The committee submit with this report, a letter recently received from Mr. Catlin, which brings the painful intelligence that he has sunk under the pressure of debts and is now imprisoned, while his collection is advertised to be sold on execution in London. Under these circumstances, he reduces his price to the government from $65,000, its former estimated worth, to $25,000. While these unhappy circumstances furnish no sufficient ground for interposition by the government for his relief, they may nevertheless be allowed to stimulate us to the action recommended, if, as has been argued, it is wise and proper in itself.

It is obvious, that without a careful inspection of the collection, so as to ascertain its present condition and value, it would be unwise to name a definite price. The committee therefore recommend that the subject be entrusted to an agent to be appointed by the President, with a limited discretion.

The committee respectfully beg leave to submit a joint resolution in conformity with this result.

1st Session.

No. 272.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JUNE 23, 1852.
Ordered to be printed.

Mr. MASON made the following

REPORT:

[To accompany joint resolution S. No. 44.]

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the message of the President of the United States, of the 15th June, 1852, communicating a report from the Secretary of State, together with a letter from Senor Don Calderon de la Barca, minister of Spain to the United States, claiming indemnity for losses sustained by certain Spanish subjects by the unlawful violence of a mob in New Orleans, consequent on hearing of the execution of certain persons who unlawfully invaded the island of Cuba in August, 1851, with the recommendation of the President contained in said message, that the indemnity should be granted, for the reasons therein set forth, have had the same under consideraton.

At the same time with the foregoing, the committee brought under their consideration two resolutions of the Senate, the one instructing them to "inquire into the propriety of authorizing the President of the United States to have investigation made whether any Spanish subjects, not citizens of the United States, have sustained damage by loss of property or otherwise in consequence of the public outbreak or violence in the State of Louisiana, growing out of the late Cuban expedition, and into the propriety of authorizing the President to make indemnity to the Spanish government for such Spanish subjects for said damage;" and the other instructing a like inquiry into losses of like character by subjects of Spain in Florida.

The committee having given to the subject thus committed to them, the full consideration which their peculiar character would seem to require, now respectfully report:

From information before the committee it appears that a large number of persons, most of whom were not citizens of Louisiana, had assembled in the city of New Orleans with the intent of re-inforcing those who had sailed for Cuba in the illegal and highly culpable expedition spoken of in the message of the President, and were there awaiting the means of transportation, when intelligence was received of the capture and execution by the authorities of Cuba, of certain of their comrades already landed in that island.

The sensation produced by this intelligence among a band of lawless men, assembled for a purpose forbiden alike by the laws and by good morals, led them at once to the prepetration of the acts of violence complained of, banding themselves together in open violation of the laws of the State

where they were assembled, and in defiance of the attempts of the local authorities to restrain or disperse them, they proceeded to avenge their disappointment by acts of violence upon the peaceful and unoffending subjects of Spain, then residing in New Orleans, insulting their persons and wasting and destroying their property.

The committee are satisfied that these outrages were committed chiefly, if not exclusively by persons assembled at New Orleans, of the character and for the objects indicated above; and that they were instigated and incited by a spirit of revenge on learning the capture and execution of their culpable associates who had preceded them in the invasion of the dominions of Spain.

Under these facts the question is presented by the papers referred, whether it is incumbent on the United States, either by treaty stipulation, or in national faith, to make good to the subjects of Spain, losses so incurred, or if not so incumbent, then whether under the special circumstances of the case, and in the view presented by the message of the President, there are not considerations growing out of the magnanimous courtesy exhibited by the Queen of Spain towards the United States, in promptly extending, at the request of the American minister at Madrid, a free pardon to the survivors of the invasion who were captured alive, which would impose upon this government obligations towards Spain as sacred as those resulting from actual contract.

After a careful examination of the treaty of 1795, cited in the communication of the minister of Spain, the committee can find nothing either in its letter or its spirit, which imposes on this government the duty of providing the indemnity in question. The 13th article, which is more particularly referred to, is limited altogether to a state of war, and it cannot be said in any sense, nor is it alleged on the part of Spain, that war existed between the two nations at the time those injuries were done to the subjects of Spain.

Neither does the committee find any obligation on the United States, arising out of the good faith of nations to each other, to provide the indemnity asked for the losses sustained on the occasion inquired into.

Whilst it may be adinitted that a government is bound to provide for the security of all who live under the protection of its laws, as well in their property as in their persons, and that aliens permitted to reside there are as much so entitled as citizens; yet it cannot be claimed that any such relation pertains between citizens or residents of any of the States and the government of the United States. The jurisdiction of the government of the United States over the persons and property of those within its territory, is strictly limited by the constitution. There is no power conferred by that instrument to provide by law, for the security either of private persons or their property within the States in time of peace, unless it may be by treaty stipulation; neither, if the laws of the States themselves are inadequate to afford such protection, is it competent to this government to interfere or control the subject. Foreigners who come to reside in any of the States, are of course presumed to do so with a knowledge of the laws to which they submit themselves, as well those which constitute and regulate government, as those of ordinary civil or municipal character; and it results, should the local law refuse redress for mere personal wrongs, such foreigners have no claim by appeal to this government.

But although in the opinion of the committee there is no actual obliga

tion on the government of the United States to provide the indemnity claimed by Spain in this behalf, yet they are gratified in having it in their power to recommend it nevertheless without the risk of establishing an injuricus precedent. In this view the committee fully adopt the sentiments of the President, when he declares in his message that,

"The Queen of Spain with a magnanimity worthy of all commendation, in a case where we had no legal right to solicit the favor, having granted a free pardon to the persons who had so unjustifiably invaded her dominions, and murdered her subjects in Cuba in violation of her own laws, as well as those of the United States and the public law of nations. Such an act of mercy, which restored many misguided and unfortunate youths of this country to their parents and friends, seems to me to merit some corresponding act of magnanimity and generosity on the part of this country; and I think there can be none more appropriate than to grant an indemnity to those Spanish subjects who were residents among us, and who suffered by the violence of the mob, not on account of any fault which they had committed themselves, but because they were the subjects of the Queen of Spain." Under the peculiar circumstances of the case such indemnity may, in the opinion of the committee, be quite as well considered as in the nature of amends for injuries to a friendly power, committed within the limits of the United States, as of compensation to the individuals who suffered.

In the eye of the mob, the government of Spain was the actual and only offender, and it was to avenge an imaginary wrong by the sovereign, that the innocent subjects, whilst under a foreign jurisdicton, became the victims of their lawless violence. In the annual message of the President at the commencement of the present session, the fact that the consul of Spain, then residing at New Orleans, was one of the sufferers by the mob is made known. to Congress, as the accredited agent of a foreign power; this officer both in person and property is entitled to the safe-guard of this government, and is of course included in the indemnity proposed.

The sum required to provide this indemnity will be trivial in amount, and in recommending it the committee again concur with the President that the act will commend itself to the generous feeling of the entire country,' and granting it under the circumstances will "tend to confirm that friendship which has so long existed between the two nations, and to perpetuate it as a blessing to both."

The occurrences at Key West were similar in character it is believed, to those at New Orleans, and fall within the same reasoning; they report therefore a joint resolution to cover both, and annex as part of this report, the message of the President with the documents accompanying it.