Your committee learn that Mr. Martin died at Lisbon, August 3, 1856, and thereupon the guardian of his three orphan children filed the memorial in their behalf-this claim being their sole inheritance. A bill for their relief was reported to the Senate at the first session of the Thirty-fourth Congress (No. 322), again at the first session of the Thirty-fifth Congress (No. 134), and again at the first session of the Thirty-sixth Congress (No. 273), all of which bills were voted by the Senate. They were all in turn reported on favorably to the House of Representatives, without amendment, but were never reached on the Calendar. Regarding this case as being within the principle heretofore established in the allowance of similar claims, the committee report a bill for the relief of the memorialists and recommend its passage. June 16, 1862. [Senate Report No. 59.] Mr. Sumner made the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Isaac R. Diller, late United States consul at the port of Bremen, Germany, praying compensation for moneys expended by him while in the discharge of his official duties, have had the same under consideration, and now report: It appears from the memorial that Mr. Diller was appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate as consul to Bremen in the year 1857; that he took possession of the consulate on the 1st day of August of that year, and that he continued to perform the duties thereof until the 20th day of September, 1861, a period of four years, one month, and twenty days. That during this period he received as compensation for his services the sum of $2,000 per annum, as provided by the act of August 18, 1856, which was not sufficient to defray his personal expenses, and that he was also called upon to expend his private funds for clerk hire, fuel, and lights, traveling expenses on official business, and the relief of destitute seamen, to the amount of $4,380.55, a reimbursement of which he asks. The inadequacy of the salary which Mr. Diller received and the necessity for employment by him of clerks in order to properly perform his official duties is clearly set forth in a letter from Hon. Lewis Cass, Secretary of State, to Hon. G. W. Hopkins, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, dated January 12, 1859: The compensation attached to the consulate at Bremen [wrote Mr. Cass] is $2,000 per annum, and the consul is not permitted to transact business. The consular fees, which in 1857 amounted to $1,177.27, are, under existing provisions of law. paid into the United States Treasury. A large number of American vessels are constantly arriving in Bremen, requiring the immediate attention not only of the consul himself but one or two clerks, and since the establishment of a line of steamers between New York and Bremen the cousular duties have been largely increased by the number of American travelers arriving and departing. The Bremen office is also made, to some extent, a distributing office for parcels and letters transmitted from the Department to the United States consular and diplomatic officers residing on the Continent, the rate of postage being about 50 per cent less upon mail matter sent directly to Bremen than if forwarded via Liverpool. Bremen is also the principal port from which emigrants take their departure to the United States, the number thus leaving amounting in the first ten months and a half of 1858 to 22,522 and for the first nine and a half months in 1857 to 44,951. It will be readily seen that the time of an intelligent consul must be much occupied in furnishing emigrants with information and in attending to their wants. A competent clerk can not be obtained for less than $600 per annum, which, in consequence of the repeal of the seventh section of the act of August 18, 1856, regulating the diplomatic and consular systems of the United States, must be paid from the compensation provided for the consul. The cost of living in Germany has also, within a few years, largely increased, as will be seen by reference to the accompanying extracts from dispatches of the United States minister at Berlin and the consul-general at Frankfort relating to the consulate at Bremen. Governor Wright, minister at Berlin, informed the Department, in a dispatch dated September 18, 1858, that the consul at Bremen "can not, with the most rigid economy, live upon his present salary," and S. Richer, esq., consul-general at Frankfort, said, in a dispatch dated October 12 of the same year, that, for reasons which he gave at length, it was his "entire conviction that $4,000 salary and $1,000 for office expenses would be no more than a reasonable compensation" for Mr. Diller. The memorialist states that to procure the services of an American citizen as consular clerk, in accordance with the "regulations," who was acquainted with the language of the country, he was compelled to pay his first assistant $600 a year, which he did actually pay during the four years that he held the office, and that the German correspondence relating to emigration occupied nearly the whole of this individual's time during that period. To a second clerk he paid $200 a year, which, he represents, was not a remuneration commensurate with the amount of labor performed but as much as the memorialist was able to pay under the circumstances. The total amount paid by him for clerk hire is shown to have been $3,305.55. The memorialist further represents that he was obliged to expend $120 for fuel and lights for the consular office; that he paid $350 for the relief of destitute American citizens, many of them sent to him by United States consuls in the interior of Germany that they might be sent home; and that his traveling expenses on official business during the period of his consulate were $605. These journeys were to Berlin to consult with the American minister there in relation to the compulsory enlistment of American citizens, to Frankfort to consult with the United States consul there on the transfer of German vessels to the American flag during the Italian war, and to the port of Bremen to ascertain the real nationality of vessels for which United States papers were asked to render them neutrals. The committee having requested the opinion of the Department of State in regard to the above items of expenditure by the memorialist, received in reply a letter from Hon. William II. Seward, Secretary of State, dated April 12, 1862, in which he said: In regard to office expenses "for fuel and lights," I have to state that the Department has never authorized any consul to charge such expenditures to the Government. Neither are consuls allowed to charge the Government their "traveling expenses," unless, which is very rarely the case, they are traveling on public business under the special orders of the Department or of a United States legation. There is no appropriation subject to the disposition of the Department to enable it to refund to ministers and consuls the donations which they may make in charity to destitute American citizens other than seamen. On two occasions a bill for this purpose has passed the Senate but been lost in the House of Representatives, after debate, on the ground that it would lead to a large and constantly increasing expenditure. In this view of the subject the Department fully concurs. Special appropriations have been occasionally made by Congress from time to time for the relief of the consuls at Panama. Habana, Hongkong, and Mauritius for the relief thus afforded to American citizens. At the two places first named American citizens are often overtaken with sickness and thrown destitute upon the charity of the consul and his countrymen. At Bremen, also a port from whence a large part of the emigration to the United States takes its departure, and where naturalized American citizens constantly arrive, there is a large and frequent call upon the consul for his charity. Should it appear that such charitable gifts have been judiciously made, and the proof be such as has been accepted by the accounting officers in adjusting the claims of consuls under similar appropriations to which I have referred above, the Department is of opinion that an appropriation under this head for the relief of Mr. Diller might justly and equitably be made. In regard to clerk hire I have to state that the repeal of the seventh section of the diplomatic and consular act of August 18, 1856, has operated very severely upon many of the consulates at which the consular business is such as to require the employment of clerks whose compensation must be defrayed by the consul himself from his salary. The communications of my predecessors will furnish you with the "opinion" of the Department on this subject. (See House Ex. Doc. No. 68, Thirty-fifth Congress, second session, pp. 3, 5–13, 15–18, 20, 21, 55–62; also, House Ex. Doc. No. 46, Thirty-fifth Congress, second seesion, pp. 1-9; see also House Report No. 564, Thirty-sixth Congress, first session, p. 2; also, manuscript letter dated December 12, 1861, of this Department, addressed to Hon. William P. Fessenden, chairman of Committee on Finance, United States Senate.) The opinions of the Department in regard to the inadequacy of the compensation heretofore paid to the United States consul at Bremen have received confirmation during the present session of Congress, by which it has been increased to $3,000 per annum. The circumstances of the case, in view also of the precedents to which I have referred, are such, in the opinion of the Department, as to warrant the recommendation, which is now made, of an appropriation for the relief of the petitioner. The committee have been unwilling to recognize the claim for fuel and lights; nor can they recognize the claim for travel, except beyond the limits of his consulate. But taking into consideration the inadequacy of his compensation and the meritorious character of much of the services for which the memorialist now seeks remuneration, they think it advisable that the Secretary of State should be directed to audit and settle his accounts on principles of justice and equity, within the limits of $3,000. They report a bill accordingly and recommend its passage. June 24, 1862. [Senate Report No. 61.] Mr. Harris made the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Andrew Ten Broeck, late consul of the United States at Munich, in the Kingdom of Bavaria, respectfully report: That on the 12th day of March, 1859, Mr. Ten Broeck, then being the consul of the United States at Munich, with a salary of $1,000 per annum, was instructed by the Assistant Secretary of State to make certain representations to the Bavarian Government in relation to the compulsory enlistment of American citizens who had emigrated from Bavaria upon their return to that country. That from the date mentioned until the 14th of November, 1861, embracing a period of two years and eight months, a diplomatic correspondence, both voluminous and important in its character and successful in its result, was carried on between Mr. Ten Broeck and the Bavarian authorities. The correspondence itself occupies nearly two volumes of the documents in the State Department. In view of these facts the committee are of opinion that the salary received by Mr. Ten Broeck as consul is an entirely inadequate com pensation for his valuable and laborious services, and they recommend that an additional allowance be made to him at the rate of $1,000 per annum for the period of two years and eight months, the time during which Mr. Ten Broeck was engaged in the duties aforesaid. The committee have accordingly prepared a bill for that purpose and recommend its passage. THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION. February 14, 1863. [Senate Report No. 90.] Mr. Foster, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Elizabeth W. Lott, respectfully beg leave to report: That the petitioner is the widow of the late Peter Lott, esq., who was consul of the United States at Tehuantepec, in the Republic of Mexico, at the time of his death, which occurred on the 10th of March, 1862. The memorial sets forth that Mr. Lott received his commission as consul on the 11th of November, 1861, with instructions as to the duties and requirements of his office from the Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State; that accompanying these instructions was a paper or document signed by Mr. Seward, containing positive assurances that all the actual necessary traveling expenses of the consul to the place of appointment and back again to the United States at the expiration of his term of office should be paid in full by the Government of the United States; that Mr. Lott received said instructions and document on the 25th of November, 1861, and on the 21st day of December then next he, together with the petitioner, sailed from New York for the port of Aspinwall, and that they arrived at the city of Tehuantepec on the 18th day of January, 1862; that Mr. Lott was enfeebled in health by the discomforts and exposure of his voyage, and on the 10th of March following he died, leaving the petitioner in a destitute condition; that she remained at Tehuantepec for about two months, during which time she performed the duties of the office, and on the 20th of May, 1862, started on her return to the United States, and was forty days in reaching New York; that the entire amount of necessary expenditure in traveling to and from and while residing at Tehuantepec was $750 and that the amount of salary allowed by law will not equal that sum; that nothing has yet been received either for salary or expenses, and the petitioner asks that one year's salary, $1,500, may be given to her. The attention of the Secretary of State was called to this petition by one of the members of the committee, and the Secretary addressed to him a letter, of which the following is a copy: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 13, 1863. SIR: In reference to the memorial of Mrs. Elizabeth W. Lott, which you left at the Department yesterday, I have the honor to state that her husband, Peter Lott, was appointed consul of the United States at Tehuantepec, on the 11th of November, 1861, with compensation, under the act of August 2, 1861, at the rate of $1,500 per annum. but neither in his general instructions nor in any paper or document signed by me, accompanying those instructions, was it said that all his actual necessary traveling expenses to the place of his appointment and back again to the United States at the expiration of his term of office should be paid and satisfied in full by the Government of the United States. The 8th section of the act of August 18, 1856, allows compensation to a consul for the time occupied in receiving his instructions, not to exceed 30 days, and in making the transit between the place of his residence when appointed and his post of duty at the commencement and termination of his official service, and as soon as the Department was enabled to establish the precise periods for which compensation should be paid to Mr. Lott, a letter dated 27th May last, a copy of which is inclosed, was addressed to the Fifth Auditor for his information in the adjustment of the account, which adjustment 1 understand has been delayed by the continued absence of a statement of the fees received by Mr. Lott while at his post. If Mrs. Lott can furnish such statement, the balance due to the estate of her husband will be paid to his legal representative. The Department is not aware of any case analogous to that of Mr. Lott's in which Congress has made an appropriation of a year's salary to the legal representatives of a person dying abroad in the service of his country. The memorial of Mrs. Lott is returned herein. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. O. H. BROWNING, Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. The committee can discover no good grounds on which the prayer of the petition can be granted, nor can they recommend any appropriation beyond the amount of salary provided by law in the case. That, as the committee understand, will be paid at the Treasury at any time, on complying with the regulations of the Department. The committee therefore ask to be discharged from further consideration of the petition. [See p. 741.] February 18, 1863. [Senate Report No. 96.] Mr. Sumner made the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Henry P. Blanchard, praying compensation for services performed as marshal for the consular court at Canton, have had the same under consideration, and report: That the memorialist was duly appointed and served as United States marshal for the consular court at Canton, in China, established under the act of August 11, 1848, as is shown by the following copy of a letter on file in the Department of State: UNITED STATES CONSULATE, SIR: At the request of Mr. H. P. Blanchard, desiring me to inform the Department of the period during which he performed the duties of United States marshal at this port, I have to state that Mr. Blanchard entered upon the duties of United States marshal at this port on the 22d day of February, 1858, and continued to perform the duties appertaining to the said office up to the 30th day of August, 1860, the day on which his successor, Mr. F. H. Haskell, was appointed, and whose appointment was approved by Mr. Ward, the United States minister to China. Respectfully, I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant, Hon. LEWIS CASS, Secretary of State. The memorialist states that he accepted the appointment as marshal for the consular court under the belief that a compensation of $1,000 per annum would be paid him for his services. These embraced the perplexing and difficult duties of quelling and settling troubles |