Arizona republican., 1920-04-13
BY FREDERICK J. HAskIN

WASHINGTON, D. C-The news that the government of Great Britain has given it's diploma tic representative in Washington more than S100,000Sa year in salary and expense money mas brought into discussion once more our systems Of paying and housing our dip lomatic representatives. which makes it impossible for any but very wealthy men to hold the most important Ameri- can diplomatic posts.
 The subject is very old one. Nearly everyone is aware that we do not pro- vide our ambassadors with suitable quarters in most capitals, and that in many of them the salaries they receive will not pay their rents. But the war has put new face on the-Inatrer Never, since the days of F'ranklin's mission to France, has much de- pended upon the diplomatic corps. True there is a tendency to belittle the dip lomats for -the unsatisfactory way in which they are conducting the affairs of the world-but after all, they are still conducting them. The diplomats arranged the world war for us, and after we had fought that for them. they arranged the world peace. Never before were such momentous questions decided So secretly and arbitrarily by diplomats, so-ca1led. And il is very noticeable, too, that in the, trading which went on in Paris. those. nations
 
 ahead of the game. and those with the worst diplomats came out, so to speak, minus their very shirts.
 Diplomacy has been described as an application of the principles of horse trading to international affairs. So It seems to be. And the late European jamboree illustrated the fact that sharp trader can get more for a spav- inned mule than a rank amateur can get for a sound and blooded horse. The moral seems to be-as long as we are going to conduct international affairs by the horse trading system, let us have good traders.
 To do this, must pay our traders more money than we are now paying them. and we must give them better houses to live in. This is an especially opportune moment for acquiring the necessary real estate and building the necessary houseS because the rate Q. exchange in our favor makes it pos sibSe for us to get more for our money in Europe than ever before, and more perhaps than we will ever be able to get again in a long time.
 Then, too, new countries have been created, and they are countries which look to the U-.ted States as one of the greatest of the powers. We should es- tablish ourselves properly in theSez countries. the authorities>say, by hous 4 ing our diplomatic representatives With dignity. And there are other countries| where, before the war. we were known commercially. but not politically, as acting Secretary of State Polk recently put it-countries that bought our sew ing machines and reapers. but had never heard of us as the defender of small nations and large ideals. These nations are now aware of us as great political force, and they expect our dip lomatic representatives to live up to that greatness.
 The above are the principal argu- ments in favor of housing our diplo mats with dignity and paying them enough to meet their expenses. They seem strong and sufficient, and public sentiment at this time seems to concur with them. Yet the arguments against caring for our diplomats as other great nations care for theirs haYe always prevailed on the floor of the house. They prevailed five or six years ago when ttG Louden bill was passed.
 That bill, as passed, provides that congress might appropriate money for building houses for our diplomats n foreign capitals. On the floor of the house it was amended so that not more than S15O,000 could be expended in any one capital and not more than s500.000 in any one year. That completely scotched it. because we cannot buy or buid suitable embassies in the capitals  each. In general the ground would cost more than that. A measure known as the Rogers bill has now been farorably reported by the house committee on foreign affairs. which amends the Lou den act by striking out that limitation. l It will be interesting to note its fate on the floor of the house
 For when such a bill reaches the floor invariably certain members arise and declaim against the run American ma agnificence" which such an appro- priation implies. They conjure by the 1 transformations democracy of Jefferson. 1 They recall how Franklin with his | homely visage and unpowdered poll won diplomatic victories in Paris. They l assert the the American representativel abroad should be content with an aus | tere simplicity. This point of view was represented in the hearing on the.I Rogers bill by Representative Hud- dleston.
 Tt seems to me said this apostle Of lomely democracy, sour policy should l