« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
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 deirayed 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 dat 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 compensation 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. Sur: 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 oftcial 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 I 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 inade 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,
WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Hon. 0. H. BROWNING,
Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate. 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,
Canton, November 26, 1860. 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 houor to be, sir, your most obedient servant,
OLIVER H. PERRY,
United States Consui. 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 on shipboard with mutinous crews, arresting runaway seamen, adjusting claims of Chinese for damages suffered by them at the hands of drunken American sailors, and procuring the release of kidnaped coolies, who were about being taken from Whampoa in American vessels engaged in that inhuman traffic. For these and other seryices Mr. Blanchard states that he has never received any remuneration, “either from the United States consul or from fees collected, or in any other manner, or from any source whatever." That these services were faithfully performed is shown by the following letter:
BUREAU OF EQUIPMENT AND CLOTHING,
Washington, D. C., November 17, 1862. Henry P. Blanchard, esq., was performing the duties of United States marshal of Canton and Whampoa while I was in command of the U. S. ship Portsmouth in China, and these services were effectually performed.
As Mr. Blanchard has not been able to obtain his pay for these services rendered, I trust that his claim may now receive due attention, and he obtain the usual or allowed compensation.
A. H. FOOTE,
Rear-Admiral, United States Navy. It appears by a letter from the Department of State that when the act of 1818 was passed it was supposed that the officers of consular courts would be remunerated by fees, and that a subsequent act by which the salaries of the marshals of these courts was fixed at $1,000, in addition to fees, did not go into effect until July 1, 1860.
The claim of the memorialist from the 1st of July, 1860, to the close of his term of service on the 30th of August, 1860, has been paid by a special appropriation made by Congress, that portion of his official duties having been legalized by the act of June 22, 1860. He now asks remuneration for his services from February 22, 1848, to July 1, 1860, at the rate of $1,000 per annum, amounting to $2,354.24, that being the balance due him, as the following statement shows: Original claim for salary from February 22, 1858, to August 30, 1860 $2, 520.00 Amount paid by appropriation from July 1, 1860, to August 30, 1860 165.76 Leaving due the amount of salary from February 22, 1858, to July 1, 1860.
2,354. 24 Claims of a similar nature have heretofore been paid. In the deficiency bill approved May 31, 1854, was an appropriation of $1,781.74 to “Thomas M. Johnson, for his services at the port of Shanghai, from the 9th December, 1851, to the 15th September, 1853;" and the consular and diplomatic bill approved May 26, 1860, contained an item, passed on the strong recommendation of General Cass, then Secretary of State, by which $1,760, or so much thereof as might be necessary, was appropriated “to enable the Secretary of State to defray the cost of the prison ship at Canton, in China, from the 1st day of January, 1854, to the 1st day of January, 1857, and for compensation of the marshal of the consular court at Canton, from January 1, 1854, to the 15th of December, 1857.”
It appears that the memorialist was the successor of Mr. James P. Cook, who was by the above act remunerated for his services as marshal of the consular court at Canton from January 1, 1854, to the 15th of December, 1857.” The rebellion having made it necessary for foreigners to leave Canton, the functions of the consular court were suspended from that time until the February following, when the services of the memorialist commenced. While the predecessor of the memorialist has thus been paid by special legislation, his successor received a salary under the act of June 22, 1860.
S. Doc. 231, pt 3.-47
When the claim was before the Senate a few weeks since, it was not denied that in justice and equity the memorialist was entitled to the relief asked for; but it was ruled out of order as an amendment to the deficiency bill, and it was suggested to be a proper case for a private bill. Since then Mr. Blanchard has petitioned for relief.
Your committee, after a full examination of the case, was of the opinion that the facts and the precedents cited show that the memorialist is entitled to relief, and report a bill accordingly, the passage of which they recommend.
[See p. 716.)
February 25, 1863,
[Senate Report No. 107.)
Mr. Sumner made the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred House bill No. 622, for the relief of Francis Dainese, with accompanying papers, praying compensation for judicial services performed by him while consul at Constantinople, under the act approved August 11, 1818, have had the same under consideration, and now report:
That this case has been for many years before Congress; that the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Ilouse of Representatives having considered it and decided in its favor, offered an amendment to the deficiency bill on the 8th of February, 1854, which was adopted, in Committee of the Whole and in the House, but this amendment dropped with the bill, which failed in the Senate; that subsequently the same amendment was attached to the civil and diplomatic bill in the House of Representatives, but was struck off in the Senate; that two reports in favor of the claim were made by the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives, one by Mr. Chandler, of Pennsylvania, and the other by Mr. Burlingame, of Massachusetts, and that during the present session another report in favor of it has been made by the same committee.
It appears from the records and files of the Department of State that the claimant was the recognized incumbent of the United States consulate at Constantinople from the 16th of May, 1849, to the 20th of December, 1852. The present claim is for compensation during this period, on account of alleged judicial services under the statute of 1848. In order to determine the validity of this claim it will be necessary to consider carefully the statute under which it is made. The differences of opinion seem to have arisen from inattention to this statute.
The statute is 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,” and was approved August 11, 1848. (9 Stat. L., 276–280.) By the first section the commissioner and consuls of the United States appointed to reside in China are vested with judicial authority. In subsequent sections (making seventeen in all) this jurisdiction is declared and defined, both in criminal and civil affairs. The commissioner, in addition to his power to make regulations and decreesis authorized to hear and decide all cases, criminal and civil, which inay come before him under the provisions of this act, and to issue all processes necessary to