Lapas attēli

Porte, giving certain judicial powers to ministers and consuls of the United States in those countries," approved August 11, 1848.

In reply to a letter of inquiry, addressed to him by the committee, the Secretary of State, under date of February 2, 1858, says:

That Mr. Macauley was consul during the period claimed, and that he performed judicial services in that capacity there is no doubt; but whether any services of that kind entitled the minister or consuls of the United States in the Turkish doininions to extra compensation has always been deemed questionable by this Department, which has never sent to Congress an estimate for such compensation.

The performance of the services by Mr. Macauley, and for the time claimed, is thus clearly established by the letter of the Secretary of State. The only question, therefore, remaining to be considered is, whether, under the act aforesaid of the 11th of August, 1848, he is entitled to the compensation asked for.

After prescribing the nature and character of the duties to be perforined by the commissioner and consuls of the United States in China, the eighteenth section of the act provides:

That, in consideration of the duties herein imposed upon the commissioner, there shall be paid to him, out of the Treasury of the United States, annually, the sum of $1,000, in addition to his salary; and there shall also be paid, annually, to each of said consuls, for a like reason, the sum of $1,000, in addition to consular fees.

By the twenty-second section it is further provided:

That the provisions of this act, so far as the same relate to crimes committed by citizens of the United States, shall extend to Turkey, under the treaty with the Sublime Porto of May 7, 1830, and shall be executed in the dominions of the Sublime Porte, in conformity with the provisions of said treaty, by the minister of the United States and the consuls appointed by the United States to reside therein, who are hereby ex officio vested with the powers herein contained, for the purposes above expressed, so far as regards the punishment of crime.

By the twenty-fourth section it is further provided :

That all such officers shall be responsible for their conduct to the United States and to the laws thereof, not only as diplomatic functionaries and commercial functionaries, but as judicial officers when they perform judicial duties, and shall be held liable for all negligences and misconduct as public officers.

From these several provisions of the act under consideration it is evident that the same class of duties and responsibilities are alike devolved upon the diplomatic and consular agents of both countries; and, in the opinion of the committee, it would seem to be but reasonable to suppose that Congress intended to allow the same measure of compensation to each. To determine otherwise would establish an unjust discrimination between public functionaries performing the same duties and incurring the same responsibilities.

For these reasons the committee are of opinion that the claimant is entitled to the relief asked for, and report a bill accordingly.

[See p. 722.] April 13, 1858.

[Senate Report No. 176.] Mr. Seward made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Townsend Harris, consul-general of the United States in Japan, praying for compensation for his services in negotiating a treaty of commerce between the Kingdom of Siam and the United States, have had the same under consideration and now report:

It appears from the memorial that, after his appointment as consulgeneral of the United States for Japan, and while preparing to leave the country and repair to his post, Vír. Harris was appointed by the President of the United States a com

mmissioner to negotiate a treaty of commerce with the Kingdom of Siam; that this duty was performed by him in a manner satisfactory to his Government at home, and occupied a period of ten months; during which, not having arrived at his consular post, and no special provision being made for such a case under the general law, he could receive no compensation whatever for his services.

These statements are fully sustained by a letter from the Secretary of State, under date of March 2, 1857, in which the Secretary adds:

It is usual to make compensation to commissioners for negotiating treaties, and I recommend that provision be made for paying Mr. Harris for this service.

Concurring entirely with the Secretary of State in this view, the only question remaining to be considered is as to what amount should be allowed. Referring to the precedents heretofore established, the committee find that it has been usual to allow one year's salary to the officer negotiating a treaty for each treaty negotiated by him, together with a reasonable allowance for the expenses incurred by him, in addition to his regular salary for the time so occupied. Adopting this rule, the committee recommend the allowance of $10,000 as compensation for his services and expenses in negotiating said treaty, which is deemed to be but reasonable, and they report a bill accordingly.

April 16, 1858.

[Senate Report No. 192.)

Mr. Slidell, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, made the following report:

The Cominittee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of T. Hart Ilyatt, United States consul at Amoy, in China, praying compensation for judicial services performed under the act of Congress of August 11, 1848, have had the same under consideration and now report:

It appears from the memorial that Mr. Hyatt was appointed consul of the United States for the port of Amoy, in China, in June, 1853, and still holds that office. That by the act of Congress of August 11, 1848, certain judicial duties were devolved upon him, for which do compensation of $1,000 per annum was allowed by said act in addition to his consular fees. That said compensation was regularly paid to him up to the 1st day of July, 1855, when the act of March 1, 1855, remodeling the diplomatic and consular systems of the United States went into operation. That since that period, for want of an appropriation for that purpose, said compensation has been withheld, and still remains due to hiin for the interval between the 1st July, 1855, and the 1st January, 1857, when the act of August 18, 1856, entitled “An act to regulate the diplomatic and consular systems of the United States,” went into operation.

Your memorialist claims that the compensation for judicial services under the act of August 11, 1848, was not affected by the act of March 1, 1855. That the fourth section of that act, in changing the mode of compensation from the allowance of official fees to a fixed salary, related exclusively to consular duties and did not embrace those of a judicial character. That the act of August 18, 1856, however, did embrace those duties and repealed the previous mode of compensation, and hence he only claims it up to the 1st January, 1857, when that act went into operation.

It further appears that the memorialist is subjected to a loss of 40 per cent for premium on exchange between Amoy and the United States, and on that score he claims $1,000 in addition, making in all $2,500.

The statements of the memorial are fully supported by the Secretary of State, in a letter under date of April 7, 1858, in which the Secretary adds:

Mr. Hyatt, having rendered the services for which he claims compensation, presented on the 1st of January, 1857, an account for $2,500, dated at Amoy, for compensation for judicial services for one and a half years, namely, $1,500; and for loss in exchange thereon, amounting to $1.000. A copy of Mr. Hyatt's dispatch, together with the account and voucher showing the rate of exchange, drawn in conformity with the consular regulations upon the subject, is herewith communicated.

The views entertained by Mr. Hyatt in regard to the question of the repeal of the provisions of the act of August 11, 1848, granting compensation for judicial services, are in conformity with those entertained by this Department under the opinion of the Attorney-General (dated June 2, 1855), a copy of which is also inclosed. (See pp. 18 and 19.)

Concurring in opinion with the Secretary of State and the late Attorney-General as to the proper construction of the act of March 1, 1355, the committee believe the memorialist entitled to the relief asked for so far as the compensation for judicial services are concerned, reserving the question of the propriety of granting the allowance claimed for losses on exchange for future consideration whenever that matter may be again brought before them. They report a bill in accordance with these views and recommend its passage.

May 11, 1858.

(Senate Report No. 240.]

Mr. Seward made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Auton L. C. Portman, praying compensation for his services as Dutch interpreter for Commodore M. C. Perry, while conducting his late negotiation with the authorities of Japan, have had the same under consideration, and now report:

That, upon a careful review of the report (No. 315) made in this case by this committee at the last session of Congress, and concurring entirely in the views therein presented, they hereby readopt the same, and report a bill in accordance therewith, with a recommendation that it pass.

[See Senate Report 315, Thirty-fourth Congress, third session, p. 689.)

[See p. 725.] May 20, 1868.

(Senate Report No. 266.) Mr. Polk made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the claim of the legal representatives of John Forsyth, having maturely considered the same, beg leave to report:

That the late John Forsyth was appointed minister of the United States to the court of Spain on the 16th of February, 1819, and served in that capacity from the 18th February, 1819, the day he entered upon the duties of the office, until the 3d March, 1823, the day it terminated, embracing a period of four years and sixteen days. He was allowed the usual outfit, equal to one year's salary, and his infit, equal to one quarter's salary; also the sum of $1,313.69 for his contingent expenses during the period of his mission.

Thus stated: For amount of outfit

$9,000.00 For salary, four years and sixteen days, at $9,000.

36, 350.00 For contingent expenses, allowed in the adjustment of his accounts 4, 313. 69 For infit, equal to one quarter's salary


51,913. 69

To which is to be added the following items, which en-
tered into his accounts and which were allowed to him, viz:
Amount paid F. C. Fentwick
Amount paid for destitute seamen

[blocks in formation]

By warrant in favor of treasurer..

53, 493. 14


53,687.66 To liquidate the above, the following payments were made to him, viz: To warrants, per register's certificate

$18, 309.00 To drafts on Baring Brothers & Co., from 10th September, 1819, to 8th April, 1823, £6,495 4s. 7d., at par, is.

28,867. 67 To amount allowed Thomas L. Brent, as acting chargé d'affaires, during the absence of Mr. Forsyth..

1,813. 86 To warrant on the Treasurer.

3, 289.82

$52, 280.35 Balance due Mr. Forsyth ..

1, 407.31 This balance of $1,407.31 was charged to Mr. Forsyth in the adjustment of his accounts as gain and exchange on the drafts drawn by him on the London bankers, viz: On £2,025 18. 3d., per report No. 991.

$882.18 On £1,690 9s. 1d., per report No. 1203

389.44 On £2,779 13s. 5d., per report No. 1332.

135. 67

1, 407. 29 The salary of Mr. Forsyth was due and payable to him at Madrid, his place of residence in Spain. The United States deposited money with Baring Brothers, of London, their bankers, which was to be drawn on by Mr. Forsyth, in payment of his salary. Accordingly the committee find that the amount, as above stated, was drawn for by Mr. Forsyth upon Baring Brothers, of London, and that instead of gaining by this sale, Mr. Forsyth actually incurred losses.

In selling his drafts, the pounds sterling English currency, in the

hands of Baring Brothers, were first converted into pesos of Spanish currency, or into francs, of French currency, and then, in stating his accounts by the United States accounting officers, these pesos and francs are changed into the dollars and cents of the currency of the United States.

The committee find that whilst Mr. Forsyth was minister at Madrid the Spanish peso was worth only 36 pence of English currency and only 66} cents of United States currency. But in making up the accounts of Mr. Forsyth at the United States Treasury Department, the Spanish peso is charged to Mr. Forsyth as being worth 40pence of English currency, and 75 cents of the currency of the United States. It was, by thus erroneously estimating the peso at 75 cents of United States currency instead of 66} cents, its true value, that a seeming gain was shown to have been made by Mr. Forsyth in the sale of his drafts on London. Whereas, in point of fact, he incurred an actual loss, as is shown by estimating the peso at its true value in American currency, which is 66ý cents.

That the Spanish peso was estimated at 75 cents of the currency of the United States in making up Mr. Forsyth's account at the Treasury Department, a simple arithmetical calculation will at once demonstrate. The process is simply to take the number of pesos realized by the sale of each one of his drafts and multiply the same by 75 cents.

So also, in like manner, an arithmetical calculation demonstrates the value of the peso of Spanish currency to be 36 pence of English currency, as thus:

According to Kelly's Cambist, published in London, in 1821, which is to be found in the State Department, and which is considered to be of unquestionable authority, the English sovereign, or pound sterling, contains 113.01 grains of pure gold; and the quadruple pistole of 1801, or doubloon, contains 360.05 grains. (See Kelly's Cambist, vol. 2, p. 158.) Then we have this proportion: As 113, the number of grains in £1 sterling, are to 240, the number of pence in £1, so are 360, the number of grains in one doubloon, to 765 pence. Thus showing the doubloon to be equal to 765 pence of English currency.

But the doubloon is equal to 16 hard dollars of 20 reals vellon; or, in other words, to 320 reals. (1 Kelly, 317, and 2 Kelly, 88.) And the real contains 34 maraveais. (1 Kelly, 316.) And the dollar of

1 ) exchange, in Spain, contains 15 reals and 2 maravedis vellon, or 512 maravedis. (See 1 Kelly, p. 317.)

We then state this proportion: As 320 reals, or (320 x 34) 10,880 maravedis, the number in the doubloon, are to 785, the number of pence in a doubloon, so are 15 reals and 2 maravedis vellon, or 512 maravedis, the number in the dollar of exchange, to 36 pence. Thus the Spanish peso is demonstrated to be equal to 36 pence English currency.

And that 36 pence, English currency, are equal to 66} cents of our currency is demonstrated by the following proportion: As 240, the number of pence in the pound sterling, are to 444 cents, the value of the pound sterling in our currency, so are 36 pence to 66.6 cents.

A few of his drafts, the committee find, were sold by Mr. Forsyth for francs of French currency instead of pesos, and as in the case of the peso, so in case of the franc—the latter, in stating his account at the Department of the Treasury was estimated to him at too high a value, or, what is the same thing, the pound sterling was estimated to him as being worth only 25.05 francs, instead of 25.25 francs, its

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »