33D CONG....2D SESS.

Hamilton had the usual lights set, and a man on the lookout, who warned the steamer to keep off. It would cost from £3,000 to £4,000 to repair the ship, and the Captain has sued the steamer for damages. The same steamer was afterward in collision with a bark, and had to put into Liverpool for repairs."

Such being the weak materials of these light passenger ships, let us look at their fastening. They are not through bolted; that is, the outside plank is spiked and tree-nailed (or pegged) to the timbers only, and not through the inside or ceiling plank; and these inside plank, in like manner are unconnected with the outside plank. Now, in our new steam frigates, and I have most carefully gone over, step by step, the one in progress at this navy-yard, every outside plank has two cop. per bolts going through every frame which it crosses, and through the inside plank where it is riveted, besides two short bolts.

The knees, those most important parts, upon which the general strength so much depends, are not bolted through the outside plank or wales to give the requisite strength, as is universally the case with our substantial naval ships; and they have so much iron fastening in them, that, taken in connection with their general structure for lightness and speed, it can hardly be expected that they will last over ten years of good service.

Naval steamships, constructed for fighting, giving and receiving broadsides, can never attain the speed of merchant ships built for no such purpose.

A ship of war must not only possess the power to destroy an adversary, but she must herself be able to withstand his shock. Consequently her boiler and all other vital parts of her machinery must be placed below the water-line, out of his reach, and when this is done, no very great speed is attainable; and hence it must be that the merchant steamers of all nations must greatly excel in speed their naval steamers. The boilers of the Collins ships built high for greater steam surface, project far above the lower deck, and consequently not only is the boiler exposed to every shot, but the beams uniting the sides of the ship, are cut away to make room for it. The shaft of their paddle-wheels is three feet at least above the main deck; and this brings a large portion of the machinery above the main deck. Thus it will be seen that, to obtain speed, the boiler and the shaft are, in these ships, necessarily placed so high that for a length of near one hundred feet amid-ships of these so-called war steamers, there are but three beams in each of their two decks; and it is on one of these decks that it is proposed to mount the guns-guns which weigh, with their carriages,

each ten tons.

But, Mr. President, I will not go further into these details; for surely I have said enough to show gentlemen their light, buoyant, and elegant structure, so admirably adapted to speed, but so unsuited for war purposes. The Senator from Michigan has produced here a letter written by Commodore Perry two years ago, and one written by Commodore Stewart a few days ago, since this subject was agitated in Congress, both apparently sustaining the character of these ships as war vessels. Sr, I have a high regard for Commodore Stewart. I feel towards him, sir, as every American should feel towards one who has done so much to establish and maintain his country's honor. But yet, sir, great names have with me but little weight when unsustained by reason; and unless the conclusions to which Commodore Stewart arrives are supported by other arguments than those given in this letter, I must be pardoned for adhering to my own judgment. I do not think that Commodore Perry would dissent from any fact I have stated to-night, or from any conclusion I have drawn from them; nor can I perceive, taking his letter and his various other official reports and letters upon these ships together, that there is any essential difference in our views.

And, sir, let me tell my honorable friends from Michigan and Texas [Mr. STUART and Mr. RUSK] that, when it became apparent to the British Government that war with Russia was inevitable, and she began to count up her available resources, her side-wheel ships were not held or enumerated aswar steamers," but as transports. A board of experienced officers examined the whole subject of naval warfare, and reported against the ability of side wheels for war purposes. Britain at once began to put propellers into her sailing ships,

proaching when they will demand thorough and most expensive repairs; and it is just at this particular time that a prudent owner would seek to get rid of them, and that a prudent purchaser would avoid them; for the attempt to repair an old steamship, in this progressive day, after hard usage, and built of light, mixed, and unseasoned materials, is very much like having the wolf by the ears, it is useless to hold on, and perilous to let her go.

and she now has the most powerful fleet of war
ships that ever floated. None of them have at-
tained anything like the speed of the Collins
ships. They are sailing ships with an auxiliary
screw, and their steam power is secondary to their
sailing power. These heavy ships of Britain and
France, possessing, as they do, all the power,
advantages, and ability of thoroughly appointed
sailing liners, with an auxiliary steam power of
from four to seven knots, are the most formidable
naval batteries afloat. All their machinery is below
the water line, secure from shot; and should they,
in any close hand to hand struggle, like those of
Trafalgar, Navarino, or the Nile, have every spar
shot away, and their hulls above water riddled
with shot, so far from impairing their efficiency,
their submerged machinery would but drive them
the faster, and their tremendous batteries would
still be as deadly. These ships are striking illus-struction; for sailing qualities, buoyancy, and ca-
trations of the remark of one of England's brilliant
naval commanders-Captain Plunkett, I think-
that "a side-wheel ship paddles best without her
sails, and sails best without her paddles; whereas
a propeller screws best with her sails, and sails best
with her screw.'

The honorable Senator from Michigan, Mr. President, says that all the money which has been expended for our naval ships might as well have been thrown into the sea. This is a very strange remark. Why, sir, it will sound strangely in the ears, not only of our own naval men, but of those of Europe. Does not the honorable Senator know that our naval ships, for model, material, and con

pacity for carrying their batteries, crews, and provisions; for strength and durability; in short, for the combined excellencies of naval ships, are acknowledged by the naval Powers of Europe to have no superiors. Our ships have ever been the admiration of all foreign officers, and at this very hour, while the honorable Senator from Michigan denounces them, they challenge comparison with the ships of all other nations.

Our steam machines have sometimes failed, but the reason is obvious. We have no national machine shops except the limited establishment at this navy-yard; and, relying upon contracts for our steam machinery, we are too frequently imposed upon in its quality and workmanship. But, sir, let me say to the honorable Senator that our frigate Mississippi, side-wheel as she is, and therefore unfit to fight, has done more service for the same expenditure of money than any steamer, merchant or otherwise, that floats. Burning but from twenty to thirty tons of coal per day, under full steam, she has great power, and has performed services of the greatest value to the country. Let me refer him, too, to the San Jacinto, of which accounts have reached me to-day. She is a magnificent ship in all respects; makes twelve knots under canvas alone; and recently, when two of three blades of her propeller broke off, leaving her with but one, she made very good headway under steam_with that one. The honorable Senator from Texas alluded to the battles of the last war as being fought by men who had learned their profession before the mast

Mr. President, in further reply to the assertions so broadly made, of the ability of these Collins ships to engage in naval battles upon the sea with ships of equal size, I will observe, that, in my judgment, the perfection of a war ship would be a combination of the greatest known speed and the heaviest known battery in one vessel; or, in other words, a ship of a hundred and forty heavy guns having the speed of the Collins ships. But this, from the very nature and requirements of the subject, has not been, nor does it seem likely to be, attained; and we must combine these two elements of power-speed and battery-in such manner as will best accomplish the particular end in view. This country must always maintain a certain number of ships in foreign and distant seas, and necessarily upon protracted cruises. Without colonies, coal depots, or refitting stations, (with which Britain and France are so well supplied,) these ships must have the ability to maintain themselves at sea without resort to port. They must be manned, provisioned, and furnished with all things needful and necessary for a long voyage and constant efficiency. Such ships must be large, with heavy batteries. The space allotted to coals must be comparatively small, and steam, which must be auxiliary only to their sailing qualities, must be resorted to only upon special emergencies. They cannot steam fast; for, in the first place, the space below the water line, allotted to machinery and the size of the boiler, must be limited, while the consumption of fuel must be reduced to the minimum quantity. In such ships, therefore, we must sacrifice speed for battery. But the ships of our coast wise or home squadron, whose operations are confined to our own seas and shores, whose cruises from port may be limited to a few days, with ship-yards, and coal depots, and work-shops ever under their lea, such ships are required to be fast; they are the eyes of the country; and their glances at anything approaching our shores should be rapidly taken. Here, then, we may well sacrifice battery for speed; but it must be a speed combined with powers of defense and endurance. The speed of the Collins ships, so long as their fuel lasted, would certainly enable them to escape an Mr. RUSK. If there had been no sailors on enemy, or evade an engagement, which their ex- board any of the vessels which fought during the posed and defenseless hulls and machinery would || last war who had acquired their profession in the render fatal; for the breaking of a crank, or the merchant marine, does he think there would have bursting of a steam pipe or boiler-an enemy's been a single victory? broadside at close quarters could hardly fail to do this-would leave them as helpless upon the sea as a crippled bird.

If it shall appear, Mr. President, that our public service requires such ships as these, it is the dictate of wisdom and economy to build them ourselves, and in doing so, to make those improvements and avoid those errors which experience has taught us. These ships already show evidences of weakness and decay. One of them, if my memory serves me correctly, is running her third shaft, and their repairs, as shown by the exhibits of Mr. Collins, are frequent and expensive. I presume a proposition will be made before long to dispose of them to the Government; but I trust that we shall have wisdom enough to crush any such folly. The time is rapidly ap

Mr. RUSK. The Senator from South Carolina said it was not the merchant marine, but the officers of the Navy who fought the last war; and my remarks were in answer to that statement.

Mr. MALLORY. Well, sir, the Senator is right in saying that his remarks were based on what was said by the Senator from South Carolina; but in reply, I will remark that the national reputation which we have as a naval power rests, not upon one or all of the battles fought by our merchant seamen, but upon those fought by our Navy. When we entered upon the last war, we did so with many misgivings as to the results. In the language of a noble statesman, we went into it feeble, and as it were with but a sling in our hands. Mr. RUSK. Will the honorable Senator allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. MALLORY. Certainly.

Mr. MALLORY. The Senator and myself agree perfectly that the merchant marine is the school for seamen, not in our own country alone, but in every country. It is that school to which we naturally look for seamen; and we should cherish and nurture it, and protect it, as the school from which our naval seamen are to be drawn. Our seamen of the last war were nurtured in the commercial marine, but not of our country alone; for we had men in our Navy from all parts of the habitable globe, although we professed to have none but Americans born; and we had men, too, of every color. But, sir, what I do say is, that no single fight, no number of fights, and no conduct of the merchant marine of this country ever gave character to our naval warfare. Why, sir, we were reminded here but a few days ago, of a striking

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Diplomatic System of the United States-Mr. Perkins, of Louisiana.

incident in relation to this subject. When the British, forgetful of their own magnanimous character, were ruthlessly imitating the deeds of their freebooters, and were tearing this capital to pieces, a British naval officer mounted the naval monument erected to the heroes of the Tripolitan war, and which still stands before us, and, snatching the pen from the hand of the muse of History, declared that she had no use for it, because the American Navy had no history to write; and, sir, up to that day, with the exception of the Tripolitan war, the taunt was partially true; for our Navy had no history to write. But, sir, History soon vindicated herself, and avenged the insult; for every page of her journal of the last war records something which shows that our Navy has a history, and a glorious history-a history, sir, which, though replete with personal daring and devotion, teeming with courage, and patriotism crowned with eminent success, is unsullied by a single instance of cowardice, or a breath of treachery. Yes, sir, our naval men restored the pen to History's hand, and with it the sceptre of British invincibility; and, no longer breathing the vandal spirit of her despoiling official, the frank and manly hearts of Britain, so prone to do justice to an adversary in a fair standup fight, accorded to our Navy their praises and cominendations. Individual instances of the heroic daring of privateers marked the war. Such was the case of the General Armstrong. But these were not the features of the struggle which gave us a national character as a naval people; but it was acquired by the victories and the conduct of such men as Hull, Stewart, Lawrence, Bainbridge, Perry, and their gallant associates.

The Senator from Texas speaks of officers idling away their time on shore. This remark I frequently hear made, and to me it ever seems unjust. Why, sir, we must always have a sufficient number of officers to relieve those at sea occasionally. Would you keep a man always at sea, always abroad from his country? No, sir; it is the interest of the Republic that they should be identified and linked to it by ties no less enduring than those which bind us all; and let me say too, that the profession which presupposes always abroad, which ostracises him from home and kindred, which precludes marriage and crushes the holiest affections which cluster around the heart; is unworthy the ambition of any honorable mind. But, Mr. President, I will not longer detain the Senate, nor would I have offered these remarks, made as they are, unexpectedly, without preparation or notes, crude and unconnected; but for the fact, that, as a member of your Committee on Naval Affairs, I do not feel myself at liberty to listen to attacks here upon the service, based, as I conceived, in palpable error, without responding. I profess no more regard for the Navy than other gentlemen; but I know its past services, its present condition, and believe in its glorious future; and while I have a seat here, it shall never want a voice to sustain and cherish it. I entertain earnest hopes that the bill which we have recently passed to promote its efficiency will breathe new life into the service, and that it will soon become what it was at the close of the last war.

DIPLOMATIC SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES.

HO. OF REPS.

To the existence of such a class of men, Wheaton, in his Law of Nations, has ascribed the great advance of Europe in civilization within the last century; and, as our forefathers, after em

vice of the Government in the first instance, refer-rience of all other civilized Governments, is required
ence has now to be had to precedent rather than under our own Government.
established law. The consequence is, that a great
variety of claims are annually presented against
the Government through uncertainty as to what
services are properly required to be discharged,
and the remuneration that should attach to them.ploying special ministers during the Revolution,
In deciding upon claims of this character the com-
mittee has had to be governed either by precedent,
or the peculiar circumstances of equity in each
particular case.

In this, too, they have met with difficulty; for it has happened that our Secretaries of State have differed as to the rules that should govern in many of these cases, and the decisions of the Department have, consequently, changed with its administration. As the Committee on Foreign Affairs changes, too, with each Congress-some of its members going out, and new ones being addedits decisions have increased the uncertainty.

and under the Confederation, decided on the first nominations of foreign ministers (in 1790) under General Washington, that they should be permanent, and, as such, ministers and consuls were at once, and have continued to be since, appointed, I shall take it for granted that their existence was wisely provided.

I wish simply to call the attention of members to some of the most striking evils in the machinery of our foreign intercourse, and I shall indicate, without arguing, the remedies proposed for them in the bill before the House.

The first great evil results from our having origin. ally adopted, in 1789, with very little modification, the foreign system of the English Government.

To relieve themselves and the House from the evils of this uncertainty, early last session the committee called upon the head of the Department It was the growth of institutions directly opof State for his views as to a thorough remodel-posed in principle to our own, and its peculiariing of our consular and diplomatic systems, in ties, ill-adapted to the nature of our Government order to its establishment on definite principles. at its origin, have grown with our development The Secretary of State replied, referring the com- into great and positive evils. mittee to the several plans heretofore proposed to Congress for that purpose, and to the expression of his predecessors in office upon them. He also offered the committee access to the suggestions of persons in the foreign employ, and upon file in the Department.

The report of Mr. Livingston, made to Congress in 1833, and that of Mr. Buchanan in 1846; the report of a special committee raised upon the subject in this House in 1845, and the bills introduced into Congress in 1844 and in 1846, and other plans prepared in the Department, but never presented to Congress, were all examined. Consultation was had with those long engaged, both in the consular and diplomatic service of the country; and after examination and comparison, the result of the action of the committee was the report and bill unanimously presented to this House last session. That bill was printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole House. It was distributed among members of the House, and sent abroad to all our consular and diplomatic agents.

During the late recess of Congress numerous and valuable suggestions were received in reply from those in the past and actual foreign service of the country; and, at the opening of the present session, the bill was taken up from the Committee of the Whole and referred back again to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, that it might be revised and improved in some of its provisions.

The bill that I have now reported to the House is the original bill thus matured. It has been modified in some of its minor details, but in its general character and principles it is identically the same bill that was originally reported. It omits some things contained in each of the bills heretofore before Congress, and embraces everything, it is believed, in which previous bills have been unanimous. Its provisions cannot, therefore, be regarded in the light of experiments, but rather as the results of the experience of all who have been heretofore occupied with, or have examined, the subject.

SPEECH OF HON. JOHN PERKINS, House for a few moments, while I point out the
In asking, Mr. Speaker, the attention of the

OF LOUISIANA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 11, 1855.

Mr. PERKINS said: I am instructed by the Committee on Foreign Affairs to report to the House, and put upon its passage, the consular and diplomatic bill, which it has had under consideration.

The grade of diplomatic rank was artificial and involved.

It required an expensive provision of outfit entirely unsuited to our institutions.

Its salaries were left chiefly to the discretion of the Executive.

It was without proper guards upon the action of ministers; and, as the foreign policy of the British Government was under the control of the Sovereign, so, on our adopting its machinery, a larger share of influence and discretion was imposed by it upon the Executive of this country than was consistent with the theory of our Government. On the acknowledgment of the national existence of the United States by the treaty of 1783, there was no full and unequivocal expression of our national rights. It was not until after the dissolution of the Confederation, and the adoption of our present Constitution-1789-that even a commercial treaty could be formed with England.

Before that time she was not even represented here by a minister. In fact, it was long after that date before we can be said to have had any existence, except by sufferance, as an independent nation. The position our Government was to occupy among the other Governments of the world was undetermined; the rights of our citizens were continually violated, and our commerce depredated upon and driven from the sea. It was only when we had fought ourselves into respect through the war of 1812 that these rights were practically recognized. That this was the case is not remarkable. The domestic policy of a Government is always most seen and felt in the homes and business of men. Its foreign policy, although often almost as important, seems more remote.

The great interest, therefore, Mr. Speaker, felt at the formation of our Government in adjusting internal affairs, and the establishment of the Con stitution, as a kind of international law between the States themselves, diverted attention from the importance of a well regulated system of intercourse with foreign nations; while the general confidence reposed in the moderation and good sense of General Washington, who was then President, checked all disposition to question the amount of power left to be exercised at his discretion. Thus, sir, while our Constitution, differing from the British Government, divided between the Executive and the Senate the control of foreign affairs, our early legislation conferred upon the President a

in accordance with the spirit of the English than of our own Government.

reforms in our existing systems proposed by this bill, I am painfully sensible of my inability to make interesting to the House a subject necessarily of so much detail. I do not design to speak of the foreign policy of the country, nor of the necessity of some kind of machinery for conducting it. I take it for granted that the age of entire national iso-degree of discretion.over foreign intercourse more lation has passed, and that, however independent we may be of other Governments in our foreign There are constantly referred to that committee policy, still we are now, and will ever be, necesclaims of different kinds arising under our foreign sarily bound to them, in a certain degree, by ties intercourse, upon the justice and legality of which of commerce and humanity that, with the increase it is expected to give an opinion. The investiga- of knowledge among mankind, will bring the peotion of these claims involves a reference to exist-ple of this country more into connection with the ing law and the customs and practice of the State Department. In the discharge of this duty the committee has labored constantly under embarrassment from the unsettled character of the rules regulating the duties and pay of our foreign agents. From a defective organization of the foreign ser

people of the rest of the world, and, at the same
time, multiply the points of contact between our
own and other Governments.

I will, also, in what I have to say, take it for granted
that a system of foreign ministers and consuls resident
abroad, such as has been found necessary in the expe-

The second article of the second section of the Constitution provided for such intercourse by declaring that the President "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and, by and with the consent of the Senate, shall appoint embassadors, other public ministers, and consuls," &c., &c.

By this provision ministers and consuls were not created, but referred to as existing agents of international intercourse, under the law of nations.

Diplomatic System of the United States-Mr. Perkins, of Louisiana.

The first act of Congress, after the formation of the Government, making appropriation for diplo-greatly modified their systems; and Great Britain, matic intercourse, was passed July 1, 1790.

Diplomatic System of the United States-Mr. Perkins, of Louisiana.

3. The bill abolishes all outfits and infits, and proEmbassador, in diplomatic language, is the rep- vides, instead, salaries proportioned to the expense and resentative of the person of a sovereign, and in this dignity of the several missions. A provision for differs from a mere minister, who represents the outfit and infit was originally made in imitation of nation. The bill raises all our missions to the the display that characterized the diplomacy of grade of envoys extraordinary and ministers pleni-Europe. Court etiquette and State ceremony forpotentiary. This change involves no sacrifice of¦merly occupied a great portion of the diplomatist's principles, nor additional expenditure. Representatives, with but one exception, below this grade are considered as accredited to the minister of the foreign department, and not to the sovereign of the State. It is a distinction that, in point of fact, is recognized in the reception of ministers from foreign States by our own Government, and there is no reason why the embarrassment under which the present system places our own ministers abroad should not be removed.

1855.]

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Diplomatic System of the United States—Mr. Perkins, of Louisiana.

great degree, outgrown all this, and a foreign minister is not now so much the Court congratulator as the business agent of his Government; and it is more his exact knowledge of the progress and development of the trade and material interest of his country, and the history of its law and legis lation, as affecting other countries, and indicating the spirit and tendency of public opinion at home, that gives him influence, than the costliness of his living, or the degree of luster he can contribute to the brilliancy of Court displays.

The provision, therefore, for outfits and infits, does not now accord either with the changed spirit of diplomacy or the principles upon which our other public servants are compensated; it pays for services before they are performed. No longer necessary for its original purpose, it is often expended in the payment of debts contracted before going abroad, and thus serves only to make unequal the salaries of ministers, and, in a degree, to demoralize the whole diplomatic system. A minister plenipotentiary, under our present system, appointed to represent us abroad, if he remains at his post but a single day, is still entitled to his outfit of $9,000; if he remains but one year, he receives $20,250. In practice, it has been that a person who is thus appointed remains two years, draws an outfit of $9,000, a salary for two years of $18,000, and an infit of $2,250, making, in all, near $30,000 for two years-equal to a salary of about $15,000 a year-and then returns home to be succeed d by another, who pursues the same course. Where there is an exception to this, and one is suffered to remain abroad, irrespective of party changes, from his superior fitness to represent the country, deprived of the advantage of this outfit-recurring every few years-he struggles on with an inadequate salary, and in the end returns in embarrassed circumstances.

A MEMBER. Will you point to that portion of the bill which abolishes outfits?

Mr. PERKINS. I thank the gentleman for putting the inquiry. In the opinion of the committee, the establishment of the regular salaries in the bill abolished outfits. They now exist at the discretion of the President. It is a singular circumstance that the first appropriation for foreign services ($40,000) was placed at the disposal of General Washington without any limitation, except that outfits and salaries were not to exceed $9,000. It was at his discretion whether they should or should not exist. The committee, however, anticipating the objection now made, has introduced a section in these words:

And be it further enacted, That the acts, or parts of acts, authorizing the payment to ministers, consuls of the United States, of salaries, oufits and infits, clerk hire, and office rent, be, and the same are hereby, repealed.

A MEMBER. That is not in the printed bill. Mr. PERKINS. It is in the copy which is in the Clerk's possession. The effect of the allowance of outfit, when no longer required, has been to prejudice the popular mind against our ministers abroad, in the idea that they are favored pensioners of a party Executive; and, in point of fact, we may admit on both sides of the House that these appointments have been too often conferred simply as the reward of partisan service; and that this circumstance, and the defects in the existing system which I have pointed out, have contributed to make what, in our foreign service, should be the distinct expression of national interest the mere expression of Executive favor.

From 1800 to 1822 one third of the entire expense of the foreign service of the United States was for outfits, infits, and contingencies.

From 1840 to 1852 (twelve years) the diplomatic expenses of the Government were $3,656,202. Of this amount one sixth was expended alone in outfits. In one Administration, a single individual drew-and he drew it rightfully, under existing The committee have rules-$22,000 in outfits. thought that this was an evil which should be remedied, and it is accordingly abolished by the bill. Salaries liberal, but not extravagant, are The amount for provided for all our ministers. each has been made to correspond, as nearly as possible, to the importance and amount of duties to be performed, and the necessary expense of getting to, and residing at, the mission. Our diplomatic establishment, if remodeled as proposed, will cost about $50,000 less than has been its

average cost for the last ten years. It will place
our foreign ministers on a more respectable footing
abroad. It will make their salaries definite, and
save greatly to the Treasury by preventing their
outlay reaching anything like the amount possible
in extra charges, and in the frequent resignation
and recall of ministers under our present system.
(See note 2.)

4. The bill further provides that the salary of rep-
resentatives abroad shall not begin until after their
arrival and actual entry upon the duties of their post,
and that they shall cease so soon as they are relieved
It has been the cus-
from those duties by a successor.
tom heretofore for salaries to begin the day the
commission has been received. By this means, a
minister appointed abroad and not starting imme-
diately on the receipt of his commission, or, if
starting, who has delayed on his way, has been in
the habit of drawing salary up to the time of his
relieving his successor. Thus, in addition to the
evil of outfits, has been added that of the over-
lapping of salaries, by which two persons have
received pay at the same time for the same service;
for the actual minister abroad, who has been re-
called or has resigned, continues of right to dis-
charge the duties of the office, and although the
Government may decline to enter upon negotiations
with him, as his successor has been appointed,
still he draws salary, and is really minister until
the arrival of his successor. It has been computed
that, on an average, the ministers appointed from
this country abroad do not reach their post until
near four months after the date of their commis-
sion. (See note 3.) If he is at Washington, he
visits his home, makes his preparation, and then
returns to Washington for instructions before
starting on his mission. By the bill this double
payment of services not rendered is prevented.
The salary of the new minister is to begin only
when he enters upon the duties of his office, and
the salary of his predecessor ceases.

5. It is further provided that no minister shall be
absent from the country to which he is accredited for
more than ten days at a time without the permission
of the President, and that, if absent longer than that
period, even by permission, his salary shall cease during
such absence. The importance of this provision
will impress itself upon every one familiar with the
past or recent history of our missions abroad. By
making their salary dependent upon their actual
residence in the country to which they are sent,
the bill puts it out of the power of the President
to confer what is sometimes called a roving com-
mission, with nominal appointment to a particular
point, but with the general privilege of traveling
over Europe at the expense of the Government.
Under it, it is to be hoped, we will hear no more
of United States ministers to Russia spending their
winter in Italy, nor will there be distrust abroad
and disquiet at home, occasioned by our ministers
collecting at Paris from all the European capitals.
The presence of the minister is insured at the point
where he has duties to discharge. It is considered
that these duties require his presence in the coun-
try to which he is accredited, and that he may only
legitimately extend his travels to the entire extent
of that country. When he goes beyond its limits
for more than ten days, it is presumed that he is
without the line of official duty, and his salary
ceases until his return.

The bill further provides for the location of the office
of legation at a central and convenient place in the
capital of the country, and that it shall be kept open
daily during business hours, except on Sundays and
holidays. It guards against abuse by denying to con-
suls and commercial agents in capitals where the lega-
tion of the United States exists the right to grant or
verify passports, except in the absence of our diplo
matic representatives, and takes from either the right
to exact a fee for this service.

It further provides that no one who is not a citizen of the United States and resident therein, or who shall be employed abroad in the service of the Government at the time of his appointment, shall be eligible as representative abroad. By this means it seeks to make our representative national both in character and sentiment.

359

does not acquiesce in their importance. I now
come, Mr. Speaker, to the consular part of the

bill.

Mr. ORR, (interrupting.) Before the gentleman what will be the comparative expense of the new leaves the point he is now on, I desire to ask him system with that of the old or existing system?

Mr. PERKINS. I intended, before concluding my remarks, to give the financial aspect of the bill; but as the gentleman has called my attention to it, I will give it now.

Mr. ORR. I do not wish to interfere with the gentleman's course of remark.

Mr. PERKINS. In the year 1850 the entire expenditure of the country for its foreign diplomatic service, was about $397,314. The salaries proposed to be given by this bill will amount to about $322,000, making a saving on that year of about $75,000. The bill will accomplish this by a curtailment of the abuses of which I have spoken. I have here an estimate, with calculations attached, which I could read to the House, but I doubt whether it would at all simplify my explanation; I announce only the result. (See note 4.)

Mr. SKELTON. I rise to ask a question of the honorable gentleman from Louisiana. This expenditure which he has stated to the House includes, I presume, other expenditures besides the regular salaries and outfits. Does it not?

Mr. PERKINS. I am thankful to the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing to my mind a single estimate in this expense, which will illustrate to the House the necessity of the reform. I have said that, at the foundation of the Government, the only appropriation for foreign service was $40,000. Yet, for the want of the definite rules provided by this bill, everything being left to the discretion of the Executive, whatever the emergency of one moment has called for or justified under one Administration has been a sufficient justification for the same outlay under the next; and thus, from time to time, from the first simple expenditure, everything is now indefinite, and the Secretary of State may justify almost any expenditure. Thus we have a $40,000 contingent fund for foreign missions, $40,000 contingent fund for foreign intercourse, and I do not know how many other estimates that I might enumerate in the same way. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this system of discretion and secret service money. It is contrary to the genius of our institutions. It defies all responsibility, and leads to certain abuse. This bill excludes, and makes unnecessary, the estimate for foreign missions; thus cutting off, in one item, $40,000. In this way is made the saving to which I have called the attention of the House.

In the allotment of salaries under the bill, it cannot be expected, Mr. Speaker, that all will agree exactly on the propriety of any fixed sum for a particular post.

The committee have desired to act in this matter in the nature of a jury. The testimony of those who have been abroad, in private and public position, has been taken, and tested by the personal experience of those members of the committee who have themselves been abroad. Reference has been had to the graduated expense of different posts under the English and French Governments, and to the voluminous testimony of those in the foreign service of the English Government, taken before a committee of retrenchment of the House of Parliament, in 1850, of which Cobden and Numerous letters have Bright were members.

also been received from those in the service. It was desired that the salaries should be liberal, but not extravagant, and correspond to the responsibilities incurred, the amount of labor to be performed, and the necessary expense of getting to, and residing at, any post.

It is impossible to take up each item and discuss it before the House; but I will state generally, that the actual salaries of the bill are nearly one fourth less than those paid by the English Government, and one third less than those paid by the French Government, to the same positions, without calculating the expense for house-rent, &c., furnished their ministers by those Governments. (See note 5.)

There was, in the early history of the country, It is unnecessary to enlarge upon any of these no fixed compensation for foreign ministers. In features of the bill. They commend themselves to 1779 (£2,500) $12,500 was established as the saladoption on statement, and correct defects in our present diplomatic system universally acknowl-ary for the minister to Paris, and (£1,000) $5,000.. edged. I doubt if there is any one present who for the secretaries of legation.

Sha