« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
American conguls in both those countries; and by the eighteenth section of the act it was provided that a compensation of $1,000 per annum, in addition to his salary, should be paid to the commissioner," in consideration of the duties imposed upon him by the act.
The predecessor of your memorialist, the Hon. Dabney S. Carr, claimed the payment of this sum in addition to his salary, but the Treasury Department refused to allow the same, on the ground that though judicial duties were imposed by the act upon both the commissioner to China and the minister to Turkey, the compensation was intended to be given to the commissioner alone.
Upon his return to the United States, Mr. Carr presented his memorial to Congress praying the payment of various sums of money claimed by him and disallowed by the accounting officers; and at the first session of the Thirty-second Congress, by an amendment to the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill, the said sum of $1,000 per year, in addition to the salary, together with other moneys, was, as your memorialist is informed and believes, allowed to Mr. Carr for the performance of the judicial services aforesaid from the date of the passage of the act to his final departure from Constantinople. Your memorialist conceives that this allowance by Congress is a legislative construction of the true intent and meaning of the act of 1818, and that he is therefore entitled to the same annual amount; but the accounting officers have credited him his salary only.
Your memorialist further shows that by special instructions under date of April 29, 1852, the Department of State ordered your memorialist to proceed to Athens, in Greece, on board a vessel of the Mediterranean squadron, to investigate certain complaints preferred by Dr. Jonas King, an American citizen, resident in Greece, against the Government and the judicial tribunals of that country, report thereon, and, “after transmitting his report, to remain at Athens, or in its neighborhood, till he heard from the Department.” In pursuance of these instructions your memorialist embarked for Athens, as soon as a ship was ready to receive him, and arrived at that city on the 31st day of July, 1852. He immediately engaged in the intricate and laborious investigations committed to him, and having completed his reports in the month of October following, he transmitted them to the State Department, and, in compliance with his instructions, awaited the further orders of the Department.
Upon the 5th of February, 1853, the President of the United States, through the State Department, instructed your memorialist to enter into communication with the Government of Greece and endeavor to obtain redress for the wrongs which Dr. King had suffered at the hands of that Government and its judicial tribunals.
Your memorialist accordingly commenced a negotiation with the minister of foreign affairs, and remained at Athens in the prosecution of the same until the 25th of June, 1853, when the alarming posture of affairs at Constantinople, in his judgment, required his immediate return thither, and he accordingly proceeded to that city; but the correspondence with the Greek minister was continued until the recall of your memorialist.
By the original instructions of the State Department your memorialist was directed to keep an account of his traveling expenses whilst engaged in carrying out the instructions,” and he accordingly presented an account, covering only some trifling disbursements for stationery, copying, etc., and his bare personal expenses, which has been allowed and paid.
Your memorialist further shows that, by the performance of the duties of the special mission committed to him his household expenses were much augmented, and that the loss of rent (his house having remained unoccupied during his absence), the sacrifice on the sale of horses and stores upon his departure, the expenses of protecting his house and other property, and other contingencies, amounted to more than the entire sum received by him for personal expenses, and that he is consequently a loser to a considerable amount by the performance of the arduous duties imposed upon him.
Your memorialist therefore prays that an appropriation may be made for such reasonable compensation as to your honorable body shall seem meet for the services and expenses aforesaid. All of which is respectfully submitted.
GEORGE P. MARSH, BURLINGTON, VT., December 1, 1854.
The Secretary of State, to whom the memorial was referred by the committee, with a request for such information on the subject as the Department might afford, in his reply, dated January 26, 1855, fully confirms the statements of the memorials, and “bears cheerful testimony to the importance and peculiar character of the duties imposed upon him in his special mission to Greece, and to the fidelity and ability with which they were performed."
In view of the extra trouble and expense attendant upon the special mission to Greece, the committee are of opinion that the memorialist should be allowed the sum of $4,500 for extra compensation, together with the expenses incurred by him on account of said mission, the amount of which expenses to be ascertained, in the absence of regular vouchers, by the certificate of the party.
Compensation for judicial services having been allowed to the predecessor of the memorialist by the act of August 31, 1852, making appropriation for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government, the committee can perceive no just reason why a similar allowance should not be made to the present memorialist during his continuance in the same mission. They report a bill accordingly, and recommend its passage.
February 22, 1855.
[Senate Report No. 538.)
Mr. Slidell made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Richard B. Carmichael in behalf of the legal representatives of William Carmichael, deceased, late chargé d'affaires of the United States at Madrid, praying the allowance of an outfit, etc., have had the same under consideration and now report:
The memorial represents that William Carmichael, then a Delegate to Congress from the State of Maryland, was in 1779 secretary of legation to Spain, and so continued till May, 1782, when Mr. Jay, the minister to that court, was called to another theater of public duty, leaving Mr. Carmichael in charge of the legation as acting chargé d'affaires, in which capacity he continued to act till the 20th of April, 1790, when he received a regular commission as chargé d'affaires of the United States to Spain, and continued to hold that office up to the date of his recall, which happened a short time before his death; that on the 24th of February, 1796, a memorial was presented to the House of Representatives by Antonia Carmichael, widow of said William Carmichael, praying the passage of an act to recognize her late husband as chargé d'affaires of the United States to Spain from the 20th of May, 1782, to the 20th of May, 1790, and to fix the principles on which the settlement of his accounts during that period should be made, and to make to him the same allowances, under his commission as chargé d'affaires, as were granted to others holding similar appointments from the United States.
It appears from Document No. 634, House of Representatives, first session of the Twenty-sixth Congress, that said memorial was referred to the Secretary of State with instructions to examine the same and report his opinions thereon to the House. Upon this the Secretary reported, on the 23d of February, 1787, that Mr. Carmichael, having originally been secretary of legation in Spain under Mr. Jay, became, on the departure of the latter, about the 20th of May, 1782, chargé d'affaires de facto; and, though not regularly commissioned, yet continued to be recognized and treated as such as well by Spain as by
the United States until the 20th of April, 1790, when he received a regular commission from his Government. And further, that, according to the regulations in force prior to the adoption of the Constitution, and under which Mr. Carmichael acted, down to the time of the receipt of his regular commission, he was entitled to a yearly salary of $4,444.44, and to certain allowances for expenses, amounting in all to the sum of $8,258.76. In regard to the outfit claimed, the Secretary was of opinion that it should not be allowed, because this was not a new appointment, but a mere continuance of Mr. Carmichael in the same office, the duties of which he had been performing for years.
In conformity with that report a bill was passed in his favor on the 15th of January, 1798, directing the allowance of $8,258.76 for expenses, together with a salary at the rate of $4,444.44 per annum for the period he acted as chargé d'affaires ad interim.
It further appears that on the 5th March, 1798, an account current between the United States and Mr. Carmichael was settled at the Treasury Department, which, after deducting an item for stationery, postage, etc., amounting to $1,036.29, suspended for further information, and deemed to be unauthorized by the act of July 1, 1790, showed a balance of $9,664.14 to be still due him. On the 27th April, of the same year, an act passed directing the payment of $9,660.14 to his representatives upon the settlement of his accounts as late chargé d'affaires of the United States to Spain, which it is believed was designed to be in full satisfaction of his claims.
It does not appear from the reports, or any other documents to which the committee have had access, why it is that the bill provided for the payment of less, by $4, than the amount shown to be due by the settlement. There may have been some reason for it, or it may have been the result of a clerical error. However that may be, it is deemed too small a matter to justify a reopening of the accounts at this late day. Nor does it appear that any efforts have yet been made by the claimants to sustain, either by evidence or explanation, the suspended item of $1,036.29 above mentioned.
The majority of the committee of the House of Representatives, to whom this subject was referred during the first session of the Twentysixth Congress, reported against its allowance, and at this late day, without any additional information on the subject, this committee are not prepared to reverse the decision then made. They therefore recommend that the claim be rejected.
[See p. 656.)
THIRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.
April 23, 1856.
[Senate Report No. 143. ]
Mr. Mason made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Hon. J. Randolph Clay praying additional compensation for his services as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Lima, have had the same under consideration and now report:
It appears from the memorial of Mr. Clay that on the 16th of March, 1853, while holding the office and performing the duties of United States chargé d'affaires to Peru he was duly appointed and commissioned by the President as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to that Government, which, under the law as it then existed, entitled him to a salary of $9,000 per annum from the date of his new commission; but for want of an appropriation for that purpose he only received the former salary of $4,500 per annum up to the 30th June subsequent to the date of his new appointment. And he now asks that for the intervening period between the date of his commission as minister, etc., up to the 30th June, three months and fifteen days, he may be allowed the additional compensation due to his new grade.
In a letter from the Department of State, dated February 14, 1856, the Secretary fully sustains the accuracy of the statements of the memorial, and adds:
The practice of the Department prior to the enactment of the new diplomatic law of the 1st of March last was to allow a minister's salary to commence with the date of his commission, with the indulgence of from thirty to sixty days to make necessary arrangements for an absence from the United States. As Mr. Clay was at his post and received his commission without any suspension of official duty, I regard his claim to a compensation corresponding to his rank from the date of his commission as perfectly just, and recommend that an appropriation be made accordingly.
Regarding this claim just and in accordance with the previous usage of the Government, the committee report a bill in his favor and recommend its passage.
[See pp. 667, 677.)
May 14, 1856.
[Senate Report No. 170.]
Mr. Mason made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Horatio J. Perry, esq., late United States secretary of legation at Madrid, praying additional compensation for services performed by him as acting chargé d'affaires, have had the same under consideration, and now report:
It appears from the petition that on four several occasions the duties of the United States legation at Madrid were devolved on Mr. Perry; first, from the 30 July to the 24th October, 1852, during the absence of the minister, Mr. Barrenger; second, from the 4th September to the 220 October, 1853, the interval between the recall of Mr. Barrenger and the entrance of Mr. Soulé upon the duties of the mission; third, from the 29th August to the 2d December, 1854, during the absence of Mr. Soulé on public business; and fourth, from the 1st February to the 17th June, 1855, the interval between the recall of Mr. Soulé and the entrance of Mr. Dodge upon the duties of the mission, embracing a period in all of about thirteen months; that the performance of those duties involved a considerable increase of his necessary expenses, and that during the whole period he only received the ordinary compensation allowed to a secretary of legation.
These statements of the petition are fully supported by a letter from the Secretary of State, dated March 26, 1856, in which he adds:
That Mr. Perry is fairly entitled to compensation beyond what he has received for the services rendered by him to the Government there can not be a doubt, whether regard be had to the character of his services or to the compensation not unfrequently allowed to others on like occasions.
Regarding this case as being fully within the principle established by precedent in similar cases, the committee report a bill in favor of the claimant and recommend its passage.
[See p. 721.]
May 14, 1856.
[Senate Report No. 171.) Mr. Mason made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Charles E. Anderson, esq., late secretary of legation of the United States at Paris, praying additional compensation for services rendered and expenses incurred by him as acting chargé d'affaires during a portion of the time, have had the same under consideration and now report:
That it appears from the memorial that Mr. Anderson was appointed secretary of the legation of the United States at Paris in 1836, under General Cass, our minister at that court; that in March, 1837, on the departure of the minister for the Mediterranean and the Holy Land, he was presented to the court of Louis Philippe as chargé d'affaires of the United States ad interim, and that from that time till the return of General Cass to his post, a period of eight or nine months, the entire duties, responsibilities, and expenses of the legation devolved upon him.
These statements of the memorial are substantially sustained by a letter from the Secretary of State, dated February 20, 1855, which says:
It appears from the records and files of this Department that Mr. Anderson acted as chargé d'affaires of the United States at Paris from the 1st of April until the 29th of November, 1837.
Regarding this claim as being fully within the principle heretofore established in similar cases, the committee report a bill for the relief of the claimant and recommend that it be passed.
[See pp. 671, 677.]
May 20, 1856.
[Senate Report No. 181.) Mr. Mason made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Peter Parker, esq., late secretary of legation and Chinese interpreter at Canton, have had the same under consideration and now report:
In his petition Mr. Parker states that in consequence of the vacan