a further allowance was dismissed by Mr. Seward, while Secretary of State, and then again by the present Secretary of State, who held himself bound by the decision of his predecessor. The bill now before this committee was introduced by a Senator who declared that his purpose was to secure a hearing for Mr. Mackenzie. It allows $44,000, in addition to the sum already received.

The committee examined a considerable mass of papers filed by Mr. Mackenzie in support of his claim. They also invited the opinion of the Secretary of State on the propriety of this additional allowance. His reply is hereby given, with the report of the examiner of claims at the Department of State:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, March 1, 1870.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22d ultimo, inclosing a bill for the relief of Kenneth Mackenzie, esquire, with a request for my opinion on the character and propriety of Mr. Mackenzie's claim. Having no personal knowledge on the subject. I inclose you, by way of reply, a copy of an opinion given to my predecessor, Mr. Seward, by the examiner of claims of this Department. Mr. Smith informs me that, by the direction of Mr. Seward, at the urgent solicitation of Mr. Mackenzie, he reexamined the subject, and after consultation with the Attorney-General, Mr. Stanbery, consented to recommend the payment of $5,000 in gold as a liberal compensation to Mr. Mackenzie, rather because of the awkwardness of a controversy between this Government and a foreigner employed as counsel, than from satisfaction of the justice to the United States of allowing so large a sum.

In answer to your further inquiry, I have to state that G. and H. B. Murphy, esquires, of Toronto, were employed as attorneys and associate counsel in preparing and conducting the defense of the prisoners, for whom Mackenzie also appeared. Those gentlemen were paid for their expenses and services in those cases the sum of $5,170, and make no further claim. The larger portion of their bill was made up by attorneys' fees, represented to be taxable costs in Canada; the remainder, $2,000, it is believed, was charged and allowed for services as counsel.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. CHARLES SUMNER,

HAMILTON FISH.

Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate.

COMPENSATION OF K. MACKENZIE, ESQ., AS COUNSEL FOR FENIAN PRISONERS AT TORONTO.

BUREAU OF CLAIMS, August 7, 1867.

Mr. Mackenzie, upon the retainer of our consul at Toronto, defended upon their trials 41 American citizens accused of participation in the Fenian invasion of Canada. Seven of the cases went to the court in banc upon exceptions taken at the trial, and Mr. Mackenzie argued them.

It appears that the sum allowed by the Canadian Government to I. H. Cameron, esq., the senior counsel for the prosecution of these and other prisoners accused of the same offense, is $5,000.

Caleb Cushing, esq. having during my absence had referred to him the bill for attorneys' services in these cases. I consulted with him in respect to the proper compensation to be offered Mr. Mackenzie; and we are of the opinion that the sui allowed to Mr. Cameron by the Canadian Government may be taken as a proper standard of comparison. The counsel for the prosecution was engaged not only in the same trials as Mr. Mackenzie, but in many others. The precise number of the latter is not known to us. Mr. Mackenzie states, however, that at the time of his retainer the Fenian prisoners confined in the Toronto jail was 96 or 97 in number. Mr. Thurston, our consul at Toronto, referring to the amount of Mr. Cameron's fee as a standard, suggests $3,000 as proper compensation for Mr. Mackenzie. The result of inquiries instituted by Mr. Thurston goes to indicate that according to the practice and views of professional compensation prevailing among the Canadian bar, this sum is an adequate fee.

I infer that the recommendation by Mr. Thurston of the payment of $3,000 is founded upon the proportion between the quantum of service rendered by Mr. Mackenzie and that rendered to the prosecution by Mr. Cameron, the quality of the two being taken as the same. In other words, that the number of cases defended by the one, or the time employed in them, is to the case prosecuted, or the time employed, by the other, in the ratio of three to five, or about that ratio. With this understanding I concur, as does Mr. Cushing, in advising that $3,000 is a proper sun to be paid as counsel fee to Mr. Mackenzie.

I may add, that from an examination which I made of the cases which went before the court in banc, and which may well be supposed to be those involving the most serious professional labor and skill. I think that the trials involved no legal questions of difficulty, but, on the contrary, were rather remarkably simple and easy. There was, from the nature of the case, very little diversity in the questions arising. It was very like trying the same case forty-one times. This is true as well in relation to the questions of fact as to those of law.

E. PESHINE SMITH,
Examiner of Claims.

Under these circumstances the committee have no hesitation in recommending that the bill be indefinitely postponed.

April 22, 1870.

[Senate Report No. 117.]

Mr. Sumner made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, having under consideration the case of Baron Creutz, of the Netherlands, beg leave to report:

From papers communicated to the Committee on Foreign Relations by the Secretary of State, on the application of Mr. Mazel, minister resident of the Netherlands at Washington, it appears that Baron Creutz is a first lieutenant of artillery in the service of the King of the Netherlands, and residing at Nimwegen, and that he claims new United States bonds for bonds destroyed or lost by fire.

A fire broke out at his residence May 28, 1868, when the building was partially destroyed. Two witnesses, personally known to the notary, acting on the indication of Baron Creutz, found certain remains of bonds and a shattered box and a quantity of paper under that part of the second floor where was deposited the box containing, as is alleged, the United States bonds. These remains, on examination before a notary, were recognized as belonging to bonds originally received by the baron on his marriage, and specified in an inventory drawn up before a notary January 2, 1868, where, among others, are the United States bonds alleged to have been destroyed. No remains of these were recognized, but there was a mass of paper so injured by fire and water that all trace of its original character was obliterated. Baron Creutz declares on oath that in the above-mentioned box destroyed by fire were four United States bonds of the loan payable 1882, Nos. 107, 108, series 4, 41843 series 3, and 10943 series 4, being the bonds specified in the inventory on his marriage.

Under these circumstances it seems only equitable that the Secretary of the Treasury should be authorized to hear the case of Baron Creutz, and, if satisfied of his loss, and on proper security against the presentation of the original bonds, to issue new bonds as a substitute for those destroyed.

The committee report such a bill.

FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION.

January 19, 1871.

[Senate Report No. 296.]

Mr. Sumner made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations having had under consideration certain papers referred to them by the Secretary of State, concerning the application of George Sydney Clement, a British subject, for indemnity on account of a United States bond destroyed by fire, beg leave to report:

On the 6th of May, 1870, the Department of State transmitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations a communication covering a note from the British minister at Washington, who stated that application had been made to him by Mr. George Sydney Clement, a British subject residing in London, with regard to a certain 5-20 6 per cent coupon bond of the United States, for $1,000, numbered 2221, and of the fourth series, under the act of February 25, 1862, alleged to have been destroyed by fire.

The minister requested the Secretary of State to recommend to Congress such measures as would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a new bond in the place of that so destroyed.

By direction of the committee, the chairman wrote to the minister stating the necessity of evidence sufficient to prove the alleged loss by fire.

On the 5th of July the Secretary of State communicated to the committee certain affidavits, properly attested, which had been obtained in accordance with the above suggestion, and which are in substance as follows:

Abraham Morse, of Bristol, England, deposes that on the 12th January, 1869, he was the sole and bona fide owner of a United States 6 per cent 5-20 bond of the loan of February 24, 1862, for $1,000, numbered 2221, and he believes of the fourth series, with coupons for the interest to become due on and from the 1st of May, 1869. That on the above 12th January, he handed the bond to Henry Stevenson, of Bristol, to be by him forwarded to George Sydney Clements, esq., 38 Throgmorton street, London, a stockbroker, to be held by him as security for certain transactions.

Henry Stevenson, of Bristol, a stockbroker, deposes that he received the above bond, carefully inclosed it in a letter and addressed it to "G. S. Clement, esq., 38 Throgmorton street, London, E. C." He caused the letter to be registered and posted the same day in Bristol. The original post-office receipt, stamped "North St., Bristol, Ja. 12, 70," and signed by the postmaster, for the letter directed as above, is presented with the affidavit.

Mr. Stevenson testifies further that Mr. Clement purchased a 5-20 bond of the same value as the above-mentioned bond, near the 17th January, 1870, for the above Mr. Morse, in lieu, as Mr. Clement told him, of the bond Mr. Stevenson had mailed, and which had been burned.

Concerning the destruction of the bond, Louisa Standen, assistant housekeeper of Mr. Clement, deposes as follows:

On the 13th January, 1870, she received, at 38 Throgmorton street, London, from a postman, a registered letter addressed to Mr. Clement, and bearing the Bristol postmark. It was not convenient for her at

the moment to put the letter into Mr. Clement's office, and she placed it on a dustpan and went up stairs to clean an office; when she came down, totally forgetting that she had placed the letter on the dustpan, she threw the contents of the pan into the fire, by which the letter was consumed.

Finally, Mr. Clement deposes that he has never received the above letter or the bond contained therein, and that he believes the letter contained the bond described above, and that both letter and bond were burned, as Louisa Standen deposes.

He says, also, that on or about the 17th day of January, 1870, he purchased, on behalf of Mr. Morse, another 5-20 bond of the same value, and in lieu of the one destroyed, and was thereby subrogated to Mr. Morse's right to a new bond.

Under these circumstances the committee report a bill for Mr. Clement's relief.

January 19, 1871.

[Senate Report No. 297.]

Mr. Sumner made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, having had under consideration certain papers referred to them by the Secretary of State concerning the application of Christine Mahler, a Prussian subject, for indemnity on account of United States bonds destroyed by fire, beg leave to report:

On the 10th December, 1870, the Department of State transmitted a communication to the Committee on Foreign Relations, covering a note and accompanying papers from Baron Gerolt, the minister of North Germany at Washington, concerning the reissue of three one-hundred dollar United States coupon bonds to one Christine Mahler, a resident at Brätz, and a subject of Prussia, in lieu of three bonds of equal value alleged to have been destroyed by fire.

Copies of translations of depositions taken before the royal district court of Neustadt and Hanover were submitted to the committee, and their tenor is as follows:

Conrad Stünkel, resident in Obermahle, district of Burgwedel, a cousin of Mrs. Mahler, deposes that in 1866 he bought for the latter from one Blumenthal, a banker in Hanover, three United States bonds of Series III, payable in 1882, of $100 value each, numbered 20745, 26740, and 36331, respectively.

Jacob Gans, banker at Hanover, and successor to the firm of Blumenthal, deceased, deposes that he has examined the account books of his predecessor and found therefrom that on the 4th December, 1866, Blumenthal sold to Conrad Stünkel three 6 per cent bonds dated Washington, May 1, 1862, of the issue and numbers above stated.

Friedrich Ridder, resident in Brätz, testifies that on June 23, 1868, his sister-in-law, Christine Mahler, a seamstress, rented part of his house, and that on this day, while she was absent, the house was struck by lightning, and being thatched with straw, took fire and burned to the ground. He says further, that he knew certainly that Mrs. Mahler possessed bonds of the United States, and believes them to have been burned with the building.

Ridder's testimony is supported by Mr. Voigts, of Brätz, who was present at the destruction of the house, and was told by Mrs. Mahler,

both long before and after the burning, that she possessed certain United States bonds.

Diedrich Wolkenhauer, resident at Brätz, deposes that Stünkel handed three United States bonds to Mrs. Mahler in his presence, and the latter remarked that they cost 300 thalers. He testifies to the destruction of the house, as above stated, while Mrs. Mahler was absent.

Finally, Christine Mahler herself testifies that none of her property was saved from the fire which consumed Ridder's house; that in a clothespress in her room she kept three United States coupon bonds (as before described), and that she firmly believes these bonds were burned together with the press; and that the coupons due May 1, 1868, had been paid, the remainder being destroyed with the bonds. Under the circumstances the committee report a bill for her relief.

FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

May 28, 1874.

[Senate report No. 390.]

Mr. Hamlin submitted the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the bill (S. 535) for the relief of Robert Murray, jr., have had the same under consideration, and report:

That there was levied and collected at the port of New York, in the years 1867-68, as tonnage dues upon the Haitian brig Margaretta, a vessel belonging to and owned by citizens of the Republic of Haiti, the sum of $1,378.25. By treaty between the Haitian and United States Governments, proclaimed July 6, 1865, said vessel was exempt from such dues, and they ought not to have been collected. It appears, in a communication from the collector of the port of New York, that at the time when said tonnage duties were exacted and collected the collector had no knowledge of the existence of said treaty with Haiti. The said duties were collected under regulations of the Department of 1857, and the collector was not informed of the existence of said treaty until he received the regulations of the Department of 1869, exempting said vessel from tonnage duties; nor was the master or owner of the said brig aware of the existence of said treaty at the time said tonnage duty was exacted and paid, and no protest, therefore, against the payment of the same was made. The tonnage duties were exacted and paid from the fact that neither party knew of the existence of the treaty.

An appeal was made to the Secretary of the Treasury for a remission of the duties thus improperly and unlawfully exacted. The Secretary of the Treasury determined "that it had no power to refund the amount claimed, inasmuch, so far as now appears, no protest, as required by section 14, act of June 13, 1864, was made against the payment of these dues at any time during the long period in which they were exacted." The owners of the said brig having failed to make their protest the Secretary could not grant the relief asked for, but your committee believe that it was the duty of the Government not to have exacted or collected said tonnage dues, as such was the law; they therefore recommend the passage of the bill, with an amendment.