[See pp. 628, 629.]

NINETEENTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

January 25, 1826.

On petition of Alexander Scott, Mr. Mills reported:

That from the petition and documents referred to them it appears: That some time previous to March, 1812, the said petitioner was appointed by the then President Madison a political or diplomatic agent to Venezuela, in South America.

That he was in the employment of the Government in that capacity until May 31, 1813, and that on settlement of his accounts at the proper Department in December of that year he was allowed compensation at the rate of $2,000 per annum.

The petitioner now asks from Congress a further allowance and states in his petition various facts and arguments tending to show that he sustained great pecuniary injury by undertaking said mission, and that he is entitled as well upon principles of justice as the stipulations of the then Executive to this allowance.

The committee, however, without expressing any opinion upon the merits of the claim, would barely observe that the appointment of the petitioner and the fund for his compensation were under the entire control of the Executive, and from a view of all the facts and circumstances, which must be much better known to the Executive than to Congress, if justice has not already been done to the petitioner, that department has full power to render it. They therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Alexander Scott, and that the petitioner have leave to withdraw his petition and papers.

March 27, 1826.

On petition of Edward Stevens, of St. Croix, Mr. Macon reported: That the petition and accompanying account claim from the United States the sum of $9,400 as a balance due to said Stevens for his salary and for expenses incurred by him between the 10th day of March, 1799, and the 25th day of September, 1801, in the character of consul-general and chargé d'affaires to the authorities of Santo Domingo. That in the year 1804 said Stephens presented to the proper officers of the United States his account, in which he claimed the sum of $27,325, leaving said sum of $9,400 now claimed unpaid until some additional vouchers could be procured and furnished by him. That said Stevens resides in the island of St. Croix and has been very much afflicted with the gout. In consequence of which and of the unsettled state of public affairs in the island of Santo Domingo, where alone the additional vouchers required could be procured, the petitioner never has been enabled to procure any additional documents. The petitioner further represents that such documents as he possessed in 1804 were, with his account, deposited in the proper office, and that afterwards, in the year 1814, they were destroyed by fire. It is likewise represented by said agent that there is justly due to said Stephens the sum of $5,625 in addition to said sum of $9,400, which will be abandoned if said last-mentioned sum is now paid without fur

ther trouble; but if he is compelled to procure vouchers for said $9,400, he will then claim the whole sum due him, amounting to $15,025.

Upon examining the documents which accompanied the petition. and such others as the committee have been able to procure from said Stevens which will authorize this application to Congress, and this would of itself be a decisive objection with them against any allowance being made by virtue of said petition, for, although in this instance no inconvenience might result from it, yet once establish the precedent that an allowance would be made in such cases and the time is not distant when it must either be departed from or numerous frauds would be the consequence.

But, independent of this objection, the committee can see no wisdom which would authorize them to say the United States owed any sum whatever to said Stevens. In 1804 the whole sum appears to have been paid to him which the proper officers then thought the vouchers produced would justify. It is admitted that no additional vouchers have been since produced and that those in existence have been accidentally destroyed, so that no vouchers whatever now exist. If the vouchers produced in 1804 would not authorize the payment of the sum now claimed, your committee are at a loss to know how they would be justified in recommending a law to be passed which would direct such payment without any voucher whatever. Without the neces

sary vouchers to show that the sum claimed is justly due the committee are of the opinion no payment should be made, and if the necessary vouchers are produced no law whatever is necessary to be passed.

The committee beg leave further to state that the suggestion that a larger sum may hereafter be claimed until the present demand is now satisfied ought, in their opinion, to have no influence, because whenever the petitioner shall show that the United States are indebted to him in any sum whatever, as they are able, so it is hoped and believed, they will be willing to satisfy such demand, without regard to its amount.

Upon the whole the committee recommend that said agent have leave to withdraw his petition and the accompanying documents.

[See pp. 627, 629.]

NINETEENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.
January 29, 1827.

On petition of Alexander Scott, Mr. Sanford reported as follows: That from the petition and documents referred to them it appears that some time previous to March, 1812, the said petitioner was appointed by the then President, Madison, a political or diplomatic agent to Venezuela in South America; that he was in the employment of the Government in that capacity until the 31st day of March, 1813, and that on settlement of his accounts at the proper department in December of that year he was allowed compensation at the rate of $2,000 per annum.

The petitioner now asks from Congress a further allowance, and states in his petition various facts and arguments tending to show that he sustained great pecuniary injury by undertaking the said mission, and that he is entitled, as well upon principles of justice as the stipulations of the then Executive, to this allowance.

The Committee, however, without expressing any opinion upon the merits of the claim, would barely observe that the appointment of the petitioner and the fund for his compensation were under the entire control of the Executive, and from a view of all the facts and circumstances, which must be much better known to the Executive than to Congress, if justice has not already been done to the petitioner, that department has full power to render it. They therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Alexander Scott, and that the petitioner have leave to withdraw his petition and paper.

The resolution recommended by this committee was adopted by the Senate on the 17th day of February last.

This committee now entirely concur in the views and opinions expressed by the committee at the last session, and that they accordingly recommend that the following resolution be adopted: Resolved, That the prayer of petitioner be rejected.

[See pp. 627, 628.]

TWENTY-FIRST CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

February 17, 1830.

[Senate Report No. 57.]

Mr. Tazewell made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred a bill that passed the House of Representatives on the 6th of January, 1830, for the relief of Alexander Scott, have, according to order, had the said bill, together with all the documents which accompanied the same, under their consideration, and beg leave to submit to the Senate the following report:

Most of the material facts which exist in this case are stated in a report made to the House of Representatives by a committee of that body on the 10th day of February, 1829, to which report (hereto annexed) this committee beg leave to refer. But while this committee concur with that of the House of Representatives in all the inferences of fact which the latter have deduced from the evidence and documents submitted to them, this committee do not concur in the opinion that these facts justify a recommendation of the passage of this bill, which was reported to and has recently passed the House of Representatives as aforesaid. On the contrary, this committee are of opinion that the facts shown in this case require that the said bill should be rejected.

Alexander Scott, for whose relief this bill is intended, was appointed an agent of the United States at Caracas on the 21st day of March, 1812. After being detained some time in Baltimore by an embargo on all vessels in the ports of the United States, he at length, in the month of May, 1812, departed from thence to perform the objects of his appointment. He arrived at Caracas, where he remained until the month of March, 1813, acquitting himself while there to the entire satisfaction of his Government; but in March, 1813, he was compelled by the Spanish authorities suddenly to leave the country, of which they had then acquired the possession, and he returned to the United

States in the month of May, 1813. Upon his return here he applied at the Treasury Department to have the account for his compensation as agent aforesaid there settled. This settlement was effected by the proper officers of that Department on the 14th of December, 1813, when he was allowed for his services aforesaid, between the 21st of March, 1812, and the 31st of May, 1813, the sum of $2,394.52, being at the rate of $2,000 per annum, and the further sum of $700 on account of his expenses incurred in Baltimore while he was detained there by the embargo aforesaid, and his account was thereupon closed.

In the year 1825 Mr. Scott again applied to the Treasury Department, claiming such an additional compensation to that which had formerly been allowed him as would make his compensation equal to that allowed Mr. Poinsett for a similar period. The foundation of this new claim was an allegation on the part of Mr. Scott that, prior to his departure from the United States, Mr. Monroe, the then Secretary of State, had informed him that his compensation should be at the same rate as that of Mr. Poinsett, who had been previously sent to some other parts of South America on a similar service. That Mr. Poinsett's compensation had not been settled by the Treasury Department in December, 1813, when Mr. Scott's account was closed; but that upon the settlement of Mr. Poinsett's account afterwards he had been allowed a sum equal to $3,000 per annum, which allowance Mr. Scott then also claimed. This application of Mr. Scott was rejected by the proper officers of the United States, to whom it had been submitted.

Failing to obtain from the Executive the additional compensation which he then claimed, Mr. Scott presented a petition to the Senate, praying that Congress would pass a special act granting him the relief he had so asked and been refused. This petition was referred by the Senate to their Committee on Foreign Relations, which committee, on the 25th of January, 1826, made a report to the Senate, asking to be discharged from the further consideration of this subject, and that the petitioner should have leave to withdraw his petition and papers. The Senate considered this report on the 17th of February, 1826, and concurred therein. At the next session of the Senate a similar petition was presented to that body by Mr. Scott, which was again referred to a similar committee. This committee, on the 29th of January, 1827, made a report to the Senate, concluding with a resolution that the prayer of the petitioner ought to be rejected. The Senate considered this report on the next day and then confirmed the resolution so reported.

At the next session of Congress Mr. Scott presented a similar petition to the House of Representatives, where it was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, who, on the 7th of March, 1828, made a report to the House, concluding with a resolution that the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted. The House of Representatives, on the same day, considered the said report and ordered it to be laid on the table. The same application was renewed at the next session, when a more favorable report was made, and a bill for the relief of Mr. Scott was reported on the 10th day of February, 1829. Upon this bill no further action was had at that session; the same application was therefore repeated at the present session of Congress, when the bill now referred to the committee has been passed by the House of Representatives, as has been stated.

No evidence tending to establish any material fact in this case has been now exhibited, which evidence was not exhibited to the proper

executive officers of the Government in 1825, and to the Senate in 1826 and 1827, and to the House of Representatives in 1828, when this subject was under their consideration. This committee therefore deem this a fit occasion to express their opinion that it should be a very strong case indeed which ought to induce the Senate, upon the same facts, to pronounce a decision different from the deliberate decisions previously given by the proper executive officers of the Government, by the Senate itself, and by the House of Representatives, in relation to any private claims. A departure from this general rule must necessarily produce much confusion in the action of the Government upon all subjects and invite the perpetual repetition of the same applications (however improper these may be) until they are granted. Nor, in the opinion of this committee, is there anything in the present case that entitles it to be considered as a proper exception out of such a general rule.

The claim of Mr. Scott was one the nature of which was perfectly understood by the executive officers of the Government when it was preferred to and settled by them in 1813. All the circumstances attending it were then of very recent occurrence and must have been fresh in the recollection of Mr. Monroe, the then Secretary of State, by whom the alleged promise is said to have been made, and who had full discretion and power to have increased the allowance made to Mr. Scott if he had judged it proper so to do. But yet no such allowance was then made. The compensation allowed to Mr. Poinsett was fixed and settled so far back as 1817, when, if there had been any similitude between his and the present case (which in the opinion of this committee there is not), Mr. Scott might then have preferred his application for an increased allowance on the ground upon which he now rests it. But he forebore to do so until the year 1825, when the President, from whom he had received his appointment, and the Secretary of State, with whom the alleged contract is said to have been made, had both retired from office. Being answered by Mr. Clay, the then Secretary of State, that "he did not think it proper to disturb an account so long settled," he prefers his application first to the Senate, where, meeting with an unfavorable reception, it is then presented to the House of Representatives, and again and again repeated to that body, until the present bill has passed. Unless, then, it shall be the opinion of the Senate that it is proper to disturb such accounts as this, after they have been so long settled, this committee are of opinion that the bill in question should be rejected.

April 27, 1830.

Report on memorial of Anne M. Pinkney, widow of the late William Pinkney:

That the memorialist represents that her late husband was sent on a special mission to London, in the month of May, 1806, to be associated with Mr. Monroe, the resident minister there, and carried with him a commission to succeed that gentleman as the resident minister at that court, in case he chose to retire. That Mr. Monroe did retire in about eighteen months after the arrival of Mr. Pinkney in London, and was then succeeded by the latter in the place of resident minister so becoming vacant. That for the special mission Mr. Pinkney was allowed the usual outfit, but for the appointment of resident minis