ter, as incident to which he claimed another outfit of $9,000 (the usual sum allowed to all such ministers), the President of the United States allowed him one-half that sum only, permitting the claim to the other half to be retained for consideration. The memorialist therefore prays that Congress will allow her, as administratrix aforesaid, the sum of $4,500, being a moiety of the customary outfit as aforesaid, together with interest thereon to be computed from the time the said decedent was entitled to receive the same.

The committee have not considered it necessary to examine into the facts which may constitute this case, or to decide upon any of the questions that may arise thereupon, inasmuch as it is represented in the said memorial itself that the claim now preferred by the memorialist to this body hath already been preferred to the President of the United States, by whom it was properly cognizable, and has not as yet been decided upon by him, but is merely retained for further consideration. The committee therefore recommend to the Senate the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from the further consideration of the memorial of Mrs. Anne M. Pinkney, widow and administratrix of William Pinkney, deceased, and that the same be referred to the President of the United States. (Leg. Jour., p. 271.)

[See p. 696.]

TWENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

June 13, 1836.

On petition of Charles Ridgely, Mr. Clay reported as follows: It appears that during the years 1820 and 1821, while Captain Ridgeley was in command of the American squadron on the Pacific Ocean, and when war was raging in Peru and Chile, the Spanish viceroy having been deposed sought a temporary refuge with his suite and attendants on board the U. S. frigate Constellation, under the command of Captain Ridgely.

That he incurred considerable expense in entertaining these guests; that, on other occasions, he received distinguished Spaniards on board his squadron, owing to the prevailing unsettled state of things, and whilst he was affording them a protection, dictated by humanity, and warranted by the amicable relations existing between the United States and Spain, incurred extraordinary expenses in entertaining them; and that Captain Ridgely performed other services, during his cruise, not falling within the strict line of duty.

While the committee believe that there may be occasions when, without a neglect of the duties of humanity (and some such occurred as above stated), the commanders of our squadron on distant service can not avoid incurring unnecessary expense, for which they ought to be remunerated, the committee think that these occasions ought to be always strictly examined, and that they should not be unnecessarily multiplied nor, at any time, made for useless parade, nor for laying the foundation of a subsequent claim for extra allowance. The committee does not intend to say that this was done by Captain Ridgely; on the contrary it has no reason to believe that he has done anything

which was not suitable to the case, the character of his country, and of his vocation.

The committee are of the opinion that Captain Ridgely ought to be remunerated for all expenses which he incurred in the instances referred to not arising out of the regular line of his official duty; but the committee possesses no adequate data upon which it could recommend to the Senate to make him the specific allowance to which he is entitled. This is the less necessary, as, in the opinion of the committee, it is competent to the Secretary of State or the Navy, out of the appropriations annually made for contingencies, to make him a just and proper allowance. The committee therefore propose the following resolution:

Resolved, That Captain Ridgely is entitled to a just remuneration for the extraordinary expenses incurred by him on the occasions herein alluded to, after they are ascertained by the proper accounting officers, and that as such remuneration may be made out of appropriations annually made, the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from further considering the said petition.

TWENTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.

January 22, 1838.

[Senate Report No. 123.]

Mr. Buchanan submitted the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom were referred the memorial and accompanying documents of Gen. Thomas Sumter, of South Carolina, report:

That although the documents are very voluminous, from the view which they have taken of the subject, there is is but one important point for consideration, which they will endeavor to present in a distinct form to the Senate.

General Sumter was the minister plenipotentiary of the United States to Brazil from ths 9th of July, 1809, until the 24th of July, 1819. Upon a settlement of his accounts on the 20th of June, 1821, after his return home, a balance was found against him of $5,629.69.

Two claims made by him were rejected upon this settlement-the one for the sum of $1,350, the amount of the salary of Mr. Lewis Pintard for the year 1810, under the act of May 10, 1800, and the other for the sum of $17,631.28 for the salary of a secretary of legation under the act of May 1, 1810, at the rate of $2,000 per annum, from the 1st of January, 1811, until the 24th of October, 1819. It is manifest that if these two sums had been allowed, the United States would have been largely indebted to General Sumter.

Your committee are clearly of opinion that the first sum of $1,350 was correctly disallowed, and this claim is now abandoned by the memorialist.

From the 1st of January, 1811, until the close of General Sumter's mission there was no secretary of legation to Brazil. After the passage of the act of 1810 a commission was sent to Lewis Pintard, but he refused to accept it. General Sumter made several efforts to have the vacancy filled, but the President of the United States never complied with his request. It is manifest, then, that he had no legal right

to be allowed this sum of $17,631.28 as the salary of a secretary of legation, and such was the decision of President Monroe on the 13th of June, 1821, in his letter of that date to the Secretary of State. After this decision the question immediately arose, which was suggested in this letter of the President. The memorialist contended, and still contends, that the Government at first by allowing him a secretary and afterwards by sending that secretary a commission as secretary of legation under the act of 1810 had recognized the necessity of such an officer, and that, in point of fact, from the various and pressing business of the legation he was obliged to incur expenses in having his duties performed equal in amount to his salary. Mr. Monroe certainly regarded this claim with favor, at least to the extent of $1,350 per annum, as is evident from his letter to the Secretary of State, dated on the 29th June, 1821, a copy of which follows:

OAK HILL, June 29, 1821.

DEAR SIR: As I propose to set out for the city to-morrow, I shall notice in this that part of yours of yesterday only which relates to Mr. Sumter. In my former letter I objected to the payment to him of the salary of a secretary, not thinking it justifiable; but admitted, as well as I recollect, that he might have a just claim for advances which he might have made to those who rendered him the services of that kind. Since it is believed that he will have a well-founded claim for the sum which would have been paid to a secretary. I can see no objection to an allowance for the present of the sum which you mention; that is, for $6,263.50. It will give me great pleasure to afford him every accommodation which the law and precedent will justify.

With sincere regard, yours,

JAMES MONROE.

General Sumter received from the Department of State the following notification of Mr. Monroe's decision:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, June 30, 1821.

SIR: I have great pleasure in stating to you, by direction of the Secretary of State, that the President consents to the advance requested by you of $6,263 50. The claim on which it is grounded remains, at the same time, suspended for future decision.

With great respect, I am, sir, your very humble and obedient servant,

THOMAS SUMTER, Esq.

JOHN BAILEY.

On the 3d July, 1821, General Sumter receipted for this sum, as follows:

$6,263.50.

WASHINGTON, July 3, 1821.

Received of Fontaine Maury, agent, the sum of $6,263.50 on account and as late minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Rio de Janeiro, being the amount directed to be paid to me by the President of the United States, to be accounted for in the final adjustment and settlement of my accounts with the Treasury of the United States.

THOMAS SUMTER, Jr.

It will be observed that this sum of $6,263.50 advanced by order of Mr. Monroe to the memorialist, added to the balance found due against him on the former settlement of his account of $5,629.69 amount, together to the very sum, or within a dollar or two of it, of the salary of a secretary at the rate of $1,350 per annum, the sum to which Mr. Sumter's secretary was entitled at the time he left the United States. Mr. Monroe states in his letter:

Since it is believed that he (Mr. Sumter) will have a well-founded claim for the sum which would have been paid to a secretary, I can see no objection to an allowance for the present of the sum which you mention; that is, for $6,263.50.

The committee entertain no doubt but that considerable expenses were incurred by General Sumpter in procuring the services of a secretary, but to what amount it is impossible for them to say, because no vouchers have been produced from which it can be ascertained. In 1821, when all the facts of the case were fresh, it appears that Mr. Monroe thought these expenses, from the 1st of January, 1811, until the 24th October, 1819, would amount at least to the sum of $6,263.50, more than the balance of $5,629.69, which had been found against the accountant on the settlement of his account; otherwise he would not have ordered the payment to him of the former sum.

In fixing a proper estimate of the expenses which the memorialist must have incurred for the want of a secretary the committee have taken into consideration that when he departed from the United States upon his mission, the act of May 10, 1800, ascertaining the compensation of public ministers, was still in force, under which the salary of his secretary was $1,350 per annum. Under this law the secretary was the secretary of the minister and not of the legation. General Sumpter has been perhaps the only minister plenipotentiary of the United States, since the act of 1810, who never had a secretary of legation; and from the great variety of consular and other business to which he was obliged to attend, independently of that which properly belonged to the mission, the committee believe that it would be reasonable to allow him at the rate of $1,350 per annum, as an equivalent for the expenses which he incurred in procuring the services which would have been rendered by a secretary of legation, especially as this seems to have been the opinion of Mr. Monroe. They can not allow him his claim on this account for $2,000 per annum because they deem it extravagant; notwithstanding it does appear, as he states, that he had authority to draw for $11,000 per annum, which is equal to the salary of a minister and secretary of legation, although no secretary of legation had ever been appointed. He ought to have been governed in his expenses by the law and not by the amount for which he had authority to draw; and if he has incurred greater expenses on that account, he alone ought to be the sufferer.

But General Sumpter has brought forward other large claims for services rendered in performing consular duties at Rio, for a period of about seven years, for performing the duties of an agent for prisoners during the late war, and for other services, which need not be enumerated. The committee can not allow any portion of these. They have recommended the allowance of $1,350 per annum for the very reason that he had many arduous duties to perform, requiring the aid of a secretary. To give him this sum, and in addition to it to pay him for performing the very services which this allowance was intended to cover, would be unreasonable. They therefore have considered it a matter of just and prudent precaution in making this allowance to stipulate that it shall be done on condition that he will execute a release to the Government of all claims and demands which he may have against the United States on any account whatever. This is required for the express purpose of preventing these old and intricate claims from again occupying the time and attention of Congress.

They therefore report the following bill.

(Leg. Jour., p. 162.)

TWENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

April 29, 1840.

[Senate Report No. 443.]

Mr. Allen made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, charged with the memorial of William D. Jones, have considered the matter of that memorial, and now report:

That in February, 1836, Mr. Jones was appointed from the United States as consul at the City of Mexico, repaired there, and entered upon his duties accordingly. About the 28th of December of the same year Mr. Ellis, the American chargé d'affaires at Mexico, left that court in obedience to the orders of the President of the United States, who deemed the conduct of the Mexican Government such as to make it his duty thus to suspend diplomatic intercourse between the two Governments. Prior to the departure of Mr. Ellis, the many acts of injustice committed upon the persons and the numerous confiscations of the property of American citizens in Mexico by the authorities, or by persons assuming to act under the authority of that Government, had been the subjects of unavailing negotiation. When it was known to them that Mr. Ellis was about to return to the United States, it was but natural that our citizens should feel an increased solicitude, not only about injuries left unredressed, but in apprehension of others to which they were now to be exposed in the absence of all present protection from their own Government. They therefore, it appears, made an appeal to Mr. Jones, who was also about to return to the United States, and by their importunities prevailed upon him to remain in Mexico in his character as consul. In this character Mr. Jones seems, from his very elaborate and voluminous correspondence with his own Government and with that of Mexico (the originals of which have been, by the Secretary of State, submitted to the committee), to have discharged all the duties which, had our chargé d'affaires remained, would have belonged to him; and to have discharged them, too, in a manner which, it would appear to the committee, must have been in the highest degree beneficial to our citizens there and satisfactory to our Government. He continued to discharge these duties from the departure of Mr. Ellis from Mexico, about the 28th of December, 1836, until Mr. Ellis returned there and was accredited as minister, about the 7th of July, 1839, being a period of two years six months and ten days.

The committee are therefore unanimously of opinion that Mr. Jones should be allowed the salary of a chargé d'affaires for the time he was so engaged. Such, it is believed, has been the uniform practice of the Government in like cases; and the committee therefore submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That this report be referred to the Committee on Finance.

WASHINGTON, March 4, 1840.

SIR: I take the liberty of requesting that you will be pleased to lay before the Committee on Foreign Affairs the subject of my claim upon our Government for diplomatic services at Mexico while consul of the United States at that place, from the time that Powhatan Ellis, esq., left that capital, say on the 28th of December, 1836, until his return and being accredited as the minister of the United States by that Government, on the 7th of July, 1839.