you, in conversation with the proper Mexican authorities, to express an opinion as to what portion of the Senate's amendments they might probably be willing to yield for the sake of restoring peace between the two Republics." The very earnest solicitude for the definite consummation of the treaty manifested by the Secretary of State in both these letters, and most especially in the passage last quoted, presents a striking contrast to the spirit pervading the letter of recall from the same hand, written less than five months before. It brings into strong relief the high value to which the result attending Mr. Trist's mission had risen in the estimation of our Executive in the intervening period, and even in the short portion of it—just one month-which had elapsed since the arrival of the treaty at Washington, and the delay thereupon experienced by it in being communicated to the Senate. It seems also to bring into yet stronger relief a further result of that mission which was soon to disclose itself. This consisted in the course pursued by the Mexican Government (by the Congress no less than the Executive) by which the anxieties expressed in those two letters were speedily dissipated. That course constituted a conclusive proof that the "state of affairs" truly existing in Mexico, with reference to the purpose of Mr. Trist's mission, was such as to afford no better grounds for anxiety about the ratification of the treaty then than at the time of his recall it had afforded for the "belief" which, in the President's message to the Senate, February 22, 1847, was stated to have "dictated" that recall; the words of the President upon this point being: "I deem it my duty to state that the recall of Mr. Trist as commissioner of the United States, of which Congress was informed in my last annual message, was dictated by the belief that his continued presence with the Army could be productive of no good, but might do much harm," etc. Upon the subject of ratification Mr. Trist, in his dispatch of February 2, 1848, transmitting the treaty, had written: * * "With respect to the ratification of the treaty, I believe the chances to be very greatly in its favor. *The elections are yet to be held in the States of Vera Cruz and Puebla. In the former the puros (war party) never had any strength whatever, in the latter not enough to counteract a vigorous and concerted effort on the part of the moderados. These elections will now speedily take place, under the arrangements for facilitating them which will be entered into in pursuance of the second article of the treaty (inserted with a special view to this object); and the result will. according to every probability, give to the peace party in Congress a preponderance so decided as to insure its prompt ratification." Ten days later, his dispatch No. 29, February 12, 1848, transmitting the maps referred to in the fifth article of the treaty, closes with these words: "I take great pleasure in stating that the probabilities of the ratification of the treaty by Mexico, which were previously very good, have been growing stronger and stronger every hour for several days past, and that there is good reason to believe that it may take place within two months of this date. "In the accompanying Monitor Republicano of the 11th instant will be found the circular of the minister of relations to the governors of States informing them of the signature of the treaty." These anticipations of Mr. Trist, both as to the results of the election in augmenting the preponderance already acquired by the peace party in Congress and as to the use which would be made of this preponderance, were soon verified to the very letter, and far beyond it. Intelligence reaching Mexico that the Senate of the United States were engaged in making amendments to the treaty, all action of the Mexican Government in regard to its ratification was suspended until the amendments so made should become known. They became so officially by the letter of the Secretary of State of the United States, March 18, to the minister of relations. Upon its receipt by him, the treaty, as ratified by the Government of the United States, with the amendments of our Senate, was laid before the Mexican Congress, both houses of which must advise and consent to a treaty before it can be ratified. First taken up in the chamber of deputies, it was adopted there by a lae majority; then in the senate it passed that body by a vote of 33 yeas to 5 nays. Thus was the question of ratification of the treaty, as amended by our Senate, definitely settled. Thus was it settled by the spontaneous action of the Mexican Congress, this action terminating by that vote in the senate of 33 yeas to 5 nays on the 25th of May, 1818, just one month and thirteen days after the expiration of the two months" which on the 12th of February Mr. Trist had assigned for this action upon the treaty in its primitive form. This definitive ratification took place before our joint commissioners could reach Queretaro, the seat of the Mexican Government. Thus far did the event fall short of verifying the apprehension expressed by our Secretary of State lest they should find it impossible, after exhausting every honorable effort for this purpose, to obtain a ratification." Thus far did those commissioners find themselves from the necessity, "in conversation with the proper Mexican authorities, to express CITY OF QUERETARO, May 15, 1848-9 o'clock p. m. SIR: We have the satisfaction to inform you that we reached this city this afternoon at about 5 o'clock, and that the treaty, as amended by the Senate of the United States, passed the Mexican senate about the hour of our arrival by a vote of 33 to 5. It having previously passed the house of deputies, nothing now remains but to exchange the ratifications of the treaty. At about 4 leagues from the city we were met by a Mexican escort under the command of Colonel Herrera, and were escorted to a house prepared by the Government for our reception. The minister of foreign relations and the governor of the city called upon us and accompanied us to dinner, which they had previously ordered. So far as the Government is concerned, every facility and honor have been offered us, and Señor Rosa, the minister of foreign relations, desires us to state that he feels great satisfaction in meeting the ministers of peace from the United States. We will write you again shortly and more at length, as the courier is on the point of departure. The city appears to be in a great state of exultation, fireworks going off, and bands of music parading in every direction. We have the honor, etc., Hon. JAMES BUCHANAN, A. H. SEVIER. Secretary of State. Cost of the joint commission sent to Mexico for the purpose of obtaining the ratification of the treaty by that Government. 1 Paid to A. H. Sevier as commissioner's outfit. Total for two months and twenty-nine days' service Return allowance.. Total for four months and ten days' service $9,000.00 2,250.00 2,250.00 $13,500.00 9,000.00 3, 256.48 2,250.00 Paid to R. M. Walsh, as secretary, salary for four months and ten days. 14,506. 48 722.19 28,728.67 Total cost of the joint commission on that service Paid to Nathan Clifford as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- $9,000.00 10,002.42 Return allowance 2,250.00 21, 252.42 Add contingent expenses for one year, one month, and eight Total paid to N. Clifford for one year, five months, and eighteen days, 33, 508.90 $740.02 Add salary of secretary for one year, one month, and eight 2,207.77 2.947.79 Total cost of service of N. Clifford in both capacities 36, 456.69 [See pp. 649, 698.] FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION. February 7, 1871. [Senate Report No. 347.] Mr. Sumner, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Mrs. Francis A. McCauley, praying reimbursement of extraordinary expenses incurred by her husband while consul at Tripoli, have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to report: The petitioner, after stating that her husband, Daniel S. McCauley, "was obliged to incur expenses far beyond his salary and all allowances made by his Government," prays Congress to provide for receiving proof of these extraordinary expenses, and making payment of so much as may be proved. A review of the history of Mrs. McCauley's previous applications to Congress for relief is necessary to explain the position in which she stands. Mr. McCauley was consul at Tripoli from 1831 to 1848, and consulgeneral at Alexandria from 1848 to 1852, in which latter year he died. Mrs. McCauley returned to this country, and in the year 1853 began her appeal to Congress. On the 31st December, 1853, she presented a petition in the House of Representatives, stating that her husband had suffered loss by injuries to his property from the enemy's fire upon the town in the civil war then going on, and by change of residence rendered necessary from the unsafe position of the consular residence, and praying payment of $20,000 on account thereof. In this petition it appears that she had already received a gratuity of $1,600 from Congress. The petition was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and, February 15, 1854, reported upon adversely. On the 16th February, 1860, this petition was again introduced, and referred as before. It was not reported on. With the next Congress, April 14, 1862, Mrs. McCauley appeared with the same petition. This time she was more fortunate, and on the 17th April, 1862, Mr. Crittenden presented a favorable report, with a bill for her relief. (Bill, Thirty-seventh Congress, second session, H. R. 405; do. Report 81.) On May 16, the bill came before the House for consideration. Mr. Crittenden explained the case at length, and urged the passage of the bill. A considerable debate arose, in which other members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs spoke in opposition. The subject was carefully examined and discussed, when finally a vote was taken and the bill rejected. (Cong. Globe, Thirty-seventh Congress, second session, pp. 2181-2183.) Mrs. McCauley presented a new petition to the same effect as the former, December 4, 1862. The committee had hardly had time to forget the discussion of the previous May, and on the 11th December reported, with request to be discharged. Having failed in repeated attempts upon the House, Mrs. McCauley now comes to the Senate with a new draft of the old petition in her hands, and it is this that is now before the committee. The history of Mrs. McCauley's exertions does not end here. On the 17th of March, 1856, she presented to the House a petition for extra salary due her husband on account of judicial services during 1 the period from 1831 to 1852, claiming the same under the act of August 11, 1848, to carry into effect certain provisions between the United States and China and the Ottoman Porte. The Committee on Foreign Affairs reported adversely August 8, 1856 (Thirty-fourth Congress, first session, Report 336). On the 9th of February, 1857, additional papers were filed, but caused no alteration in the decision. On the 12th of January, 1858, this petition was again presented, and additional papers February 23, but no report was made. At the same time she petitioned the Senate, January 27, 1858, for salary for judicial services from 1848 to 1852. A favorable report was made, and a bill introduced March 31, 1858, giving her $4,200, which passed both Houses, and was approved March 3, 1859. During the four years Mrs. McCauley remained quiescent, but she appeared again, petition in hand, March 13, 1862, before the House, this time demanding salary for judicial services from 1831 to 1848. On the 12th of June, 1862, it was ordered that the papers be withdrawn from the files of the House, and June 24 they were presented to the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. July 14 the committee was discharged from their further consideration. Shortly previous to this, in 1861, Mrs. McCauley had laid her case before the Committee on Claims of the Senate, which had requested to be discharged 24th of January, 1862, and she had obtained leave to withdraw February 10, preparatory to her attempt on the Committee on Foreign Relations, of 24th June, 1862. Once again Mrs. McCauley's name appeared. She obtained leave to withdraw her papers from the files of the Senate January 31, 1867, they were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations February 4, and February 27 the committee requested to be discharged. Here ended the second claim. The committee, in deciding upon the petition now before it, might well have been content to rest upon the adverse decision of the House in 1862, when the claim was carefully considered; but they have looked themselves into the circumstances of the case, and do not find that it justifies any measure of relief. The petitioner has nothing to show what expenses were incurred, or their amount, and nothing upon which to estimate the alleged damages. The sum claimed in her former petitions rests upon her opinion of what would be a proper compensation for the annoyances she has suffered. This case is but one of a familiar class. Consular and other officers are appointed at their own solicitation; they reach their port, find their duties irksome, and their salaries small. They return home and begin their application to Congress for additional compensation. Such appeals should not be encouraged. It should be understood that he who takes an office takes it knowingly cum onere. Mrs. McCauley's is a chronic case. With an avowed determination of never ceasing her efforts until she obtained from Congress the further allowance she desired, she has presented her case again and again after it has been heard with attention, judged, and rejected. The following is a statement of the sums paid to or for Mrs. McCauley since her husband's death, not including consular salary: Funeral expenses paid by W. W. Moore, acting consul-general To enable Mrs. McCauley to return home Contingent expenses of consulate from July 1 to October 24, 1858 $259.30 1,466. 08 750.00 151.75 227.55 4,200.00 7,054.68, Finally, the Department of State has expressed its decided opinion upon this claim in a communication to the chairman of this committee, dated July 11, 1862. Mr. Seward says: With regard to the memorial praying compensation for judicial services. upon which the Committee on Foreign Affairs have reported adversely, the Department hardly deems it necessary to express an opinion. It has uniformly refused to sanction any claim on the part of consular officers in the Turkish dominions for judicial services, even under the act of 1848, from a conviction that no such claim was authorized by that act. A sufficient reason, however, for the rejection of the one under consideration might be found in the fact that no such services as those for which compensation is asked by the memorialist are known to have been performed by Mr. McCauley. Touching the claim for extraordinary expenses, etc., I have the honor to state that it does not appear from the files of this Department that Mr. McCauley's withdrawal to Malta was either authorized or sanctioned, as is alleged in the memorial. Moreover, during his residence there his salary was allowed as usual, and from the proximity of the island to Tripoli, it is not perceived how the consul could have been subjected to expenses in removing thither which his compensation was not fully adequate to cover. The committee report adversely upon Mrs. McCauley's petition, and recommend that it be indefinitely postponed. February 16, 1871. [Senate Report No. 367.] Mr. Sumner made the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the act for the relief of John W. Massey (H. R. 2095) have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to report: John W. Massey was appointed and confirmed consul of the United States at Paso del Norte, Mexico, in 1862, and in accordance with instructions from the Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, started for his post. Having arrived at Fort Leavenworth, he found the road so infested with guerillas that, in accordance with the advice of Generals Halleck and Blunt, he abandoned the attempt to proceed, and returned home, when he tendered his resignation, which was accepted. In answer to a letter from Mr. Massey, asking whether the traveling expenses he had incurred would be paid by the Department, Mr. Seward replied, under date of July 16, 1862: It is not, however, in its [the Department's] power to allow the compensation you ask, inasmuch as the fund appropriated for the salaries of consuls can only be applied to the transit allowance when such transit is actually accomplished. And again, July 31, 1862, Mr. Seward says: Your petition to Congress to be reimbursed the amount actually expended in the honest effort to reach your post would perhaps be favorably considered. The committee recommend the passage of the act. FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION. [Senate Report No. 42] Mr. Hamlin made the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of William Blanchard for relief, having considered the same, submit the following report: |
