Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

COMMODORE CHARLES G. RIDGELY.

officer of the naval forces of the United States on the South American station in 1820-21, have had the same under consideration, and now report:

That on he 17th of January, 1837, Mr. Howard, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, to whom this memorial had been referred, made a report thereon, setting forth concisely the facts of the case and the reasons which induced them to recommend the granting of the relief asked for, together with a bill for that purpose. Upon a review of that report, and its comparison with the papers accompanying the memorial, this committee are satisfied that the merits of the case are properly set forth therein. They therefore adopt it as their report, and recommend the passage of the bill herewith reported.

[In the House of Representatives, February 9, 1848.]

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial of Commodore Charles G. Ridgely, praying remuneration for various expenditures incurred by him in 1820-21, respectfully report:

That they have examined the case, and are of the opinion that the memorialist is entitled to relief for the reasons stated in a report made by Mr. Howard, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to the House of Representatives, at the first session of the Twenty-fifth Congress, to which report the committee would respectfully refer the House. The committee have prepared a bill for the relief of the memorialist, which they are of the opinion should pass.

[HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January 17, 1837.]

Mr. Howard, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, made the following report: That during the years 1820 and 1821, whilst Captain Ridgely was in command of the American squadron in 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 of the United States frigate Constellation, under the command of Captain Ridgely; that he incurred considerable expenses in entertaining these guests; that on other occasions he received distinguished Spaniards on board of his squadron, owing to the prevailing unsettled state of things; and that whilst he was affording them a protection, dictated by humanity and warranted by his instructions from the Navy Department, incurred extraordinary expenses in entertaining them; and that he also performed other services during his cruise not falling within the ordinary duties of the commander of a squadron, but demanded by the unsettled condition of public affairs, and the consequent necessity of protecting the substantial interests of his country.

Upon referring to the Navy Department for a knowledge of the instructions under which Captain Ridgely sailed, for the purpose of ascertaining whether his conduct was justified by them, the committee find that a large discretionary power was given (as ought to have been given) to the commanding officer upon such a distant and delicate duty. The Secretary of the Navy directed him, among other things, as follows:

"In touching at the ports of Chile and Peru, and all others in South America, you will ascertain whether the trading or whale ships of the United States are molested in the prosecution of their voyages, and the causes of such molestation, and afford to them all particular relief in cases of need; and at all the ports you may visit make such display of the ship under your command as shall be best calculated to produce impressions favorable to the interests of the United States." "You will visit all the United States ships and vessels you may meet with a view to ascertain their situation and whether they have been interrupted in their lawful pursuits; afford them aid, protection, and security consistently with the laws of nations and the respect due to the existing authorities wherever and whenever such protection and aid shall be needed and can be afforded."

The two following examples are selected amongst the services performed by Captain Ridgely under these general instructions, which appear to the committee

to fall legitimately within their scope. In 1821 a revolution took place at Lima, in Peru, and that city fell into the hands of General San Martin. Immediately preceding the fall of the city the viceroy of Spain, General Pezuela, an old gentleman of 70 years of age, and who had been viceroy of Peru for twelve years, was deposed, and made his escape on board an American merchant ship called the General Brown. He was accompanied by his son in-law, a colonel in the service of the King of Spain, and by his confessor. In a day or two after this event the frigate Constellation arrived, and Captain Ridgely found a determination existing on the part of the commander of the fleet of Chile to capture the General Brown, with the intention of sacrificing the life of this venerable viceroy, and listened, from humanity and policy, to the appeal for protection on board of his ship for the governor who had for so many years presided over the country, and who might, perhaps, be soon called upon to resume his power. All the other ports of Peru were at that time under the Government of Spain, and prudence therefore required that a kind feeling toward the American flag should be maintained in those ports. These persons were received on board of the frigate by Captain Ridgely as his guests, and entertained at his expense until an opportunity was afforded of placing them in safety.

Upon another occasion Mr. Prevost, then at Lima, exhibited to Captain Ridgely a letter which he had received from the master of a large merchant ship belonging to New York, with a very valuable cargo on board, stating that his vessel was taken possession of by the authorities of Guayaquil, and calling for assistance from the civil and military powers of his country. The revolution of Guayaquil at that moment and the absence of all regular government required a speedy and effectual interposition. Although Mr. Prevost was not perhaps strictly accredited according to diplomatic etiquette to the authorities of Guayaquil, yet he was known to be an agent of the American Government, and Captain Ridgely promptly repaired with him to the relief of their countrymen in distress. The union of civil and military interference was too influential to be resisted, and the vessel was released; but the expenses of maintaining Mr. Prevost fell, of course, upon Captain Ridgely, and are properly chargeable to the United States.

These two cases will serve to illustrate the general character of the services rendered by Captain Ridgely under his instructions, and it is unnecessary to enumerate more. The price of provisions is represented to have been enormous. Captain Clack certifies that at the time when the viceroy was received on board flour was selling for $100 per barrel, and other articles proportionately high. Although no precise data exist in the case from which to compute exactly the expense sustained by the commodore, the committee have endeavored to ascertain it, and believe that $6,000 would not be more than a fair allowance. They therefore report a bill for that amount.

[See p. 649, 764.]

March 31, 1858.

[Senate Report No. 145.]

Mr. Foot made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Frances Ann Macauley, widow of Daniel S. Macauley, late United States consul-general at Alexandria, in Egypt, praying compensation for judicial duties performed by her husband under the act of August 11, 1848, have had the same under consideration, and now report:

It appears from the petition that the late Daniel S. Macauley was, on the 14th day of August, 1848, appointed consul-general of the United States at Alexandria, in Egypt, a port belonging to and within the territorial limits of the Turkish Empire; that he continued to hold that office and perform its duties up to the time of his death, on the 26th of October, 1852; that, as consul-general of the United States at that port, certain judicial duties were devolved upon him by the act of Congress entitled "An act to carry into effect certain provisions in the treaties between the United States and China and the Ottoman

Porte, giving certain judicial powers to ministers and consuls of the United States in those countries," approved August 11, 1848.

In reply to a letter of inquiry, addressed to him by the committee, the Secretary of State, under date of February 2, 1858, says:

That Mr. Macauley was consul during the period claimed, and that he performed judicial services in that capacity there is no doubt; but whether any services of that kind entitled the minister or consuls of the United States in the Turkish dominions to extra compensation has always been deemed questionable by this Department, which has never sent to Congress an estimate for such compensation.

The performance of the services by Mr. Macauley, and for the time claimed, is thus clearly established by the letter of the Secretary of State. The only question, therefore, remaining to be considered is, whether, under the act aforesaid of the 11th of August, 1848, he is entitled to the compensation asked for.

After prescribing the nature and character of the duties to be performed by the commissioner and consuls of the United States in China, the eighteenth section of the act provides:

That, in consideration of the duties herein imposed upon the commissioner, there shall be paid to him, out of the Treasury of the United States, annually, the sum of $1,000, in addition to his salary; and there shall also be paid, annually, to each of said consuls, for a like reason, the sum of $1,000, in addition to consular fees.

By the twenty-second section it is further provided:

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 7, 1830, and shall be executed in the dominions 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 powers herein contained, for the purposes above expressed, so far as regards the punishment of crime.

By the twenty-fourth section it is further provided:

That all such officers shall be responsible for their conduct to the United States and to the laws thereof, not only as diplomatic functionaries and commercial functionaries, but as judicial officers when they perform judicial duties, and shall be held liable for all negligences and misconduct as public officers.

From these several provisions of the act under consideration it is evident that the same class of duties and responsibilities are alike devolved upon the diplomatic and consular agents of both countries; and, in the opinion of the committee, it would seem to be but reasonable to suppose that Congress intended to allow the same measure of compensation to each. To determine otherwise would establish an unjust discrimination between public functionaries performing the same duties and incurring the same responsibilities.

For these reasons the committee are of opinion that the claimant is entitled to the relief asked for, and report a bill accordingly.

[See p. 722.] April 13, 1858.

[Senate Report No. 176.]

Mr. Seward made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Townsend Harris, consul-general of the United States in Japan, praying for compensation for his services in negotiating a treaty

of commerce between the Kingdom of Siam and the United States, have had the same under consideration and now report:

It appears from the memorial that, after his appointment as consulgeneral of the United States for Japan, and while preparing to leave the country and repair to his post, Mr. Harris was appointed by the President of the United States a commissioner to negotiate a treaty of commerce with the Kingdom of Siam; that this duty was performed by him in a manner satisfactory to his Government at home, and occupied a period of ten months; during which, not having arrived at his consular post, and no special provision being made for such a case under the general law, he could receive no compensation whatever for his services.

These statements are fully sustained by a letter from the Secretary of State, under date of March 2, 1857, in which the Secretary adds:

It is usual to make compensation to commissioners for negotiating treaties, and I recommend that provision be made for paying Mr. Harris for this service.

Concurring entirely with the Secretary of State in this view, the only question remaining to be considered is as to what amount should be allowed. Referring to the precedents heretofore established, the committee find that it has been usual to allow one year's salary to the officer negotiating a treaty for each treaty negotiated by him, together with a reasonable allowance for the expenses incurred by him, in addition to his regular salary for the time so occupied. Adopting this rule, the committee recommend the allowance of $10,000 as compensation for his services and expenses in negotiating said treaty, which is deemed to be but reasonable, and they report a bill accordingly.

April 16, 1858.

[Senate Report No. 192.]

Mr. Slidell, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of T. Hart Hyatt, United States consul at Amoy, in China, praying compensation for judicial services performed under the act of Congress of August 11, 1848, have had the same under consideration and now report:

It appears from the memorial that Mr. Hyatt was appointed consul of the United States for the port of Amoy, in China, in June, 1853, and still holds that office. That by the act of Congress of August 11, 1848, certain judicial duties were devolved upon him, for which a compensation of $1,000 per annum was allowed by said act in addition to his consular fees. That said compensation was regularly paid to him up to the 1st day of July, 1855, when the act of March 1, 1855, remodeling the diplomatic and consular systems of the United States went into operation. That since that period, for want of an appropriation for that purpose, said compensation has been withheld, and still remains due to him for the interval between the 1st July, 1855, and the 1st January, 1857, when the act of August 18, 1856, entitled "An act to regulate the diplomatic and consular systems of the United States," went into operation.

Your memorialist claims that the compensation for judicial services

under the act of August 11, 1848, was not affected by the act of March 1, 1855. That the fourth section of that act, in changing the mode of compensation from the allowance of official fees to a fixed salary, related exclusively to consular duties and did not embrace those of a judicial character. That the act of August 18, 1856, however, did embrace those duties and repealed the previous mode of compensation, and hence he only claims it up to the 1st January, 1857, when that act went into operation.

It further appears that the memorialist is subjected to a loss of 40 per cent for premium on exchange between Amoy and the United States, and on that score he claims $1,000 in addition, making in all $2,500.

The statements of the memorial are fully supported by the Secretary of State, in a letter under date of April 7, 1858, in which the Secretary adds:

Mr. Hyatt, having rendered the services for which he claims compensation, presented on the 1st of January, 1857, an account for $2,500, dated at Amoy, for compensation for judicial services for one and a half years, namely, $1,500; and for loss in exchange thereon, amounting to $1,000. A copy of Mr. Hyatt's dispatch, together with the account and voucher showing the rate of exchange, drawn in conformity with the consular regulations upon the subject, is herewith communicated.

The views entertained by Mr. Hyatt in regard to the question of the repeal of the provisions of the act of August 11, 1848, granting compensation for judicial services, are in conformity with those entertained by this Department under the opinion of the Attorney-General (dated June 2, 1855), a copy of which is also inclosed. (See pp. 18 and 19.)

Concurring in opinion with the Secretary of State and the late Attorney-General as to the proper construction of the act of March 1, 1855, the committee believe the memorialist entitled to the relief asked for so far as the compensation for judicial services are concerned, reserving the question of the propriety of granting the allowance claimed for losses on exchange for future consideration whenever that matter may be again brought before them. They report a bill in accordance with these views and recommend its passage.

May 11, 1858.

[Senate Report No. 240.]

Mr. Seward made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Auton L. C. Portman, praying compensation for his services as Dutch interpreter for Commodore M. C. Perry, while conducting his late negotiation with the authorities of Japan, have had the same under consideration, and now report:

That, upon a careful review of the report (No. 315) made in this case by this committee at the last session of Congress, and concurring entirely in the views therein presented, they hereby readopt the same, and report a bill in accordance therewith, with a recommendation that it pass.

[See Senate Report 315, Thirty-fourth Congress, third session, p. 689.]

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »