Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:38:44.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreign Service Reorganization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Tracy Lay
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While the general policy governing the nature and the degree of American participation in international affairs may still be regarded as a contested issue, an unequivocal decision has been reached with respect to our foreign service.

Through the enactment of the Rogers Bill, for the reorganization and improvement of the foreign service, a basis has been fixed and a structure provided which are destined to place the foreign representation of the United States in the forefront of diplomatic efficiency. It is not to be concluded that this strengthening and remodeling of the diplomatic machinery is necessarily anticipatory of a forthcoming broader participation in world affairs, or that Congress has acted in the reverse order of logic by perfecting an instrumentality for the conduct of our foreign relations before the nature and the extent of those relations have been finally determined. The need of a strong foreign service is obvious.

The position of the United States has become so commanding that its every act, whether of a positive or of a negative character, is fraught with important consequences to other nations and not infrequently with equally important repercussions at home. A policy of isolation or aloofness, in which the interests of the world are engaged, is perhaps even more difficult to maintain than a policy of active participation.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , November 1924 , pp. 697 - 711
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1924

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, Nov. 10, 1919.

2 Hearings on H. R. 17, Jan. 14, 1924.

3 Act of February 5, 1915.

4 Letter to Hon. Stephen G. Porter, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, H. of R. Jan. 21, 1920.

5 “Speaking generally, of course, the diplomatic branch of that service is the first line of the country's defense, and the Consular Service is the spearhead of the country's trade.” (Hon. Davis, John W., Statement at hearings before the committee on foreign affairs on H. R. 17, December 19, 1922.Google Scholar)

“While many of the duties of diplomatic secretaries differ widely from those of consular officers there is a vast domain of activity in which their functions are essentially the same, as for example, the protection of American interests; the study of foreign conditions; the gathering of information; and the reporting of important events on which the State Department may base its policies and its course of action.” (SecretaryHughes, in The Congressional Digest, January, 1924.Google Scholar)

6 Introduced by Hon. John Jacob Rogers of Massachusetts as H. R. 17, 1st Sess. 67th Cong; revised in the department of state and reintroduced upon the recommendation of President Harding as H. R. 12543; passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 203 to 27; reported unanimously by the committee on foreign relations of the Senate, but failed of passage in the closing days of the Congress. In the 68th Congress the bill was again introduced as H. R. 17, reported from the committee on foreign affairs, as amended, under the number H. R. 6357; passed the House May 1, 1924 by a vote of 134 to 27; passed the Senate by unanimous consent May 15, 1924; approved May 24, 1924.

7 Foreign service officers may be appointed as secretaries in the diplomatic service or as consular officers or both: Provided, That all such appointments shall be made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; Provided further, That all official acts of such officers while on duty in either the diplomatic or the consular branch of the Foreign Service shall be performed under their respective commissions as secretaries or as consular officers. (Sec. 5, Act of May 24, 1924).

8 Sec. 2, H. R. 17, 1st Sess. 67th Cong.

9 He (The President) shall name, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.” (Article II, Sec. 2, The Constitution.)

10 Address before the National Board of Trade, Jan. 26, 1910.

11 Address before the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, May 18, 1922.

12 Sec. 12 of the Act of May 24, 1924.

13 “Annuities shall be paid to retired Foreign Service officers under the following classification, based upon length of service and at the following percentages of the average annual basic salary for the ten years next preceding the date of retirement: Class A, thirty years or more, 60 per centum; class B, from twenty-seven to thirty years, 54 per centum; class C, from twenty-four to twenty-seven years, 48 per centum; class D, from twenty-one to twenty-four years, 42 per centum; class E, from eighteen to twenty-one years, 36 per centum; class F, from fifteen to eighteen years, 30 per centum.”

14 Executive Order of the President, June 27, 1924.

15 In the general reclassification effective July 1, 1924, there were 32 retirements on account of age; 5 officers dropped from the unassigned list of the diplomatic service; 8 diplomatic secretaries and 13 consular officers demoted; and 2 resignations. All other officers were reclassified as stipulated in the Act.

16 Departmental Order No. 295, June 9, 1924.

17 Sec. 15, H. R. 17, 1st Sess., 67th Cong.

18 Hearings on H. R. 17, Jan. 18, 1924.

19 American Consular Bulletin, July, 1924.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.