Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

[See pp. 649, 698.)
FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION.

February 7, 1871.

(Senate Report No. 347.] Mr. Sumner, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of Mrs. Francis A. McCauley, praying reimbursement of extraordinary expenses incurred by her husband while consul at Tripoli, have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to report:

The petitioner, after stating that her husband, Daniel S. McCauley, “was obliged to incur expenses far beyond his salary and all allowances made by his Government,” prays Congress to provide for receiving proof of these extraordinary expenses, and making payment of so much as may be proved.

A review of the history of Mrs. McCauley's previous applications to Congress for relief is necessary to explain the position in which she stands.

Mr. McCauley was consul at Tripoli from 1831 to 1848, and consulgeneral at Alexandria from 1848 to 1852, in which latter year he died.

Mrs. McCauley returned to this country, and in the year 1853 began her appeal to Congress.

On the 31st December, 1853, she presented a petition in the House of Representatives, stating that her husband had suffered loss by injuries to his property from the enemy's fire upon the town in the civil war then going on, and by change of residence rendered necessary from the unsafe position of the consular residence, and praying payment of $20,000 on account thereof.

In this petition it appears that she had already received a gratuity of $1,600 from Congress. The petition was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and, February 15, 1854, reported upon adversely.

On the 16th February, 1860, this petition was again introduced, and referred as before. It was not reported on.

With the next Congress, April 14, 1862, Mrs. McCauley appeared with the same petition. This time she was more fortunate, and on the 17th April, 1862, Mr. Crittenden presented a favorable report, with a bill for her relief. (Bill, Thirty-seventh Congress, second session, II. R. 405; do. Report 81.)

On May 16, the bill came before the IIouse for consideration. Mr. Crittenden explained the case at length, and urged the passage of the bill. A considerable debate arose, in which other members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs spoke in opposition. The subject was carefully examined and discussed, when finally a vote was taken and the bill rejected. (Cong. Globe, Thirty-seventh Congress, second session, pp. 2181-2183.)

Mrs. McCauley presented a new petition to the same effect as the former, December 4, 1862. The committee had hardly had time to forget the discussion of the previous May, and on the i1th December reported, with request to be discharged.

Having failed in repeated attempts upon the House, Mrs. McCauley now comes to the Senate with a new draft of the old petition in her hands, and it is this that is now before the committee.

The history of Mrs. McCauley's exertions does not end here. On the 17th of March, 1856, she presented to the lIouse a petition for extra salary due her husband on account of judicial services during

2

the period from 1831 to 1852, claiming the same under the act of August 11, 1848, to carry into effect certain provisions between the United States and China and the Ottoman Porte. The Committee on Foreign Affairs reported adversely August 8,1856 (Thirty-fourth Congress, first session, Report 336). On the 9th of February, 1857, additional papers were filed, but caused no alteration in the decision. On the 12th of January, 1858, this petition was again presented, and additional papers February 23, but no report was made. At the same time she petitioned the Senate, January 27, 1858, for salary for judicial seryices from 1848 to 1852. A favorable report was made, and a bill introduced March 31, 1858, giving her $4,200, which passed both Houses, and was approved March 3, 1859.

During the four years Mrs. McCauley remained quiescent, but she appeared again, petition in hand, March 13, 1862, before the House, this time demanding salary for judicial services from 1831 to 1848. On the 12th of June, 1862, it was ordered that the papers be withdrawn from the files of the House, and June 24 they were presented to the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. July 14 the committee was discharged from their further consideration.

Shortly previous to this, in 1861, Mrs. McCauley had laid her case before the Committee on Claims of the Senate, which had requested to be discharged 24th of January, 1862, and she had obtained leave to withdraw February 10, preparatory to her attempt on the Committee on Foreign Relations, of 24th June, 1862.

Once again Mrs. McCauley's name appeared. She obtained leave to withdraw her papers from the files of the Senate January 31, 1867, they were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations February 4, and February 27 the committee requested to be discharged. Here ended the second claim.

The committee, in deciding upon the petition now before it, might well have been content to rest upon the adverse decision of the House in 1862, when the claim was carefully considered; but they have looked themselves into the circumstances of the case, and do not find that it justifies any measure of relief. The petitioner has nothing to show what expenses were incurred, or their amount, and nothing upon which to estimate the alleged damages. The sum claimed in her former petitions rests upon her opinion of what would be a proper compensation for the annoyances she has suffered.

This case is but one of a familiar class. Consular and other officers are appointed at their own solicitation; they reach their port, find their duties irksome, and their salaries small. They return home and begin their application to Congress for additional compensation. Such appeals should not be encouraged. It should be understood that he who takes an office takes it knowingly cum onere.

Mrs. McCauley's is a chronic case. With an avowed determination of never ceasing her efforts until she obtained from Congress the further allowance she desired, she has presented her case again and again after it has been heard with attention, judged, and rejected.

The following is a statement of the sums paid toor for Mrs. McCauley since her husband's death, not including consular salary: Funeral expenses paid by W. W. Moore, acting consul-general

$259.30 Extra office rent, under act of March 3, 1853.

1,466.08 To enable Mrs. McCauley to return home

750.00 Contingent expenses of consulate from July 1 to October 24, 1858

151.75 Expense of a monument over Mr. McCauley's grave

227.55 Judicial services, act 3d March, 1859

4,200.00 7,054.68

Finally, the Department of State has expressed its decided opinion upon this claim in a communication to the chairman of this committee, dated July 11, 1862.

Mr. Seward says: With regard to the memorial praying compensation for judicial services, upon which the Committee on Foreign Affairs have reported adversely, the Department hardly deems it necessary to express an opinion. It has uniformly refused to sanction any claim on the part of consular officers in the Turkish dominions for judicial services, even under the act of 1848, from a conviction that no such claim was authorized by that act. A sufficient reason, however, for the rejection of the one under consideration might be found in the fact that no such services as those for which compensation is asked by the memorialist are known to have been performed by Mr. McCauley.

Touching the claim for extraordinary expenses, etc., I have the honor to state that it does not appear from the files of this Department that Mr. McCauley's withdrawal to Malta was either authorized or sanctioned, as is alleged in the memorial. Moreover, during his residence there his salary was allowed as usual, and from the proximity of the island to Tripoli, it is not perceived how the consul could have been subjected to expenses in removing thither which his compensation was not fully adequate to cover.

The committee report adversely upon Mrs. McCauley's petition, and recommend that it be indefinitely postponed.

[ocr errors]

February 16, 1871.

[Senate Report No. 367.] Mr. Sumner made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the act for the relief of John W. Massey (H. R. 2095) have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to report:

John W. Massey was appointed and confirmed consul of the United States at Paso del Norte, Mexico, in 1862, and in accordance with instructions from the Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, started for his post.

Having arrived at Fort Leavenworth, he found the road so infested with guerillas that, in accordance with the advice of Generals Halleck and Blunt, he abandoned the attempt to proceed, and returned home, when he tendered his resignation, which was accepted.

In answer to a letter from Mr. Massey, asking whether the traveling expenses he had incurred would be paid by the Department, Mr. Seward replied, under date of July 16, 1862:

It is not, however, in its (the Department's) power to allow the compensation you ask, inasmuch as the fund appropriated for the salaries of consuls can only be applied to the transit allowance when such transit is actually accomplished.

And again, July 31, 1862, Mr. Seward says: Your petition to Congress to be reimbursed the amount actually expended in the honest effort to reach your post would perhaps be favorably considered.

The committee recommend the passage of the act.

FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.

February 20, 1872.

[Senate Report No. 42 ] Mr. Hamlin made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of William Blanchard for relief, having considered the same, submit the following report:

The memorialist, William Blanchard, was United States consul at Melbourne, Australia, in 1862. While in the discharge of his duties as consul evidence was presented to him of a murder alleged to have been committed upon the high seas, on board the American ship Herbert, by Bangs Pepper, jr., first mate, and Thomas Ilull, second mate, of said ship. Said Blanchard, as consul, made application to the colonial government for the extradition of the alleged criminals, which application, after an examination of the witnesses by the colonial government, was granted.

The consul detained ten of the crew of said ship, to be sent to the United States with the prisoners to be used as witnesses in the case. To these witnesses the consul paid board and wages, while so detained, for about two months, the wages amounting to the sum of $219.16. For that sum and an additional sum of $50.50 for clerk hire the memo•rialist asks relief. These sums were disallowed in the settlement of his accounts at the State Department, but the accounting officer of the Department, upon whose report the amount paid for witnesses' wages was disallowed, said:

While the allowance of wages is no more than fair to the witnesses, I am not aware of any law authorizing its payment by the consul.

The amount paid as wages to the witnesses is small, but having been paid by the consul to aid in the promotion of justice and the punishment of crime, your committee believe it eminently just and wise that the same should be allowed and paid him by the Government. Vouchers for the payments are on file in the State Department.

A bill is herewith reported to reimburse the consul for the amount of wages paid to said witnesses, but not including anything for clerk hire.

FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

June 15, 1874.

[Senate Report No. 451.) Mr. Howe submitted the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the bill (S.623) to enable the Secretary of State to pay salaries to certain of the commissioners to the Vienna Exposition, report:

That on the 10th of June, 1872, Congress passed a law, appended hereto and marked A. (Stat., vol. 17, p. 389.)

Under this law an agent was appointed, who designated thirteen assistants, under whose care articles were collected for exhibition and placed on board United States ships designated to carry them to Trieste.

On the 14th of February, 1873, Congress passed a joint resolution, appended and marked B. (Stat., vol. 17, p. 637.)

Under this resolution the commissioners for whose relief the bill is proposed were appointed. The artisans and scientific men had their expenses limited to $1,000. The last clause of the first section limits salaries and expenses of all persons “appointed to places authorized in this resolution” to $50,000 in the aggregate; no one to receive more than $5,000.

The names of the appointees were published by the press a few days after the passage of the resolution, and several of them, it is stated, made their preparations to sail, and one, at least, actually did sail

[ocr errors]

before the receipt of the official notification of appointment. Many of them, it is claimed, supposed, on reading the law, that they were to be allowed salaries, within the discretion of the Secretary of State, in addition to the allowance limited for expenses, and for the following reasons:

They were the only persons "appointed to places authorized in this resolution” who were to receive any money “for expenses or otherwise," and the agents or executive commissioners appointed under the act of June 10, 1872, were cut off by its terms from all compensation. A limit upon expenses, which might otherwise exceed a reasonable sum, did not seem to debar the appointees under the resolution o. 1873 from receiving a compensation, also limited, for their services.

They were to be appointed, under the law, from classes not usually wealthy, and presumably unable, not only to accept honorary positions and to pay their own expenses, but also, without serious loss, to. accept positions in which their necessary expenses, or rather a very limited portion of them, were to be paid, and to leave behind them sources of income on which their families might be dependent.

Their duties, under the law, of investigation and report, were of an arduous nature, requiring special qualifications and occupying a long time in their performance, and in the result of their labors the whole people, as distinguished from the few exhibitors for whose benefit the balance of the $200,000 was appropriated, were interested.

These artisans and scientific men therefore supposed, up to the date of their formal notification of appointment, that they were not only to be (partially) reimbursed for actual expenses incurred, but also to be compensated for their services in the same manner as other Government agents or agents of private parties sent abroad to perform particular duties; and with this understanding several of them, as before stated, made their arrangements as soon as their names were announced in the papers.

Upon the receipt of that formal notification, however, they found that the State Department had placed a different construction on the law, and they then accepted the positions with the promise only of their expenses—"not to exceed $1,000”—at considerable pecuniary sacrifice, as must be evident to anyone familiar with the expense of a European trip.

The duties of the artisans and scientific meu, as specified in the law, were to “attend said exhibition and report their doings and observations” to the President. No duty was required of the honorary commissioners, and it was stated in the debates that none would be expected.

The notification of appointment informed the artisans and scientific men (par. 2) that in performing their duties they would be required to remain in Vienna the entire time of the exhibition, from May 1 to November 1. Although this order was subsequently revoked on representations made by cable from Vienna, it involved some of the appointees in considerable expense, requiring them to reach Vienna at a time when prices were enormously high, and in some cases compelling them, in order to secure quarters at anything like reasonable rates, to pay for them for the entire six months in advance, no portion of which payment, of course, was ever refunded.

Regulations were issued by the State Department and sent out with the commissions. While the law was silent as to the manner of performing their duties, the regulations (chap. 1) required the artisans and scientific men to make certain kinds of reports, not only upon their

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »