Mr. FLOOD. Does not that demonstrate that the State Department has not man power sufficient to do the enormous amount of work? Mr. ROGERS. I do not think that in this case it is a question of man power. If I am correctly informed by the gentlemen in the department itself it is because there has been a difference of opinion among themselves which they have not been able to reconcile.

Secretary LANSING. And it may be a small difference, too. Possibly the State Department is as conservative as any other department in that particular-that is, they go very slowly when they are committing themselves to a departure from what they already have, but I am very much disposed to cut loose from precedent in that particular, go ahead and improve that department and improve the foreign service in any possible way that we can.

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Secretary, have we not done what you suggest as far as we can?

Secretary LANSING. Oh, yes; I think you have.

Mr. FLOOD. Have we not carried out your suggestions in reference to every foreign appointee except the ministers and ambassadors? Secretary LANSING. Yes, sir. Well, you mean

Mr. FLOOD (interposing). In making them permanent?

Secretary LANSING. Oh, yes; but you see, of course, there is a limitation upon the question of permanency. There is a constitutional limitation of the President's absolutely free hand in the matter of appointments. The permanency in the Consular Service is by Executive order and not by act of Congress.

Mr. FLOOD. The classification is by act of Congress?

Secretary LANSING. The classification is by act of Congress, but so far as appointment is concerned it requires an Executive order, because it is the constitutional power of the President.

Mr. FLOOD. But Congress can not get around that necessity? Secretary LANSING. They can not change that, but that is the way the Consular Service to-day is operating as a permanent body. Mr. FLOOD. What I had in mind was what action of Congress do you contemplate would make these services more permanent?

Secretary LANSING. That is something we have got to study very carefully. It is very much easier with the Consular Service than with the Diplomatic Service.

Without entering into a detailed discussion of the matter at the present moment, I may take advantage of this opportunity to state certain principles to which I believe effect should be given in order to attract to and retain in the Diplomatic Service the best material available and to assure the development along the lines of highest efficiency of those who enter this service. In the first place it is essential that young men in entering this career may be able to look forward to the possibility of promotion to the highest office which the service offers, provided through natural ability and training they prove to be thoroughly fitted for those offices. They should also be assured that the service offers a permanent career throughout its various grades and that they will be removed from office only when the best interests of the service so demand. Finally they should be given a living wage in order that the department may not be restricted in its selection to those of an independent income.

The department will view with favor legislation embodying the principles outlined above, and which in no way attempts to interfere with the constitutional powers of the President.

Now, going back, in the recommendation of the increase in salaries of ambassadors, the amount is $25,000 instead of $17,500. That does not meet, by any means, the normal expenditure of an ambassador at our principal European posts. They run anywhere from $50,000 to $80,000 a year. That is, if they live like the United States would like its representatives to live. The increase in the salaries of ministers is from $10,000 or $12,000 to $12,000 or $15,000.

The CHAIRMAN. These increases, Mr. Lansing, will not destroy the vice of the present system, however, of compelling a man to share the larger proportion of the cost of the performance of his duties? Secretary LANSING. No, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. If you had your choice between receiving for the ministers and ambassadors the increases here recommended, or the embarkation on a policy of acquiring the embassies and legations on the part of the United States, I assume you would take the latter?

Secretary LANSING. Yes. Of course, to get a proper embassy abroad, what we would assume to be consonant with the greatness of this country, you must bear in mind that that embassy may be much more expensive to keep up than a smaller place that the ambassador might rent himself, and at the same time he would be relieved of the rental. I know some of our ambassadors pay their entire present salary for rent.

Mr. ROGERS. What does Mr. Davis pay?

Secretary LANSING. I can not tell you exactly, but he has obtained very reasonable rental. I think it is about $9,000.

Mr. BEGG. Do you think it is a wise policy for the United States to pay such a salary that only a wealthy man can afford to take the job?

Secretary LANSING. No. I think the present salaries that we pay are among the most undemocratic things that we do.

Mr. BEGG. Well, on the other hand, would you not be willing to say that we should pay such salaries as would warrant the selection of any man that was the most qualified?

Secretary LANSING. Yes; I would. I know very well, for instance, that it is costing Ambassador Davis far more than he can afford, that it is a very great sacrifice when a man's private income, in connection with his salary, does not meet his expenses by any means. It is pretty hard on a man to do that, and yet we are doing it constantly. We have to look every time to see whether a man has a fortune behind him. I think it is the most undemocratic thing imaginable to limit to men of wealth the appointment of ambassadors abroad, unless a man is willing to make a very considerable sacrifice.

Mr. ROGERS. The question in my mind is whether the recommendation in this bill will go even part way toward curing the vices of the present system. It seems to me-and I am putting this rather in the form of a question than as an assertion-it seems to me that in order to make a beginning toward overcoming the present outrageous and undemocratic system, we ought to embark upon a

policy fostered by the State Department and pushed very hard by the State Department, of acquiring suitable but not extravagant embassies and legations abroad.

I can see your point, that if we get a palace and give it to a poor man, the maintenance is going to be a white elephant on his hands. I take it that no one in or out of this country would want to present a palace to an ambassador or a minister, but we should rather give him an adequate house where he should pay the minimum rather than the maximum of elegance and magnitude, if you like. So that I am fearful that in granting these salary increases to ministers we are simply facilitating instead of amputating, and we are getting away from the real question which is to provide permanent homes for these men.

Secretary LANSING. I think we should do both.

Mr. BEGG. I would like to ask one question in connection with Mr. Roger's remarks. Since you say, as you do, that you believe it would be a better policy, why a recommendation for $25,000? Why not a larger sum?

The CHAIRMAN. You could not get it through. I think, Mr. Lansing, that the committee agrees with you that this whole system must be reorganized. We can not get 100 per cent efficiency out of a man who has to pay for his position. Under the present system, no matter what the man's ability may be, unless he is wealthy he is unable to accept one of these positions.

Secretary LANSING. That is quite true, and if he does accept them it is only for a very brief period because he can not afford to go on. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Secretary, will $25,000 anything like pay the expenses of one of our ambassadors at one of the important capitals of Europe?

Secretary LANSING. There is just this that might be said, and that is, that it is possible that there are certain European posts that require a larger salary than others. For example, take the post at London and at Paris, and Rome particularly, and possibly Spain, possibly Germany. They ought to have a higher salary than an ambassador to Mexico, for example, or one to Argentina, or one to Chile. Mr. FLOOD. Or the ambassador to Spain?

Secretary LANSING. Yes, but I say I am not sure which class that should be included in. It is possible that we ought to make two classes of ambassadors. I am not sure but what that might be done. Mr. ROGERS. Would not that affront the countries that were put in the second class?

Secretary LANSING. We do it now with ministers.

Mr. ROGERS. I know, but that is historical, more or less, and this would be done for the first time.

Secretary LANSING. That is true; but at the same time there would be no interest in making the embassy at the City of Mexico a financialprofit institution while the embassy at London would not meet expenses even with an increased salary.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Secretary, in that connection, is it not probably true that most of the class 2 ministers are able to realize a profit on their salaries?

Secretary LANSING. I think they do, but very small.

Mr. ROGERS. Then, why the recommendation for an increase of their salaries?

Secretary LANSING. Oh, you mean the $10,000?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Secretary LANSING. I do not believe many men can do that.

Mr. ROGERS. I think if you take some of those Central American and South American countries, and this is the impression that I have gained only on rather imperfect information, but I know that some of those men have been successful in coming home with a pretty substantial nest egg for their bank account.

Secretary LANSING. I should not think it would be a large one, but it may be done. I wish you would ask Dr. Rowe, because he is very familiar with all the Latin Americas. I do not think there is very much money made out of the Government in the matter of salaries. Mr. ROGERS. About as much as a Congressman makes?

Secretary LANSING. Yes; just about; and I would like to include Cabinet officers.

Mr. DICKINSON. What is there inherent about the position of ambassador to these countries that is so expensive that it should cost a man $80,000 to live, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary LANSING. Well, it is only gaining a certain social prestige that is very valuable to him in his work. We all want to have our country represented as a great country. The other nations do. Now, for example, I have tried to get the information in regard to some of the other nations' representatives here and my information is that the British ambassador receives $50,000 a year.

The CHAIRMAN. $55,000, I think.

Secretary LANSING. And his house and quite a corps of servants and a certain allowance for entertaining.

Mr. DICKINSON. Yes; but is there anything about that social prestige that gives him any particular advantage with the average hardheaded American?

Secretary LANSING. How do you mean?

Mr. DICKINSON. That gives him any particular prestige that he would not have if he did not do any of those things?

Secretary LANSING. Not with the American, but it makes a difference with foreigners, and that is where the prestige comes in. Now, the French ambassador receives $35,000 here and a house and he lives comparatively simply and entertains handsomely, but he has an allowance, I understand, for his entertainment. The Italian ambassador receives $25,000 and a house here, and also certain perquisites. Foreign ministers in Washington receive from $12,000 to $21,000 a year.

The CHAIRMAN. The custom, Mr. Lansing, is immemorial that representatives of foreign Governments give these large entertain

ments.

Secretary LANSING. Oh, yes; it would be remarked upon and criticized by the foreign Governments if it were not done. I know one minister told me the other night when I was talking to him—I was asking him about his salary, which possibly was not a very diplomatic thing to do-and he said he received, I think it was, $15,000 a year; but, he said, "Of course, if I go over that in my expenses in this country, the President of the Republic"-this was a LatinAmerican Republic-" the President of the Republic has authority and does make up any difference that I expend, so," he said, "I

am never a loser." Their President has the power to

extra allowance.

grant that

Mr. ROGERS. Is the new house which has been purchased for Poland to be the property of the Government or of the minister personally?

Secretary LANSING. I think it is for the Government. It was much cheaper to purchase it than to rent it.

The CHAIRMAN. It will not be as expensive for the foreign ministers to entertain after the 16th of January?

Secretary LANSING. They can do it if they want to. Now, I do not think I need to elaborate any further on the matter of the necessity of the representative abroad in any important post, whether an embassy or a legation, having a private fortune in order to serve his country. That has now become a necessary qualification.

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Secretary, I notice among the embassies that you mentioned which might be put in the second class, Argentina. I understand that that is about the most expensive post of any you have?

Secretary LANSING. Unfortunately, I have not the figures as to the expenses of our various embassies. I intended to get them before I came before the committee so that I could find out how much our people expended.

Mr. MOORES. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Charles Sherrill told me some years ago, when he was ambassador to Argentina, that there was no suitable house in Buenos Aires that could be rented for the ambassador's salary and that his house cost him more than his salary? Secretary LANSING. Yes; and the same is quite true of Paris.

Mr. ROGERS. On that first paragraph, Mr. Secretary, must we go on appropriating year after year for an ambassador to Turkey? Will there ever be another ambassador to Turkey from this country?

Secretary LANSING. It depends entirely upon what the determination of the Allies is.

Mr. ROGERS. It would soothe my personal feelings a good deal if you could omit that provision from this bill.

Secretary LANSING. I think that is possibly true of Austria. It is probably true that Austria at the present time ought to be reduced to a legation, and in the same way Hungary should be reduced. Of course, Germany will have to continue as an embassy because it has not been lessened particularly in size.

Mr. ROGERS. Austria-Hungary is one mission?

Mr. SABATH. Yes; but it will not be now.

Secretary LANSING. I think so far as the bill is concerned, we will have to proceed on the present basis until we have determined whether we are going to accept the peace treaty as to the delimitations of boundaries.

The CHAIRMAN. I was just going to ask you. Do you think it is wise to interfere with the present situation until the treaty is disposed of?

Secretary LANSING. No, sir; I think not, though possibly it will need revision after some determination is made of the treaty; at least, we should bear that in mind.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lansing, we all recognize the vice in this present system of representation abroad. Personally, I am not