« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
That, in obedience to the instructions and authority thus given, he hastily prepared and proceeded successively to Montevideo and to Buenos Ayres, joined his colleague (Mr. Pendleton) in the missions at the latter place, and, after being presented and received, opened negotiations on the subject of the mission, which could not, however, at that time be conducted to a favorable result on account of the unsettled state of the Government and country. That, together with Mr. Pendleton, he went thence to Montevideo, opened negotiations with the Republic of Uruguay, and on the 28th of August, 1852, concluded a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation with that Republic.
That after having obtained an understanding with General Urquiza, the provisional director and head of the Argentine Confederation, that the negotiations with that Government should be resumed in November following, and that in the meantime no precedence or advantage over the United States should be allowed to any other nation, he returned to his post at the court of Brazil in September, 1852. That the breaking out of civil war and continuance of political disturbances in the Argentine Confederation delayed his return to Buenos Ayres until May, 1853, when there seemed to be a good prospect for the cessation of hostilities, which would enable them to resume the negotiation previously suspended. That upon the pacification of the country-brought aboutin part by the intervention of his colleague and himself—they succeeded in concluding, on the 10th day of July, 1853, at San Jose de Flores, a perpetual treaty with the Argentine Confederation, securing throughout its limits the navigation of the Rio de la Plata and its great tributaries, free to the merchant flag of all nations, and on the 28th of the same month concluded another treaty, general and perpetual, of friendship, commerce, and navigation with that Confederation, and then returned to his post in Brazil, on the 14th September, 1853.
That while engaged in these special duties he made long voyages by sea and traveled altogether, by land and water, more than 6,000 miles, and that he had to reside for more than six months in two distant capitals while he was obliged to keep up a house and establishment in the expensive city of Rio de Janeiro.
For these services thus rendered the memorialist asks that he may be allowed the usual outfit of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary for each of the special missions on which he was thus employed and also for his actual expenses incurred therein.
The memorial of the Hon. John S. Pendleton sets forth his cooperation in the services above mentioned as the colleague of Mr. Schenck; and further, that in the month of November, 1852, under the instructions of the Department of State of the United States, and clothed with full powers, he proceeded to Asuncion and, in conjunction with the envoys of England, France, Sardinia, and Brazil, after a protracted negotiation, concluded a treaty with the Republic of Paraguay, by which that country was opened to our commerce.
That in performing the duties of these special missions to the oriental Republic of Uruguay and to the Republic of Paraguay he was absent from the Government to which he was originally accredited for more than six months, incurred heavy traveling and other incidental expenses without any diminution, for the time being, of the expense of keeping up his house and establishment at Buenos Ayres, and for these services thus rendered asks that the same compensation may be allowed him that may be granted to his colleague, Mr. Schenck.
Copies of the letters of appointment to the special missions above mentioned, together with letters of credence to the respective courts, are filed with the memorials, and the several treaties referred to have all been submitted to the Senate for their approval.
To allow the full prayer of the memorialists in these cases would, in the opinion of your committee, be the introduction of a new system of compensation for public services, unsanctioned by the principles of a wise and just economy: The allowance of outfits to our foreign ministers, it is presumed, was not designed to operate as an indirect mode of increasing their compensation, but as means to enable them to fit up at the courts to which they are accredited such establishments as might be suited to their station.
In this case the memorialists had been regularly accredited as the diplomatic representatives of the United States-one as full minister to Brazil and the other as chargé d'affaires to the Argentine Confederation, at which places only did the expense of permanent establishments devolve on them. The special missions on which they were sent were temporary in their character, under letters of credence only to negotiate treaties, and not further accrediting them.
For these reasons your committee are of opinion that the claim for outfits should not be allowed. Believing, however, that the performance of those special services necessarily subjected the memorialists, for the time engaged therein, to a large increase of expense, it would seem to be but just and proper that they should receive full and ample indemnity for those expenses.
The committee understand that their actual expenses, while absent from their posts on the missions spoken of, have been, for the most part, allowed at the Department of State. They consider, however, from the peculiar circumstances of the case and the condition of the countries visited by these gentlemen, that extraordinary expenses may have been incurred, for which no voucher or other evidence than their own statements can be produced, and which the committee consider should be allowed them; and in lieu of the outfits asked the committee recommend, as compensation for this extra service, a per diem at the rate of the established salary of a minister for the time they were so employed, and they report a bill accordingly.
[See pp. 691, 721.]
July 14, 1854.
[Senate Report No. 357.)
Mr. Mason made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of John P. Brown, principal interpreter of the Turkish language to the United States legation at Constantinople, have had the same under consideration and report:
That the petitioner sets forth in his petition that while acting as principal interpreter of the Turkish language to the legation of the United States at Constantinople, he was, on the 30th July, 1852, accredited by an order of the President of the United States chargé d'affaires ad interim to the Ottoman Government by Mr. Marsh, United States minister resident in Turkey; that he filled that office in the absence of any other diplomatic agent of the United States at Constantinople until the return of Mr. Marsh from Greece on the 5th July, 1853; that on the 13th December, 1853, he was again accredited by order of the President of the United States as chargé d'affaires ad interim to the Ottoman Government by Mr. Marsh on his return to the United States, and continued to act as such until the arrival of Mr. Spencer on the 31st January, 1854; that during the two periods above stated, amount‘ing to twelve months and nineteen days, he performed all the duties and incurred all ne expenses incumbent on the representative of the United States; and having received only the compensation of principal interpreter of the Turkish language during that time, he prays that he may be allowed the difference between that compensation and the usual allowance of salary and outfit to a chargé d'affaires.
A letter from the Secretary of State, in answer to inquiries made by the committee and dated May 31, 1854, fully sustains the statements of the petition, and adds:
It gives me pleasure to bear witness to the general merits and services of Mr. Brown as a faithful and efficient ofiicer.
The committee believe that in this case the claimant is justly entitled to receive the compensation of a chargé d'affaires during the time he acted in that capacity, less the amount heretofore received by him as secretary of legation for the same period. They do not allow an outfit because they are not aware of any precedent for such allowance where there was a minister accredited at the post, nor do they think the circumstances of the present application call for it. They report a bill in accordance with these views, and recommend its passage.
[See p. 661.] July 24, 1854.
[Senate report No. 364.) Mr. Slidell made the following report:
The Coinmittee on Foreign Relations, to whom was recommitted the report heretofore made by them on the 1st instant, in the case of Henry S. Sanford, together with some additional documents, have reconsidered the same, and now subinit the following supplemental report:
That, in consideration of the vast amount of duty which necessarily devolves upon the secretary of legation at Paris, as evidenced by the correspondence of Mr. Rives, submitted to them, the committee are satisfied that the charges for clerk hire paid by the memorialist, while secretary of legation at Paris, are reasonable, and should be allowed. They therefore submit an amendment to the bill heretofore reported by them in this case, and recommend its adoption.
July 26, 1854.
[Senate Report No. 370.) Mr. Slidell made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of the executrix of William W. Chew, deceased, late secretary of legation and acting chargé d'affaires at St. Petersburg, have had the same under consideration and now respectfully report:
The testator of the petitioner presented a petition in his lifetime asking to be allowed an outfit in addition to his salary as chargé d'affaires in consideration of his having been accredited as such at St. Petersburg during the period that elapsed between the departure of Mr. Dallas and the arrival of Mr. Cambreleng as minister at that court. There does not appear to have been any report thereon by either House of Congress, and the same petition has been renewed by his executrix since his death.
The committee do not find that such allowance has been made, as a matter of course, to a chargé d'affaires ad interim. It has been allowed in some few instances, where the duties were discharged for a long period and when it appeared that they were of a character really entitling the officer to some compensation additional to the difference in salary between that officer and the salary of a secretary of legation.
On inquiry at the Department of State and by reference to the correspondence there of Mr. Cambreleng and Mr. Todd, the successors of Mr. Dallas, it does not appear that such was the case in regard to the services of Mr. Chew (referred to in the letters of the Secretary of State to Mr. Slidell, of this committee, dated respectively the 14th and 17th of July, 1854, and filed with the petition).
The committee are therefore of opinion that the prayer of the petition should not be allowed.
[See pp. 677, 682.]
July 28, 1854.
(Senate Report No. 371.)
Mr. Mason made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Horatio J. Perry, secretary of legation at Madrid, praying compensation as chargé d'affaires for the several periods during which he acted in that capacity, have had the same under consideration and now report:
That the memorialist represents that, acting under the instructions of the Secretary of State and by order of the President of the United States, he has been called upon to serve the Government as their diplomatic representative near the court of Spain during the following periods, viz: From the 3d of July to the 24th of October, 1852; from the 11th of May to the 21st of June, 1853, and from the 4th of September to the 22d of October, 1853, making an aggregate of six months and twenty-two days, during which he has only received the compensation of a secretary of legation, and asks that he may be allowed the difference between it and the compensation of a chargé d'affaires for the time he thus acted.
The memorial is accompanied by a letter from the Secretary of State addressed to the Hon. Mr. Norris, United States Senate, dated 14th of July, 1854, in which he says:
At the request of Mr. Perry, secretary of the legation of the United States at Madrid, I transmit his petition to Congress for compensation as chargé d affaires at times when he discharged the duties of that oflice. I believe the statements in the petition are correct.
The committee, regarding the claim as just and reasonable, report a bill in favor of the memorialist and recommend its passage.
July 28, 1854.
[Senate Report No. 372.)
Mr. Mason made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Robert M. Walsh, late secretary of the United States legation in Mexico, have had the same under consideration and now report:
That the petitioner represents that from the 1st of November, 1848, to the 1st of February, 1819, he acted as chargé d'affaires of the United States in Mexico, during the absence on leave of Mr. Clifford, the United States minister to that Republic, and that he again acted in the same capacity from the date of Mr. Clifford's recall until the arrival of his successor, Mr. Letcher, a period of five months. That on those occasions he was regularly presented to the Mexican Government as chargé d'affaires, and as such, charged with all the duties and responsibilities of the mission. That after his return to the United States, in 1819, he applied to Congress for the difference between the pay of a secretary of legation and that of a chargé d'affaires, which had always been allowed under similar circumstances, amounting to $1,660.66, of which he received, under the provisions of the general civil and diplomatic appropriation act of March 3, 1851, one-half the amount claimed, viz, $533.331.
In support of his claim he refers to the act aforesaid, and files a letter from the Secretary of State, addressed to the Hon. John A. McClernand, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, dated 21st of December, 1851, which fully sustains the statements of the petition; and the Secretary adds:
The merits of claims of this character must depend on circumstances. The duties of the mission of the United States at Mexico are at all times arduous and important; and Mr. Walsh's dispatches to the Department show that he faithfully discharged them. The expenses of living in that city are high, and the expenses of the secretary of legation are necessarily increased, when, throngh any cause, he is left at the head of the mission. The statements of Mr. Walsh's letter (petition) are correct, and the circumstance of his having been presented by the minister as charge d'affaires ad interim, pursuant to instructions of this Department, would seem to warrant a favorable consideration of his claim for an outfit.
An examination of the precedents in similar cases has satisfied the committee that the usual practice heretofore has been to grant to secretaries of legation temporarily performing the duties of chargé d'affaires, during the absence of the minister, the compensation of chargé d'affaires, though not to allow them an outfit except in special and peculiar cases. Why it was that the Thirty-first Congress departed from the usual custom in the case of Mr. Walsh, they have been unable to ascertain, and regarding this case as standing upon the same basis with numberless others of a similar character, in which the full compensation has been allowed, the committee can see no good reason for making a discrimination against this claimant, and they accordingly report a bill for an amount, which, with the sum heretofore received by him, will make up the full difference between the compensation of a secretary of legation and that of a chargé d'affaires for the time he acted in the latter capacity, and recommend its passage.