Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

ment, "of and concerning the territories of the United States, and of His Catholic Majesty, and also concerning all wrongful captures, condemnations, and other injuries for which the parties may be responsible the one to the other, or the one to the citizens or subjects of the other." That on the arrival at Paris of the Spanish envoy said negotiations were commenced, and continued for some months, but no definite period is mentioned.

It further appears from the memorial that the board of commissioners appointed under the treaty with France of April 30, 1803, to examine into and adjust, in connection with the French bureaux, claims of American citizens against France for illegal captures of ships and cargoes, having failed to complete that duty within one. year from the date of the ratification of the treaty (the period limited therein), General Armstrong gave his time and attention to the investigation of the claims remaining unacted upon by the commissioners. On the 7th December, 1821, General Armstrong addressed a letter to the Secretary of State setting forth the grounds upon which he based his claim for additional compensation. That letter was referred by the Secretary to President Monroe for his decision. On the 10th April, 1823, President Monroe declines deciding the case for reasons stated by him at length, the substance of which is that the claim for compensation as commissioner, etc., to negotiate with Spain involved, to some extent, the same principles as a claim in which he was himself personally interested, and therefore he could not act in the case; and further, that the compensation claimed for perfecting the uncompleted work of the commissioners under the treaty of April 30, 1803, should properly be referred to the legislative department of the Government, which alone had authority to decide it.

From that time to the presentation of this memorial this claim seems to have rested without any attempt, so far as the committee are advised, to reassert it.

In considering the first branch of this claim, the committee find that President Monroe, in stating his reasons for declining to decide it, refers to an "analysis of all the claims which had been presented and allowed or rejected since the foundation of the Government," prepared by him some time previously. From a careful examination of the precedents collated in that analysis, and others which have subsequently occurred, the committee have been able to find in no one of them the recognition of a principle broad enough to cover the present claim. The allowance of extra compensation to diplomatic agents of the Government seems to have been based, in every instance, upon the additional expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of the extra duties imposed.

In this case the committee can perceive no such necessity for additional expense. General Armstrong remained at Paris-the court to which he was regularly accredited. All of his negotiations with the Spanish envoy were carried on in that city, and, for aught that appears to the contrary, those very negotiations may have been regarded as a legitimate part of his duty as minister to France, a supposition strengthened by the fact that Paris was selected as the place of such negotiation, with a view to obtaining the aid of the French Government in effectuating its objects.

It is also worthy of remark that Mr. Bowdoin, minister of the United Stated at Madrid, and colleague of General Armstrong in this special negotiation, does not appear to have asserted any claim for his extra services in that regard, notwithstanding his attention to the business might have involved the additional expenses incident to a trip from

Madrid to Paris. But whether Mr. Bowdoin made such trip or not, his right to additional compensation would seem to stand upon a ground quite as high as that of General Armstrong.

In that day, during the comparative infancy of our Republic, it frequently happened that ministers of the United States accredited to different European courts were associated together in the performance of special services; and yet it does not appear that extra compensation was allowed for such service in any case in which increased expenses had not been incurred by the minister.

In reference to the second branch of this claim, the Secretary of State, in a letter dated December 30, 1856, in reply to one of inquiry addressed to him by the committee, says:

In regard to that clause of the petition which relates to the alleged services of General Armstrong with reference to the claims of citizens of the United States on France, I have to remark that there is no instruction to him on record in this Department authorizing or directing him to perform those services; consequently it is not competent for me to say whether or not, if they were performed as alleged, they were deemed to be within his province as diplomatic agent of the United States or otherwise. It is at least difficult to understand what the nature or extent of those services could have been subsequently to the year assigned for the duration of the commission on the subject of the claims, when the 11th article of the treaty of the 30th of April, 1803, declares that every necessary decision shall be made in the course of a year, to commence from the exchange of ratifications, and no reclamation shall be admitted afterwards.

From this statement it seems to be very clear that General Armstrong in undertaking, as he alleged, to complete the unfinished business of the commissioners under the treaty of April 30, 1803, not only acted without instruction or direction from his Government at home, but also in violation of the stipulations of the treaty itself.

The permanent interests of any government are best promoted by confining its active agents within the limits of prescribed duty. This principle is especially true in its application to a government like ours, founded upon a constitution and laws in which the powers and duties not only of its principal departments, but of each subordinate agent in those departments, are particularly defined. To compensate a public officer, therefore, whether occupying a high or low station, for the performance of acts not only without the line of his duty, but in derogation of the authority under which he acted, would naturally tend to encourage a spirit of insubordination in the public service, and might lead to serious inconvenience, if not postive mischief, in its results; and when applied to such as are invested with diplomatic functions in foreign countries, remote from the supervision of the Government at home, the dangerous tendency of such a policy becomes the more clearly manifest.

Other cases have occurred, heretofore referred to this committee, in which official agents of the United States in foreign countries have assumed powers and performed acts not only unauthorized by, but against the postive instructions of, the Government at home, and afterwards claimed at the hands of Congress extra compensation therefor; and should the second branch of the claim of General Armstrong be now sustained it would, in the opinion of the committee, encourage on the part of public functionaries abroad a disregard of all limitation upon their own powers and authority, and greatly multiply the number of applications similar to the one now under consideration and those above referred to.

For these reasons, thus briefly presented, the committee are satisfied that on neither branch of the case are the memorialists entitled to relief, and they recommend that the claim be rejected.

[See p. 701.]

January 21, 1857.

[Senate Report No. 315.]

Mr. Fish made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Auton L. C. Portman, late clerk to Commodore M. C. Perry, while in command of the East India Squadron, praying additional compensation for his services as Dutch interpreter during the negotiations with the Japanese authorities, have had the same under consideration, and now report:

That it appears from the memorial that Mr. Portman was the clerk of Commodore M. C. Perry while in command of the East India Squadron, and during the negotiations with the Japanese authorities acted as Dutch interpreter for the United States; that owing to the refusal of the Japanese ministers to conduct the negotiations in the Chinese language a large amount of interpreting and translating was thrown upon and discharged by the memorialist; that the only compensation received by him for those delicate and responsible duties was the salary of $500 per annum, at which he was rated on the books of the ship; and he therefore asks that such additional compensation shall be now allowed him as, together with that heretofore received, shall be proportionate to the importance of the services rendered.

The statements of the memorial are supported by the certificates of Commodore M. C. Perry, commanding, and Capts. Henry H. Adams, Sidney S. Lee, and Franklin Buchanan, attached to the expedition.

From the report of Commodore Perry in relation to that expedition it appears that the time employed in conducting his negotiations with the Japanese Government embraced a period of a little less than one year, during which, it is reasonable to presume, the memorialist was required, in addition to his regular duties as clerk, also to perform those of interpreter.

In reply to a letter of inquiry addressed by the committee to the Navy Department, the Secretary, under date of July 16, 1856, says:

Clerks in the naval service are appointed by officers entitled to them, with the sanction of the Department. My impression has always been that in selecting their secretaries and clerks the commodores endeavored to secure such as could aid them in their correspondence by their attainments in different languages. I am not aware of any precedent for extra pay on account of translating or interpreting performed by their clerks.

Whilst the committee are disposed to concur with the Secretary of the Navy in the opinion here indicated, that for the ordinary translating and interpreting incident to their position clerks in the naval service should not be entitled to receive extra compensation, yet they can not but regard the present case as resting upon entirely different grounds. Mr. Portman's duties as interpreter in the conduct and negotiation of a treaty between our Government and that distant and secluded Empire involved much and delicate responsibility. They were beyond and additional to his regular duties as clerk to the commodore, and for their performance he is, in the opinion of the committee, properly entitled to additional compensation.

In estimating the amount of additional compensation, the committee are of opinion that $1,000 would be just and reasonable. They therefore report a bill in his favor for that amount, and recommend its passage.

[blocks in formation]

[See pp. 706, 721.]

January 21, 1857.

[Senate Report No. 316.]

Mr. Fish made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of John H. Wheeler, esq., late minister resident of the United States at Granada, praying the reimbursement of expenses incurred by him for the relief of American citizens in distress in that country, have had the same under consideration, and now report:

The memorial sets forth that a party of American citizens, while crossing the Isthmus en route from California to New York, were attacked by the natives at Virgin Bay, on the lake of Nicaragua, on the 19th of October, 1855. Some of them were killed, others wounded and robbed. That another party of hostile natives, strongly armed, were at the same time collected at San Carlos, on the other side of the lake, who had also fired upon passengers going by that place. Thus hemmed in by hostile forces on each side of the lake, and cut off from the means of access to either ocean, they were compelled to resort to Granada and apply to the memorialist, then minister resident of the United States at that place, for protection and such other relief as they required. That the memorialist promptly afforded them the protection and relief asked for, procured comfortable quarters, and supplied them, to the number of 250, with food for two days and nights. That during their stay at Granada two of their number died and were buried, and on their departure three had to be left behind on account of their wounds.

These statements are fully supported by the affidavit of Dr. W. E. Rust, one of the said party, and also by that of Joseph N. Scott, general agent of the Accessory Transit Company across the Isthmus, who adds that the memorialist "freely gave his time, money, house, and clothes to his suffering countrymen, as some of them were robbed of everything by the enemy at Virgin Bay."

It further appears that the memorialist applied to the Department of State for the reimbursement of those expenses, to which application the Secretary replies, under date of February 5, 1856, that "this Department has no fund from which it is authorized to reimburse such expenditures. Although inconvenience and hardship may be the result of this inability to replace the funds which our diplomatic representatives often advance out of their private means for the relief of their distressed fellow-citizens in foreign countries, the Department has no mode of relief at command, and can only suggest an application to Congress for such aid as the circumstances warrant."

The amount claimed by the memorialist is but $500, which seems to be quite moderate, and barely adequate to cover the actual expenses incurred; and whilst the committee are unwilling to recommend the adoption of a policy that might encourage our representatives abroad in indiscriminate or wasteful application of charities, under the expectation of reimbursement by the Government at home, yet the peculiar circumstances of this case are such as, in their judgment, to entitle the memorialist to the very small amount of relief asked for. They therefore report a bill in his favor, and recommend its passage.

[See pp. 665, 721.]

February 5, 1857.

[Senate Report No. 359.]

Mr. Pratt made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 19th December, 1856, with the accompanying papers, relative to the claim of John P. Brown, principal interpreter of the Turkish language to the United States legation at Constantinople, for additional compensation for diplomatic and judicial services performed by him at various intervals during the years 1838, 1839, 1852, and 1854, have had the same under consideration, and report:

The Secretary of State, to whom the resolution was referred by the committee for information, in his reply, dated January 30, 1857, says:

As to the services of Mr. Brown as chargé d'affaires from the 11th of April, 1838, to the 19th of July, 1839; from the 30th of July, 1852, to the 5th of July, 1853, and from the 19th of December, 1853, to the 31st of January, 1854, the records of this Department show that during those periods he was left in charge of the legation, and that he performed the duties devolved upon him in a manner satisfactory to this Government.

In regard to the claim for compensation for judicial services under the act of August 11, 1848, the Secretary adds: "That act has never been construed by the Executive as intending to allow diplomatic agents and consuls in Turkey compensation for such services."

Concurring with the Secretary in his construction of the act of August 11, 1848, the committee are of opinion that Mr. Brown is not entitled to the compensation claimed by him for judicial services during the several periods named in his accounts; and they therefore recommend that that portion of his claim be disallowed. The claim for diplomatic services, however, stands upon different grounds, and being fully supported by the records of the Department of State, entitles him, in the opinion of the committee, to the difference between the compensation heretofore received by him as principal interpreter and that allowed to a chargé d'affaires of the United States. They therefore report a bill in his favor for that amount, and recommend its passage.

February 25, 1857.

[Senate Report No. 420.]

Mr. Weller made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Charles S. Todd, late United States minister to Russia, praying that he may be allowed the amount of certain items which were disallowed by the Department in the settlement of his accounts, have had the same under consideration, and now report:

It appears from the memorial that in the settlement of Mr. Todd's accounts, after his return to the United States, the following items were disallowed, viz:

1. This sum, paid for printed books, consisting of McCulloch's Commercial Dictionary, Arrowsmith's Atlas, Vattel's Law of Nations, Wheaton's International Law, American Almanac, Edinburg and Quarterly Reviews, maps of Europe and America. Wheaton's Right of Search, Westminster Review, and Life of General Harrison, amounting to the sum of

$78.84

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »