Letter from Timothy A. Smiddy to Joseph P. Walshe (Dublin)

I construe your further letter of April 2nd 1929 (32/175)¹ regarding the form of communication as not implying that the High Commissioner may not write directly to the Minister when he thinks fit to do so.

Since the Secretary has signed letters beginning with the phrase 'I am directed by the High Commissioner' it is not seen that there is any reason for departing from the practice by which such letters were signed by the Secretary as secretary of the Office. However, the question of 'description' is quite unimportant and is evidently regarded so by the Department since so many different signatures appear on letters from the head office, all of the signatories signing independently, without a description such as 'for the Secretary'.

It is noted that the High Commissioner and the envoys rank with the Assistant Secretary and the Legal Adviser; but it is perhaps overlooked

I am informed by the Secretary that he does not accept the ruling either that he ranks as an Assistant-Principal or that he ranks equal in seniority with the counsellor of legation at Washington, or the Secretaries in Berlin and Paris. In fact, Mr. Kiernan tells me that he claims seniority over any non-ministerial officers serving the Saorstát outside of the Saorstát. Mr. Kiernan believes it will prejudice his prospects as a civil servant if it is left on record that he is the equivalent of an Assistant-Principal; and he wishes his position made clear, for his personal benefit.

I wish to have it clearly understood that these questions and others which are the subject of correspondence are raised merely that I may know the position as it is understood by the Minister and the Secretary of the Department. In asking for explanations I only desire to have information to enable me to realise the changes which have taken place in the organisation of the department. I am not objecting in the least to obiter dicta.