the Government to enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to it. He was appointed during the recess of the Senate, and being ordered upon duty, how was he to anticipate its action? Had the appointment been made while Congress was in session, it would have presented a different case. It would then have been the part of a prudent man to have asked permission of the Secretary of State to await the action of the Senate; but the appointment being made in vacation, and he ordered to enter upon the duties of his office, it would seem to be unjust that he should incur the expense of going to his post, and, because he was rejected on the meeting of Congress, to be without remedy or redress. Under this view of the case, it is recommended that the bill be reported to the Senate with a request that it pass. FORTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION. March 31, 1882. [Senate Report No. 354.] Mr. Lapham, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1128) entitled "A bill to authorize the Secretary of State to allow for the expenditures of James Rea, late consul at Belfast, Ireland," having considered the same, submit the following report: The committee, after a careful examination, based upon the memorial of the petitioner and the letters of the Secretary of State, find that Mr. Rea was appointed the consul to Belfast on the 16th of April, 1869, and that he entered upon the duties of his office on the 3d day of August, 1869, and served until the 11th of August, 1873. That prior to the time of his taking the charge of said office it was customary, with the knowledge of the State Department, for the officers of said consulate to charge fees for the preparation and verification of certain papers at a sum which, in the aggregate, amounted to from $1,500 to $2,000 per year in addition to the salary of $2,000 provided by law. In that way Mr. Rea's predecessor in office received as a compensation for his services, office rent, and clerk hire about $3,700 per annum. By the act of Congress approved March 3, 1869, the fees aforesaid were abolished, and the net receipts of the office were reduced to the sum of $2,200 per year. Adopting the consular invoice fees during Mr. Rea's incumbency of the office as a basis of computation, the amount he would have received, but for the prohibition of the statute aforesaid, would have been about the sum of $4,500. While Mr. Rea was consul as aforesaid no allowance was provided by law for clerk hire. During the year following his retirement a provision for clerk hire not exceeding $1,500 per year was provided by law, and the salary of the consul was at the same time increased from $2,000 to $2,500 per year. The duties of the office during Mr. Rea's incumbency required the assistance of one or more clerks, the compensation for which Mr. Rea was obliged to pay out of his own salary. During Mr. Rea's incumbency he transmitted to the Treasury about 5 per cent more fees and did about 25 per cent more business than either his predecessor or successor in office, as will appear by the following table: Comparative statement of fees, salary, and allowances received at the several consulates therein named, showing the great disproportion between the compensation and duties of Belfast, as compared with any other consulate in the British Isles, during Mr. Rea's incumbency of it. 1 Made up of a fee of 25 cents allowed to the consul upon each official transaction over and above the legal fee, which was turned into the Treasury; repealed in 1869. "Emolument derived from agencies; this consulate also enjoys the 25-cent fee same as Belfast previous to July, 1869. From agencies. Act giving 20 per cent on salary for office rent went into effect July 1, 1873. • Act allowing $1,500 a year for clerk hire went into effect July 1, 1874. From this table it will be seen that the salary and allowances of Mr. Rea were $1,500 less than those of his predecessor and $2,300 less than his successor received, each doing 25 per cent less work than was performed by Mr. Rea, and also that Mr. Rea's remittances to the Treasury were over $2,000 per annum greater than those of either his predecessor or successor in office. The committee annex copies of letters of Mr. Evarts, late Secretary of State, and of the present Secretary of State, addressed to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, in confirmation of the statements herein made: The Hon. CHARLES G. WILLIAMS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives: SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th instant. It relates to your letter of 13th instant in reference to the claim of Mr. James Rea, formerly consul at Belfast, Ireland, and submits certain questions upon which you desire information. In reply I have to say that Mr. Rea was appointed consul at Belfast on April 16, 1869. By the act of Congress approved March 3, 1869, it was provided that the fee for the verification of invoices should be in full payment for furnishing blank forms of declaration and for making, signing, and sealing the consular certificate; and that any consular officer who, under pretense of charging for blank forms, advice, or clerical services in the preparation of the declaration or certificate, should charge or receive any greater fee, should be punishable with fine and imprisonment. Previous to the date when that act took effect it was known to the Department that it was customary with consular officers to charge a small fee for postage and for the preparation of the papers connected with the verification of an invoice, including the declaration and certificate, and in many cases the preparation of the invoices. The usual charge for this service is understood to have been about the equivalent of 25 cents. The ground for this custom, no doubt, was that, except as to the preparation of the consular certificate, the statutes seemed to contemplate that the invoices and the declaration of the shippers thereto shall be brought to the consulate already prepared for the affixing of the consular certificate, and that it is not a part of the consul's duty himself to prepare these papers. This view had been concurred in by the Department, but upon the passage of the act adverted to, a circular instruction was addressed to consular officers, calling attention to its provisions and directing that they should be complied with. Mr. Rea took charge of the consulate on the 3d of August, 1869, and delivered the office to his successor on the 11th of August, 1873. Taking the consular invoice fees during Mr. Rea's incumbency as a basis of computation, the amount of the income to him from the additional 25 cents would, in the absence of the prohibitory statute, have been about $4,500 during the period. While Mr. Rea was consul at Belfast no allowance was provided for clerk hire. Provision, however, was made by Congress in the year following his retirement, to an amount not exceeding $1,500 a year, of which $1,200 was allowed by the Department. The salary of the consulate was at the same time also increased from $2,000 to $2,500 a year, and since that time an allowance of $300 a year has been provided by statute for the expense of shipping seamen at the consulate. None of these allowances were provided for while Mr. Rea held the office. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, The Hon. CHARLES G. WILLIAMS, WM. M. EVARTS. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th instant, in further reference to the claim of Mr. James Rea, late consul at Belfast, for relief, now before the Judiciary Committee. In reply I have to say that it is believed that the letter addressed to you, under date of the 26th ultimo, on this subject contained the views of the Department on the facts in the case of Mr. Rea. It appeared therefrom that in consequence of the act of Congress, passed shortly before Mr. Rea's appointment, he was prohibited from receiving a part of what had theretofore been the compensation of the office, and that the allowance for clerkship and the increased salary of the consulate, both of which have been subsequently made, on the recommendation of the Department, were not available during Mr. Rea's incumbency. It was stated that by the Department's computation the difference in compensation amounted at least to $4,500. These facts were submitted to you for the information of the committee, in order that such equities as the case may have might receive such attention as the committee should think proper to give them. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, The Hon. HENRY W. LORD, House of Representatives. WM. M. EVARTS. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have the honor to return herein the papers relative to the claim of James Rea, late consul at Belfast, which you left at the Department with a request for copies of such letters as had been addressed to the committee of Congress having the matter under consideration by my predecessors on the subject. In compliance with this request I send you inclosed copies of the letters addressed to Hon. Charles G. Williams, of the Committee on the Judiciary, dated January 26, 1880, and February 9, 1880. 1 To the statements made in these letters I desire to add that, although there has been no material increase in the business of the office since Mr. Rea's incumbency, the salary was immediately after his retirement increased from $2,000 to $2,500; $1,200 was allowed for clerk hire, and $300 for the expense of shipping seamen; aggregating $4,000 for the salary and expenses of the office, while Mr. Rea was allowed but $2,000. From a consideration of all the facts bearing on the matter I am inclined to the belief that the claim of Mr. Rea is a just one, and as such I recommend its favorable consideration by the committee having it in charge. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, FREDERICK T. FRELINGHUYSEN. Your committee further report that in the latter part of the year 1869 the German bark Oberberger-Meister von Winter, Capt. Carl Richard Schmidt, master, arrived at Belfast with a crew of eight American seamen, citizens of the United States. These seamen had been hired by Captain Schmidt in New York for the round trip to Belfast and back. Upon arriving in Belfast Captain Schmidt repudiated his contract with them, forcibly put them off his ship, and turned them adrift in the streets without money or the chance of reshipment, there being a plethora of unemployed men in Belfast and no American vessel in port. In this condition these seamen applied to the United States consul for assistance. The vessel being a German vessel, and the master German, the consul had no jurisdiction over them, but believing that the German consul would take jurisdiction and see that the seamen were protected in their rights, Mr. Rea laid the case before him. After frequent and persistent efforts to obtain redress for them from the German consul without success, Mr. Rea was advised and did bring the case before the Irish court of admiralty in Dublin, which court dismissed the suit on a demurrer to its jurisdiction on the part of the German consul, and referred it back to him for adjudication. The court of admiralty, when all the parties are foreigners, will entertain jurisdiction or dismiss the case in its discretion. The expenses paid by Mr. Rea for the board, lodging, and the necessary disbursements of the admiralty proceedings amounted in the aggregate to £120 9s. 4d. The laws of the United States do not provide for the payment by a consul of expenditures of this kind, however equitable and just they may be. Yet an American consul who failed to do all in his power to protect and redress American seamen, although shipped in a foreign vessel, when wrongfully discharged and left destitute in a foreign port, should receive the censure of the Government. This is one of the items of credit disallowed in the accounts of said Rea, and the United States has brought suit against him and his sureties on his official bond to recover an alleged balance of $4,434, which suit is now pending under a temporary stay of proceedings by order of the Attorney-General to allow the memorialist to apply to Congress for such relief as may be just. The committee, after a thorough examination of the papers submitted to them, are of the opinion that while Mr. Rea has no defense to the action now pending which a court of law would be authorized to receive and allow, yet there are items in his accounts of expenditures made by him in discharge of his official duties which should be allowed according to principles of justice and equity, which would greatly reduce, if not entirely discharge, the balance claimed against him. Your committee therefore recommend the passage of the accompanying bill. [See p. 780.] April 25, 1882. [Senate Report No. 486.] Mr. Johnston, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the biil (S. 137) for the relief of William Schuchardt, United States commercial agent at Piedras Negras, Mexico, have considered the same, and respectfully report: Mr. Schuchardt was formerly commercial agent and is now viceconsul of the United States at Piedras Negras, Mexico. He asks to be paid the sum of $750 for services in procuring testimony, and rendered by him in 1871. Claims were presented against the United States amounting to $11,000,000, which were reduced in settlement to $50,000. Mr. Schuchardt's services were believed to be important by the Government, and in May, 1880, the late Secretary of State wrote to this committee that he is "of the opinion that the charge of $750 is reasonable and quite moderate." The present Secretary of State, Mr. Frelinghuysen, quoting the communication above referred to, says: I agree entirely with my predecessor that "the charge of $750 is reasonable and quite moderate," and, as the amount is justly due, I sincerely trust it may be paid. Your committee therefore report the accompanying bill, and recommend its passage. FORTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION. January 5, 1883. [Senate Report No. 913.] Mr. Windom, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2638) for the relief of J. J. Coffey and Rebecca S. Lewis, mother of Burge Rawle Lewis, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully submit the following report, made to the House of Representatives, in which the committee concur: J. J. Coffey and Burge Rawle Lewis, both clerks in the United States consulategeneral at Shanghai, China, were summoned home in order to testify before the Congressional committee investigating into the conduct of the former consulgeneral, George F. Seward, returning to their posts afterwards by the direction of the Secretary of State. They were not permitted to perform their clerical duties, however, until April, 1880, when they were reinstated. B. R. Lewis has since died, and the petitioner praying for relief, Mrs. R. S. Lewis, is his mother. They ask for compensation for such time as they were not allowed to return to duty, in the sum of $2,000 each. Their statements, as set forth in their petition, are substantiated by the following letter of the State Department: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 17, 1882. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, with inclosures, dated the 24th ultimo, and relating to the case of Messrs. Lewis and Coffey. In reply I have the honor to inform you that the facts set forth in the petition inclosed in your letter (and herewith returned) are corroborated by the records |
