Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Although this state of things exist to a greater extent on the Pacific coasts of this continent than elsewhere, it prevails more or less in many other parts of the world, since there is no part of the globe within reach of commercial intercourse that is not visited by American vessels.

The Committee on Foreign Relations have now before them an application in favor of the commercial agent of the United States for the Mauritius, who felt himself obliged to extend relief to a large number of American citizens not seamen, who were left on shore at Port Louis, in that island, on their way to Australia, in a state of entire destitution.

The memorial of Mr. Clay, our minister to Peru, contains the result of his experience and observation in that quarter, and throws much light on the extent of suffering that often exists from the causes above mentioned, and the necessity of effective measures of relief. The committee have appended his memorial to this report, as presenting a satisfactory discussion of the subject.

Other commercial and maritime States have found the necessity of making provision for the relief of their destitute citizens, other than seamen, abroad, though there is no other country probably which sends forth to foreign parts so large a number of its inhabitants in proportion to its population in the pursuit of commercial adventure of all kinds as the United States.

The committee are sensible there is some danger of abuse in making provision of this kind for the relief of citizens in distress in foreign countries, but the same danger exists in the case of seamen. The agents of the Government abroad will no doubt in a few cases be imposed upon; but as the relief afforded can never be large, and as the recipient must, to entitle himself to it, be manifestly in a suffering condition, the committee do not apprehend that frauds of a serious nature can be practiced. The loss of a dollar or two occasionally bestowed upon an undeserving object is not to be weighed against the duty of furnishing food and clothing to a distressed countryman in absolute want of the necessaries of life.

The committee, however, do not recommend at present a system of relief for all destitute citizens of the United States in foreign countries, but to those classes only whose case is peculiar and nearly assimilated to that of seamen, viz, to those who, in any part of the world, are reduced to want by shipwreck or the abandonment of the vessel in which they had embarked, and to those who, being on their way from one part of the United States to another, have become destitute in foreign countries in consequence of shipwreck, disease, or any other casualty. This last class would include our fellow-citizens passing from the Atlantic States round Cape Horn, or across the different routes of Central America, toward the States and Territories on the Pacific, and this is supposed by the committee to be the most numerous class, and that whose distresses call loudest for relief. With these explanations the committee report a bill.

MEMORIAL.

To the honorable Senate of the United States,

the memorial of John Randolph Clay respectfully showeth:

That having had the honor of serving the United States in different diplomatic capacities for many years past, and consequently having been in constant intercourse abroad with citizens of the United States of various conditions and circum-42

S. Doc. 231, pt 3

stances, he is convinced of the necessity that some provision should be made by law to aid those who may be destitute in foreign countries.

It is doubtless well known to your honorable body that business, the search of occupation, the idea that their condition might be bettered by a change, a desire to see foreign countries, and other causes, induce numbers of our enterprising citizens to go abroad. Many of them succeed in their views, but others are disappointed, their plans are frustrated, and instead of acquiring the means of living, they find themselves far away from their native land, and often in want of even the necessaries of life. Shipwreck, accident, and disease increase the number of these unfortunates, who thus become objects of public charity.

Were such indigent citizens at home, they could apply for assistance, when every other resource failed them, to the charitable institutions, supported by public or private donations, existing in almost every State of the Union. And though the individual were to find himself in distress in a State of which he were not a native, the fact of his being a citizen of the United States would suffice to excite a certain sympathy and disposition to aid through which his wants would be relieved.

But the case is far different when the scene is changed to a foreign land. There little sympathy is felt for the destitute stranger. Unknown and unfriended, he is often looked upon as an impostor from the very fact of asking for assistance. His difficulties are increased in these countries of Spanish origin, where there is generally a lamentable indifference to human suffering, and where a Protestant is considered as without the pale of the church. "Go to your minister or your consul." is the usual answer to the foreigner's application; and neither is authorized by the laws of the United States to assist his countrymen unless they be mariners.

It has happened in two or three instances that vessels bound for California with passengers have been wrecked in the Straits of Magellan, and the crew and passengers brought to Callao in another ship. Having lost everything, clothes and money included, the crew and passengers on their arrival look around them for relief. The first person applied to is the consul. He turns to his instructions and sees that by the act of February 28, 1803, it is made the duty of consuls "to provide for the mariners of the United States who may be found destitute within their districts sufficient subsistence and passages to the United States." Consequently he takes the crew of the lost vessel under his protection and provides for them at the public expense, but as the act does not justify him in relieving destitute passengers, he is compelled either to tell them he can do nothing for their relief or to assist them out of his own purse. Failing the consul, the next person applied to is the diplomatic agent, who is placed in an equal dilemma.

Your memorialist would respectfully represent that this is not as it should be. It is disagreeable to refuse charity under any circumstances to a fellow-creature, but it is painful indeed to the feelings to put back the outstretched hand of a fellow-countryman that asks for bread in a foreign land! And yet the diplomatic and consular agents of the United States are frequently subjected to this trial, for the salaries of the one and the fees of the other are usually insufficient for their own maintenance: besides, being removable at pleasure, there is often little inclination to give relief, as the public agent may look forward to a time when all the means he can command might be required for his own support.

The act of February 28, 1803, is a wise and humane law, justly providing for a class of citizens that every civilized government is careful to protect. But is not the nation bound to provide for, as well as protect, under certain circumstances, other classes of citizens when abroad, in return for the allegiance which they owe it? At present, should a citizen of the United States be injured in his person or property by the acts of a foreign power, he can claim the protection of his Government, and the appeal will be listened to and justice rendered him, either through peaceable negotiation or compulsion. But should the same citizen, not being a mariner. become destitute from sickness or other cause in a foreign country, the public agents of the United States are not authorized by law to aid him! The Government takes care that his person and property shall be protected from foreign wrong, yet he may starve unless succored by private charity!

This inconsistent state of things might be easily remedied were an act passed by Congress to afford relief to citizens of the United States who are absolutely destitute in foreign countries and to provide for their return to the United States at a rate not exceeding dollars. Under the act the diplomatic and consular agents of the United States might be authorized to expend a certain sum annually for the relief of such citizens, leaving it to the agents to decide upon the merits of each case; the agents to render an account quarterly of the sums so expended. This is the course sanctioned by Great Britain, and the amount spent for such purposes by the consul-general in Lima is usually $500 per quarter. The appropriation in

aid of citizens of the United States need not exceed that sum per annum for Peru, though in Panama and a few other places in America and Europe a larger sum would be required. It is not probable that the number of applications to the diplomatic and consular agents for relief would be increased by the fact of their being authorized to afford pecuniary assistance to their countrymen in distress, for there is a characteristic independence and proper pride in our citizens which revolts at the idea of seeking even'a temporary maintenance which is not earned by their own exertions.

There are unquestionably adventurers little deserving public sympathy, but there are many more meritorious persons, willing to exert themselves, who are unable to obtain employment because they are foreigners and do not speak the language of the country, or for other reasons. Some of these last, though destitute abroad, possess means in the United States or have friends to whom they could apply if at home. In such cases the diplomatic or consular agents might make an arrangement that the person relieved should repay to the Government, upon his arrival in the United States, the amount advanced for his support and passage, and report the same to the proper department so that it might be recov ered. The meritorious citizen would be thus relieved, and in many instances the Government not be a loser.

In conclusion, your memorialist prays that an act may be passed for the temporary relief of citizens of the United States who are destitute in foreign countries and to provide for their return to the United States.

LIMA, November 28, 1853.

J. RANDOLPH CLAY.

May 29, 1854.

[Senate Report No. 293.]

Mr. Mason made the following report:

The Committee of Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of John S. Tyler, of Boston, have had that subject under consideration, and submit the following report:

The United States bark Peytona, Oliver Nye Jenkins, master, sailed from New York on the 9th of February, 1853, for Melbourne, in Australia, having on board 135 passengers. After a series of disasters, and having put into Bahia and the Cape of Good Hope for supplies, the Peytona arrived at Port Louis, in the Mauritius, in the months of July and August, in distress. A course of vexatious legal proceedings was here instituted against Captain Nye and his vessel by some of the passengers and the crew, which ended in the abandonment and sale of the Peytona. The crew, and such of the passengers as were destitute of resources, were thus thrown upon the hands of Mr. Farnum, the commercial agent of the United States at Port Louis. The seamen were relieved by him, and sent from the island as opportunities presented themselves; and the destitute passengers, being American citizens, to the number of 64, were placed on board the British bark Harpooner, bound to Port Philip, in Australia.

To defray the expenses thus incurred, Mr. Farnum drew two bills on the Department of State, bearing date December 24, 1853, amounting all together to $7,854.50, which were cashed by Messrs. Blyth & Co., English merchants at Port Louis. These bills could not be paid at the department, the expenditure not having been made for destitute seamen, for whom alone the law provides. But, as the case appears to have been one of extreme hardship and undoubted distress, the committee are unanimously of the opinion that Mr. Farnum was justified in assuming the responsibility of relieving them.. They accordingly report a bill authorizing the payment of his drafts.

June 15, 1854.

[Senate Report No. 307.]

Mr. Slidell made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the "petition of William Duer, praying remuneration for expenses incurred and services rendered while consul in Valparaiso in defending William N. Stuart, an American citizen, against a criminal prosecution by the Chilian authorities," have had the same under consideration, and now respectfully report:

That the petitioner sets forth in his petition that, in or about the month of July, 1852, while United States consul at the port of Valparaiso, in Chili, one William N. Stuart, an American citizen, and a passenger in the American ship Venice, then lying in that port, and bound to San Francisco, was arrested and imprisoned upon the charge of murder; that said Stuart being without money or friends, the petitioner took upon himself the burden of his defence, which was greatly augmented by the conduct of the judge before whom said Stuart was arraigned in refusing to hear the witnesses of the accused; that in prosecuting said defence he incurred considerable expense in money, besides performing much personal labor; that with the zealous cooperation of the Hon. Balie Peyton, United States minister to the Government of Chili, and the prompt action of our own Government at home, the said Stuart was ultimately released, and sent to the United States by the petitioner.

The statements of the petitioner are fully sustained by quite a voluminous correspondence between the petitioner and Mr. Peyton, and between the latter and the authorities of Chili, and also with the Department of State at home, from which it appears that the whole conduct of the petitioner, in regard to that transaction, was characterized by persevering diligence, high intelligence, and an uncompromising devotion to the honor and interest of the United State.

It further appears from a letter of the Hon. William L. Marcy, Secretary of State, dated June 9, 1854, addressed to one of the members of your committee, that "while the Department cheerfully bears testimony to the diligence and discretion of Mr. Duer's official conduct in the case referred to, it is conceived that in pursuing that course, he was merely discharging his duty under the forty-fourth article of the consular instructions." And further, that "when the compensation of an officer, whether by fees or by salary, is established by law, it is inexpedient to grant him a gratuity for the faithful performance of his duty in any single case. That "this principle would seem to be particularly applicable to the consulate at Valparaiso, at the period adverted to, when the fees received by the consul afforded him a liberal compensation for his official services generally," but that "any expenses which Mr. Duer may have incurred in protecting and defending Stuart are a fair charge against the Government, if Stuart was unable to defray them himself."

Concurring entirely with the Department in these views and believing that the petitioner should receive a remuneration for the expenses actually incurred by him, together with an equitable advance for the use of the money expended by him in the support, defence, and subsequent transportation to the United States of said William N. Stuart, your committee report a bill accordingly, and recommend its passage.

[See p. 666.]

July 1, 1854.

[Senate Report No. 335.]

Mr. Slidell made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of H. S. Sanford, late secretary of legation at Paris, praying the difference between his pay as secretary of legation and as chargé d'affaires, etc., during the time he acted in the latter capacity, have had the same under consideration, and report:

That it appears from a letter of the Secretary of State, dated June 21, 1854, that the petitioner was appointed secretary of the legation of the United States at Paris on the 20th August, 1849; that from the 14th of May, 1853, to the 22d of January, 1854, a period of eight months and eight days, he was left in charge of the legation as acting chargé d'affaires ad interim; that during that period he was allowed clerk hire, and, further, that in several instances, when secretaries of legation at Paris have been left as chargés d'affaires, Congress have allowed them outfits, though it is not a matter of course to make such allowance. In view of the importance of the mission to Paris the necessary increase of expenses incident to the change from the position of secretary of legation to that of chargé d'affaires, and in accordance with the general current of precedents in relation to diplomatic agents of the United States at that court, your committee are of opinion that the petitioner's claim for an outfit and the difference in salary between a secretary of legation and chargé d'affaires is reasonable and should be allowed, and report a bill accordingly, with a recommendation that it be passed.

[See p. 678.]

July 1, 1854.

[Senate Report No. 336.]

Mr. Slidell made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Robert M. Hamilton, United States consul at Montevideo, praying compensation for diplomatic services, having had the same under consideration, respectfully report:

In his memorial Mr. Hamilton represents that as consul at Montevideo from the year 1838 up to that time he had been the sole accredited agent of the United States near that Government; that, in consequence of the war pending between that country and Buenos Ayres, nearly his whole time was taken up in performing diplomatic duties in nowise appertaining to his consular office; that for these services he has received no compensation whatever, and that his consular fees during the time amounted to only $500 a year.

From a letter of the Secretary of State, to whom this memorial was referred, dated February 5, 1851, it appears that "Mr. Hamilton was appointed United States consul at Montevideo in 1838, at which place a legation of the United States had never been established; that entirely uninstructed and unauthorized by the Department, except in two cases of claims of our citizens against the oriental republic

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »