« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
a salary of $2,000 per annum. That he repaired to his post at once, and continued in the performance of his duties up to January 1, 1857. That some time in September, 1855, he received a communication from the Departinent of State informing him that under the construction given by the Attorney-General to the act of March 1, 1855, “To remodel the diplomatic and consular systems of the United States," his salary as secretary of legation at Santiago would be only at the rate of $1,500 per annum from the 1st of July of that year. That the law reducing his salary thus had the effect of an ex post facto law upon him. That the lowest cost of reaching his post from the United States is $500, and the same amount paid in returning home makes a sum equal to two-thirds of the salary for a whole year. That he is the only officer in the diplomatic service of the Government whose salary was reduced by the act above named, and prays that he may be allowed the difference between $1,500 and $2,000 per annum, the amount of salary attached to his office when he accepted it, from July 1, 1855, when the act referred to went into effect, to January 1, 1857.
The statements of the petition are fully sustained by a letter from the Department of State, dated February 23, 1857, in which the Secretary adds:
That the reduction of Mr. Beelen's salary from $2,000 to $1,500, whilst he was at a remote capital and in the actual discharge of his official duties, has always been regarded by this Department as a case of peculiar hardship, which was aggravated by the fact that it was not in the power of the Secretary of State to inform Mr. Beelen of the construction placed by the Attorney-General upon the law affecting his salary until after the law was in actual operation, of which Mr. Beelen could not, therefore, be aware until from fifty to sixty days after the reduction of salary took place.
The committee are of opinion that, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the relief asked for is reasonable and should be allowed. They therefore report a bill in his favor, and recommend its passage.
March 3, 1857.
(Senate Report No. 444.)
Mr. Fish made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of J. C. Tucker, late commercial agent of the United States for Comayagua and Tegucegalpa in Honduras, praying reimbursement of the amount lost and expended by him in his late unsuccessful attempt to enter upon the duties of that office, have had the same under consideration and now report:
The petitioner sets forth in his petition that on the 22d February, 1856, he was appointed and duly commissioned as United States commercial agent to the Republic of Honduras. That he immediately left for that destination via Nicaragua, in which country he was delayed by sickness, during which he was robbed of $500 and the mules purchased for the land travel. That while traveling across the border and through Honduras he was subjected to much expense, extortion, and delay in his progress to the capital, which he finally reached after a difficult journey of 800 miles. That on presenting his credentials he was rejected on the plea that the authorities there were unacquainted with either the signature of Mr. Marcy or the seal of the United States, and thereupon he returned to the United States.
In support of his petition Mr. Tucker refers to the correspondence between himself and the Department of State, in which the same facts are more fully detailed, together with a translation of the letter of the Honduran minister declining to receive him as United States commercial agent to that Republic.
The petitioner further states that the expenses actually incurred by him amount to the sum of $954, which, together with the $500 stolen from him, and as remuneration for his services, he prays may be now allowed to him.
From a letter of the Secretary of State, to whom the petition and accompanying papers were referred, for such information touching this case as the Department might afford, it appears that Mr. Tucker had previously been in Honduras, had business concerns there, and wished to go back with the appointment of commercial agent partly, if not mainly, for the prosecution of his private business. That on his return to that country, although much alarm had been excited in regard to Americans by what had occurred in Nicaragua, he did not do what he ought to have done to allay apprehensions, and even on some occasions, as he admitted to the Secretary, refused to show his passport.
Further, it seems evident from the letter of the Honduran minister that the refusal to recognize Mr. Tucker in his official character was not absolute, but merely suspended on account of a difficulty which might easily have been removed by communicating with the United States consul at Omoa. But this he declined doing, and abruptly left the country on his return to the United States.
Upon a full view of all the circumstances the committee are of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief asked for, and they therefore recommend that the claim be rejected.
THIRTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.
December 22, 1857.
[Senate Report No. 2.) Mr. Mason made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of George P. Marsh, late minister resident of the United States to the Ottoman Porte, praying compensation for extra duties performed by him on a special mission to Greece, and for judicial services, under the act of August 11, 1848, have had the same under consideration, and now report:
That the committee, concurringfully in the views presented in report No. 534, made by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, February 20, 1855, hereby adopt the same, and in accordance therewith report back the bill for the relief of the memorialist, and recommend its passage.
[See Senate Report 534, Thirty-third Congress, second session, p. 678.]
January 14, 1858.
(Senate Report No. 8.] Mr. Foot made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Frederick A. Beelen, secretary of the United States legation to Chile, praying to be allowed the difference between his present salary, $1,500 per annum, and $2,000 per annum, from July 1, 1855, to January 1, 1857, have had the same under consideration, and now report:
That, having carefully examined the report heretofore made in this case by this committee, in connection with the facts set forth in the accompanying papers, and concurring fully in the views presented in that report, hereby adopt the same, and report back the bill for the relief of the petitioner which accompanied that report, with a recommendation that it be passed.
[See Senate Report 432, Thirty-fourth Congress, third session, p. 693.]
February 15, 1858.
(Senate Report No. 65.) Mr. Mason made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of J. E. Martin, esq., acting consul of the United States at Lisbon, praying compensation for diplomatic services, have had the same under consideration, and now report:
That this subject was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations at the first session of the Thirty-fourth Congress, and a report made, accompanied by a bill for the relief of the claimant. Upon full examination this committee, concurring in the views taken in that report, hereby adopt the same and present it as theirs, and recommend the passage of the bill which accompanies it.
[See Senate Report 182, Thirty-fourth Congress, first session, p. 684.)
February 16, 1858,
[Senate Report No. 70.) Mr. Mason made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of George W. Lippett, United States consul at Vienna, praying compensation for diplomatic services alleged to have been rendered by him, have had the same under consideration, and now report:
That after a due examination of the merits of this claim, and a careful review of Report No. 373, made upon it by this committee on the 26th of July, 1851, accompanied by bill 475, the committee entirely concurring in the views and conclusion therein presented, hereby reaffirm and adopt the same, as follows:
[See Senate Report 373, Thirty-third Congress, first session, p. 669.]
[See p. 632.] February 16, 1858.
[Senate Report No. 71.) Mr. Polk made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Commodore Charles G. Ridgely, praying remuneration for various necessary expenditures incurred by him as commanding
COMMODORE CHARLES G. RIDG ELY.
officer of the naval forces of the United States on the South American station in 1820-21, have had the same under consideration, and now report:
That on the 17th of January, 1837, Mr. Howard, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, to whom this memorial had been referred, made a report thereon, setting forth concisely the facts of the case and the reasons which induced them to recommend the granting of the relief asked for, together with a bill for that purpose. Upon a review of that report, and its comparison with the papers accompanying the memorial, this committee are satisfied that the merits of the case are properly set forth therein. They therefore adopt it as their report, and recommend the passage of the bill herewith reported.
[In the House of Representatives, February 9, 1848.)
The Committee on Foreign Afľairs, to whom was referred the memorial of Commodore Charles G. Ridgely, praying remuneration for various expenditures incurred by him in 1820-21, respectfully report:
That they have examined the case, and are of the opinion that the memorialist is entitled to relief for the reasons stated in a report made by Mr. Howard, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to the House of Representatives, at the first session of the Twenty-fifth Congress, to which report the committee would respectfully refer the House. The committee have prepared a bill for the relief of the memorialist, which they are of the opinion should pass.
(HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January 17, 1837.)
Mr. Howard, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, made the following report: That during the years 1820 and 1821, whilst Captain Ridgely was in command of the American squadron in the Pacific Ocean, and when war was raging in Peru and Chie, the Spanish viceroy, having been deposed, sought a temporary refuge, with his suite and attendants, on board of the United States frigate Constellation, under the command of Captain Ridgely; that he incurred considerable expenses in entertaining these guests; that on other occasions he received distinguished Spaniards on board of his squadron, owing to the prevailing unsettled state of things; and that whilst he was affording them a protection, dictated by humanity and warranted by his instructions from the Navy Department, incurred extraordinary expenses in entertaining them; and that he also performed other services during his cruise not falling within the ordinary duties of the commander of a squadron, but demanded by the unsettled condition of public affairs, and the consequent necessity of protecting the substantial interests of his country.
Upon referring to the Navy Department for a knowledge of the instructions under which Captain Ridgely sailed, for the purpose of ascertaining whether his conduct was justified by them, the committee find that a large discretionary power was given (as ought to have been given) to the commanding officer upon such a distant and delicate duty. The Secretary of the Navy directed him, among other things, as follows:
“In touching at the ports of Chile and Peru, and all others in South America, you will ascertain whether the trading or whale ships of the United States are molested in the prosecution of their voyages, and the causes of such molestation, and afford to them all particular relief in cases of need; and at all the ports you may visit make such display of the ship under your command as shall be best calculated to produce impressions favorable to the interests of the United States."
“ You will visit all the United States ships and vessels you may meet with a view to ascertain their situation and whether they have been interrupted in their lawful pursuits; afford them aid, protection, and security consistently with the laws of nations and the respect due to the existing authorities wherever and whenever such protection and aid shall be needed and can be afforded.”
The two following examples are selected amongst the services performed by Captain Ridgely under these general instructions, which appear to the committee to fall legitimately within their scope. In 1821 a revolution took place at Lima, in Peru, and that city fell into the hands of General San Martin. Immediately preceding the fall of the city the viceroy of Spain, General Pezuela, an old gentleman of 70 years of age, and who had been viceroy of Peru for twelve years, was deposed, and made his escape on board an American merchant ship called the General Brown. He was accompanied by his son in-law, a colonel in the serv. ice of the King of Spain, and by his confessor. In a day or two after this event the frigate Constellation arrived, and Captain Ridgely found a determination existing on the part of the commander of the fleet of Chile to capture the General Brown, with the intention of sacrificing the life of this venerable viceroy, and listened, from humanity and policy, to the appeal for protection on board of his ship for the governor who had for so many years presided over the country, and who might, perhaps, be soon called upon to resume his power. All the other ports of Peru were at that time under the Government of Spain, and prudence therefore required that a kind feeling toward the American flag should be maintained in those ports. These persons were received on board of the frigate by Captain Ridgely as his guests, and entertained at his expense until an opportunity was afforded of placing them in safety.
Upon another occasion Mr. Prevost, then at Lima, exhibited to Captain Ridgely a letter which he had received from the master of a large merchant ship belonging to New York, with a very valuable cargo on board, stating that his vessel was taken possession of by the authorities of Guayaquil, and calling for assistance from the civil and military powers of his country. The revolution of Guayaquil at that moment and the absence of all regular government required a speedy and effectual interposition. Although Mr. Prevost was not perhaps strictly accredited according to diplomatic etiquette to the authorities of Guayaquil, yet he was known to be an agent of the American Government, and Captain Ridgely promptly repaired with him to the relief of their countrymen in distress. The union of civil and military interference was too influential to be resisted, and the vessel was released; but the expenses of maintaining Mr. Prevost fell, of course, upon Captain Ridgely, and are properly chargeable to the United States.
These two cases will serve to illustrate the general character of the services rendered by Captain Ridgely under his instructions, and it is unnecessary to enumerate more. The price of provisions is represented to have been enormous. Captain Clack certifies that at the time when the viceroy was received on board flour was selling for $100 per barrel, and other articles proportionately high. Although no precise data exist in the case from which to compute exactly the expepse sustained by the commodore, the committee have endeavored to ascertain it, and believe that $6,000 would not be more than a fair allowance. They therefore report a bill for that amount.
(See p. 619, 764.]
March 31, 1858.
[Senate Report No. 16.) Mr. Foot made the following report:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Frances Ann Macauley, widow of Daniel S. Macauley, late United States consul-general at Alexandria, in Egypt, praying compensation for judicial duties performed by her husband under the act of August 11, 1848, have had the same under consideration, and now report:
It appears from the petition that the late Daniel S. Macauley was, on the 14th day of August, 1848, appointed consul-general of the United States at Alexandria, in Egypt, a port belonging to and within the territorial limits of the Turkish Empire; that he continued to hold that office and perform its duties up to the time of his death, on the 26th of October, 1852; that, as consul-general of the United States at that port, certain judicial duties were devolved upon him by the act of Congress entitled “An act to carry into effect certain provisions in the treaties between the United States and China and the Ottoman