Lapas attēli

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 merito rious 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.

J. RANDOLPH CLAY. LIMA, November 28, 1853.

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 subunit 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


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.)

[ocr errors]

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 affordled 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 believe ing 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 sub. sequent 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 II. 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, bave 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 hereinafter mentioned, he entered into correspondence direct with that Government touching the protection of the interests and persons of our citizens, copies of which were from time to time transmitted to the Department; that on the 27th August, 1846, Mr. Hamilton was requested by the Department to obtain from the oriental republic a release of any interest it might have in the claim of Commodore Danels on the Government of Colombia; and on the 1st December, 1847, he was instructed to demand of that Republic that the arrears of interest due Messrs. W. Musser & Co., under the arrangement made with Commodore Turner, for gunpowder seized be paid at once, and that the payments to become due be punctually met.”.

It further appears from said letter that “in February, 1846, Mr. Hamilton, through his agent, presented a claim to that Department for compensation for diplomatic services for seven years, which was rejected on the ground that the act of May 1, 1810, prohibited such payments unless to persons regularly appointed, and, further, that the Department had never regarded Mr. Hamilton as a diplomatic agent of the Government, and, until the presentation of that claim, was not aware that he regarded himself in that light.”

All the precedents referred to by the memorialist in support of his claim relate to secretaries of legation performing diplomatic functions in the absence of the minister, except four, two of which provided compensation for consuls performing diplomatic services during the temporary suspension of regular diplomatic relations previously established, and the others to informal agents specially charged with such services. And further, after having caused a careful examination to be made of all the precedents in such cases, your committee have been unable to find a single instance in which such claims have been allowed to United States consuls, except those cases in which, during the temporary absence of the minister, or suspension of diplomatic relations, the consul has been placed in charge of the archives of the legation, or specially instructed to perform such duties.

From this practice, founded in and sustained by considerations of a just and wise policy, your committee find nothing in this case to justify a departure. They therefore recommend that the claim be rejected.

July 10, 1854.

(Senate Report No. 347.)

Mr. Mason made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Lieut. William D. Porter, of the United States Navy, 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 now report:

That after a careful examination of the case, in connection with the report on it, made by the same committee on the 26th of February, 1852, they fully concur in and adopt the same, and report a bill in accordance therewith.

[See Senate Report 97, Thirty-second Congress, first session, p. 644.]

July 13, 1854.

[Senate Report No. 353.]

Mr. Mason made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of William Rich, late secretary of the United States legation in Mexico, have had the same under consideration, and report:

The petitioner represents that he was appointed secretary of legation under the Hon. Robert P. Letcher, United States minister to Mexico; that from the departure of Mr. Letcher, on the 2d August, 1852, to the presentation of his credentials by Mr. Conkling, on the 30th November ensuing, he acted as chargé d'affaires of the United States; that for that period—three months and thirty days—he only received the compensation of a secretary of legation, and now asks that he may be allowed the difference between the compensation of a secretary of legation and that of a chargé d'affaires.

A letter from the Secretary of State, dated May 30, 1854, in answer to inquiries made of him by the committee, fully sustains the statements of the petitioner, and adds that the petitioner rendered faithful and important services whilst acting in the character of chargé d'affaires, and that during the time he so acted there was no other accredited representative in Mexico from this Government.

Your committee find, upon examination, that it has heretofore been the usual practice of Congress to make such allowances in similar cases, and regarding it as right in itself, report a bill in favor of the petitioner, and recommend its passage.

July 13, 1854.

[Senate Report No. 354.)

Mr. Mason made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom were referred the memorials of the Hon. Robert C. Schenck, late United States minister plenipotentiary to the court of Brazil, and the Hon. John S. Pendleton, late United States chargé d'affaires to the Argentine Confederation, praying compensation for services rendered and expenses incurred by them on special missions to other governments than those to which they had been originally accredited, having had the same under consideration, respectfully report:

That it appears from the memorial of Mr. Schenck, that while residing at Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil, in the character of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to that Empire, he received on the 12th day of June, 1852, two letters of special instruction from the Secretary of State (of the United States), dated severally on the 28th and 29th of April, 1852, directing him to repair to Buenos Ayres, in the Argentine Confederation, and to Montevideo, in the oriental Republic of Uruguay, there in conjunction with Mr. John S. Pendleton, the chargé d'affaires of the United States to the Argentine Confederation, to propose to and, if possible, conclude with those respective Governments favorable treaties of commerce, for which purpose he was duly accredited to those Governments with all the attributes of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »