Mr. GUTHRIE. I do not understand it so. I understand that there is a law for his appointment, and he comes just as regularly under the usage as a charge daffaires as any other man who represents the Government abroad. We could not deny that he was our agent and minister" at that court after he had come in under those usages. That is in position; and hence Iassert that this is a public claim. It is not the olic of this Government that we should make ditheu ties with our foreign ministers in paying their appointees, because in the emer gencies that may take place we shall want those appointees in almost every country, and we do require them every year or two. I think it ought to be considered a public claim, and that this ought to be considered asan appropriation to pay a deficiency not provide for by our laws. I would not put a man appointe under the circumstances that this gentleman was appointed, and who performed the duties that this gentleman performed, upon the footin of a private claimant, and let him go through on gross, particularly at this time when noprivate claims are aid, especially if they come from the South. If a mans property has been taken there, even though no question can be raised in relation to his loyalty, he cannot get his claim, because under a resolution passed the other day by the HoRep they have determined not to consider any such claims at all. Acting upon that resolution they rejected a claim where, according to the evidence that I saw, a mans cotton had been taken, carried toCairo, libelod in Illinois, and the person that took it acknowledged he would have given it to the claimant if the agent had followed him. There was no pretense for confiscation; and yet under the general rule which they have adopted to reject al private claims, it was rejected in the other House; and the proceeds of that cotton, that belonged to a man who had. done no act to forfeit it, are actually in your This is a pretty strong case, and there are a great many of them.