[See p. 725.] May 20, 1858. [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 $4,313.69 for his contingent expenses during the period of his mission. Thus stated: For amount of outfit For salary, four years and sixteen days, at $9,000. For contingent expenses, allowed in the adjustment of his accounts. To which is to be added the following items, which entered into his accounts and which were allowed to him, viz: Amount paid F. C. Fentwick Amount paid for destitute seamen $9,000.00 36, 350.00 4,313.69 2,250.00 51,913. 69 $200.00 1,319.45 1,579.45 By warrant in favor of treasurer. 53,493. 14 194.52 53, 687.66 To liquidate the above, the following payments were made to him, viz: To warrants, per register's certificate $18,309.00 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. $882.18 389.44 135.67 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 663 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 40 pence 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 663 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 663 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 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 (320×34) 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 663 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 true value. An examination of the accounts and vouchers will show at what value in francs the pound sterling was estimated to Mr. Forsyth. And what the true value of the pound sterling is in francs is shown thus: The 40 francs coin of France contains 179 grains of pure gold. (See 2 Kelly's Cambist, p. 158.) Of course, 1 frane contains (179 divided by 40, or) 4.475 grains. We have already seen that the pound sterling contains 113 grains. And to ascertain how many francs there are in £1 sterling we have only to divide 113 by 4.475. The process gives us (113÷4.475) 25.25. Your committee have procured from the Treasury Department a statement showing all the drafts drawn by Mr. Forsyth upon London, and also the amount of gain charged against him upon the same, in making up his accounts, by the accounting officer of the Treasury. They have also procured copies of the vouchers furnished the Department by Mr. Forsyth, showing the rates at which he sold these several drafts respectively, whether sold for pesos or francs. And they have caused elaborate and accurate calculations of the losses and gains which were in fact really incurred or realized upon the sale of each one of them. And they find, that instead of realizing gains upon the sale of each one of them, Mr. Forsyth actually sustained loss upon the sale of all of them except two; and that the aggregate of his losses amounted to $760.81, while the aggregate of his gains was but $28.04, showing an excess of loss over gain of $732.77. Whereas, in the account made up with him at the Treasury Department, he is charged with the sum of $1,407.29 as gain upon the sale of his drafts on London. It follows, therefore, that he stands charged, in the account as made up with him at the Department, with $2,140.06 more than he ought to have been charged with. In other words, upon the final settlement of his account, the United States was really indebted to Mr. Forsyth in the last-named sum; which the committee think ought to be refunded to his legal representatives, and they report a bill accordingly. Your committee also submit herewith their calculations named above. May 21, 1858. [Senate Report No. 269.] Mr. Mason submitted the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Samuel Bromburg, late United States consul at Hamburg, praying compensation for diplomatic and extra services, have had the same under consideration and now report: The memorialist represents that he was duly appointed consul of the United States for the port of Hamburg November 1, 1849, entered upon the discharge of his duties April 16, 1850, and continued therein until December 27, 1855; that during that period the income of his office, averaging about $1,100 per annum, was insufficient for the support of himself and family; that during his consulate he was often required to act as agent for receiving and forwarding despatches, parcels, and packages for the Department of State, which occupied a large portion of his time and involved some pecuniary expense; that he was also required to perform certain diplomatic services, consisting, as far as specifically presented, of his interposition for the protection of adopted American citizens against impressment into foreign service, efforts to prevent the introduction of foreign convicts into the United States, and for the general maintenance of the rights of American citizens under existing treaties, and for these services asks that he may be allowed an additional compensation of $1,000 per annum during his official term. This memorial appears to have been presented to the House of Representatives on the 23d December, 1856, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and shortly thereafter by the chairman of that committee transmitted to the Department of State with a request for information respecting the claim and inquiring "whether the Department has the power to pay such claims without Congressional legislation." The Secretary, under date of January 6, 1857, in reply, says: * * * By referring to the general instructions to United States consuls and commercial agents, edition of 1838, in use at the time of the appointment of Mr. Bromburg, or to the "instructions" and "regulations," issued in 1855 and 1856, respectively, it will be seen that the duties of consular officers are of a very miscellaneous character, and in the language of the statute of 1792, still in force. "The specification of certain powers and duties to be exercised or performed by the consuls or vice-consuls of the United States shall not be construed to the exclusion of others resulting from the nature of these appointments." Consequently consular officers of the United States throughout the world have been required to discharge duties not differing essentially from those performed by Mr. Bromburg without expectation on their part or of the Department that extra compensation would be allowed for such services. In performing the services for which Mr. Bromburg now claims compensation he was doing no more than what would have been expected from any other consular officer under similar circumstances. If Mr. Bromburg has been subjected to expenses for postage or freight in the transmission of official despatches or packages, such expenditures will be paid by this Department on the presentation of an account accompanied by proper vouchers. From this statement of the Secretary it would seem that the memorialist has no well-founded claim for compensation for what he conceives to have been his diplomatic services, those services being properly pertinent to his consular office and strictly within the line of his legitimate duty. And the Department of State having already sufficient authority to reimburse whatever expenses he may have incurred for postage or freight there seems to be no further question for the committee to consider, they therefore recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be refused, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. June 8, 1858. [Senate Report No. 310] Mr. Mason made the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Ferdinand Coxe, late secretary of the United States legation at Rio de Janeiro, praying compensation for diplomatic services, have had the same under consideration, and now report: That, during the first session of the Thirty-third Congress, a bill for the relief of the petitioner was reported to the Senate by this committee, together with a report briefly setting forth the grounds upon S. Doc. 231, pt 3—45 which the claim rested and recommending its passage; upon a reexamination of the case, the committee, concurring entirely in the views therein presented, readopt the same, and report back the same bill and recommend that it pass. [See Senate Report 378, Thirty-third Congress, first session, p. 672.] [See pp. 690, 721.] June 8, 1858. [Senate Report No. 311.] Mr. Mason made the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of John II. Wheeler, late United States minister to Nicaragua, 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 whom were killed and others wounded and robbed, while at the same time another party of hostile natives, strongly armed, were collected at San Carlos, on the other side of the lake. Thus hemmed in by hostile forces on both sides, and cut off from access to either ocean, they applied to the memorialist, then minister resident of the United States at that place, for protection and relief, which was promptly afforded; comfortable quarters procured and food supplied them (two hundred and fifty in number) for two days and nights. It further appears that under instructions from the Department of State, dated October 23, 1854, the memorialist was required to aid Jos. W. Fabens, esq., a commissioner appointed for that purpose, in collecting information and taking testimony at San Juan (Greytown), in relation to the conduct of the persons who assumed political control over San Juan del Norte, and also with regard to the claims against our Government on account of property destroyed by the late bombardment of that place by Captain Hollins, of the United States Navy. That, in the performance of this service he was engaged for more than two months away from his proper residence and necessarily subjected to great inconvenience and additional expenses, amounting to the sum of $273.98. The memorialist further sets forth that in the fall of 1856, by recall from the Department of State, he returned to the United States, as was then supposed, on a temporary visit. On that occasion he left at the legation personal property to the value of over $2,000. That this property was destroyed by the allied forces of Guatemala, Honduras, San Salvador, Costa Rica, and a part of Nicaragua. The memorialist further represents that on his departure for Central America he was instructed by the Department of State to draw upon London for his salary and the contingent expenses of the legation, and for that purpose a credit was opened for him with Messrs. Baring Brothers. That on his arrival in Nicaragua it was found impracticable to negotiate drafts on London; he had, therefore, to make an agent here, who drew on London, and for a time deposited in New York or Washington. That in Nicaragua these drafts could only be negotiated at the reduced value of the currency of the country in |
