in this Department so far as they are statements of fact and not expressions of opinion; and further, that the petitioners received no salary during the time they were unemployed and awaiting reinstatement.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. PETER V. DEUSTER,

FRED'K T. FRELINGHUYSEN.

Of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives.

In view of the facts as given, the committee deem the claim a just one, and recommend the passage of the bill.

FORTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

March 6, 1884.

[Senate Report No. 278.]

Mr. Miller, of California, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report:

An examination of this case shows that there is no precedent for an allowance of salary after death of a consul, although such allowances have been frequently made by Congress to officers in the diplomatic service. The report of the Fifth Auditor shows that Mr. Moore drew his salary as consul at Callao from October 29, 1882, to July 11, 1883, at the rate of $3,500 per annum, amounting to $2,463.32. To pay for the unexpired portion of the year, as provided for by the resolution, it would require $1,036.68.

The consular and diplomatic appropriation bill of last session made provision for the removal to the United States of the remains of consular and diplomatic officers who have died abroad.

The present law allows the widow for the time necessary for transit, forty days, the sum of $380.44, which she will receive without this resolution.

The wisdom and propriety of making a precedent in the case of a consul such as this joint resolution would make is doubted, and the committee therefore recommend that the resolution be indefinitely postponed.

April 1, 1884.

[Senate Report No. 411.]

Mr. Wilson, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred a joint resolution (S. Res. 14) for the relief of Mrs. Jane Venable, reports the same to the Senate with an amendment, recommending the adoption of the amendment and the passage of the joint resolution.

It appears in this case that William E. Venable, of Tennessee, was commissioned as minister resident of the United States to the Republic of Guatemala March 14, 1857; that he started for his post of official duty in the month of June following; that he arrived at Guatemala on August 2, 1857, and on the next day addressed a note to the authorities of the Government to which he was accredited, signifying his desire to be presented to the President of the Republic; that the ceremony of presentation never transpired, as he was taken sick before it could take place, and died on the 22d day of August, 1857, leaving

as his widow Mrs. Jane Venable, for whose relief the joint resolution herewith reported to the Senate was introduced.

In an affidavit submitted to the committee Mrs. Venable, in relating the facts concerning her husband's death and the circumstances of herself and family, says:

That his death was caused by the change of climate in midsummer, and the fatigue and exposure incident to his journey; that she has knowledge of but few of the particulars of his sickness and death, and can only state that his sickness was contracted and his death ensued while engaged in the performance of his public duties; that none of his effects were returned to her except his gold watch, which is still [in] her family; that he was buried at the seat of government in Guatemala, and that all the money he had with him was used in his burial expenses; that at the time of his appointment he was engaged in a large and lucrative practice of law; that he borrowed money for his outfit, and executed a mortgage upon his property to secure its payment; that by reason of this mortgage debt his estate proved insolvent, and the money collected from the Government by his administrator was applied to his debts, and no part of it ever came to the hands of affiant or her family; that all she ever had of his estate was a dower interest, worth less than $1,000; that at the death of her husband they had six children, five of them girls, and the eldest aged about 15 years; that by her unassisted efforts she has reared and educated her family; that she is now 64 years of age, and two of her children are mainly dependent upon her for support, and that she is entirely without means, save the small dower interest before stated.

The salary of minister resident to Guatemala was $7,500 per annum. The total amount received by Mr. Venable and by the administrator of his estate, as appears from a communication of the Secretary of State submitted to the committee, was $1,863.13, which leaves, as the balance of one year's salary, $5,636.87, which amount the committee, in view of the precedents set in several like cases of death of persons in the diplomatic service of the United States, recommend be allowed to Mrs. Venable.

The committee therefore report an amendment to the joint resolution, reducing the amount stated therein to the said sum of $5,636.87, and recommend the adoption of the same, and the passage of the joint resolution.

May 22, 1884.

[Senate Report No. 566.]

Mr. Miller, of California, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report:

In proposing an amendment to the consular and diplomatic appropriation bill, making an appropriation of $1,054.94 to compensate Mr. John W. Foster, United States minister at Madrid, for time spent under the direction of the President in excess of the ordinary requirement, and an appropriation of $82.88 to compensate Mr. Wickham Hoffman, United States minister at Copenhagen, for extra official services which he was required by the President to perform, the Committee on Foreign Relations beg leave to submit the following extract from a letter from the Department of State to this committee, dated the 21st of March, 1884:

I have the honor to request that provision be made to compensate Mr. John W. Foster, United States minister at Madrid, and Mr. Wickham Hoffman, United States minister at Copenhagen, for extra official services which they were required by the President to perform.

The facts in these cases are as follows:

Mr. Foster was entitled by law to compensation for only thirty days while receiv ing instructions. The importance of his mission and the intricate nature of the

many questions then pending between Spain and the United States necessarily required more than a study of thirty days for comprehension, and the President consequently directed Mr. Foster to continue his study to completion.

The President, moreover, required Mr. Foster to attend General Diaz, of Mexico, who was then the nation's guest, Mr. Foster being preeminently fitted for this service by reason of his years of former association with the Mexican President while United States minister to Mexico.

These two services fully occupied Mr. Foster for a period of thirty-two days beyond the time allowed him for receiving his instructions.

His compensation for that period should, at the rate of his salary, be $1,054.94. Mr. Hoffman's case is entirely analogous. In March last, soon after his appointment as minister, he was directed by the President to accompany the Madagascar envoys from New York to Washington, and care for them here.

He was on that duty six days; otherwise he would have left for his post at the expiration of the thirty days allowed him by law for the reception of instructions. His compensation for that period should, at the rate of his salary, be $82.88. The Government is justly indebted for these two sums, which amount to $1,137.82, and hence I request that early and effective action be taken for their payment.

FORTY-NINTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

[See p. 790.]

February 11, 1886.

[Senate Report No. 105.]

Mr. Saulsbury, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the bill (S. 147) to reimburse George S. Fisher for losses sustained by fire in Japan, November 26, 1866, report as follows:

George S. Fisher was consul at Japan from December, 1861, to 1867, and resided in the city of Kanagawa in a property which he had leased as a residence until June 1, 1863, when he removed, at the request of the governor of that city, to Yokohama, some short distance from Kanagawa. In an extensive fire in Yokohama in 1866 the residence of Mr. Fisher was destroyed and his law library and other property burned. He estimates his loss at over $15,000, and claims that it resulted from his forced removal from Kanagawa at the instance of the governor of that city, and the bill provides for the payment to Mr. Fisher of that amount out of any part of the Japanese indemnity fund remaining in the Treasury of the United States.

From an examination of the papers on file in the State Department it appears that in 1863 serious disturbances existed in Japan, which the governor of Kanagawa was apprehensive might extend to that city and endanger the safety of the American consul and his family, and for that reason he urged his removal to Yokohama, where he supposed he would be more secure.

There is nothing to show that the governor was not sincere in the statements he made which induced Mr. Fisher's removal from Kanagawa to Yokohama. The fire in the latter city was a casualty for which no blame attaches to the Japanese authorities, and for the consequences of which that Government can in nowise be held responsible. Besides, if Mr. Fisher was entitled to indemnity for his loss, there are no funds in the Treasury of the United States belonging to the Japanese Government out of which such indemnity could be paid, and the committee report the bill back with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed.

[See p. 776.]

March 3, 1886.

[Senate Report No. 188.]

Mr. Brown, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report:

This is a claim presented in behalf of William Schuchardt, United States commercial agent at Piedras Negras, Mexico, for the sum of $750, which he claims as compensation for services in obtaining testimony for the use of the United States and Mexican Claims Commission appointed under the convention of July 4, 1860.

It was approved by the Secretary of State in 1880, and again by Mr. Frelinghuysen in 1882, as a just claim. A favorable report was made on it in the House of Representatives in the Forty-fifth Congress by Mr. Bridges, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in the Forty-sixth Congress a similar report was made by Mr. Cox, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in the Forty-seventh Congress a favorable report was made by Mr. Johnston, from the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the bill has passed in both Houses, but at different sessions.

Your committee report back the bill favorably.

March 4, 1886.

[Senate Report No. 194.]

Mr. Sherman, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations having been advised by the Department of State that there is a balance due on salary account for the year 1882, and properly payable, to the legal representatives of Henry Highland Garnet, deceased, late minister resident and consulgeneral to Liberia, which amount was estimated for by the Secretary of the Treasury January 29, 1885 (see House Ex. Doc. No. 153, Fortyeighth Congress, second session), in the sum of $445.40, but which has never yet been appropriated by Congress, beg leave to submit herewith an amendment to the bill making appropriations to supply deficiencies, etc., providing for the payment of the said amount, with recommendation that the same be referred, together with letter of the Secretary of State concerning this matter, to the Committee on Appropriations for consideration, and that it be adopted.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 26, 1886. SIR: I have the honor to bring to the attention of your committee the following statement in regard to a balance of $445.40 due to the estate of Henry Highland Garnet, late deceased minister resident and consul-general of the United States to Liberia, on account of salary for 1882.

In a letter of October 14, 1884, to the First Comptroller of the Treasury, this Department asked that that amount be included in the statement of deficiencies to be made to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in December of that year, to enable the Secretary of State to pay that sum, which was borne on the books of the Treasury to the credit of the late minister, to Mr. Garnet's legal representative, who had made application therefor.

This action was accordingly taken by the Secretary of the Treasury, but up to the present time Congress has failed to make provision to satisfy the claim.

In a letter of June 4, 1885, to the Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. M. J. Durnam, First Comptroller, referred to the failure of Congress to appropriate the necessary amount, and asked whether it was desirable to call the attention of the present session of Congress to the matter.

Reply was made in the affirmative, but, according to a letter from the First Comptroller of the Treasury of the 23d instant, the Secretary of the Treasury declines to report the claim to Congress because of its having been once called to the knowledge of that body. The matter is accordingly referred to me for such action as this Department thinks proper under the circumstances.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the sum of $445.40, due as previously stated, should be immediately appropriated to enable this Department to discharge an outstanding obligation to a deceased diplomatic officer of this Government abroad, whose accounts have been finally audited and closed.

In this view of the case, the Department earnestly hopes that the cooperation of your committee may be promptly extended; and, for its further information, reference is made to House Executive Document No. 153, Forty-eighth Congress, second session, covering a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury dated Janu ary 25, 1885, touching Mr. Garnet's claim for deficiency.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. JOHN F. MILLER,

T. F. BAYARI.

Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate.

March 17, 1886.

[Senate Report No. 234.]

Mr. Evarts, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1008) for the relief of Victor Beauboucher, having considered the same, beg leave to report it back with the recommendation that it pass, submitting herewith the report made by the Committee on Foreign Affairs (House Report No. 28, Forty-ninth Congress, first session), in which they concur, and which they ask may be reprinted and made a part of this report.

[House Report No. 28, Forty-ninth Congress, first session.]

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1008) for the relief of Victor Beauboucher, beg leave respectfully to report:

Victor Beauboucher was, at the time concerned, the consul of the United States at Jerusalem. He received the appointment from President Lincoln, although still a French subject, in recognition of gallant services in the Union Army. In that cause he had lost one of his legs.

In the winter of 1866-67 the colony of misguided Americans who had been led to settle at Jaffa, under the fanatic lead of the Rev. G. J. Adams, were brought to the verge of destitution. They had neither food nor money, nor resources to procure either. Under these circumstances, Beauboucher came to their rescue and made constant trips between Jerusalem and Jaffa, and rendered all the aid he could. He made advances to relieve their immediate necessities and to aid their escape from Palestine to the amount of $3,618.80 in gold. He asks the Government to repay this without interest.

His application, indorsed by Secretary Fish, was transmitted to Senator Sumner, then chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. A bill introduced by Mr. Sumner, granting the relief sought, was passed in the Senate. It seems never to have been pushed in the House, Beauboucher's infirmities and health and possible absence preventing him from giving personal supervision to his case.

The same causes, possibly aided by a feeling of discouragement not unnatural to his race or to anyone else under the circumstances, seems to account for subsequent delay in its prosecution. The committee find in this delay nothing to invalidate their faith in the justice of Beauboucher's demand, which at the time received