H. or R.] Reduction of Bounties. [JAN, 7, 1831. inventor, designer, or engraver, of any book, map, chart, act of pure justice; for why, he asked, should the author print, cut, or engraving, or by a proprietor of the same, who had sold his copyright a week ago, be placed in a if such author, or authors, or either of them, such inven- worse situation than the author who should sell his work tor, designer, or engraver, be living at the passage of this the day after the passing of that act? He would cite a sinact, then such author, or authors, or the survivor of them, gle case by way of illustration. Webster's Dictionary, such inventor, designer, or engraver, shall continue to have for instance, that unrivalled work, that monument of the the same exclusive right to his book, chart, map, print, cut, learning, industry, and genius of its author. What, he or engraving, with the benefit of each and all the provisions inquired, should that great work, the labor of a whole life, of this act, for the security thereof, for such additional pe- be secured to its author, under the existing law, only for riod of time as will, together with the time which shall have the term allowed in the event of the passing of a bill exelapsed from the first entry of such copyright, make up the tending the period of copyrights? No: all cases came term of twenty-eight years, with the same right to his within the spirit of the measure; and justice, policy, and widow, child, or children, to renew the copyright at the ex- equity alike forbade that any distinction should be made piration thereof, as is above provided in relation to copy- between them. rights originally secured under this act. And if such author, Mr. VERPLANCK adverted to the argument of his or authors, inventor, designer, or engraver, shall not be friend and colleague, [Mr. HOFFMAN,] as to an implied living at the passage of this act, then his or their heirs, contract existing between an author and the public, by executors, and administrators, shall be entitled to the like which the former relinquishes his right to his works, at the exclusive enjoyment of said copyright, with the benefit of end of fourteen years, to the public. The whole argueach and all the provisions of this act, for the security ment was founded on a mistake, apparent to the eye of thereof, for the period of twenty-eight years from the first common sense, and repugnant to the law of the land. entry of said copyright, with the like privileges of renewal There was no contract; the work of an author was the to the widow, child, or children of such author, or authors, result of his own labor. It was a right of property exist designer, inventor, or engraver, as is provided in relation ing before the law of copyrights had been made. That to copyrights originally secured under this act: Provided, statute did not give the right, it only secured it; it proThat this act shall not extend to any copyright heretofore vided a legal remedy for the infringement of the right, secured, the term of which has already expired."] and that was the sum of it. It was, he repeated, merely Mr. HOFFMAN opposed the bill, which appeared to a legal provision for the protection of a natural right. him to be at variance with every principle of sound policy. That right was acknowledged by all, and hence the dis It went to establish a monopoly of which authors alone grace attendant on plagiarism and literary piracy. It was would reap the advantage, to the public detriment. The so held in England; and in the great case of literary propeople had rights to be secured as well as authors and perty, tried before the court of King's Bench, the judges publishers: and he would submit to the House whether were unanimously of opinion that an author had an inheit would not be better, in a case of such importance, to rent right in the property of his works. The bill before send the bill into a Committee of the Whole House, where the House went merely to extend the remedy to twentyevery part of it could be fully discussed. He instanced eight years. It was not the granting of a property. Such the case of any person discovering or inventing any useful is the view, said Mr. V., taken of it in the constitution of improvement in the arts, taking out a patent, and being the United States, and such is my opinion of it. I conobliged to lodge a full specification and an entire model of ceive the bill and the amendment ought to pass into a his work in the proper office, and that, too, so accurately law, as I consider the measure not only politic and proper, and minutely, that a similar one could be made from the but a necessary act of common justice. model and description; and yet, even then, the applicant Mr. HOFFMAN rejoined. His colleague who had received his patent right for fourteen years only, and, at just sat down, had spoken of the right of authors, and the expiration of that period, his invention became the had described the copyright act as simply a remedy for property of the public. the abuse of that right. That seemed to him [Mr. H.} So it should be, said Mr. H., with the author or pub-as amounting almost to a contradiction in terms: for he lisher. There was an implied contract between them and the public. They, in virtue of their copyright, sold their books to the latter at an exorbitant rate; and the latter, therefore, had the right to avail themselves of the work, when the copyright expired. Besides, it would be a breach of contract with those booksellers who had purchased copyrights of authors heretofore, and whose rights would be infringed upon, should the privileges of the authors of works be extended as proposed by the bill. He trusted that, if they would legislate upon the subject, they would legislate so as to leave the rights of all interested in this matter precisely in their present state. Mr. ELLSWORTH vindicated the bill, which, he contended, would, in its results, enhance the literary character of the country, by holding forth to men of learning and genius additional inducements to devote their time and talents to literature and the fine arts. He moved an amendment, extending the security afforded by the act to living authors, and, in the event of their death, and their leaving families, to the family, for a further period of twelve knew of no right but a remedial right; and he was perfectly willing to leave authors every right possible, provided they were not granted the extended remedy of the present bill. Mr. VERPLANCK and Mr. HOFFMAN mutually explained. Mr. EVERETT, of Massachusetts, supported the bill and amendment. The amendment of Mr. ELLSWORTH was then read, and agreed to. Mr. HOFFMAN moved, as an amendment, to strike out twenty-eight years, and insert fourteen; but the proposition was negatived. The bill, as amended, was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow--yeas 81, nays 31; and The House adjourned. FRIDAY, JANUARY 7. [For the report, see the Appendix.] REDUCTION OF BOUNTIES. Mr. McDUFFIE, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill to reduce the bounty on pickled fish exported. It was read a first and second time. Mr. McDUFFIE said that the bill was one of great importance; and it was desirable that it should pass spee JAN. 7, 1831.] Claim of James Monroe. [H. OF R. He con dily, as fish that might be exported before the first of the evils--but should we not be exempt from such scourges, month, were entitled, by the present law, to the full where would our battles be fought? Not upon the soil of amount of the bounty which it was the object of the our country, but upon the waves of the ocean. The tripresent bill to reduce. He moved, therefore, that it be umphs of the last war were not, and never could be, forengrossed for a third reading. gotten. The fisheries had been the nurseries of our Mr. ANDERSON rose to request that the bill might seamen, and long might they continue to be so. lay on the table for a short time, to give an opportunity cluded by stating that he considered the bill to have a to examine it. The first notice the House have of the tendency to destroy that valuable branch of our combill is, by having it read by the Clerk; and it is proposed merce, and to root up the school of our most hardy, to Congress to pass it without a moment's time for reflec-enterprising, and skilful seamen. There had been no tion or examination of its provisions. It may be all right, change in the policy of other nations in respect to the and such as we ought to pass; but, as it relates to an im- fishery bounties: Holland, England, and France had conportant portion of citizens, who are indispensable to our tinued their systems, and prospered under them. He navigating interest and to our navy, Mr. A. wished, at hoped the bill would be postponed for a few days; and if least, for an opportunity to read the bill before he gave no other member of the House should make a motion to his vote upon it. He felt a deep interest in whatever re- that effect, he himself should feel it his duty to do so. lated to our commerce and our navy, the prosperity of Mr. McDUFFIE said that he did not see the policy of which depended on our fisheries; and whatever depresses the postponement. The argument of the gentleman from the latter, would most assuredly be felt by the former. Massachusetts [Mr. REED] was founded on a mistaken Every maritime Power has seen the importance of en- basis. Every one knew that a large bounty was given on couraging and increasing her fisheries, as the only sure the tonnage of vessels employed for four months in the foundation of her commercial and naval prosperity; and year in the fishing trade; and the law he proposed did he hoped we should not lightly, and without the usual not effect this. It went merely to effect a corresponding consideration, pass any bill that might, in its consequences, reduction in the bounty to the reduction of the duty on injure this nursery of our seamen, and render our navy salt. The duty on salt was formerly twenty cents per dependent on foreigners for men. Look, for a moment, bushel--and a bushel of salt, he believed, was sufficient to Great Britain, the greatest Power on the ocean, and to pickle a barrel of fish. That duty was now only ten let us be mindful to profit by experience. See the en- cents per bushel; and would any gentleman then say, that couragement she has given, and still gives, to maintain the same bounty should be allowed in the one case as in and increase her fisheries. Her fisheries pay no duty on the other? If a delay is wished in this case, why, let it be salt, and yet she gives a greater bounty than we ever have granted; but, said Mr. McD., I give notice that, on the given ours; the effects of which are seen both in her mer- further discussion of this subject, I may, perhaps, be inchant ships and men of war, all manned with her own duced to go into the question of the bounty on tonnage. I subjects. Not so with ours. At this very hour, one-third did hope that no opposition would have been offered to this of all the sailors in our tonnage afloat are foreigners; and measure. I am willing that it be postponed until Monday. it is not in our power to send a single frigate to sea with a full complement of native sailors. The bad effects of this practice of manning our ships will be severely felt when a war shall call us on the ocean. Mr. A. did not know that this bill would have any injurious effect on the fisheries, yet still he wished a short time to examine it, and requested that it might lay on the table until Monday. Mr. MARTIN said that it was his intention to investigate the whole of the bounty system. Salt and the fisheries were not the only articles of the commerce of the country. He wished gentlemen to understand that he should enter particularly into the question of drawbacks. After some further discussion, the bill was postponed until Monday. CLAIM OF JAMES MONROE. Mr. REED said, the subject had come upon them in so unexpected a manner, that it was scarcely possible to The House then, on motion of Mr. MERCER, resolved meet it and discuss its merits at once. He was opposed itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. FINDLAY in the to its being thus rapidly disposed of, before an opportu- chair, and resumed the consideration of the bill for the nity was afforded to those who might be interested in it, relief of James Monroe." The question before the to give it a due and proper consideration. Mr. Jefferson, House being on a motion made by Mr. WHITTLESEY, when when Secretary of State, had entered into a full investi-the bill was last under consideration, to strike out the engation of the matter, and presented a report upon it, acting clause of the bill, which was, perhaps, unknown to many, but which ought Mr. WILLIAMS said, this was a delicate question, and to be in the hands of all whose duty it was to legislate he was sorry to be impelled by what he believed to be a respecting it. In that report, he took a review of the sense of duty to resist the passage of the bill. He had, practice in England and France, those two great commer- as far as opportunity would enable him to do so, examined cial nations, with regard to the system of bounties gene- the subject, and was clearly convinced the claim was rally, but, in particular, as respected the fisheries. In wholly destitute of foundation. If it be tested by the order that the opinions of that great statesman on this sub-laws and usages of the country, it will be found that ject might be known, he was anxious for the republishing Congress has not only dealt justly, but generously, with of that report. It was as applicable to the present day, the individual whose demand we are now called upon to as to the period for which it was written. The question consider. was one of infinite importance. The fisheries, although Let me not, said Mr. W., be suspected of a design to of direct interest to one class of the community only, were make an appeal to popular topics, or to use declamatory yet of advantage to all: for our trade, our commerce, language, when I say that in this country all men are equal; navigation were all, more or less, affected by it. that separate or exclusive privileges and immunities are He would go further; he would state that the fishing busi- not to be allowed to any one. This is the vital principle ness was so poor, that no nation could engage in it with- of the republic, the genius of our Government, and no out the encouragement afforded by national bounties. measure in contravention of it should ever be proposedHe could state this from his own personal observation; at or, if proposed, it should certainly not be adopted. If a least, as far as our own fisheries were concerned. And law be passed for the benefit of any one individual, that let gentlemen also look to the fact, that those fisheries principle of equality which is essential to, and inseparable contributed to the best defence of the country. He did from, the very nature of our political institutions, requires not speak of future wars-he did not anticipate such --nay, sir, demands, that all our citizens should be simi and our H. OF R.] Claim of James Monroe. [JAN. 7, 1831. that the Government has treated him, not only with jus tice, but with generosity, reference being had to the law and usage which regulate and control the settlement of accounts in all analogous cases. larly benefited. In this view of the subject, setting aside the sum to be paid, the claim of Mr. Monroe is very important. The sum proposed to be given to him is sixtyseven thousand nine hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents; which is a large amount, considering it merely It is prima facie evidence against the justice of this as a private claim. But great as the sum is, it is not at all claim, that Mr. Jefferson refused to allow it. In his adcomparable in magnitude to the principle involved in it, ministration, the greater part of the service was performbecause the same kind of grant must and should be made ed. He best knew the value of those services, and conseto every other citizen similarly situated. For, if not, that quently could best measure the amount of compensation equal condition of rights and privileges, in which all are to which the individual who rendered them was entitled. taught to repose in confidence and safety, will not be After the lapse of twenty or thirty years, when only a few, maintained. if any, of us can have personal knowledge of the transac We were told the other day that there were some sub-tions referred to, it is not in the nature of things-it is, injects into which members of this House would not inquire. deed, impossible--we should be as well qualified to apIf any gentleman chooses to decide questions before him preciate the merits of the individual, or the value of the without examination, be it so; it is nothing to me; it is an services he rendered, as those who were contemporary affair between him and his constituents. But I think my with him; who were eye-witnesses of his labor; who bad duty best performed when I have given to every subject the kindest feelings towards him; and who had ample the fullest examination of which I am capable, and have power to remunerate him for every sacrifice. This fact decided it according to the weight of evidence before me. of itself raises in my mind a strong presumption against It affords me no pleasure to oppose any claim, whether it the justice of the claim, and, unless it be countervailed by comes from a distinguished citizen, from one who has fill- evidence of greater weight, I should think the House ed all the high offices in the country, or from one whose would be indisposed to make the allowance. But the facts life has always been private and obscure, and who never and circumstances of the case, as far as I have been able has filled any office. But distinguished citizens, if they to comprehend them, go to fortify, not to weaken, the persevere in making demands of the Government, must presumption. This, sir, I shall now attempt to show you. expect to have their claims examined; they must and shall Mr. Monroe went as minister to France in 1794, and be dealt with by me in the same manner as if they were returned in April, 1797. This, in the documents before people the most humble and obscure: and if the claims of us, is called the first mission; and, in consequence of it, the latter are to be rejected, so must those of the former. he exhibited an account against the Government, through No difference should be made, but equal and exact justice his agent, Mr. Dawson, amounting in the aggregate to should characterize all our proceedings. thirty-eight thousand six hundred dollars and sixty-seven From what we have heard in this House, and from what cents. This account, I apprehend, was paid at the time has been going on out of it, one might be induced to be- of its presentation, as no proof of a contrary import is to lieve that Mr. Monroe had served his country for nothing; be found among the papers submitted to us for examinathat throughout a long life, embracing a period of many tion. Mr. Monroe, however, complains, that, in settling years, this distinguished patriot had devoted himself to the the account, injustice was done to him in several particupublic without any compensation whatever. But is this lars, which I will endeavor to state in the order in which the fact? No, sir, it is not. So far from it, that it may they are presented. But be affirmed as a truth well established and beyond all doubt He alleges that his pay as minister was made to end on or contradiction, that he has received more of the pub- the 6th of December, 1796, when he received his letter lic money than any other citizen in the whole country. of recall, whereas it should have been extended to the 1st In a publication made by the late Governor of Virginia, of January, 1797, the time when he obtained his audience (Mr. Giles,) it was stated that Mr. Monroe had then re- of leave, making a difference of about twenty-five days. ceived as much as four hundred thousand dollars of the It is not necessary, nor shall I attempt, to deny the corpublic money. This statement has never been denied or rectness of the position here assumed. It might have been contradicted by any one; and I believe it can be verified more proper to continue his pay till the audience of leave, by recorded evidence on file in the various departments of than to stop it precisely on the day of his recall. the Government. If this be true-and I presume no one the error, if it was one, was caused by Mr. Monroe himwill attempt to deny it-what conclusion must follow? self. In the account presented by his friend, Mr. Dawson, Not that Mr. Monroe has served for nothing; not that he Government is charged with his pay only to the 6th of has labored through a long life without any compensation; December, 1796. At the time the account was settled, it but that in serving the public he has also served himself; seems Mr. Monroe himself did not believe he was entithat he has been paid four hundred thousand dollars, tled to pay up to the 1st of January, 1797: for, if he did, which is a greater sum than any other man has received. why was it not so stated? If any one has ever had so much, the fact has entirely In the letter of Mr. Anderson, Comptroller of the Treaescaped my observation. Very certain I am that General sury, it further appears Mr. Monroe was the cause of this Washington did not; neither did Mr. Adams, Mr. Jeffer- error. Referring to this item, in a letter to Mr. Monroe, son, or Mr. Madison, who were his predecessors in the the comptroller says: "The mistake or error in the setPresidential office. Has any other officer of the Govern- tlement of your account, as before stated, appears to have ment had an equal amount? I believe not. Confident I resulted from the date of your letter to the Secretary of am that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Trea- State, advising him of the time at which you had received the Secretary of the War, or Navy Department, or his letter of recall, and which must have been taken as the Attorney General, nor any member of either House of Con- time at which you had your audience of leave. This apgress, has received a sum by any means comparable to that pears to me as the only rational mode of accounting for which has already been paid to Mr. Monroe. Why, then, the departure, in the settlement of your account, from the should it be said that this distinguished individual-for dis- general rule which had been observed in the settlement tinguished I admit him to be-has not been duly compen- of the accounts of our other foreign ministers." sated for his services? Why should the Government be reproached, as it has been in many places, with turning a deaf year to his well-founded complaints? Sir, I deny the correctness of these allegations. I contend that full, ample, and complete justice has been already done to him; sury, No blame can, therefore, attach to the Government for the existence of this error. Mr. Monroe was the only person who had knowledge of the fact, and who was competent to correct it. If he chose to be silent, he ought in justice to take all the consequences, for no one could con JAN. 7, 1831.] pel him to speak. But we have his own authority for say-spondence with the Governments to which they were acing the accounting officers of the treasury did remedy credited. Not so with Mr. Monroe, who, while he was the mistake as soon as it was known to them. On detained, led the life of a private gentleman; that is, as far page eleven of the documents communicated to Con- as his public functions were concerned: he entertained no gress in 1825, Mr. Monroe says, in a note: "It is proper correspondence with the Government of France; he was to add, here, that that error was then corrected, that is, absolutely forbidden to do so. Yet, notwithstanding the in 1817, and the allowance was then made to me for the inadmissibility of this claim, according to any previous law interval between the 6th of December, 1796, and the 1st or usage, Congress, in 1826, influenced by a spirit of geneof January, 1797." rosity towards Mr. Monroe, passed an act granting it to I have looked through the documents, hastily, it is true, him to the amount of two thousand seven hundred and but with some attention, and I have not seen that the ac-fifty dollars, with interest on the same from 1810 up to the counting officers received any information from Mr. Mon- time of payment. But roe, which would enable them to correct the error, prior Another subject of complaint is, that the contingent exto 1817. If any injury has resulted to him, it was the di-penses of the first mission to France were not paid. rect and necessary consequence of his own act. He alone here again it may be asked, who was to blame for that? was the cause of it, and he alone must bear it. He can-In the account presented by Mr. Dawson, the whole charge not and should not claim the right to devolve any respon- for contingencies was then paid. If any other or greater sibility upon the Government, which was ready and will-account existed at that time, it was known only to Mr. ing at all times to do him justice. Monroe, and, as he failed to produce it, the fault was his The second difficulty growing out of the first mission own. The Government could not be required, by any to France, and of which Mr. Monroe greatly complained, principle, to settle an account of which it had no nowwas this: It appears, as above stated, that he received his ledge. It seems to be supposed, however, that a greater letter of recall on the 6th of December, 1796, but he did charge was made, but payment was refused, because renot obtain his audience of leave till the 1st of January, gular vouchers were not produced. This, I contend, was 1797. Instead of returning home immediately, he thought perfectly right and proper. Every officer is presumed to proper to remain in France till the 20th of April, 1797, know the laws and usages of the country which employs and for this delay he raised an account, and demanded him; and there is an implied consent on his part that he from Government pay for nearly four months of addi-will strictly conform to those laws and usages, whatever tional service. But had he a right to do this, or was Go- they may be. The rules and regulations which govern vernment bound to acknowledge any such obligation? the settlement of accounts at the departments, require Certainly not. By order of the President of the United that proper vouchers should be produced in all cases where States, his diplomatic functions ceased on the 1st of Jan- it is practicable; that, if this cannot be done, there should uary. He was bound to obey that order, and could not at least be a detailed statement, showing the items of exprolong the term of service beyond the period fixed by penses, and the nature of the service they were intended his Government. As a minister, no intercourse with to promote. No right to reimbursement for contingent France was entertained by him subsequently to this time, expense can attach to any officer who does not comply and the United States derived not a single advantage from with those regulations. Not to comply is a forfeiture on his delay in returning home. It must then be considered his part of all claim to remuneration, and puts it in the as a measure adopted by Mr. Monroe, from a regard to power of Government either to pay or not, at its own dishis own private convenience or personal accommodation, cretion. Before Mr. Monroe could rightfully demand paywith which the public had nothing to do. ment for his contingent expenses, he should have proIn support of this item, it has been said he could not re-duced the vouchers, or made out a detailed statement, for turn home at this inclement season of the year. But we in no other way can the Government maintain any sort know vessels now sail at all times, and that recently, of control over the disbursements of its officers. Such within the last month, there have been numerous arrivals vigilance in settling accounts must always be exercised as from Europe. As to the difficulties growing out of the a matter of right, and of useful necessary policy, not to be War, or the blockade of the French coast, I am inclined dispensed with. But here again the lenity and generous to think they existed more in imagination than in fact. indulgence extended to Mr. Monroe are rendered conFrom no part of the evidence adduced, can I discover that spicuous. In 1826, Congress allowed him, under the head he ever made one effort to obtain a passage between the of contingent expenses, in the first mission to France, 1st of January and 20th of April, 1797; on the contrary, one thousand four hundred and ninety-five dollars and in the documents submitted to the committee in 1825, eighty-five cents over and above the first payment of one page 4, he says: "I believe the fact to be, that, had I been hundred and ten dollars, to which alone he was justly enwilling to have encountered a winter's passage with my fa- titled by any previous law or usages applicable to his case. mily, I could not have procured a vessel to bring us home." This allowance also drew interest from 1810 till the time This I take to be a virtual admission of the fact that no of payment. effort was made to obtain a passage. Then all the reasons We come next, said Mr. W., to the second mission to assigned for the delay, such as the war in Europe, the dis-Europe, commencing on the 12th of January, 1803, and turbed state of our commerce, the blockade of the French ending on the 15th of November, 1807. At the time the coast, &c. &c. amount to nothing; for, let those difficul-appointment was made, Mr. Jefferson informed Mr. Monties be what they might, no attempt to surmount or over-roe that he should go out as envoy extraordinary and come them appears to have been made; and the detention minister plenipotentiary to Great Britain; that he would must be regarded as his own voluntary act. also receive a commission as special minister to France Under these circumstances, when the charge of deten- and Spain; that the salary and outfit would be paid him tion from the 1st of January to the 20th of April was pre-only on account of the general mission to England; and sented, what was the duty of the accounting officers of that, while performing the duties of a special mission, his the Treasury Department? Could they allow it, or were expenses only should be allowed. This, then, was the they bound to reject it? I answer, they were bound to re-contract: it was the understanding of the parties at the ject it. There was no law or usage to justify such an al-time, and must be taken as the law of the case. lowance. In the cases of the other ministers, which have In order to bring the subject more distinctly to view, been relied on as precedents to support this charge, it let us for a moment examine the items of the account, as will be found that they were engaged in public business; settled at the State Department, by Robert Smith, Secrethat they were employed during their detention in corre-tary, on the 5th of May, 1810. H. OF R.] Claim of James Monroe. The United States to James Monroe, Dr. 3. To outfit as minister to England 5. Salary as minister, while employed in 6. Expenses incurred in a special mission to Spain, beginning 8th October, 1804, and ending on the 17th July, 1805, including salary to secretary, with allowance for his coming from the United States to London, and following me to Madrid, and returning to the United States 7. Extraordinary expenses of the mission to Spain, not included in the preceding item, 650 4,809 55 At Madrid, (Aranjuez,) and on the road 256 8. Extraordinary expenses attending my detention in England, on my return from Spain, after receiving permission of Go. vernment to return to the United States by the seizure of our vessels and the negotiations which ensued. 9. To a quarter's salary for returning home, 10. To amount paid Benjamin, the Jew, on account of the Tunisian ambassador, 200 "pounds sterling 11. To amount paid Charles Brenton for expenses of himself and others attending the trial of Captain Whitby 546 66 9,000 00 [JAN. 7, 1831. He alone knew what these extraordinary expenses were, $9,000 00 and it was his duty to ascertain and state them. No officer of Government could be required to guess at the amount, and to pay him according to that uncertain, whimsical mode of doing business. But, sir, if the charge had been rendered in due form, the treasury officers ought not to have paid it, because it would have been doing an act wholly illegal and unauthorized. Let it be remembered, that there were distinct and separate items in the account for every other expense which it had been usual for the Government to allow. This charge for extraordinary expense was equivalent to a direct and positive increase of salary, which no Executive officer, I hope, will ever deem himself competent to grant. Congress alone could do it; 5,539 00 and Mr. Monroe ought not to think himself injured be cause the accounting officers refused to exercise a power which did not belong to them. The committee, in 1826, fixed this allowance at ten thousand dollars, which made the salary about thirteen thousand dollars per annum, in43,598 63 stead of nine thousand, as prescribed by law. Now, I ask whether any power in this nation, except the legislative, could or should be competent so to enlarge the salaries of our public ministers? Unquestionably not. A discretionary power to that extent would be formidable indeed, and ought not to be confided to any set of accounting officers. And yet, because they did not assume a power which Con10,598 28 gress alone can exercise; because they did not ascertain the amount to be paid, when Mr. Monroe ought himself to have defined the charge; some profess to think he was greatly injured, and must be allowed to claim damages. Sir, I cannot subscribe to such an opinion. The amount paid to J. Hicks for demurrage, forms another subject of complaint in the second mission. In the documents, page 4, Mr. Monroe informs us that "this item 1,146 55 was casually omitted in the settlement." Here, then, it appears, as in the instances before mentioned, that the error was committed by himself. Congress, however, in 1826 allowed this item, and interest upon it from 1810 to the time it was paid. A further and more conclusive evidence of the liberality of Government towards Mr. Monroe, is the payment to 2,250 00 him of interest on all claims which either Congress or the accounting officers thought admissible, according to any rule which had ever been practised. The general rule is, 888 88 that Government does not pay interest, and yet, in his case, there was a relaxation of the rule, which shows he has been an object of great and peculiar favor. Where the items were allowable, he has failed to produce them, and thus put it out of the power of Government to settle them; where they were not allowable, but required the intervention of a law to direct their payment, we see that 400 00 $82,963 00 Here we see, sir, notwithstanding Mr. Monroe was told he kept them back, and declined, or positively refused, he should be paid only his expenses on the special mission to present them. Yet, in all these instances, Congress, to France, that an outfit was allowed him of nine thou-with a spirit of indulgent generosity, has paid both the sand dollars, and an additional charge for contingencies principal and interest, in the manner I have detailed. of five hundred and forty-six dollars and sixty-six cents. I have said Government does not pay interest on claims. For the special mission to Spain, he appears to have been Why should it be so? Because Government is a moral satisfied with his expenses; and well he might: because that person, always ready and willing to pay its debts. If any charge, with another, on account of the extraordinary ex- citizen is delayed in the payment of his claim, it is because penses, formed an aggregate of eleven thousand seven hun- he does not produce it, or does not offer the requisite evidred and forty-four dollars and eighty-three cents, which dence to sustain it. The fault, then, is his own, and he was a good deal better than a simple outfit of nine thou-should not be permitted to take advantage of it, and mulet sand dollars. Why a different rule was adopted in these the Government in damages. If such were the case, intwo cases, I am unable to perceive, unless we suppose [dividuals who have claims would never bring them forthat in the mission to France it was better for Mr. Monroe ward, because they would constitute a valuable kind of to receive an outfit, and in the mission to Spain to charge stock, if permitted to draw interest while they had been for his expenses. If such was the fact, it is another proof reserved, or kept back in the hands of claimants. of the great liberality with which the Government has principles which require the payment of interest between always been disposed to treat him. He complains that the man and man, in private life, do not apply at all to the reninth item, being for extraordinary expenses incurred by lation which exists between the Government and its citidetention in England, was not paid him at the settlement zens. Government delights in doing good: it has no spirit in 1810. But he himself had not then fixed the amount; of selfishness; it has no use for money but to pay its debts; the charge is not run out with any amount--it is a blank. it enters not into traffic or speculation of any kind. The But |