Lapas attēli

April 10, 1884.

[Senate Report No. 431.]

Mr. Miller, of California, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred S. 1860, "For the relief of Richard Phoenix," having considered the same, beg leave to report it back, with recommendation that its consideration by the Senate be indefinitely postponed. In support of this recommendation they have the honor to submit the following, an extract from a report made by the Secretary of State to the committee, viz:

On the records of the Department it appears that Mr. Phoenix claims the return to him of fees amounting to several thousand dollars, which were voluntarily surrendered by him to the consul-general, Mr. Seward. He signed the receipts and made returns in proper form as if he had actually received the fees, to which he, by law, was entitled, and it is not doubted that he did surrender them to Mr. Seward in accordance with a mutual arrangement.

These fees would in no event have come to the Treasury of the United States, and it seems to me that the whole matter is one in which the United States has no concern.

[blocks in formation]

If the transaction now complained of was fraudulent, as Mr. Phoenix alleges, then he, in signing the receipts for fees which he did not receive, became a party to that fraud. The face of the receipts is evidence of the amount received; and, further, if the statements made by Mr. Phoenix are true, his action lies against Mr. Seward, the consul-general under whom he served, and not against the United States. As Mr. Seward is not now in the public service, and as the complaint of Mr. Phoenix includes no allegation that he owes the Government anything, there seemed to be nothing upon which this Department should act, and the claimant's attorney has been so informed.


April 29, 1896.

[Senate Report No. 820.]

Mr. Gray, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, having had under consideration the bill (S. 2116) for the relief of Wilber H. Graef & Co., respectfully report in favor of its passage, and adopt the House report which was adopted at the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress, and is hereto appended.

[House Report No. 3401, Forty-ninth Congress, first session.]

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom were referred papers relating to the claim of Wilber H. Graef & Co., for payment of the value, including duties, of two cases of silk goods. beg leave to report:

They find that said Wilber H. Graef & Co. were importers of silk goods at the port of New York, and that in November, 1884, they imported two cases of silks, which went into the custom-house, and while there, awaiting appraisement and assessment of duties, were stolen by George Dickinson, an officer of the Government of the United States, in whose custody they were. There is no question about the importation; none concerning the custody of the Government: and it is admitted by the Treasury Department that while in said custody the two cases of silks were taken and appropriated by the aforesaid officer, and were a total loss to the said Graef & Co.

They seek to recover the value of the goods.

Your committee think it is proper for the Government to reimburse them in view of the facts, and recommend the passage of the accompanying bill. The loss sustained by said Graef & Co. was $943.65, which is the amount recommended to be paid.






March 14, 1814.

On petition of Don Ramon Lenares Gonzales and Ramon De Colmenere, Mr. Bibb, of Georgia, reported as follows:

That without detailing all the circumstances which were alleged in the petition, they deem it sufficient to state that the petitioners, inhabitants of the city of La Vera Cruz, arrived with two vessels in the port of New Orleans in the month of November last; that they purchased cargoes of provisions, which were put on board the said vessels; that, about to sail, they were detained by order of Brigadier-General Flournoy, until intelligence was received of the act laying an embargo, and that then, by order of the collector, they were compelled to unlade said vessels. They ask of Congress permission to export the said provisions.

It appears that the petitioners have sought redress for the detention of their vessels, previously to the embargo, by the institution of a suit against General Flournoy in the district court of the United States for the district of Louisiana. If, therefore, the detention was illegal, it is presumed that redress will be afforded. If, on the contrary, the vessels are legally detained, and the suspicions entertained by General Flournoy that the provisions were intended for the enemy be well founded, it would be improper to grant the prayer of the petition.

The committee consider it impolitic to exempt this case from the operation of the embargo, and therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the petitioners have leave to withdraw their petition with the accompanying documents.

(Annals, 13th Cong., 2d sess., 663.)


March 3, 1828.

On petition of William B. Wallace, attorney of F. M. Arrodondo, and others, Mr. Tazewell reported:

That the petitioner represents that the said Arrodondo and others sustained great losses of property prior to and during the years 1812 and 1814, in consequence of what they call the invasion of Florida by the American troops at those periods.


That for such losses the said sufferers have received no indemnity, although they consider themselves entitled thereto under the provisions of the Florida treaty, concluded between the United States and Spain on the 22d day of February, 1819; they therefore pray that a law may be enacted similar to that passed in 1824, which provided a mode for ascertaining the amount of indemnity for other losses of a like kind sustained at subsequent periods and provided for by that treaty.

This petition is supported by no evidence of the supposed losses, nor did the committee think it necessary to call for any such, because, as the petitioners merely pray for the establishment of a forum to ascertain the amount of their supposed losses, the evidence thereof, if any such has been sustained, for which the United States are bound to make indemnity, would of course be required by such forum if such forum should be created. The committee, however, will not recommend to the Senate the establishment of any such tribunal as that which the petition prays may be created, because the committee concur in the view taken of this subject in a report made to the House of Representatives by a committee of that body on the 10th day of March, 1826, which report accompanies this, and to it they beg leave to refer. Wherefore this committee recommend to the Senate the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relatious be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of the said William B. Wallace, as attorney for the said Fernando M. Arrodondo, in behalf of the said Arrodondo and others, and that the persons interested therein have leave to withdraw their papers.


March 31, 1830.

[Senate Report No. 119.]

Mr. Tazewell made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred a bill for the relief of Don Carlos Dehault Delassus, have had the same under their consideration, and now beg leave to report:

That this bill was introduced into the Senate upon leave previously asked and obtained by a member to that effect. It is founded upon a petition which was first presented to the Senate on the 13th of December, 1824, and then referred to the Committee on Claims. This committee afterwards prayed to be discharged from the consideration of the case, and their application was granted by the Senate on the 25th of February, 1825. On the 24th of March, 1826, a motion was made and leave given to a member to introduce this bill; which, when so introduced, was again referred to the same committee, together with the petition aforesaid and sundry documents in relation thereto. The bill was afterwards reported by the committee to whom it had been referred, without amendment, and passed the Senate on the 12th of May, 1826, but does not appear to have been acted upon by the House of Representatives. On the 30th of January, 1827, the petition above mentioned was again presented and referred to the same committee; who, on the 1st of March, 1827, moved to be and were discharged from its consideration. At the present session the same bill was

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »