hereinafter mentioned, he entered into correspondence direct with that Government touching the protection of the interests and persons of our citizens, copies of which were from time to time transmitted to the Department; that on the 27th August, 1846, Mr. Hamilton was requested by the Department to obtain from the oriental republic a release of any interest it might have in the claim of Commodore Danels on the Government of Colombia; and on the 1st December, 1847, he was instructed to demand of that Republic that the arrears of interest due Messrs. W. Musser & Co., under the arrangement made with Commodore Turner, for gunpowder seized be paid at once, and that the payments to become due be punctually met."

It further appears from said letter that "in February, 1846, Mr. Hamilton, through his agent, presented a claim to that Department for compensation for diplomatic services for seven years, which was rejected on the ground that the act of May 1, 1810, prohibited such payments unless to persons regularly appointed, and, further, that the Department had never regarded Mr. Hamilton as a diplomatic agent of the Government, and, until the presentation of that claim, was not aware that he regarded himself in that light."

All the precedents referred to by the memorialist in support of his claim relate to secretaries of legation performing diplomatic functions in the absence of the minister, except four, two of which provided compensation for consuls performing diplomatic services during the temporary suspension of regular diplomatic relations previously established, and the others to informal agents specially charged with such services. And further, after having caused a careful examination to be made of all the precedents in such cases, your committee have been unable to find a single instance in which such claims have been allowed to United States consuls, except those cases in which, during the temporary absence of the minister, or suspension of diplomatic relations, the consul has been placed in charge of the archives of the legation, or specially instructed to perform such duties.

From this practice, founded in and sustained by considerations of a just and wise policy, your committee find nothing in this case to justify a departure. They therefore recommend that the claim be rejected.

July 10, 1854.

[Senate Report No. 347.]

Mr. Mason made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Lieut. William D. Porter, of the United States Navy, praying that he may be reimbursed for expenses incurred by him in bringing to this country Amin Bey, of the Turkish navy, in the year 1850, have had the same under consideration, and now report:

That after a careful examination of the case, in connection with the report on it, made by the same committee on the 26th of February, 1852, they fully concur in and adopt the same, and report a bill in accordance therewith.

[See Senate Report 97, Thirty-second Congress, first session, p. 644.]

July 13, 1854.

[Senate Report No. 353.]

Mr. Mason made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of William Rich, late secretary of the United States legation in Mexico, have had the same under consideration, and report:

The petitioner represents that he was appointed secretary of legation under the Hon. Robert P. Letcher, United States minister to Mexico; that from the departure of Mr. Letcher, on the 2d August, 1852, to the presentation of his credentials by Mr. Conkling, on the 30th November ensuing, he acted as chargé d'affaires of the United States; that for that period-three months and thirty days-he only received the compensation of a secretary of legation, and now asks that he may be allowed the difference between the compensation of a secretary of legation and that of a chargé d'affaires.

A letter from the Secretary of State, dated May 30, 1854, in answer to inquiries made of him by the committee, fully sustains the statements of the petitioner, and adds that the petitioner rendered faithful and important services whilst acting in the character of chargé d'affaires, and that during the time he so acted there was no other accredited representative in Mexico from this Government.

Your committee find, upon examination, that it has heretofore been the usual practice of Congress to make such allowances in similar cases, and regarding it as right in itself, report a bill in favor of the petitioner, and recommend its passage.

July 13, 1854.

[Senate Report No. 354.]

Mr. Mason made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom were referred the memorials of the Hon. Robert C. Schenck, late United States minister plenipotentiary to the court of Brazil, and the Hon. John S. Pendleton, late United States chargé d'affaires to the Argentine Confederation, praying compensation for services rendered and expenses incurred by them on special missions to other governments than those to which they had been originally accredited, having had the same under consideration, respectfully report:

That it appears from the memorial of Mr. Schenck, that while residing at Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil, in the character of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to that Empire, he received on the 12th day of June, 1852, two letters of special instruction from the Secretary of State (of the United States), dated severally on the 28th and 29th of April, 1852, directing him to repair to Buenos Ayres, in the Argentine Confederation, and to Montevideo, in the oriental Republic of Uruguay, there in conjunction with Mr. John S. Pendleton, the chargé d'affaires of the United States to the Argentine Confederation, to propose to and, if possible, conclude with those respective Governments favorable treaties of commerce, for which purpose he was duly accredited to those Governments with all the attributes of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary.

That, in obedience to the instructions and authority thus given, he hastily prepared and proceeded successively to Montevideo and to Buenos Ayres, joined his colleague (Mr. Pendleton) in the missions at the latter place, and, after being presented and received, opened negotiations on the subject of the mission, which could not, however, at that time be conducted to a favorable result on account of the unsettled state of the Government and country. That, together with Mr. Pendleton, he went thence to Montevideo, opened negotiations with the Republic of Uruguay, and on the 28th of August, 1852, concluded a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation with that Republic. That after having obtained an understanding with General Urquiza, the provisional director and head of the Argentine Confederation, that the negotiations with that Government should be resumed in November following, and that in the meantime no precedence or advantage over the United States should be allowed to any other nation, he returned to his post at the court of Brazil in September, 1852. That the breaking out of civil war and continuance of political disturbances in the Argentine Confederation delayed his return to Buenos Ayres until May, 1853, when there seemed to be a good prospect for the cessation of hostilities, which would enable them to resume the negotiation previously suspended. That upon the pacification of the country-brought about in part by the intervention of his colleague and himself-they succeeded in concluding, on the 10th day of July, 1853, at San Jose de Flores, a perpetual treaty with the Argentine Confederation, securing throughout its limits the navigation of the Rio de la Plata and its great tributaries, free to the merchant flag of all nations, and on the 28th of the same month concluded another treaty, general and perpetual, of friendship, commerce, and navigation with that Confederation, and then returned to his post in Brazil, on the 14th September, 1853.

That while engaged in these special duties he made long voyages by sea and traveled altogether, by land and water, more than 6,000 miles, and that he had to reside for more than six months in two distant capitals while he was obliged to keep up a house and establishment in the expensive city of Rio de Janeiro.

For these services thus rendered the memorialist asks that he may be allowed the usual outfit of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary for each of the special missions on which he was thus employed and also for his actual expenses incurred therein.

The memorial of the Hon. John S. Pendleton sets forth his cooperation in the services above mentioned as the colleague of Mr. Schenck; and further, that in the month of November, 1852, under the instructions of the Department of State of the United States, and clothed with full powers, he proceeded to Asuncion and, in conjunction with the envoys of England, France, Sardinia, and Brazil, after a protracted negotiation, concluded a treaty with the Republic of Paraguay, by which that country was opened to our commerce.

That in performing the duties of these special missions to the oriental Republic of Uruguay and to the Republic of Paraguay he was absent from the Government to which he was originally accredited for more than six months, incurred heavy traveling and other incidental expenses without any diminution, for the time being, of the expense of keeping up his house and establishment at Buenos Ayres, and for these services thus rendered asks that the same compensation may be allowed him that may be granted to his colleague, Mr. Schenck.

Copies of the letters of appointment to the special missions above

mentioned, together with letters of credence to the respective courts, are filed with the memorials, and the several treaties referred to have all been submitted to the Senate for their approval.

To allow the full prayer of the memorialists in these cases would, in the opinion of your committee, be the introduction of a new system of compensation for public services, unsanctioned by the principles of a wise and just economy. The allowance of outfits to our foreign ministers, it is presumed, was not designed to operate as an indirect mode of increasing their compensation, but as means to enable them to fit up at the courts to which they are accredited such establishments as might be suited to their station.

In this case the memorialists had been regularly accredited as the diplomatic representatives of the United States-one as full minister to Brazil and the other as chargé d'affaires to the Argentine Confederation, at which places only did the expense of permanent establishments devolve on them. The special missions on which they were sent were temporary in their character, under letters of credence only to negotiate treaties, and not further accrediting them.

For these reasons your committee are of opinion that the claim for outfits should not be allowed. Believing, however, that the performance of those special services necessarily subjected the memorialists, for the time engaged therein, to a large increase of expense, it would seem to be but just and proper that they should receive full and ample indemnity for those expenses.

The committee understand that their actual expenses, while absent from their posts on the missions spoken of, have been, for the most part, allowed at the Department of State. They consider, however, from the peculiar circumstances of the case and the condition of the countries visited by these gentlemen, that extraordinary expenses may have been incurred, for which no voucher or other evidence than their own statements can be produced, and which the committee consider should be allowed them; and in lieu of the outfits asked the committee recommend, as compensation for this extra service, a per diem at the rate of the established salary of a minister for the time they were so employed, and they report a bill accordingly.

[See pp. 691, 721.]

July 14, 1854.

[Senate Report No. 357.]

Mr. Mason made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of John P. Brown, principal interpreter of the Turkish language to the United States legation at Constantinople, have had the same under consideration and report:

That the petitioner sets forth in his petition that while acting as principal interpreter of the Turkish language to the legation of the United States at Constantinople, he was, on the 30th July, 1852, accredited by an order of the President of the United States chargé d'affaires ad interim to the Ottoman Government by Mr. Marsh, United States minister resident in Turkey; that he filled that office in the absence of any other diplomatic agent of the United States at Constantinople until the return of Mr. Marsh from Greece on the 5th July, 1853; that

on the 13th December, 1853, he was again accredited by order of the President of the United States as chargé d'affaires ad interim to the Ottoman Government by Mr. Marsh on his return to the United States, and continued to act as such until the arrival of Mr. Spencer on the 31st January, 1854; that during the two periods above stated, amounting to twelve months and nineteen days, he performed all the duties and incurred all the expenses incumbent on the representative of the United States; and having received only the compensation of principal interpreter of the Turkish language during that time, he prays that he may be allowed the difference between that compensation and the usual allowance of salary and outfit to a chargé d'affaires.

A letter from the Secretary of State, in answer to inquiries made by the committee and dated May 31, 1854, fully sustains the statements of the petition, and adds:

It gives me pleasure to bear witness to the general merits and services of Mr. Brown as a faithful and efficient officer.

The committee believe that in this case the claimant is justly entitled to receive the compensation of a chargé d'affaires during the time he acted in that capacity, less the amount heretofore received by him as secretary of legation for the same period. They do not allow an outfit because they are not aware of any precedent for such allowance where there was a minister accredited at the post, nor do they think the circumstances of the present application call for it. They report a bill in accordance with these views, and recommend its passage.

[See p. 661.]

July 24, 1854.

[Senate report No. 364.]

Mr. Slidell made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was recommitted the report heretofore made by them on the 1st instant, in the case of Henry S. Sanford, together with some additional documents, have reconsidered the same, and now submit the following supplemental report:

That, in consideration of the vast amount of duty which necessarily devolves upon the secretary of legation at Paris, as evidenced by the correspondence of Mr. Rives, submitted to them, the committee are satisfied that the charges for clerk hire paid by the memorialist, while secretary of legation at Paris, are reasonable, and should be allowed. They therefore submit an amendment to the bill heretofore reported by them in this case, and recommend its adoption.

July 26, 1854.

[Senate Report No. 370.]

Mr. Slidell made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of the executrix of William W. Chew, deceased, late secretary of legation and acting chargé d'affaires at St. Petersburg, have had the same under consideration and now respectfully report:

The testator of the petitioner presented a petition in his lifetime