The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion submitted by Mr. Foot, on the 30th ultmo, as modified by him on the 20th instant, in rela tion to future sales of the public lands, together with the motion for an indefinite postponement thereof; and after debate,

On motion by Mr. Bell,

The Senate adjourned.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1830.

Mr. Dickerson presented a remonstrance from a number of the inhabitants of Morris county, in New Jersey, against the discontinuance of Sunday mails; and

Ordered, That it be referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

Mr. Marks presented the memorial of the representatives of the religious society, called Quakers, in the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ďelaware, and the Eastern part of Maryland, praying for protection to the Indians against injustice and oppression; and

Ordered, That it be referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Agreeably to notice given, Mr. Rowan asked and obtained leave to bring in a bill to authorize a subscription for stock, on the part of the United States, in the Louisville and Portland Canal Company; which was read; and Ordered, That it pass to a second reading.

Mr. Rowan laid on the table a report of the President and Directors of he Louisville and Portland Canal Company, together with other papers in relation to the last mentioned bill; and

Ordered, That the report be printed.

Mr. Barton, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill, entitled "An act to continue in force An act authorizing certain soldiers in the late war to surrender the bounty lands drawn by them, and to locate others in lieu thereof, and for other purposes;" reported it without amendment.

On motion of Mr. Smith, of Maryland,

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill, entitled "An act making appropriations for the payment of Revolutionary and Invalid pensioners;" and no amendment having been made, it was reported to the Senate; and

Ordered, That it pass to a third reading.

On motion by Mr. Benton,

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion submitted by Mr. Foot on the 30th ultimo, as modified by him on the 20th instant, in relation to future sales of the public lands, together with the motion for an indefinite postponement thereof; and after debate,

On motion by Mr. Burnet,

The Senate adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1830.

Mr. Sprague presented the petition of the inhabitants of the coast and harbors lying between Penobscot Bay and Eastport, in Maine, praying for the erection of a light-house on one of the Swan Islands.

Mr. Clayton presented the petition of the managers of the Mispillion Light-house Company, and other citizens of the State of Delaware, praying

for an appropriation from Congress to aid in the erection of a light-house, at or near the mouth of Mispillion, on the Delaware Bay.

Mr. Silsbee presented the petition of George Cannon, praying a reimbursement of money expended, and payment for services rendered in the Custom House at Nantucket.

Mr. Ruggles presented the petition of the citizens of Port Clinton, in Ohio, praying that a light-house may be erected upon the lower part of the Peninsula, opposite that place.

Ordered, That said petitions be severally referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. Sprague presented the petition of the inhabitants of Winthrop, in Maine, praying that the practice of transporting the mail on the Sabbath may be prohibited by law; and,

Ordered, That it be referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

On motion by Mr. Benton,

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion submitted by Mr. Foot on the 30th ultimo, as modified by him on the 20th instant, in relation to future sales of the public lands, together with the motion for an indefinite postponement thereof; and, after debate,

On motion by Mr. Benton,

The Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1830.

The Vice President communicated a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting statements showing the contracts made by the Department of War, during the year 1829, prepared in obedience to the act of the 21st of April, 1808, "concerning public contracts."

The following written message was yesterday received from the President of the United States, by Mr. Donaldson, his Secretary:

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

I submit to Congress a communication from the Secretary of State, together with the report of the Superintendent of the Patent Office to which it refers, showing the present condition of that office, and suggesting the necessity of further legislative provisions in regard to it; and I recommend the subjects it embraces to the particular attention of Congress.

It will be seen that there is an unexplained deficiency in the accounts which have been rendered at the Treasury, of the fees received at the office, amounting to four thousand two hundred and ninety dollars; and that precautions have been provided to guard against similar delinquencies, in future. Congress will decide on their sufficiency, and whether any legislative aid is necessary upon this branch of the subject referred to in the report. ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, 26th January, 1830.

Ordered, That the message be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The following written message was yesterday received from the President of the United States, by Mr. Donaldson, his Secretary:

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I find it necessary to recommend to Congress a revision of the laws relating to the direct and contingent expenses of our intercourse with foreign na

tions, and particularly of the act of May 1st, 1810, entitled "An act fixing the compensation of public Ministers, and of Consuls residing on the coast of Barbary, and for other purposes."

A letter from the Fifth Auditor of the Treasury to the Secretary of State, herewith transmitted, which notices the difficulties incident to the settlement of the accounts of certain Diplomatic Agents of the United States, serves to show the necessity of this revision. This branch of the Government is incessantly called upon to sanction allowances, which not unfrequently appear to have just and equitable foundations in usage, but which are believed to be incompatible with the provisions of the act of 1810. The letter from the Fifth Auditor contains a description of several claims of this character, which are submitted to Congress as the only tribunal competent to afford the relief to which the parties consider themselves entitled.

Among the most prominent questions of this description are the following:

I. Člaims for outfits by Ministers and Chargés des Affaires, duly appointed by the President and Senate.

The act of 1790, regulating the expenditures for foreign intercourse, provided, "That, exclusive of an outfit, which shall in no case exceed one years full salary to the Minister Plenipotentiary or Chargé d'Affaires to whom the same may be allowed, the President shall not allow to any Minister Plenipotentiary a greater sum than at the rate of nine thousand dollars per annum, as a compensation for all his personal services and other expenses; nor a greater sum for the same than four thousand five hundred dollars per annum to a Chargés des Affaires." By this provision, the maximum of allowance only was fixed, leaving the question as to any outfit, either in whole or in part, to the discretion of the President, to be decided according to circumstances. Under it, a variety of cases occurred, in which outfits, having been given to Diplomatic Agents on their first appointment, afterwards, upon their being transferred to other Courts, or sent upon special and distinct missions, full or half outfits were again allowed.

This act, it will be perceived, although it fixes the maximum of outfit, is altogether silent as to the circumstances under which outfits might be allowed: indeed, the authority to allow them at all is not expressly conveyed, but only incidentally adverted to in limiting the amount. This limitation continued to be the only restriction upon the Executive until 1810: the act of 1790 having been kept in force till that period, by five successive re-enactments, in which it is either referred to by means of its title, or its terms arc repeated verbatim. In 1810, an act passed, wherein the phraseology which had been in use for twenty years is departed from. Fixing the same limits precisely to the amount of salaries and outfits to Ministers and Chargés as had been six times fixed since 1790, it differs from preceding acts by formally conveying an authority to allow an outfit to "a Minister Plenipotentiary or Chargé d'Affaires, on going from the United States to any foreign country;" and, in addition to this specification of the circumstances under which the outfit may be allowed, it contains one of the conditions which shall be requisite to entitle a Chargé or Secretary to the compensation therein provided.

Upon a view of all the circumstances connected with the subject, I cannot permit myself to doubt that it was with reference to the practice of multiplying outfits to the same person, and in the intention of prohibiting it in future, that this act was passed. It being, however, frequently deemed ad

vantageous to transfer Ministers already abroad from one Court to another, or to employ those who were resident at a particular Court upon special occasions elsewhere, it seems to have been considered that it was not the intention of Congress to restrain the Executive from so doing. It was further contended that the President being left free to select for Ministers, citizens, whether at home or abroad, a right on the part of such Ministers to the usual emoluments followed as a matter of course. This view was sustained by the opinion of the law officer of the Government; and the act of 1810 was construed to leave the whole subject of salary and outfit where it found it under the law of 1790; that is to say, completely at the discretion of the President, without any other restriction than the maximum already fixed by that law. This discretion has, from time to time, been exercised by successive Presidents; but, whilst I cannot but consider the restriction in this respect, imposed by the act of 1810, as inexpedient, I cannot feel myself justified in adopting a construction which defeats the only operation of which this part of it seems susceptible: at least not unless Congress, after having the subject distinctly brought to their consideration, should virtually give their assent to that construction. Whatever may be thought of the propriety of giving an outfit to Secretaries of Legation or others, who may be considered as only temporarily charged with the affairs entrusted to them, I am impressed with the justice of such an allowance, in the case of a citizen who happens to be abroad when first appointed, and that of a Minister already in place when the public interest requires his transfer, and from the breaking up of his establishment, and other circumstances connected with the change, he incurs expenses to which he would not otherwise have been subjected.

II. Claims for outfils and salaries by Chargés des Affaires and Secretaries of Legation, who have not been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

By the second section of the act of 1810, it is provided, "That, to entitle any Chargé d'Affaires, or Secretary of any Legation or Embassy to any foreign country, or Secretary of any Minister Plenipotentiary, to the compensation herein before provided, they shall respectively be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; but, in the recess of the Senate, the President is hereby authorized to make such appointments, which shall be submitted to the Senate at the next session thereafter, for their advice and consent; and no compensation shall be allowed to any Chargé d'Affaires, or any of the Secretaries herein before described, who shall not be appointed as aforesaid." Notwithstanding the explicit language of this act, claims for outfits and salaries have been made, and allowed at the Treasury, by Chargés des Affaires and Secretaries of Legation, who had not been appointed in the manner specified. Among the accompanying documents will be found several claims of this description, of which a detailed statement is given in the letter of the Fifth Auditor. The case of Mr William B. Lawrence, late Chargé d'Affaires at London, is of a still more peculiar character, in consequence of his having actually drawn his outfit and salary from the bankers employed by the Government, and from the length of time he officiated in that capacity. Mr, Lawrence's accounts were rendered to the late Administration, but not settled. I have refused to sanction the allowance claimed, because the law does not authorize it; but have refrained from directing any proceedings to compel a reimbursement of the money thus, in my judgment, illegally re

ceived, until an opportunity should be afforded to Congress to pass upon the equity of the claim.

Appropriations are annually and necessarily made "for the contingent expenses of all the missions abroad," and "for the contingent expenses of foreign intercourse,' "and the expenditure of these funds entrusted to the discretion of the President. It is out of those appropriations that allowanees of this character have been claimed, and, it is presumed, made. Deeming, however, that the discretion thus committed to the Executive does not extend to the allowance of charges prohibited by express law, I have felt it my duty to refer all existing claims to the action of Congress, and to submit to their consideration whether any alteration of the law in this respect is

necessary.

III. The allowance of a quarter's salary to Ministers and Chargés des Affaires, to defray their expenses home.

This allowance has been uniformly made, but is without authority by law. Resting in Executive discretion, it has, according to circumstances, been extended to cases where the Ministers died abroad, to defray the return of his family; and was recently claimed in a case where the Minister had no family, on grounds of general equity. A charge of this description can hardly be regarded as a contingent one; and, if allowed at all, must be in lieu of salary. As such, it is altogether arbitrary, although it is not believed that the interests of the Treasury are, upon the whole, much affected by the substitution. In some cases, the allowance is for a longer period than is occupied in the return of the Minister; in others, for one somewhat less; and it seems to do away all inducement to unnecessary delay. The subject is, however, susceptible of positive regulation by law; and it is, on many accounts, highly expedient that it should be placed on that footing. I have, therefore, without directing any alteration in the existing practice, felt it my duty to bring it to your notice.

IV. Travelling and other expenses in following the Court, in cases where its residence is not stationary.

The only Legations by which expenses of this description are incurred and charged are those to Spain and the Netherlands; and to them, they have, on several occasions, been allowed. Among the documents herewith communicated, will be found, with other charges requiring legislative interference, an account for travelling expenses, with a statement of the grounds upon which their reimbursement is claimed. This account has been suspended by the officer of the Treasury to whom its settlement belongs; and as the question will be one of frequent recurrence, I have deemed the occasion a fit one to submit the whole subject to the revision of Congress. The justice of these charges for extraordinary expenses unavoidably incurred, has been admitted by former Administrations, and the claims allowed. My difficulty grows out of the language of the act of 1810, which expressly declares that the salary and outfit it authorizes to the Minister and Charge d' Affaires shall be "a compensation for all his personal services and expenses." The items which ordinarily form the contingent expenses of a foreign mission are of a character distinct from the personal expenses of the Minister. The difficulty of regarding those now referred to in that light is obvious. There are certainly strong considerations of equity in favor of a remuneration for them, at the two Courts where they are alone incurred; and if such should be the opinion of Congress, it is desirable that authority to make it should be expressly conferred by law, rather than continue to rest upon doubtful construction.