though there is no law to which its origin can be traced. The rule is that the salary ceases the day the diplomatic agent takes leave of the Government to which he is accredited, and he is then allowed a quarter's salary in addition, generally called an infit, to provide for his expenses in returning home. The practice seems to the committee equally proper and just. It precludes all questions about the time or expense of the journey home, and furnishes some equitable compensation for the loss to which this class of officers is necessarily exposed in breaking up their establishment in a foreign country.

Had Mr. Blackford been recalled or resigned at Bogota his salary would have ceased the day he left there, which was between the 17th and the 24th of December, 1844. He would then have been entitled to his return quarter salary for his expenses home; but instead of this he received a half year's salary after the termination of his mission. The committee think that he has been liberally settled with by the Department of State, and that as he was in the United States when his functions ceased, he ought not to be allowed any compensation for returning. He had already received double the sum he was entitled to had his mission terminated while he was at his post.

[See p. 671, 684.]

THIRTIETH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

July 28, 1848.

[Senate Report No. 217.]

Mr. Mason made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of George L. Brent and Joseph Graham, praying compensation for services as special agents to Paraguay, have had the same under consideration, and report:

It appears from the memorial and accompanying documents that the petitioners, one of whom was the consul at Buenos Ayres and the other the son of the chargé d'affaires of the United States at the same place, were sent by the then functionary from Buenos Ayres to Paraguay, the object of the mission being to offer the mediation of the American legation, with the assent and approbation of the Argentine Confederation, to adjust the hostile relations then subsisting between that confederation and the province of Paraguay.

The object of this mission was one of great importance to the commercial interests of the United States, and in the opinion of the committee was properly instituted by the American minister in the exercise of a sound discretion; and as appears from a letter of the Secretary of State, which accompanies the report, was productive of useful and valuable results to the country.

The journey of the petitioners was long, arduous, and, from the hostilities then pending, was one of imminent peril, and the distance to be overcome through this dangerous country from 1,500 to 1,800 miles. Nothing was advanced to the memoralists even for their expenses, and your committee deem it just that they should be compensated as in such cases is usual.

The memorialist Graham, on his return to Buenos Ayres, resumed his functions as consul, and his compensation is limited to the time during which absent, being one hundred and seventy-five days.

The memorialist Brent on his return to Buenos Ayres found that the American chargé had returned home, thus depriving him of his former resource in his father's house. The blockade of the port and the unsettled state of the country detained him abroad for some time seeking an opportunity to return home, which he eventually did by going to Montevideo and thence to the United States. For this detention, and to cover the expense incident to it, the committee are of opinion that he should be allowed a reasonable compensation.

The letter of Mr. Buchanan shows that compensation to the agents of Government has been allowed at the rate of $8 per diem, together with necessary traveling expenses. The memorialists in their accounts have charged only the sum of $70 each for his expenses, that being the sum it cost them, as it appears, whilst detained at the capital of Paraguay. Their traveling expenses through a wild and unsettled country, part of which was done in a vessel chartered for the purpose, were necessarily long, and your committee assume shall be covered by the per diem allowance.

They are of opinion, therefore, that each should be allowed the sum of $8 per day for the one hundred and seventy-five days employed until their return to Buenos Ayres, with one-half of that sum to Mr. Brent for the additional one hundred and sixty-five days' detention on his way to the United States, and they report a bill accordingly.

THIRTY-FIRST CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

January 29, 1850.

[Senate Report No. 26.]

Mr. King made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Abigail Shaler Stillwell, legal representative of William Shaler, deceased, have had the same under consideration, and report: That William Shaler, who had for many years discharged the duties of consul of the United States at Algiers to the entire satisfaction of his Government, asked and obtained permission to return to the United States for the improvement of his health, which had been greatly impaired. This permission was given by the Secretary of State, with the express understanding that Mr. Hodgson should be left in Algiers to discharge the consular duties during Mr. Shaler's absence without expense to the Government, and that he (Mr. Shaler) should continue to receive his salary. In 1828 Mr. Shaler returned home, and in 1829 resigned his office as consul at Algiers and received the appointment of consul at Habana, in the island of Cuba. In the settlement of his accounts Mr. Shaler claimed a quarter's salary, which had, by the uniform practice of the Government, been allowed to meet the expenses of consuls to the Barbary powers in returning to their homes at the expiration of their service. The Secretary of State refused to make the allowance asked for, upon the ground that Mr. Shaler was at home at the time of his resignation and received his salary from the time he left Algiers until his resignation was accepted. The committee, appreciating as it does the valuable services of Mr. Shaler, is constrained to come to the conclusion that the Secretary of State decided correctly. They report the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the memorialist be rejected.

[See p. 649.]

February 18, 1850.

[Senate Report No. 61.]

Mr. Mangum made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of the legal representative of William A. Slacum, deceased, report:

That upon a review of the case they see no reason to dissent from the conclusion of the report made from the Committee on Foreign Relations upon the same subject on the 3d of March, 1846, but adopt the same and report a bill in conformity therewith.

[See Senate Report No. 186, Twenty-ninth Congress, first sesson, p. 638.]

April 25, 1850.

[Senate Report No. 111.]

Mr. King made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Albert Fitz, praying compensation for services as special agent of the Government to the West India Islands, have had the same under consideration, and report:

The committee have not been able to obtain any reliable information as to the extent of the duties performed by Mr. Fitz, there being nothing on file in the State Department showing the nature of the services rendered by him. That they were performed to the satisfaction of the Government is to be presumed, as the accounts of Mr. Fitz were settled by the Department, and an allowance made him for his expenses of $1,266, and for his per diem from the 1st of October, 1841, to the 1st of August, 1842, 81,824, being at the rate of $6 a day, making together $3,090. The accounts of Mr. Fitz having been settled by those who understood all the circumstances of his case, and an allowance made which was believed to be just, the committee can see no good reason for disturbing the settlement thus made, and report the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the memorialist be rejected.

[See p. 662.]

THIRTY-SECOND CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

February 26, 1852.

[Senate Report No. 97.]

Mr. Mason made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Lieut. W. D. Porter, of the Navy of the United States, praying that he may be reimbursed for expenses incurred by him in bringing to this country Amin Bey, of the Turkish navy, in the year 1850, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report:

From the petition and the documents accompanying it, it is shown that Lieutenant Porter, then at Genoa, in the command of the United

States storeship Erie, and about to return home, received a letter from the Hon. George P. Marsh, minister resident of the United States at Constantinople, dated the 20th of May, 1850, requesting Lieutenant Porter to receive Amin Bey and his attendants on board his ship, and to bring them to the United States; in which letter the minister says that the visit was made on the suggestion of the American legation, and under the proffer of a free passage for Amin Rey and his attendants in any public ship of the United States about to return home; and further, that he doubts not the "Government will reimburse you for any expense to which you may be subjected by affording him a passage."

In compliance with this request, Amin Bey, with his attendants, including Mr. John P. Brown as dragoman, were received on board the Erie at Genoa on the 5th of July, and landed at New York on the 13th of September, 1850.

The mission was treated as one of sufficient consequence to the United States by our minister at the Turkish court to warrant the responsibility he assumed in giving the invitation and tendering a passage in a public ship, a step fully justified by Congress in the appropriation subsequently of a large sum of money to defray the expenses of Amin Bey while in this country.

The committee are satisfied from their inquiries that the peculiar national habits of this guest of the ship Erie must have subjected its commander to expenses exceeding those of an ordinary guest having a like retinue; and although far the larger part of the expenditures made are sustained by vouchers, yet they deem it just to admit some of the charges for which, under the circumstances, strict vouchers could not be obtained. The amount claimed by Lieutenant Porter for his actual expenses thus incurred is the sum of $1,848.61, and they report a bill for payment thereof.

[See p. 654.]

March 29, 1852.

[Senate Report No. 157.]

Mr. Mason made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Catharine Crosby, as one of the heirs of Thomas D. Anderson, late consul of the United States at Tripoli, have had the same under consideration and respectfully report:

It is alleged in the petition that said Anderson, while in the discharge of his duties as consul, contracted a disease of the eyes, by which he was deprived of vision, and in consequence thereof was unable to procure and preserve the vouchers for the contingent expenditures of his consulate during the last five or six years that he remained in office, and that from the want of the usual and proper vouchers, no credit was given him for such expenditures by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury from the 31st December, in the year 1821, to the 27th August, 1827.

From the report of the Fifth Auditor, under date of the 24th November, 1847, which accompanies the papers, it appears that a claim was preferred at the Treasury by the representatives of Mr. Anderson for an average allowance on account of such expenditures during the period referred to, which, on being referred to the Secretary of State

[Mr. Livingston], he advised the Auditor, by letter of 21st June, 1832, that "the President directs that the representatives of Mr. Anderson must have recourse to Congress for the allowance of that part of the contingent account unsupported by vouchers."

The committee, for further information, again referred the subject to the Secretary of State with a view to ascertain up to what period during the consulate of Mr. Anderson an allowance for contingent expenses had been made, and also what had been the average annual allowance for such expenditures made to the predecessors and successors of Mr. Anderson in the said consulate, and they subjoin the report of the Fifth Auditor, dated 16th March, 1852, rendered to the committee on such reference:

Memorandum of allowances which have been made at the Treasury for the contingent expenses of the United States consuls at Tripoli from 23d July, 1812, to 30th September, 1833, and the annual sum to each.

To Richard B. Jones, consul, from July 23, 1812, to June 24, 1820nearly 8 years

Average per annum

To Thomas D. Anderson, consul, from August 17, 1819, to December 31, 1821-2 years, 4 months, and 17 days

Average per annum

To Charles D. Coxe, consul, from January 1, 1822, to September 23, 18303 years and nearly 9 months

$5, 952.43 744.05

2,793.00

1, 197.00

Average per annura

2,800.00 746.66

To Charles J. Coxe and Ebenezer J. Ridgeway, who acted as consuls after the death of Charles B. Coxe until the arrival of Daniel S. McCawley, from October 1, 1830, to May 29, 1832-1 year and nearly 8 months, $79.50 and $415..

494.50

Average per annum

296.70

To Daniel S. McCawley, consul, from July 1, 1832, to September 30, 1833-1 year and 3 months.

Average per annum

740.00 592.00

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

Fifth Auditor's Office, March 16, 1852.

It appears from this report that no such allowance was made to Mr. Anderson after the 31st December, 1821; that for the two years and four months he was in office up to the 31st December, 1821, the average annual allowance to him for such expenses was $1,197 per annum, but that the allowance to his predecessor and immediate successor averaged about $745 per annum.

The committee have adopted the last average as that which would seem most likely to be just to the Government and not inequitable to the claimant, and they recommend such allowance for five years, from the 31st December, 1821, to the 31st December, 1826, at which time, as appears from the last-named report of the Auditor, an account commenced with Mr. Anderson's successor, and they report a bill accordingly.

[See p. 674.]

May 12, 1852.

[Senate Report No. 218.]

Mr. Mason made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Joseph Balestier, has had the same under consideration, and now report:

That the petitioner, having resided for many years at Singapore, in