Mr. SUMNER. The Senator is mistaken. He has read it 20 times, but has forgotten it; and he has read it unquestionably, too, in the instructions of the Dept of State. I cannot be mistaken on that point. Then, air, if there be no secretary of legation, as was the case here, what is the minister of the U.S. to do? Is he to leave his papers and his seal loose in some obse ure cus to y where they may be seized? N 0. He is particularly charged by the Government to select a competent citizen of the U.S. in whose hands he is to place this trust. If the person is of his legislation he presents him as charge daffaires adinterim. That was actu ally one in this case. ter, who was Mr. Seibels, of Alabama, after his return home, sent in his resignation, which took effect, I think, from the 11th ofJnnc, 1857; he came home several months before. Then it was that Mr. Clarke became not only the substitute for Mr. Seibels, but the representative defacto of the Government of the U.S. He had alread been accredited by Mr. Seibels as charge affaires adinterim, but by the resignation of Mr. Seibels and the actual vacation of his office, be from that time forward, until the Office was filled by appointment here at Washipgton, was the e facto representative of the U.S. ow, sir, that is the case. During that time be occupied a house larger than. gentleman in Meanwhile, the minis, his circumstances and of his age would have l thought of occupying, having indeed succeeded to the very house of the American minister himself. He continued there, subject to those extraordinary expenses which I need not remind the Senate are necessarily incident to diplomatic life. During all this time he was in relations with the Government to which he was accredited, and he corresponded with our Government here at home, and he also received communications from the Government here at home, so that in point of fact, defacto, he was the representative of our country. I am speaking now of the time indicated between the 2 dates mentioned in the amendment that I have offered, between the date of the resignation of Mr. Seibels and the actual appointment of his successor. It is for services rendered during that time that the amendment now before you proposes to pay him. Now, sir, those services may be seen, as I intimated yesterday, in 2 lights: one as serviccs rendered, and you pay, to use a professional term, for the quantum meruil; another is for services rendered by the implied sanction of the Government, the Government all the while here in Washington knowing that he was there and discharging those services; remdered, too, according to usage both of our own Government and the general usage of diplo matic life. I submit, therefore, that the claim is a good one. Then I am reminded by the Senator that it is tardily presented. On that head I have something explicit to read. I have a letter from Mr. Clarke, addressed to myself, from which I will read a passage. This letter is dated March 7, 1806: "In reading the discussion in the Senate on my claim for diplomatic salary. (March 3, 1856.) I find that 2 considerations excited most of the opposition expressed. “The 1st was that the claim was 1st presented after a lapseof several years. “But the letter of the minister, Mr. Seibols, toSecretary Cass. (a copy of which you have") That letter was referred to in this debate at the last session “shows that I presented it on my arrival in Washington in January.1869. The State Dept referred mo in Congress and my petition reached the hands of Mr. Mason, the chairman on Foreign Relations.where of the Committee 1 left iton returning to Europe in May. 1359. Mr. Masons neglectwill explain the delay which has ensued.” I think I may well ask whether a faithful and patriotic public servant should suffer from the negligence of a person who at the very moment that he was guilty of this negligence was undoubtedly lVlll" his time and his thoughts to treason rat or than to his public duties. This gentleman suffered from those proclivities of the man who at that time represented this part of the business of the Senate on this floor. Mr. Clarke calls my attention also to another consideration. He says: “ The 2nd consideration most marked in the discussion is that pnynipnt is now asked for aperiod durinir which the minister.Mr. Seibels. Reocivod pay. (Sec Mr. Harlans remarks.) “Attention to the dateswill show that my resont claim is for the 15 monthswhich succcced Mr. Seibels srcSignation, and consequentlyafter his sal aryTchcuassod. to recent my claim would be to leave to a private citizen Without compensation.not only the services, but the expenses incurred by the U.S. location in Belgium from the 1th of June, 1857, the period of Mr. Seibelss resignation. to the 27th cptcmber, l&53.(tho periodwhen I wasrelieved by his successor. General air, of Alabama.)” I do not see how in conse ience we can refuse the payment of this claim. We have had the services. We have allowed him to go and spend his money for our sake, and yet he has received nothing; and now he is met by saying this is a private claim, and that we ought not to pay it on an appropriation bill. It is a claim or services rendered abroad as a diplomatic agent of the country; and though he was not in advance appointed and confirmed by the Senate, ho had practically entered into those relationswith the Government of the U.S. whichI think Treasury l justif him in looking to us for compensation; and e compensatwu ought to be given to him directly and not tardily. It ought not be post poned. He ought not to he treated as a common claimant; but his services should be recognized as something which we in duty are bound to ay at once.