addition, to compensation for such further time as would be necessarily spent in coming home from the seat of his mission. 9 Op., 261, Black, 1858. "The usual annual appropriation for the contingent expenses of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations' has been disbursed since the date of the act of May 1, 1810, in pursuance of its provisions. By the third section of that act it is provided: "That when any sum or sums of money shall be drawn from the Treasury, under any law making appropriation for the contingent expenses of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, the President shall be, and he is hereby, authorized to cause the same to be duly settled, annually, with the accounting officers of the Treasury, in the manner following, that is to say: By causing the same to be accounted for, specially, in all instances wherein the expenditure thereof may, in his judgment, be made public, and by making a certificate of the amount of such expen ditures as he may think it advisable not to specify; and every such certificate shall be deemed a sufficient voucher for the sum or sums therein expressed to have been expended.' "Two distinct classes of expenditure are authorized by this law; the one of a public, and the other of a private and confidential character. The President in office at the time of the expenditure is made by the law the sole judge whether it shall be public or private. Such sums are to be 'accounted for specially in all instances wherein the expenditure thereof may, in his judgment, be made public.' All expenditures 'accounted for specially' are settled at the Treasury, upon vouchers, and not on 'President's certificates,' and, like all other public accounts, are subject to be called for by Congress, and are open to public examination. Had information as respects this class of expenditures been called for by the resolution of the House, it would have been promptly communicated. "Congress, foreseeing that it might become necessary and proper to apply portions of this fund for objects, the original accounts and vouchers for which could not be made public' without injury to the public interests, authorized the President, instead of such accounts and vouchers, to make a certificate of the amount of such expenditures as he may think it advisable not to specify,' and have provided that every such certificate shall be deemed a sufficient voucher for the sum or sums therein expressed to have been expended.' "The law making these provisions is in full force. It is binding upon all the Departments of the Government, and especially upon the Exective, whose duty it is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' In the exercise of the discretion lodged by it in the Executive several of my predecessors have made 'certificates' of the amount of such expenditures as they have thought it advisable not to specify,' and upon these certificates, as the only vouchers, settlements have been made at the Treasury." President Polk's Special Message, Apr. 10, 1846. "Actuated undoubtedly by considerations of this kind, Congress provided such a fund, coeval with the organization of the Government; and subsequently enacted the law of 1810 as the permanent law of the land. While this law exists in full force, I feel bound by a high sense of public policy and duty to observe its provisions, and the uniform practice of my predecessors under it. Ibid. XXXIII. SELF-CONSTITUTED MISSIONS ILLEGAL. § 109. "A self-constituted mission to the French Republic, in 1798, on the part of Dr. Logan, of Philadelphia, led to the passage of the act of Congress of the 30th of January, 1799, subjecting to fine and imprisonment any citizen of the United States holding correspondence with a foreign Government or its agents, with intent to influence the measures of such Government in relation to disputes or controversies with the United States. Statutes at Large, vol. i, p. 613; Hildreth's History of the United States, 2d series, vol. ii, 280." Lawrence's Wheaton, ed. 1863, p. 1003. That this statute is still in force, see "The object of Logan in his unauthorized embassy seems to have been to do or obtain something which might give opportunity for the 'true American character to blaze forth in the approaching elections.' Is this constitutional for a party of opposition to send embassies to foreign nations to obtain their interference in elections?" President Adams to Mr. Pickering, Sec. of State, Nov. 2, 1798. 8 John Adams' "Mr. Logan, of Philadelphia, a gentleman of fortune and education, and certainly not destitute of abilities, who had for several years been a member of the legislature of Pennsylvania, and has since been a Senator of the United States, though I knew he had been one of the old constitutional party in that State, and a zealous disciple of that democratical school which has propagated many errors in America, and, perhaps, many tragical catastrophes in Europe, went to France either with the pretext or real design of improving his knowledge in agriculture, and seeing the practice of it in that country. I had no reason to believe him a corrupt character or deficient in memory or veracity. After his return he called upon me, and in a polite and respectful manner informed me that he had been honored with conversations with Talleyrand, who had been well acquainted with me, and repeatedly entertained at my house, and now visited me at his request to express to me the desire of the directory, as well as his own, to accommodate all disputes with America, and to forget all that was past; to request me to send a minister from America, or to give credentials to one already in Europe to treat, and to assure me that my minister should be received and all disputes accommodated, in a manner that would be satisfactory to me and my country. I knew the magical words, Democrat and Jacobin, were enough to destroy the credibility of any witness with some people. But not so with me. I saw marks of candor and sin cerity in this relation that convinced me of its truth." Mr. J. Adams, ex-President, 9 John Adams' Works, 244. Patriot Letters, No. 2. As to Dr. Logan, see further 8 John Adams' Works, 615; 9 bid, 243, 244, 265, 293, 307. In a letter of Talleyrand of August 28, 1798, to Mr. Pichon, transmitted by Mr. Vans Murray to the Department, it is stated that Dr. Logan, when in Paris, was not received as a seeret agent by the French Government, and that he had no political relations with that Govern ment. 2 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 242. The "Logan" statute, as it was called, remains, with some slight modifications, still in force. As it now appears in the Revised Statutes, it is as follows: "SEC. 5335. Every citizen of the United States, whether actually resident or abiding within the same, or in any foreign country, who, without the permission or authority of the Government, directly or indirectly, commences or carries on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign Government, or any officer or agent thereof, with an intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign Government, or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the Government of the United States; and every person, being a citizen of, or resident within, the United States, and not duly authorized, who counsels, advises, or assists in any such correspondence, with such intent, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months, nor more than three years; but nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign Government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such Government, or any of its agents or subjects." The last clause of this statute was appealed to by Mr. Seward in 1861, to stop certain action of Mr. Bunch, British consul in Charleston, South Carolina, in urging on the British Government the recognition of Con federate independence. Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, Nov. 21, 1861. See Bernard's British Neutrality, 185 "It was probably unknown to the Spanish Government that the lawyers, in giving the opinion to which it attaches so much value, (advising action adverse to the United States,) violated a positive statute of their own country forbidding communications of any sort with foreign Governments or agents on subjects to which their own Government is a party.” Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to Mr. C. Pinckney, Feb 6, 1804. MSS. Inst., Ministers. XXXIV. PRESENTS NOT ALLOWABLE. § 110. In the session of 1798 a resolution passed the Senate authorizing Mr. Thomas Pinckney to receive certain presents tendered him by the courts of Madrid and London, respectively, on the termination of his missions to those places. The resolution was rejected in the House, though a resolution was subsequently unanimously adopted stating that ground of this rejection was public policy, and disclaiming any personal reference to Mr. Pinckney. (See 5 Hildreth, U. S. 237.) "A custom prevails among the European sovereigns, upon the conclusion of treaties, of bestowing presents of jewelry or other articles of pecuniary value upon the minister of the power with which they were negotiated. The same usage is repeated upon the minister's taking leave at the termination of his mission. In Great Britain it is usual to offer the minister, at his option, a sum of money, graduated according to his rank, or a gold box or other trinket of equal value. The acceptance of such presents by ministers of the United States is expressly forbidden by the Constitution, and even if it were not, while the United States has not adopted the custom of making such presents to the diplomatic agents of foreign powers, it can scarcely be consistent with the delicacy and reciprocity of intercourse between them for the ministers of the United States to receive such favors from foreign princes as the ministers of those powers never can receive from this Government in return. The usage, exceptionable in itself, can be tolerated only by its reciprocity. It is expected by the President that every offer of such present which may in future be made to any public minister or other officer of this Government abroad, will be respectfully but decisively declined." Mr. J. Q. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rush, minister at London, Nov. 6, 1817 "I am directed by the President to instruct the ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic and commercial agents of the United States that it is required of them that in future they will not, unless the consent of Congress shall have been previously obtained, accept, under any circumstances, presents of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state." Mr. McLane, Sec. of State, circular, Jan. 6, 1834. House Doc. No. 302, 23d Cong., 1st sess. This document contains a report (March 4, 1834) from Mr. Archer, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which it is stated that "the Government of the United States is the only one known to lay its agents employed in foreign intercourse under strict interdiction as regards the acceptance of presents in any form. This interdiction being in the Constitution, could derive no increase of notoriety more than authority from instructions to our agents abroad." The report goes on to say that the acceptance of presents has, notwithstanding, taken place in cases when, in oriental countries, such acceptance is a matter of invariable usage, and when "refusal of acceptance would furnish occasion for resentment, compromising oftentimes the efficacy of the agency, or it might be even the official immunities or personal security of the agent." The presents in such cases, when not perishable, have been deposited in the State Department, or, when not susceptible of such deposit (as with horses), sold, and the proceeds sent to the Treasury. On the subject of accepting office or honors from a foreign country, we have the following: "While recognizing to the fullest extent the eminent service of Captain Martinez, of the Chilian ship-of-war Meteor, in rescuing the survivors of the crew of the United States merchant ship Manchester, under circumstances of extreme distress, the uniform practice of this Government forbids the presentation to that officer, in its own name, of any tangible token of this recognition. As all officers of the United State are forbidden to receive such rewards from foreign Governments for actions or services of striking merit, it is deemed delicate not to confer obligations in this respect upon foreign officers, which their Governments could not, under similar circumstances, be permitted to reciprocate. "In the mercantile marine no such difficulty exists, and Congress, as you are aware, has placed a liberal fund at the disposal of the President for the purpose of enabling him to offer suitable testimonials to those brave men who so often imperil their own lives in behalf of others." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Starkweather, Sept. 1, 1855. MSS. Inst., Chili. "The Constitution of the United States provides that no person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States shall without the consent of Congress accept of any office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state. The terms of this provis ion of the Constitution of the United States neither prevent nor authorize persons who may hold office under any one of the States from accepting an appointment under a foreign Government." Mr. Hale, Asst. Sec. of State, to Mr. Rosenberg, May 22, 1872. MSS., Dom. Let. "Diplomatic officers are forbidden from asking or accepting, for themselves or other persons, any presents, emolument, pecuniary favor, office, or title of any kind from any foreign Government. It not unfrequently happens that diplomatic officers are tendered presents, orders, or other testimonials in acknowledgment of services rendered to foreign states or their subjects. These cannot be accepted without previous authority of Congress. "It is thought more consonant with the character of the diplomatie representation of the United States abroad that every offer of such presents should be respectfully, but decisively, declined. This having |