Reasons for their rejection. It contained a refusal, on several grounds, first, that Monsieur Murat, as he was termed, was a usurper, and that the legitimate sovereign was at war with him, and not bound to discharge his obligations; secondly, that the confiscations for which indemnity is sought, were not the acts of Murat, but were forced upon him by the violent interference of Napoleon; thirdly, that the proceeds of the confiscated property never reached the national treasury, but went into the private chest of Murat, to furnish the means of his profusion. The king of Naples, a man of blunt and familiar manners, used to say to the American consul, when pressing these claims, Why, Monsieur Murat took your ships its true; but he also took my kingdom. I suffered more than you did. I lost all; and shall I besides my own losses, have your's to bear also?" The substance of the Neapolitan dispatches, though not opened by Mr. Pinkney, found their way into the gazettes of Petersburgh and Vienna. The government of the United States having no means of enforcing the claims of their citizens, but by a hazardous and unprofitable contest with the king of the two Sicilies, supported, as he doubtless would be, by the emperors of Russia and Austria, can do nothing more than to keep up a perpetual demand; for this purpose Mr. Appleton has recently been dispatched to Naples; but the prospect of success diminishes in proportion to the distance of time from the date of the injury.

Claims on the Netherlands. In the year 1815, Mr. Eustis was appointed minister to the king of the Netherlands, and instructed to claim indemnity for the confiscations in the years 1809 and 10, under Louis Bonaparte. In his first note upon the subject, without entering into an argument, he simply stated that the American claims rested on the principle so fully recogized by the governments of Europe; that nations were responsible for the acts of their rulers; and that any changes in the forms of their government cannot diminish the force of the obligation. The Dutch minister, Baron De Nogell, refused to acknowledge the claim on two grounds; first, that the acts complained

some of them should find that it was cheaper to make compensation, than to incur the displeasure of the American government. A sense of justice or a regard to the principles of national law, have little influence, where the means of obtaining redress are not in the power of the injured party. Spain affords the only instance where any satisfaction has been obtained, and that not from any superior regard to principle, the claims having been delayed to the last moment, but merely because Cuba and the Floridas were within the reach of the American arms.

the members of the national legislature ought to be such as to command the first talents. That the value of money, considered as the means of living at this period, had depreciated nearly one half, compared with the time when their wages were first fixed at six dollars per day. That that sum is not now an adequate reward for persons qualified to discharge the duties of legislation, to compensate them for leaving their business, and devoting a considerable portion of the year to the public service. That it necessarily deranges their business for the remainder. And that the obvious consequence of an inadequate compensation will be an incompetency of talents in the national representation, or the perversion of the office to sinister purposes. After stating some reasons, why in their opinion an annual salary would be preferable to a per diem allowance, the committee, in deference to what they deem to be the public sentiment, report a bill in favor of the latter, leaving the sum a blank, to be filled by the house. The subject of filling this blank occupied much of the session, the sum varying from six to twelve dollars. In the end, none could be agreed on, and towards the close of the session a bill was passed, repealing all laws upon the subject, after the rising of the present congress. The effect of this measure was to give each member of the fourteenth congress three thousand dollars for two hundred and forty days service, or twelve dollars and an half a day, and leave to their successors the unpleasant task of fixing their own compensation.

Proceedings of the commissioner of claims. The commissioner appointed under the act of the last session on the subject of claims, for property lost or destroyed by the enemy during the late war, adopted a principle in relation to houses destroyed, which embraced claims to a great amount, which were supposed not to be within the purview of the law. The particular case which occasioned the greatest animadversion, was the house of Mrs. Carson, of Washington, from which a gun was fired at General Ross, and was burned by the enemy, as was supposed, for that reason. The commissioner decreed her a compensation, on the ground that it was occupied as a military station, which occasioned its destruction. The principle of this case embraced many others, which were also allowed. The president, apprehending that the commissioner was proceeding upon a mistaken construction of the law, suspended his functions, and referred the subject to congress. The result was the passing of a law explanatory of the former act,