Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1869-11-04
The Diplomatic Service = What II
Costs at Present.

Costs at Present.
From the New York Times.l
The complaint concerning the made
ouate pay of our foreign Ministers is
being very generally discussed, and we
observe that as rule, it meets with very
little sympathy. One or two journals
express regret that American diplomat
lists receive no preparatory training, and
assert that it is rare for an able man to
be sent to any foreign court. This is, of
course, an exsggerstion. but at the same
time the statement is not utterly without
foundation. IF the salary were BETTER
saws a contemporary, there would be
some hopes of securing better men to fill
the places" On the other hand there is
a section of the public which holds that
consulates properly filled would answer
every good purpose OF the present diplo-
matte service, an1 that first-olass mis-
sions are in general Grst-ciass inpos-
lures. Between these two views the
truth may probably be found.
IF we compare the salaries paid to
American and English foreign Ministers
the contrast will undoubtedly seem to
confirm demands of the kind which have
been commonly attributed lately to Mr..
Washburne. Our Minister to Russia, for
example, receives Sl2. 900 year. The
Eoglish Minister at the same court is
paid altogether s45. GEO at the gold stand
ard. The British government siso keeps
ID staff of secretaries, each of them well
paid, whereas the work at the American
Legation ia done by one. Our Minister
at Belginm gets S750n a year-ths salary
of the Englisb Minister is $4,000 For
our Austrian Legation we pay total
sum of SIS 900. including the salary of
the Minister. The Embassy kept UP by
England costs that government $58, 900
The Americf n Legation in England costs
$2l ,625. The y 1glish Embassy at Wash
ipgton is maintained &c sn expense Of
S37 255. Our French Legation entails
upon the Government charge of $2l,.
625 The corresponding charge to the
English government is S69,725. It may
be fairly doubted whether the latter sum
Is not more then any Legation can pos
sibly be worth,
We pay more to Ministers ct South
American Republics than England, but
on the other hand Euglsnd keeps up ex.
pensive embassies in eastern countries,
where we have none, or they are kept
within moderate compass. Take Persia
as case in point England keeps up at
the Shah's Court Minister. three secre.
taries, translator, and physician, at
total cost of $50 500. We keep no Off
cial Whatever in that country. Taken as
whole, England spends vast sum for
her diplomatic service in excess of the
expenditure for similar purposes au.
thorized by our Government But she is
no better served than we are. When
did her foreign Ministers ever prevent q
war2 The C5nsuls are the men who do
the hard work, and they are by DO means
literally paid.
English Ministers abroad have hitherto
been rempnrrsled on scale which pee
Piles Parliament will net sanction very
long. We msy expect to see general
cutting down Of expenses there rather
than an increase here. II has not been
proved that our Ministers are, as a rule,
inadequstely paid, and it is no dispsrage.
ment to some Of them TO assert that they
would fail to earn an equally large in
come 10 any other career. The case for
raising their sslaries has not been made
out, and the people are likely to defer
all further consideration Of it until the
taxes are very considerably reduced.