My dear P.M.,

Sir Hugh Denison [1] came to see me at this office this morning
and, in the course of conversation, disclosed what was in his mind
about our representation in America.

He is firmly of opinion that Australia should establish a Legation
at Washington, and supports his contention by opinions that he
quotes of Sir Esme Howard [2], Mr. Vincent Massey [3], and others.

He proposes to make strong representations to you on these lines
on his return to Australia. [4]

He has discussed the cost of such diplomatic representation with
Vincent Massey, who has supplied him with figures that shew the
cost of the Canadian Legation as approximately 20,000 a year.

However, as this is based on a salary of 5,000 a year for the
Minister, 1,400 a year for First Secretary, 1,200 a year for
Second Secretary, 1,000 a year for Third Secretary and
proportionate amounts for the rest of the staff, it is my
impression that the very considerable extra living-allowances
which would be essential to make up amounts on which these
officers could live have not been included. The 20,000 may be the
bare figure for salaries and office expenses, but it is
inconceivable to me, from a knowledge of what the staff of the
British Embassy are paid, that this could be an inclusive figure.

Sir Hugh tells me confidentially that his period in America cost
him at the rate of 9,000 a year, in addition to his salary and
allowances, and admits that an Australian Minister would have to
have a considerable private fortune to be able to accept the
projected post at Washington at a salary of 5,000 a year, if he
were to do the requisite amount of entertaining that would be
called for.

He says that Sir Esme Howard was so impressed with the arguments
that he had to put forward that he offered to look out for a
suitable building for us for a Legation in Washington.

Sir Hugh said that Mr. Louw [5], the South African Trade
Commissioner in New York, told him that his country was anxious to
get diplomatic status for him, but they could not afford a
Legation and so were turning to the idea of making their Trade
Commissioner into a Consul-General. He quoted, as a possible way
round the difficulty, the method that he said was adopted by
Esthonia, which was to arrange with the American Government to
accept an Esthonian Minister but not to appoint one, and to ask
the United States Government to accept their Consul-General in New
York as Charge d'affaires ad interim-a state of affairs which Sir
Hugh says has been allowed to continue, and which enables the
Consul-General to function as such and to have the advantage of
diplomatic status.

With regard to this latter statement about the Esthonian
representative, the American Department of the Foreign Office tell
me that it is inherently improbable that the Americans would
concur in such an arrangement for any length of time, especially
if the Esthonians did not maintain an office in Washington.

I am, Yours sincerely,
R.G. CASEY