« PreviousContinue »
proposed measure. I am therefore disposed to advocate legislation along these lines, provided you feel that such action would not be untimely with respect to other policies and plans. Sincerely yours,
CHARLES E. HUGHES.
Scale of salaries, present organization.
$17, 500 12,000 10,000 8,000 6, 000 5, 500 5, 000 4, 500 4, 000 3, 625 3,500 3,000 2, 750 2, 500 2,000 1,800 1, 650 1,500
1 Confirmation by Senate required on original commission.
NOTE.-Confirmation of the Senate is required for appointments to each of the foregoing grades. Also when initial transfer takes place from consular to diplomatic branch and vice versa.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, August 24, 1922. I am sending you herewith a letter addressed to me by the Secretary of State just prior to his departure for Brazil. It covers a plan for reorganization and improvement of our foreign service which I think well deserving of the favorable consideration by the Congress. I will not attempt to write in detail over the ground which already is so thoroughly covered by the Secretary of State in his letter to me. You are aware, of course, that the policy pursued in making appointments to the foreign service is accredited with having effected a very great improvement in itself. I cordially believe in the salary readjust
ments and interchange of service and retirement provisions covered in the tentative redraft of the Rogers bill of April 11, 1921. When your committee has the time for deliberate consideration of this measure I shall be glad if it can be given proper attention. Very truly yours,
WARREN G. HARDING.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, September 1, 1922. MY DEAR MR. ROGERS: I am inclosing to you herewith a copy of letter addressed to me by the Secretary of State prior to his departure for Brazil. I have already transmitted a copy of the letter to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate. I did this because the letter gives approval to the bill which you sponsored in the House. I address you now because I understand that the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate invites the perfection of the bill along the lines indicated by the letter of the Secretary of State. It is not necessary for me to address you in detail in behalf of this
The administration has been very greatly interested in the continued improvement of our foreign service, and I think there is none who will dispute that the proposed salary readjustments and the provision for an interchange of service and the retirement provisions all tend to the elevation of standards in the foreign service, which we so much desire to have effected. It will naturally accelerate the enactment of the bill if the House can adopt the bill you have sponsored with the detailed modifications which have been suggested by the State Department. You can be sure that the early enactment will be more than pleasing to the administration and make more certain the enhancement of the foreign service which we all so much desire. Very truly yours,
WARREN G. HARDING. Hon. JOHN JACOB ROGERS,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, October 13, 1922. MY DEAR MR. ROGERS: I have received your letter of August 31, 1922, requesting an expression of my views on H. R. 17, a bill for the reorganization and improvement of the foreign service, now pending before the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Subsequent to our discussions of last year, to which you refer, I have devoted considerable attention to the needs of the foreign service, and have given liberal expression to my views in several public utterances. It is, therefore, needless for me to emphasize further the importance of an adequate foreign-service machinery.
Post-war conditions have rendered a general betterment of the present organization so imperative that failure to provide for reorganization along constructive lines would be tantamount to retrogression.
The bill (H. R. 12543) which was introduced by you on September 1, 1922, is a careful revision of your former bill (H. R. 17), and represents textually my views on foreign-service legislation. Fundamentally there is no important departure from your original proposals. The revision was made in the Department of State with my full concurrence and approval, and has been submitted to the President, by whom, I understand, it has been transmitted to you with appropriate observations.
The principal features of your original bill (H. R. 17) are as follows: 1. The classification of ministers.
2. The amalgamation of the Diplomatic and Consular Services into a single foreign service on an interchangeable basis.
3. Representation allowances.
4. The substitution of a corps of foreign-service pupils for the present corps of consular assistants,
5. A retirement system.
As the classification of ministers has already been considered and favorably reported to the House by the Committee on Foreign Affairs as section 1 of H. R. 10213, there would appear to be no necessity for its reconsideration in the present bill.
The proposal to create a corps of foreign-service pupils and to abolish the present corps of consular assistants has been eliminated in the revision for reasons which will be explained later.
The three remaining principles enumerated above are of fundamental importance in any scheme of reorganization, and therefore it has been deemed advisable, in order to clarify the legislative aims, to confine attention to their development without the intrusion of those proposals of lesser importance which occur throughout the text of the original bill.
It is desirable to examine first the inadequacies of the present system in order to have in mind the very definite objects to be achieved by the measures proposed.
The Diplomatic Service is greatly underpaid. It is well known that a man without private means, whatever his ability, can not accept the more important posts of ambassador or minister, but of more immediate importance is the fact that the salaries of secretaries in the Diplomatic Service are so low that the choice of candidates is largely restricted to young men of wealthy families who are able and willing to a considerable extent to pay their own way.
It follows that there must be an increase in the salaries of diplomatic secretaries as a means of 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.
Furthermore, if young men of the greatest ability and intellectual ambition are to be attracted to the service there must be the prospect of career, recognition, and distinction; in other words, they must feel that conspicuous ability and fidelity will be rewarded by promotion to the higher grades. The classification of ministers as proposed in H. R. 10213, to which reference has already been made, would be most helpful in this regard.
The Consular Service, on the other hand, while better paid, suffers from great limitations as a public career. There is no prospect of promotion beyond the Consular Service, and it is with difficulty that many of the best men are retained because of tempting offers constantly made to them by the business world.
There would be two distinct advantages to be realized from an amalgamation of the two services on an interchangeable basis: First, those highly desirable benefits of economy and efficiency which would accrue through a system of combined administration; second, a more effective coordination of the political and the economic branches of the service.
The bill H. R. 17 proposes that interchangeability should be affected on the basis of the present scale of salaries in the Consular Service after eliminating the two existing positions at $12,000 each, known as consul general, class 1.
In view of the proposed retirement system, which would deduct from the annual salary 5 per cent by way of contribution, this proposed scale would represent in effect a substantial reduction in consular salaries. On the other hand, the present scale of consular salaries is already recognized as inadequate, and if applied to the Diplomatic Service it would not be sufficient to eliminate the necessity for private incomes, and therefore the interchangeability which it is desired to effect would remain impracticable in administraton.
In order to reach the problems more effectively I have deemed it of first importance that a new and adequate salary scale should be adopted.
After a very careful examination into the actual requirements of these positions it is thought that the scale of salaries proposed in the revision (H. R. 12543), which ranges by regular increments from $3,000 to $9,000, would suffice for the purposes which we have in mind. I am aware that the present appropriating policy is opposed to general increases in rates of compensation for personal service, but the constructive aims of reorganization and improve ment in the foreign service can be achieved in no other way, and I therefore unhesitatingly indorse the relatively small additional outlay which would be required.
The principle of providing representation allowances is one which is well established in the practice of other nations and among the important business interests of this country. In relation to the foreign service it is a corollary to the Government ownership of embassy and legation buildings abroad as a means of lightening the burden of personal expense on our ambassadors and ministers. While no appropriations are sought for this purpose at the present time, I believe it important that statutory provision should be made therefor in order that suitable funds may be provided at a later date and in such proportion as the special exigencies may require.
Essential as may be deemed the foregoing proposals, the plan would remain incomplete and inadequate without some acceptable system for the superannuation of officers beyond a certain age. There are at the present time a number of positions, especially in the Consular Service, being held by officers quite advanced in years who are incapable in this highly competitive and active career of maintaining the desired standard of efficiency. It is therefore necessary to provide for the retirement of these officers; and in view of the fact that both branches of the service are well established on a civil-service basis, it appears feasible to bring them under the provisions of the civil service retirement act of May 22, 1920, modified as to the age of retirement, the rate of contribution, and the rate of annuity as proposed in the bill.
In the revision (H. R. 12543) an effort has been made to arrive at a somewhat simpler form of expression in effecting an adaptation of the existing law.
No proposal in connection with the improvement of the foreign service commends itself to my judgment with greater force than that of a suitable retirement system so essential to efficiency as well as to the interests of the officers affected thereby.
Adverting to the proposal that a corps of foreign-service pupils be created and the present corps of consular assistants abolished, I do not feel that we are ready at this time for such a change in practice. Under the present system young men who enter the service as consular assistants invigorate the lower ranks by the varied resources which they are able to contribute through the diversified training acquired in our schools and colleges. Their practical education begins by actual contact with the work in the field, and promotion is won after a thorough grounding has been acquired.
The substitution for this system of a selected corps of foreign-service pupils might have the effect of limiting the scope of selection to young men whose designation would be undertaken at too early an age for their capabilities to be correctly appraised. We can always make appropriate suggestions as to advisable courses of study for young men contemplating a diplomatic career, and further consideration of a plan for foreign-service pupils seems to be advisable.
As you are aware, I am deeply interested in the developing of the foreign service as a prerequisite to the successful conduct of foreign affairs. It is with great pleasure, therefore, that I can assure you of my hearty cooperation and support in securing the early enactment of the legislation which you have proposed with those modifications indicated in the revision that has been worked out. I am, my dear Mr. Rogers, Sincerely yours,
CHARLES E. HUGHES.
OCTOBER 27, 1922. Mr. JULIUS H. BARNES, President Chamber of Commerce of the United States,
Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. BARNES : I am pleased to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of October 17, 1922, in which you bespeak the interest of your organization in providing adequate support for the Diplomatic and Consular Service and request an expression of my opinion as to the merits of the two bills, H. R. 10213, now awaiting consideration by the House, and H. R. 12543, now pending before the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
As you are aware, I have devoted considerable attention to this subject, and on several occasions have expressed my views in no uncertain terms as to the desirability, if not, indeed, the necessity, of an adequate foreign service machinery.
I fully realize the keen interest of your organization in these proposals. Apart from considerations of a general character which touch the national welfare, the business man has the most direct interest in the successful conduct of foreign relations.
No one is so quick to feel the consequences of foreign condition and the results of international transactions, whether these be of a political or of an economic character.
The two measures to which you refer are complementary, although differing widely as to purport.
The bill H. R. 10213 is a technical measure, designed to meet the convenience of Congress in handling appropriations under the committee adjustment which followed the inauguration of the Budget system. Through the accretion by which the present appropriating practice has been built up a number of important items of expenditure have become established, although contrary to or unsupported by the provisions of statute. For instance, section 1682 of the Revised Statutes provides :
There shall be but one minister resident accredited to Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, Salvador, and Nicaragua; and the President may select the place of residence for the minister in any one of these States."
Manifestly this statute is out of harmony with the practice of sending a minister to each of the above-named countries, and should be repealed. The primary object of the bill in question-H. R. 10213—is to eliminate these inconsistencies by adjusting the provisions of statute to the established legislative practice in making appropriations for the Department of State and the Diplomatic and Consular Service.
In that sense it is more corrective than constructive, as it does not purport to reorganize or to improve the foreign service. There is, however, one highly constructive provision in this bill, namely, section 1, which proposes an amendment to section 1675 of the Revised Statutes by classifying the grade of minister into two classes.
The classification of ministers is, in my opinion, correct in principle, as it prepares the way for an extension of the career service to include the grade of minister, without encroaching upon the constitutional powers of the President in connection with appointments to that grade. One of the essential requirements in any scheme of general improvement must be the incentive of promotion to the higher grades for officers in the career service who have demonstrated their ability and fitness for such positions.
Apart from this provision, the bill, although containing many features that would be helpful in administration, can not be said to represent the character of legislation which is so urgently needed for the building of a broader and more efficient foreign service machinery.
On the other hand, the bill H. R, 12543 is designed particularly to provide for a fundamental reorganization of the foreign service.
In answer to a recent letter from Hon. John Jacob Rogers, in which he requested an expression of my views on his former bill, H. R. 17, I discussed in detail the merits of the proposals, stating that H. R. 12543 represents textually my views on foreign service legislation.
For your information I inclose herewith a copy of my letter to Representative Rogers, which you are at liberty to use as you think proper.
It is indeed gratifying to feel that your organization is prepared to support these measures. I am very deeply interested in their early enactment, the immediate effect of which would be appreciable in bringing the service abreast of present-day requirements.
We must maintain an adequate foreign service. The ultimate cost of an inadequate foreign service is so much greater than that of an adequate one that the slight additional expenditures which would be required to raise the standard of our present organization is insignificant in comparison with the benefits that would accrue.
I will be greatly pleased to learn of any steps which the Chamber may take toward furthering the educational work among its members as to the impor tance and the merits of these bills. Sincerely yours,
CHARLES E. HUGHES.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILBUR J. CARR, DIRECTOR OF THE CON
SULAR SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE–Resumed.
Mr. CARR. Mr. Chairman, I left off yesterday morning, I believe, at section 11. I would like to say further in respect to that section that, in studying it somewhat more fully, I believe that it might be improved if it were amended on line 5, page 7, after the words “Foreign service inspectors," by inserting words somewhat like these : “who shall, under the direction of the Secretary of State, inspect the work of the foreign-service officers in both the diplomatic and consular branches of the foreign service."
That is a little more definite than the section at present. I presume it is the desire of the commmittee, as I think it would be wise to do, to place all