Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

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 the indorsement of the American minister at Constantinople, Mr. E. Joy Morris, Governor Perham, of Maine, and Mr. Israel Washburn, collector of the port of Portland, who seem to have had a personal acquaintance with and regard for the claimant.

The unhappy colonists, to the number of forty or more, mainly Maine folk, declared their appreciation and gratitude for his services in a letter to him, now in the files of the State Department.

In the Forty-ninth Congress a bill was passed authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to audit Beauboucher's expenditures, and to determine what allowance, if any, should be made to him on account of these advances. The Department of State, having audited the expenditures as requested. find that this sum of $3,618.80 was expended as claimed, but that the money, though expended by Beauboucher, was patriotically furnished by the banking house of A. B. Tyan, then and now, as we are informed, doing business in Jaffa.

The Secretary of State, in a letter addressed to the chairman of the committee, asks that the act be so amended as to permit the payment to the proper person of the money already appropriated."

In accordance with these facts and the request of the Department the committee recommend the passage of the accompanying bill.

Your committee recommend the passage of the bill.

[See pp. 790, 805.]

May 23, 1888.

[Serate Report No. 1363.]

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

Mr. De Leon was United States consul at Egypt from May, 1853, to March, 1861, a period of nearly eight years. He claims that in addition to his regular duties as consul he performed judicial functions, and asks compensation therefor. He cites as a precedent the case of Daniel McCauley, who was his predecessor in office, and to whose widow Congress made the same allowance now claimed by him, and in addition relies upon the treaty with Turkey, ratified in 1830, the treaty with China, ratified in 1844, and the act of Congress of August 11, 1848, making provision for the execution of these treaties. Your committee do not attach much weight to the case of McCauley. Courts, of course, must, as a general rule, be guided in a great degree by precedents and decisions of competent tribunals, where the same question once decided again arises. But there is no such rule and no such reason for it in legislative proceedings. There each case ought to depend upon its merits and upon the law governing it. Mr. De Leon's claim must, therefore, be determined by the question of fact as to whether he rendered the services, and upon the construction of the treaties and law to which reference is above made. For evidence in his behalf Mr. De Leon files two letters-one from Mr. Outrey, now the French minister to the United States, who was at one time connected with the consular service in Egypt, and one from Mr. W. C. Prune-which, however, are very general in their statements. No doubt Mr. De Leon was a good officer and performed his duties with ability and fidelity, but your committee are of opinion that under the provisions of the treaties and law he is not entitled to the compensation now claimed.

And in this connection it must be observed that though he was in office nearly eight years under administrations that appointed him, he never at any time applied for anything more than his regular pay as consul. If he was entitled to the $1,000 a year for judicial services or to any extra allowance, surely then was the time to ask for it, and there was nothing in the way to prevent it. It would seem from this that he himself did not then consider that what he now asks was due him, for if he had he would have asked for it. But it was not till he had been out of office for about seventeen years that he made his first application.

Then let us examine the treaty with Turkey of 1830, that with China of 1844, and the act of Congress of August 11, 1848, passed to put them into execution.

The treaty with Turkey is short and has only one clause, the fourth, in reference to the settlement of disputes or controversies of American citizens, which is in these words, viz:

If litigations and disputes should arise between the subjects of the Sublime Porte and citizens of the United States, the parties shall not be heard, nor shall judgment be pronounced, unless the American dragoman be present. Causes in which the sum may exceed 500 piasters shall be submitted to the Sublime Porte, to be decided according to the laws of equity and justice. Citizens of the United States of America, quietly pursuing their commerce and not being charged or convicted of any crime or offense, shall not be molested; and even when they have committed some offense they shall not be arrested and put in prison by the local authorities, but shall be tried by their minister or consul and punished according to their offense, following in this respect the usage observed toward other Franks. There is nothing, therefore, in the treaty to authorize the exercise of any judicial function in civil cases by any consul in Turkey, but, on the contrary, such cases are to be tried by the local authorities where the amount in controversy is under 500 piasters and by the Sublime Porte himself when over.

But the treaty between the United States and China was a much more important matter and very different in its provisions. Article XXI is very much to the same effect as Article IV of the treaty with Turkey. It is in these words, viz:

Subjects of China who may be guilty of any criminal act toward citizens of the United States shall be arrested and punished by the Chinese authorities according to the laws of China, and citizens of the United States who may commit any crime in China shall be subject to be tried and punished only by the consul or other public functionary of the United States thereto authorized according to the laws of the United States.

Article XXV of the Chinese treaty is the only one relating to civil controversies and rights. These are its provisions, viz:

All questions in regard to rights, whether of property or person, arising between citizens of the United States in China, shall be subject to the jurisdiction and be regulated by the authority of their own Government. And all controversies occurring in China between citizens of the United States and the subjects of any other government shall be regulated by the treaties existing between the United States and such governments, respectively, without interference on the part of China.

And Article XXIV provides:

And if controversies arise between citizens of the United States and subjects of China which can not be amicably settled otherwise, the same shall be examined and decided, conformably to justice and equity, by the public officers of the two nations acting in conjunction.

Thus it will be seen that in Turkey all civil litigation was to be decided by the Porte in person or the local tribunals, with the reservation only of the right of an American dragoman to be present. But

in China matters not criminal were divided into three classes, each to be settled by a different court.

(1) The American authorities had jurisdiction in regard to rights, whether of property or person, between citizens of the United States in China.

(2) All controversies in China between citizens of the United States and any government other than the Chinese were to be regulated by the treaties between the two governments, without interference on the part of China.

(3) Controversies between citizens of the United States and subjects of China were to be examined and decided by the public officers of the two nations acting in conjunction.

On the 11th August, 1848, Congress passed an act "to give effect to the treaties with China and Turkey, giving certain judicial powers to ministers and consuls of the United States in those countries."

It was, of course, competent and proper for Congress to pass constitutional laws to execute its treaties, but it could not by any legislation change them, and any act of Congress which attempted this would be void to that extent. Congress could not give a consul in Turkey the same powers that one in China might have without the consent evidenced by treaty of the Turkish Government.

The first section of the act of August 11, 1848, refers to the Chinese treaty above and gives the commissioner and consuls of the United States in China, in addition to the other "powers and duties imposed upon them by the provisions of said treaty, judicial authority herein described."

The second section refers to criminal proceedings against citizens of the United States in the dominion of China, including Macao.

The third relates to civil proceedings, and the fourth is as follows, viz:

That such jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters shall in all cases be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, which are hereby, so far as is necessary to execute said treaty, extended over all citizens of the United States in China (and over all others to the extent that the terms of the treaty justify or require), so far as such laws are suitable to carry said treaty into effect; but in all cases where such laws are not adapted to the object or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies, the common law shall be extended in like manner over such citizens and others in China; and if defects still remain to be supplied, and neither the common law nor the statutes of the United States furnish appropriate and suitable remedies, the commissioner shall, by decree and regulation, which shall have the force of law, supply such defects and deficiency.

The subsequent sections, down to and including section 21, provide for the machinery of courts and trials.

This is the twenty-second section:

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 Porte of May seventh, eighteen hundred and thirty, and shall be executed in the dominion 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 power herein contained for the purposes above expressed, so far as regards the punishment of crimes.

So that it will be seen that even under this law the consuls in China and in Turkey do not stand on the same footing. In China they were allowed to try both civil and criminal cases; in Turkey criminal only. They were vested with vast powers in China

(1) To know the statute law of the United States and to judge of its applicability to the demands of justice in China.

(2) To understand the common law and administer it where the United States statutes were not sufficient.

(3) Where neither of these would do, then actually to make laws and execute them.

They were invested by this act, conceding it to be constitutional, with legislative, judicial, and executive powers to make, administer, and put into operation laws to affect the property, the liberty, and the lives of American citizens.

The accompanying letters from the Secretary of State, written in response to a request from the subcommittee to whom this case was referred, are submitted as part of this report.

From these it appears that Mr. De Leon, during the eight years of his consulate, only reported one civil case as having been tried by him. This was in July, 1857, and the Attorney-General then held that he could not try civil cases. (See opinion of Attorney-General, vol. 9, p. 256.)

It also appears that Mr. De Leon never at any time while in office made any application for the $1,000 a year now demanded.

This, then, is the situation:

The Department of State has not considered that the consuls in Turkey were entitled to the $1,000 a year for performing judicial functions, and has never in its estimates of appropriation recommended an appropriation for the purpose.

Congress has taken the same view, for no appropriation is made or has been made in annual bills to pay the consuls in Turkey the said sum of $1,000 a year.

Mr. De Leon himself did not think he was entitled to it, for he did not ask it.

Your committee does not think that, under the law and treaties, Mr. De Leon should be paid what he now claims, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of his memorial.

August 22, 1888.

[Senate Report No. 2087.]

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

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1686) for the relief of George S. Fisher, having had the same under consideration, report:

A bill for Mr. Fisher's relief (S. 147) was introduced in the Senate at the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress, considered by the Committee on Foreign Relations, and reported adversely. The committee adopt said report, which is as follows:

[See Senate Report 105, Forty-ninth Congress, first session, p. 779.]

FIFTY-FIRST CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

January 22, 1890.

[Senate Report No. 151.]

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

[See Senate Report 1363, Fiftieth Congress, first session, p. 787.]

Mr. Payne, from the the following report:

[See p. 802.]

April 30, 1890.

[Senate Report No. 811.]

Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted

The committee find that Alexander Campbell, of West Virginia, Richard F. Miller, of Lynchburg, Va., Francis B. Wheeler, of New York City, and Thomas B. Merry, of Portland, Oregon, were appointed "Assistant Commissioners to the Melbourne Centennial International Exposition," which was held from August 1, 1888, to January 1, 1889, and that they attended such exposition and ably and faithfully discharged the duties that devolved upon them to the satisfaction of the chief commissioner and the Department of State; that the necessary expenses incident to such services largely exceeded the estimate of the Secretary of State; that there remains of the appropriation unexpended and not as yet covered into the Treasury $10,570.27, from which it is but reasonable and just that the several amounts specified in the bill should be paid.

The committee therefore recommend the passage of the bill with an amendment providing that said sums shall be in addition to the former allowance.

FIFTY-SECOND CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

[See pp. 799, 805, 807.]

June 15, 1892.

[Senate Report No. 810.]

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

The bill under consideration is for the relief of Mary A. Swift, widow of the late Hon. John F. Swift, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to Japan, who died in that country during the second year of his incumbency of that office. The bill appropriates $12,000 to the beneficiary, being the amount of one year's salary.

There have been many precedents in our diplomatic history where action has been taken by Congress corresponding to that provided for in this bill. Those most readily occurring to the committee include the widows of General Hurlbut and Seth Ledyard Phelps, ministers to Peru in different years, General Kilpatrick, minister to Chile, and Rev. Henry Highland Garnett, minister to Liberia, to each of whom payments were made of a full year's salary, together with many other instances in which smaller payments were authorized to correspond with circumstances of lesser exigency. But the committee has not been able to find any case in which the conditions call for more liberal treatment than that under consideration.

At the time of the appointment of Mr. Swift, Japan, under the guidance of enlightened rulers, was groping through the darkness of centuries of eastern absolutism toward the light and blessings of representative government. This fact and the fact that this wonderful people looked to ours for inspiration and example led to the selection as minister of Mr. Swift, of California, not merely as a gentleman of

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »