are not only permissible but really desirable in the public interest, when a consul can be given an important diplomatic post or a diplomatic official sent to a consular post, but there is a wide difference between this and a constant weaving back and forth from one branch of the service to the other. This would lead to chaos.

Mr. Rogers. Would you in general be disposed to start a newcomer in the consular side and give him the benefit of a business experience which presumably most of them would lack?

Mr. GIBSON. I think it would be a very good thing to have experience there in the first place. I regret very much that I did not have experience in the Consular Service in the beginning. It would be a good thing and tend to give a man a great deal better understanding of the importance of the various services, even if eventually he should be transferred to the Diplomatic Service and remain there.

It would seem desirable that newcomers should be required to serve a probationary period, which should be divided between the Department of State and the Diplomatic and Consular Services, before any decision is reached as to their future employment.

In some cases the question would be simplified by ascertaining that a man has no aptitude and, for the good of the service, he should be dropped before the expiration of the probationary period. This is certainly much better for the Government than to let him in as a fullfledged secretary or consul and then carry him on the rolls year after year because he has some sort of acquired rights.

Mr. BROWNE. You spoke about a number of consuls going into the Diplomatic Service now. What great impediments are there under the existing law for people doing that, the same thing that they have been doing?

Mr. GIBSON. I do not know of any. We have in the past had a number of transfers of that sort.

Mr. BROWNE. What is the need of this law if that is so?

Mr. GIBSON. I think it is more to facilitate the transfers in the lower ranks. The changes that have been made in the past have been chiefly promotions to the rank of chief of mission. Am I right, Mr. Carr?

Mr. CARR. I think so.

Mr. Gibson. It is also true that in the past there has been great difficulty on account of the relatively small salaries in the Diplomatic Service and that is the thing which has kept the consuls from being transferred to the lower ranks of the Diplomatic Service.

Mr. BROWNE. You think this bill will stimulate the young man going into the Consular Service because of the opportunities of getting into the Diplomatic Service more easily than otherwise?

Mr. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. Also there is value right along that line in statutory recognition of interchangeability?

Mr. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Take a typical case of a high-class consul general with a salary of $8,000. He has been in the service a good many years. He is at the top of the heap. Suppose that he wants to transfer to diplomatic work because of his peculiar experience and capacity for the diplomatic side of the career. As Mr. Hughes told us this morning, the highest salary that you can give him on that side is $4,000. You would have to cut his salary in two to utilize him in the new field.

The CHAIRMAN. We will meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.

Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I desire, with the permission of the committee, to print a letter which the Secretary of State wrote to President Harding concerning this general reorganization plan, dated August 22, 1922, with certain papers accompanying the letter; also a letter which President Harding wrote to the chairman of this committee and to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate concerning the plan; third, a letter which the President wrote me on September 1, 1922, fourth, a letter which the Secretary of State wrote me concerning the bill now before the committee, dated October 13, 1922; fifth, a letter which Secretary Hughes wrote to the President of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States on October 27, 1922, in response to a letter from the president of the chamber of commerce. (The letters referred to are as follows:)

AUGUST 22, 1922. MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I desire to place before you the accompanying draft of a bill for the reorganization and improvement of the foreign service, which, with your concurrence and support, I am disposed to advocate as á means of strengthening this department and adapting its machinery to the exigencies of post-war conditions in international affairs.

The proposals contained in this draft are similar in purport to the provisions of a measure (H. R. 17) already pending before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, but on which no action has as yet been taken.

The main purpose is to lay the foundation of a broader serivce of trained men by removing certain embarrassing limitations in the present organization and giving impetus to the idea of diplomacy as a career. This is thought to be necessary as a means of attracting and holding the type of men capable of measuring up to the new demands.

There are only four important provisions to be considered:

1. The adoption of a new and uniform salary scale with a view to broadening the field of selection by eliminating the necessity for private incomes and permitting the relative merits of candidates to be adjudged on the basis of ability alone.

2. The amalgamation of the diplomatic and consular branches into a single foreign service on an interchangeable basis. This would relieve the limitations of the present consular career and effectually coordinate the political and the economic branches of the service.

3. The granting of representation allowances, which would lessen the demands on the private fortunes of ambassadors and ministers and render it practicable to promote a greater number of trained officers to those positions.

4. The extension of the civil service retirement act, with appropriate modifications, to the foreign service. This has become necessary for maintaining the desired standard of efficiency under the merit system.

Taking up these four points in the order mentioned, it may be further explained that the salaries in both branches of the service, and especially those of diplomatic secretaries, are quite inadequate.

The present range of consular salaries is from $2,000 to $8,000, with two positions at $12,000; that of diplomatic secretaries from $2,500 to $4,000, whereas

841294243

« PreviousContinue »