32D CONG.....2d Sess.

to advise him, if they did, to have nothing to do with the examination of the character of his claim before us. If I had been his counsel, I would have given him the same advice. He denied in his protest, which accompanies the report, that the House had delegated, or intended to delegate, any power to the Select Committee to examine into the merits of his claim. It is true that upon one or two occasions his counsel appeared before us, for the purpose of cross-examining two Mexican witnesses on two points. He introduced a single witness in the course of the inquiry, and that witness, a clerk in the State Department, merely for the purpose of authenticating some consular seals, and proving the signature of the Mexican Minister. In every other particular this inquiry was purely ex parte, so far as Dr. Gardiner was concerned.

An inquiry thus conducted may have disclosed 'the whole truth in regard to the merit of this claim, or the committee may have arrived at a very erroneous conclusion. Audi alteram partem, is a pretty good caution to a judge who is about to render a judgment when he has heard but one side. It is well that he forms no opinion until after he has heard both sides of the case. Much of the testimony that was given before us was heard before the committee of the Senate-every particle of it touching the validity of the claim was heard by that committee. The Senate committee, however, seem not to have been satisfied, for they have sent a commission to Mexico to make a personal examination. If no room had been left for doubt, they would not have instituted such an inquiry in such a way.

Now, what that examination may disclose remains to be seen. If we can rely upon the evidence given before the House committee-if the Mexican witnesses who testified here are to be believed, rather than those who testified before the Mexican Commission, then this claim was (in the language of the report) a "naked fraud upon the Treasury, and was supported before the Commission by false testimony and forged papers. The question is in a fair way of being adjudicated before a judicial tribunal, where both sides will be heard, and the truth satisfactorily ascertained.

I would not be understood, from any remarks which I have made, as expressing a belief that this claim is well grounded. I think there are many suspicious circumstances about it. Witnesses have testified before the House that many of the papers were forged, and swear in good set terms that there is no foundation for this claim of their own knowledge.

I will not, upon an ex parte examination of this sort, (especially where the number of witnesses introduced upon another occasion, and before another tribunal, is about equal, and for aught I know equally reliable in regard to the character of this claim,) undertake to say that the Gardiner claim is either well or ill-founded; but I do concur with the committee in the fullest manner, in saying, that so far as the testimony before the House is concerned, it was a naked fraud upon the Treasury, supported by perjury, and sustained by forged papers.

But the legitimate business of this committee was to inquire into the connection of the Hon. Thomas Corwin with this claim, and the character of that connection. I had not anticipated such an inquiry, and such a discussion upon the bill itself. I know little of the rules of this House; less of the chances of reaching anything. I did suppose, perhaps, that in the process of time, perhaps while was a member of this body, this report of the committee would be reached for the action of this House. But I did not suppose that such an illegitimate discussion as this would spring up upon this bill. To that subject, I will address a few considerations.

my own.

Now, a few words more in regard to the connection of the Hon. Thomas Corwin with the Gardiner claim, and I shall have done. The claim of Doctor Gardiner was presented to the Board of Commissioners on the 30th of November, 1849. The claim was for loss of property in certain silver mines, in consequence of his expulsion from the State of San Luis Potosi, in 1846. On the 12th of March, 1850, the claim was adjudged to be a valid one against Mexico, under the 26th article of the treaty of 1831; but the amount of the claim was not then ascertained, and the mere question of law was determined by the Commissioners according to their custom. It was a proper subject of inquiry, and the amount to be allowed was to be ascertained upon a further examination. If this claim was a valid one, it became the duty of the Government, under the 15th article of the treaty of February, 1848, to pay it. On the 15th of April, 1851, the Board settled the amount to be allowed. They allowed to Doctor Gardiner $321,560, and they allowed to W. W. Corcoran, an assignee of one fourth part of this claim, the sum of $107,187, making in all, for the Gardiner claim, $428,747, and that amount was paid to these parties out of the Treasury. A portion of the money deposited by Doctor Gardiner in other hands is now held by an injunction, prayed out upon application by the United States. The amount thus held is on deposit with Corcoran and Riggs, ($93,000,) which is subject to a letter of credit of £2,000, and another lien of $10,000. There is also enjoined in the hands of a life and trust company in the city of New York, $130,000. These moneys were deposited by Dr. Gardiner in the hands of individuals, and are reached by the

The resolution was an assault upon the Secre-process which the Government has prayed out. tary of the Treasury. It was introduced and accompanied by a speech from the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. OLDS,] which, according to my recollection of it-I have not seen it since-" breathed threatenings and slaughter" to the Secretary of the Treasury. How far what was stated in that speech is supported by what has since been found by the committee, the House will judge. The best commentary upon that attack will be found in a sin

Now, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Corwin, then a member of the Senate, was employed by General Waddy Thompson, the attorney of Dr. Gardiner, upon an agreement on the part of Thompson to pay him five per cent. on his own fees, which fees were to be fifteen per cent. upon the sum allowed. Waddy Thompson was the original counsel for Dr. Gardiner; he became acquainted with him in Mexico, while he (Thomp

Ho. OF REPS.

son) was accredited as our Minister to that Government. He undertook the prosecution of this claim for a compensation of fifteen per cent. upon the sum to be allowed by the Commissioners; and he employed the Secretary of the Treasury, then a member of the Senate, upon an agreement to pay him five per cent. out of his own fees, which is one-third of Mr. Thompson's fees for prosecuting the claim. Now, whether he was induced from one consideration or another to employ Mr. Corwin to assist him in prosecuting that claim, seems to be a matter of little consequence. Whether it was because of the superior intellectual power of Mr. Corwin, or the personal influence which he had been enabled to acquire-whether it was in consequence of the station to which he had attained by his own merit-or whether for any other cause, probably could not be very well settled by a committee of this House, or by the House itself; nor is it, in my judgment, of any importance to inquire. The engagement was made in May, 1849. In June, 1850, the Mexican Commission, as it is called, adjourned to meet again in the month of November, of the same year.

He

At the time when the Board adjourned, Mr. Corwin had acquired an interest in this claim, in connection with Mr. Robert G. Corwin, by purchase. He was induced to make that purchase by Robert, his relative, and Gardiner found it necessary to make a sale of a portion of his claim, to meet the expenses of its prosecution. The Board had then come to no definite conclusion as to the amount to be awarded, and did not do so until the month of November in the succeeding year. During the recess of this Commission, Mr. Corwin was tendered a seat in Mr. Fillmore's Cabinet. was unwilling to take it while he was interested in claims before this Mexican Board. Governor Young, of New York, now deceased, desirous that he should take a seat in the Cabinet, interposed to negotiate a sale, and the sale was negotiated, of all Mr. Corwin's interest in these claims, which were first the Gardiner claim, and then thirty-six other claims, pending before this Mexican Commission. He made sale, through Governor Young, of all these claims, thirty-seven in number, before he received the appointment of Secretary of the Treasury, in the month of July, 1850. He sold them in good faith, and he sold them unconditionally.

Now, what does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLDS] mean, when he says that the sale was a farce? Sir, the sale was an unqualified and unconditional one, made anterior to Mr. Corwin's acceptance of a position in the Cabinet. This is sworn to by George Law, sworn to unqualifiedly as a bona fide, unconditional sale made by Mr. Corwin to him, he being the purchaser, previous to Mr. Corwin taking his seat in the Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, does any gentleman upon this floor mean to impeach the veracity of George Law? Is there any man here who will volunteer to do that? He does not, I believe, belong to the same party with the Secretary of the Treasury, but accords in his political opinions with the gentleman from Ohio. He swears unequivocally to this purchase. Is he to be believed? Why, sir, one would think that with the reputution which he enjoys in this country, he was entitled to credit, unless there was some contradictory proof, some evidence from somebody that contravened his statement. But, sir, Mr. Law is fully corroborated by the testimony of James S. Thayer, a gentleman of the legal profession in the city of New York, known to many of us as a man of integrity and a lawyer of distinction. He, too, swears unequivocally to this purchase. He says he was one of the individuals who estimated these claims, under an agreement testified to by the other witnesses; that he assisted Governor Young to fix the price which should be paid by Mr. Law, and which Mr. Corwin should receive. Governor Young died before this investigation was had, and Mr. Corwin could not, therefore, avail himself of his testimony.

There is also another witness who was familiar with this transaction-Robert G. Corwin-who swears to the same negotiations, and that he participated himself in the appraisal of these claims. There are several other witnesses who speak of this sale incidentally, having knowledge of it in the progress of the negotiation. Now, sir, in order to sustain the charges against Mr. Corwin, it becomes necessary to trample upon the testimony

Mr. Speaker, I feel bound to say, in regard to this claim, as it was presented before the Mexican Board, that I think it was sustained in all its parts in the best possible way by proof, so far as the Board could see, and so far as anybody else could see, who had any connection with it as counsel. The testimony was taken according to law; it was detailed, it was minute, it was circumstantial, and there was much of it. Indeed, sir, one of the

of all these gentlemen, to convict them all of perjury, although they are men of high reputation and of unimpeachable integrity. Is this proposed to be accomplished by proof? There is nonenot a particle of evidence, from the beginning to the end of the inquiry, that conflicts with the testimony to which I have adverted. Is the testimony to be overcome in any other way than by contravening evidence? Why, sir, to denounce an individual is easy, exceedingly easy, as gentle-witnesses, who was clerk to the Board, testified men here have all very often had occasion to know. But, sir, something besides the mere breath of an accuser, who has no personal knowledge himself, and pretends to none in regard to the facts, will be required to overthrow the uncontradicted proof which has been brought before the committee in regard to this sale.

that it excited suspicion in his mind, because it was so well and circumstantially supported. It was of a character, which overcame the previous prejudices and preconceived opinions of Mr. Johnson, as he swears, who was, for a time, clerk of that Board. Much of it was procured after Mr. Corwin's connection with the matter ceased. Now, sir, there is no reasonable pretense, that if the testimony was false, or the papers forged, Mr. Corwin had any knowledge of that fact. The committee found-(and a majority of them were not the political friends of Mr. Corwin, be it rebefore them proving, or tending to prove, any knowledge on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury, that the claim was not entirely just. And now, Mr. Speaker, what does the gentleman from Ohio mean when he speaks of "a spurious acquittal?" Does he mean to say, that the committee did not arrive at a correct result, in view of the evidence?-that by reason of a want of intelligence or of a want of integrity, they did not come to a right conclusion? A spurious acquittal! We unanimously found, and without a dissentient voice upon the committee, that there was no evidence before us, proving or tending to prove any knowledge on the part of Mr. Corwin of any want of merit in this claim, or of any foul practice in regard to it.

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the written transfer of this interest was not made until the month of November, 1850; but it was made before the Mexican Board reconvened; and not only that, but the money, according to the testimony, was in fact paid in dollars before that Board reconvened in No-membered)-that no testimony had been adduced vember. Hence, sir, it is incontrovertibly proved that the Secretary of the Treasury, before he took office under this Administration, divested himself in good faith of all the interest which he had in any of these claims, whether as purchaser or as counsel. In regard to the legal right of Mr. Corwin, while a member of the Senate, to act as counsel for claims, or to be interested in claims before a board of commissioners, there can be no diversity of opinion among the members of this House. Such has been the uniform practice for a long series of years. Such is the prevailing practice now. I might, then, sir, well inquire, Why this hue and cry at the heels of Mr. Corwin? If, while a member of the Senate, he has acted as counsel for claimants against the Government, so have all his fellows. If he has appeared before the Supreme Court to prosecute claims against the Government in a legal inquiry before that tribunal, so have his fellows. If he has appeared before a board of commissioners to prosecute claims, such has been the practice of those who have acted in the Senate with him. Then why this hue and cry about him? The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLDS] complains of "hired letter-writers" and "paid telegraphers" who have undertaken to give a direction to public sentiment upon this subject in favor of the Secretary of the Treasury. If it is matter. of complaint that, after the attacks of the gentleman from Ohio upon the Secretary, telegraphers and letter-writers have informed the world how the investigation terminated, what should be said of the pack that has been unkenneled upon the Secretary, and given tongue upon his trail for a series of years. Their business has been to assail him "in season and out of season," and now that the facts are ascertained, the country can judge of their motives and their success.

at

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is due to the committee, as well as to the Secretary of the Treasury, to say, that all the witnesses who speak at all upon the subject, testify that Mr. Corwin, ever after he made that sale in July up to the time when this case was decided by this Mexican Commission, uniformly, on all occasions, refused to consult with the parties or the counsel in regard to these claims in any way or manner. He refused to give the least advice as to the mode of proceeding, or to have any more to do with them than an utter stranger.

Again: It is due to Mr. Corwin to advert to a fact as testified to by the attorney of this District, that in endeavoring to detect and expose the supposed fraud connected with this claim, after there came to be a clamor about it, no man was more diligent, no man was more active, no man was more energetic than the Secretary of the Treasury, doing his whole duty, and doing it with all his strength, and with all his heart, in good faith, as an honest man and a conscientious officer of the Government. He sought by all the means in his power to restrain these moneys, and to hold on to them wherever they could be found until this whole subject could be investigated.

Sir, I think that something is due to the Secre

of this House evidential of its confidence in his purity, and in his fidelity in endeavoring to detect this fraud and bring the offender to punishment. But what have we in the House of Representatives, or what has a committee of this House, to do with the conduct of a Senator, or what has the Senate to do with a member of this body? If the propriety of the conduct of a member of either body were to be discussed by the other from day to day, there would not be business enough for both branches; but the warfare would be a fruitless and unprofitable one, in which no laurels would be

I understood the gentleman from Ohio to say one time that there had been no sale by Mr. Corwin-that the whole thing was a farce; and at another time, I understood him to say that Governor Young was the real purchaser, and that George Law was a man of straw; or, to use his own lan-tary of the Treasury-some action upon the part guage, was made to act the dummy on that occasion. Well, Mr. Law swears that he purchased the claim, and he swears that he paid for it with is own money. Does the gentleman mean that ah man who makes his own purchase, and pays his own money, according to his agreement, is a "dummy?" If he is, he certainly sets a good example. But, suppose Governor Young was really to have the benefit of this purchase, of which there is no pretense of proof, what then, and who would have a right to complain? The time has gone by when it will answer any good purpose to abuse Governor Young. While he was living, he might have been affected, like other men, by such attacks; but I believe he is now beyond the reach of any man's venom. He lived honored and died lamented. Whether he was the purchaser or not, I do not know, nor is it important to inquire. The sole inquiry for us is, Was Mr. Corwin interested, while he was Secretary of the Treasury, in these claims? If he was not, why, then, there is an end of the inquiry, and there ought to be an end of the abuse. Mr. Law swears distinctly and unequivocally that he was the purchaser of the claim, and that he paid the money.

won.

It has been customary to take some liberties with the Executive in these discussions, and that has been often done, without any great regard to delicacy; but I presume the friends of the Secretary of the Treasury would interpose no objection to a full examination into his conduct while he has occupied his present elevated official position. So far, then, as Mr. Corwin is concerned as Secretary of the Treasury, if there is any faith to be put in the testimony of highly-respectable witnesses, whose testimony is wholly uncontradicted, he went into that Department wholly divested of

HO. OF REPS.

every and all interest in what are called the Mexican claims. He was so exceedingly sensitive in this matter, and so scrupulously careful, that, as one of the witnesses testifies, he remarked to him, that unless the money was paid into his hands before that Board reconvened, he would throw his Mexican claims into the Potomac or resign his seat in the Cabinet. He would not be in such a condition that an enemy could impute any wrong to him.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have said all that, as a member of the committee, I feel it my duty to say at this time. It matters not to me to what party the Secretary of the Treasury belongs; I would interpose nothing to shield him if he was wrong, while I would protect him, as I would a man of any other polítical party, if he was right. I think the testimony which has been taken by this committee, and reported by them to this House, shows in the clearest and most satisfactory manner, that whatever he did while a member of the Senate, was done in pursuance of a very generally prevailing custom, which has not heretofore been found fault with by the members of any party; that so far as his action since he has been Secretary of the Treasury is concerned, he has done nothing that is blameworthy; that as to these claims which were presented to this Mexican Commission, he had divested himself of every kind of interest before he accepted a seat in the Cabinet, and that since that time he has had no connection with them nor consultation about them. It is time that the calumnious clamor against him should

cease.

THE GARDINER CLAIM, &c. SPEECH OF HON. N. BARRERE, OF OHIO,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 11, 1853,

On the subject of prosecution of Claims against the
Government by Members of Congress, &c.

Mr. BARRERE said:

Mr. SPEAKER: I had not expected to address the House this morning. I would have preferred submitting my remarks after hearing from the other side, or at any rate after hearing from another member of the committee, who I understand intends to present his views on this subject, and differing perhaps from those just presented by the honorable gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. CHAPMAN.] But this being as convenient a time as will probably occur to me, I shall proceed now.

Mr. Speaker, I feel it to be my duty-representing as I do a portion of the people represented for a long time in Congress by Mr. Corwin, with great acceptability to them, and distinguished credit to him to participate in this discussion. I do not propose to enter upon the merits of the bill now before the House. I have not found it necessary for my present purpose, to look into it with any degree of care. I shall examine it before I am called on to vote upon it, and if upon examination I think it necessary or useful, towards preserving the purity of the Government, or the purity of the action of the two Houses of Congress, I shall support it by my vote.

I have for a long time looked upon Mr. Corwin as one of our most prominent men; distinguished alike for his high intellectual endowments and the purity of his moral character. He has ever been a favorite in Ohio, and when I use that word, I mean a favorite with the people of the State generally-with Whigs and Democrats. In that part of the State in which I am best acquainted, I may safely say, that the high estimate of his character is not confined to any party, but that he holds an exalted place in the affections of the people of all parties. In early life Mr. Corwin was comparatively poor, and had to struggle with the disadvantages incident to our then wilderness country; but by his talents and energy he has risen to his present position. He has, unaided, and with but few advantages, risen from the humbler walks of life to what we consider one of the highest positions, morally and intellectually, as well as politically, that any gentleman occupies in the country. I do not pretend to an extensive acquaintance with distinguished men, and have not that high appre

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

ciation of what are called great men, that some persons have. I believe, among cultivated men of clear heads and honest hearts, there is not that vast difference that is sometimes supposed. Much depends upon circumstances. Men of fixed purpose, sound common sense, and incorruptible integrity, possess the elements of greatness, and will, when placed in the proper positions, generally prove themselves to be men of ability. This, however, is but mere speculation; for there are a few, and but a few, who stand out in bold relief as greatly distinguished, and who command the admiration and respect due to really great minds. The characters of such men are invaluable to the country; and while it is the duty of this House to expose unsparingly corruption in high places, it is equally the duty, and ought to be the pleasure, of the House to shield and protect the reputations of deserving men from wanton and unjust aspersions.

Since I have been a member of this House, I have made it my business to observe, with as much scrutiny as I could, the persons of distinction whom I have had the pleasure of seeing in this city; and I have endeavored to satisfy myself as to the relative claims of each and all of them to the consideration accorded to them by their respective friends. Not long since, I heard with great pleasure the eloquent eulogies delivered in this House upon the character of Mr. Webster. All seemed to agree that he was the great intellectual giant of the age. I fully concurred in that opinion. With the exception of Mr. Webster, I have come in contact with no man in the District of Columbia, who, in my opinion, is the intellectual superior of Thomas Corwin. He is prized at home, however, much more for his high character for purity, honesty, and integrity, than for his mental capacity. His neighbors are proud of his attainments and his abilities; but on account of his noble, generous nature, and his incorruptible integrity, as they believe, they love him. No suspicion of dishonesty ever rested upon him in the country where he has lived most of his life. He is looked upon by the people there as their safest adviser in matters of the highest individual interest, and in all the situations of life in which men desire counsel or advice, I know of no man in the section of the State where he resides, that is consulted so much in matters pertaining to private interests and the social condition of his neighborhood. No man anywhere ever enjoyed the entire confidence of his neighbors more fully than Mr. Corwin. They look with deep interest upon this proceeding, as they do upon everything that involves his character and standing.

The Gardiner Claim, &c.-Mr. Barrere.

a means of defense for the good name and character of our public men, as the law affords for the protection of the reputation and property of private citizens. If we have any security in this country for good government, for liberty, and for all that we prize highly, it is found in the honesty, integrity, and uprightness of the people, and in the due appreciation of the worth and value of pure and honorable public men.

Mr. Speaker, the Special Committee who reported the bill under consideration, sat during the recess, and acted under the authority of the following resolution:

"Whereas a strong suspicion rests upon the public mind, that fradulent claims have been allowed by the late Mexican Claims Commission, with one of which it is suspected that Thomas Cowin, of the Treasury, has been improperly connected; therefore

"Resolved, That a committee, consisting of five members of this House, be appointed to investigate all the facts touching the connection of the said Thomas Corwin, the present Secretary of the Treasury, with the Gardiner claim; what fee, if any, he was to receive for his services as agent or counsel for said Gardiner; what interest, if any, other than his fee interest, he purchased and held, either directly or indirectly, in said claim, and the amount paid or stipulated to be paid therefor as condition of said purchase; what time he ceased to act as counsel or agent of said Gardiner; to whom and for what consideration he disposed of his interest; to whom and for what consideration he disposed of his one fourth interest in said claim."

The committee made their report in the recess. They directed their inquiries to two points. First. Was the claim of George A. Gardiner, as allowed by the Board of Commissioners under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, meritorious or fraudulent? Second. What was the connection of the Hon. Thomas Corwin, the present Secretary of the Treasury, with said claim?

On the first branch of the investigation, the committee in their report say:

"From the evidence before the committee, (the above being only a summary of the more important facts testified to by the witnesses,) the committee are constrained to believe, upon the first branch of the investigation committed to them, that the claim of George A. Gardiner, upon which an award was made by the Board of Commissioners for the sum of $428,750, was sustained before the Commissioners by false testimony and forged papers, and is a naked fraud upon the Treasury of the United States. Of the amount awarded, $93,000, on deposit, in stock and money,with Corcoran & Riggs, to the credit of Gardiner, subject to two charges-one a letter of credit to George A. Gardiner on George Peabody,of London, for £2,000, and one his letter of credit to his brother, John Charles Gardiner, for $10,000— have been enjoined; and also $130,500 deposited to the credit of George A. Gardiner, with the Life Insurance and Trust Company, in the city of New York, have been enjoined at the suit of the United States, and are now retained under injunction. The sum of $94,582 was paid to counsel, and $107,187 50 was paid to the assignees of the one fourth of the claim originally sold to Thomas Corwin and Robert G. Corwin."

In relation to the other branch of the investigation, the committee say:

"In May, 1849, the Hon. Thomas Corwin, then a member of the United States Senate, was employed as counsel in the Gardiner claim by General Waddy Thompson, the original counsel of Gardiner, upon an agreement that Mr. Corwin should have for his fee five per cent. on whatever sum should be awarded to Gardiner by the Commissioners. In February, 1850, Thomas Corwin, in company with Robert G. Corwin, Esq., purchased one fourth part of the claim of Gardiner, and this fourth part of said claim was assigned, on the 13th of that month, to W. W. Corcoran, Esq, who loaned money to the Messrs. Corwin to purchase it, and held the claim for Messrs. Thomas and Robert G. Corwin, in equal shares, as collateral security for

the payment of the loan. The Messrs. Corwin paid $22,000,

and relinquished their fees on the one fourth of the claim purchased by them, and paid a part of Edward Curtis's fees -what amount does not appear-as the consideration for the purchase.

"The Hon. Thomas Corwin resigned his seat in the Senate, and accepted the appointment of Secretary of the Treasury, in the month of July, 1850. In the same month, and previous to his going into the Cabinet of President Fillmore as Secretary of the Treasury, a sale of his fee interest in, and also of his half of the one fourth part of the Gardiner claim, was negotiated, through the intervention of Governor John Young, of New York, to George Law, Esq., of New York. From this time the said Thomas Corwin refused to act as counsel, or consult with the other counsel who had been associated with him, in relation to the same, and took no further part in the prosecution of the said Gardiner clain. The assignment of his fee interest, and his interest in the one fourth part of the Gardiner claim, and all his interest in all other claims before the Board of Commissioners, (thirtyseven in number,) was executed by Thomas Corwin to JaLittle, of New York, in November, 1850, and the money for the purchase was then paid by George Law, to whom the assignment to Jacob Little was at that time transferred. The money for the sale, $80,357, was received by Thomas Corwin, and on the 23d of November was deposited by him to his credit with Messrs. Corcoran & Riggs.

"No testimony has been adduced before the committee proving, or tending to prove, that the Hon. Thomas Corwin had any knowledge that the claim of the said Gardi

HO. OF REPS.

ner was fraudulent, or that false testimony or forged papers had been or were to be procured to sustain the same."

Now, sir, it is said that this report does not acquit Mr. Corwin of the charges preferred against him. It is difficult to determine what charges were preferred against him. But in the opinion of the committee, they involved an inquiry into the merits of the Gardiner claim. No express authority was given to the committee to inquire into the character of the Gardiner claim. But the several matters set forth in the resolution could not be investigated, they thought, so as to ascertain whether Mr. Corwin's connection with that claim was improper, without first ascertaining the character of the claim itself. If the committee could have made the investigation required at their hands, without inquiring into the merits of the Gardiner claim, they ought by all means to have done so. His case is before the proper judicial tribunals of the country, undergoing a rigid investigation. Two civil suits are pending against him, and two criminal prosecutions are now in preparation for trial. The whole policy of our laws and the whole spirit of our criminal jurisprudence are against any investigation into the merits of his claim by this House, while those suits are pending against him in court. He is entitled to a fair and an impartial trial, and any investigation of the merits of his claim here, is calculated to defeat that constitutional right, or at least to prejudice it.

But as a high public functionary of the Government was charged with improper connection with the Gardiner claim, public policy imperiously required that any prejudice that might result to Gardiner from an investigation into its merits should be disregarded, in order that the conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury should be inquired into, and either exposed or vindicated.

The committee, therefore, thought it to be their duty to inquire into the character of the Gardiner claim. They determined that the propriety or impropriety of Mr. Corwin's connection with it depended, in the first place, upon the honesty or dishonesty of the claim itself. In this I think they were right; for it is evident that, unless the claim be fraudulent, the whole charge falls to the ground. This view is further sustained by the fact, that although Mr. Corwin was connected as counsel with thirty-six other claims before the Board of Commissioners which are not questioned, no one has pretended that his connection with them was improper.

Having decided the Gardiner claim to be fraudulent, and sustained by perjury and forgery, the committee next inquired into Mr. Corwin's connection with it, and after stating the facts, showing the nature, character, and extent of that connection, they concluded that there was no evidence before them proving, or tending to prove, that Mr. Corwin knew the fraudulent character of the claim. If, then, Mr. Corwin has not been exonerated and acquitted by the committee, of the charge preferred against him, he has been improperly connected with the crimes of perjury and forgery, and instead of being Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, he ought to be within the walls of the penitentiary of this District. This position cannot be avoided. The committee have either acquitted him, or they have shown facts that make him particeps criminis in the crimes of perjury and forgery. From the facts exhibited, it is clearly shown that his connection with the claim, if improper, is so because the claim is fraudulent and sustained by perjury and forgery, and for no other

reason.

This is a grave charge to be brought against any man. The committee report that there is no evidence going to show any such guilt; that there is not a particle of proof tending to show that he had any knowledge whatever of the fraudulent character of the claim, or of the proofs adduced to sustain it. Yet my colleague [Mr. OLDS] says that is no acquittal.

I have had some experience in practicing law. We have an action in my State, and I suppose it is an action in use throughout the country, and not only so, but in every country where the common law obtains-(It was truly said by the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. VENABLE,] the other day, that liberty exists nowhere except where the common law prevails)-I repeat, wherever the common law has obtained, the action for malicious

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

prosecution is known. Where a person is charged criminally by another, and on trial, the prosecutor fails entirely to sustain his charges by proof, the person charged has a right to an action for malicious prosecution. If, in one of our courts, a citizen were charged with a heinous offense, and the prosecutor should fail to produce a shadow of proof to sustain the accusation, and afterwards upon a trial for malicious prosecution between the same parties, the defendant should fail to provide evidence, either proving or tending to prove the truth of the charge he had previously preferred against the plaintiff, what would be the conduct of the jury in such a case? I hazard nothing in saying, that damages would be awarded by a jury, in any court in the country. Yes, sir, actions for malicious prosecution are known to all of us, and they are always sustained, where a party has brought a charge against another which he has produced no proof whatever to sustain. Where a party produces evidence showing that he had reasonable cause to institute the prosecution, in such a case there would be evidence tending to prove the truth of the charge; and though it might not show guilt, still the defendant might be relieved from damages on account of malice. But in a case where the party fails to produce any evidence tending to prove the truth of the charge, our judges will charge the jury that a case was fairly made out, entitling the plaintiff to vindictive damages.

The

Mr. Speaker, I have examined this testimony with care. I am not disposed to question anything that the committee have done. They have embodied in their report a summary of the facts that occurred to them as the most important; and, But there are so far as they go, they are correct. some other proofs furnished to them, and taken by them, which are not embodied in the report, and which were not necessary to be put in the report, that I think may be profitably adverted to. committee say, and the gentleman who has just taken his seat, who was a member of the committee, repeats, that there was no evidence of any sort or description tending to show in the slightest degree that Mr. Corwin had any knowledge that a fraud was about to be perpetrated upon the Government. I think a close examination of the testimony will satisfy every unprejudiced person, not only that Mr. Corwin had no knowledge of the contemplated fraud of Gardiner, if his claim is really a sheer fraud, but that all the testimony in the case before the Board while he was connected with the claim, and when it was finally allowed, showed an honest, fair case. I will say further, that the evidence before the Board of Commissioners in favor of the claim was far stronger than is the testimony before the committee that it is fraudulent. The testimony was entirely satisfactory, in the absence-which was the case-of any suspicion of its not being genuine.

In the first place, Mr. Corwin never knew Dr. Gardiner until after the treaty was made and the Board of Commissioners had been established and organized. He was then employed in the case, not by Gardiner, but by General Waddy Thompson, a man of high character in the country-a man who had served with him in Congress for a number of years, whose integrity and honor had never been questioned, and who had been our Minister in Mexico. Thompson had known Gardiner in Mexico from 1842 to the latter part of 1843, or early in 1844. He had made his acquaintance when he first went to Mexico, Gardiner having been the chairman of the committee of the American citizens residing in the city of Mexico to invite General Thompson on his arrival there to a public dinner. Gardiner was in the city of Mexico practicing his profession at that time, and engaged to some extent in mining operations. In the fall of 1843, or early in 1844, he left for the interior, and said he was going to look for mines. Thompson saw no more of Gardiner until late in 1848 or early in 1849, in this city, when his first inquiry was to know of Dr. Gardiner whether he had made a fortune in mining, when Gardiner told him of his operations and his losses. Mr. Gardiner had letters from Hon. Jefferson Davis, Solomon W. Downs, Colonel Gates, Dr. Hitchcock, and other distinguished American officers, who had been in the army in Mexico, representing him to be a man of honesty and integrity. It was natural that Dr. Gardiner should apply NEW SERIES.-No. 8.

The Gardiner Claim, &c.-Mr. Barrere.

to General Thompson, from their acquaintance and his high professional character. After proper consultation, and hearing from Gardiner the nature, character, and extent of his claim, as he alleged it, General Thompson engaged to prosecute the claim before the Board for fifteen per cent. upon the amount that should be finally awarded. Mr. Thompson employed Mr. Corwin, and agreed to give him five per cent. upon the amount that should be finally awarded out of his fifteen per cent. This was the precise manner of Mr. Corwin's first connection with the claim, as General Thompson swears. Thompson, when he was retained, as he states, reserved to himself the right of employing such additional counsel as he desired, to be paid out of his own fee. Mr. Corwin was not employed by Gardiner or to be paid by him. There was surely nothing at that time to excite suspicion in the mind of Mr. Corwin. There is scarcely a man in the United States who could procure better testimonials, if he desired to use them in the furtherance of his rights, than Dr. Gardiner had obtained when Mr. Corwin first became acquainted with him.

In May, 1849, Mr. Corwin was employed. During the summer and fall of 1849, Dr. Gardiner went to Mexico to procure the necessary legal proofs to sustain his claim. On the 30th of November, 1849, the memorial of Gardiner was filed, and the proofs that had been then procured. In February, 1850, Robert G. Corwin, Esq., bought one fourth of the claim from Gardiner, and in the arrangement the Secretary of the Treasury became the owner of one half of that fourth.

On the 12th of May, 1850, the claim was passed upon by the Board as a valid claim. In July, 1850, Mr. Corwin sold out his interest in the Gardiner claim and all other claims (thirty-six in number) in which he was interested, then pending before the Board of Commissioners, to George Law, and at that time resigned his seat in the Senate, and afterwards became a member of the Cabinet. This whole transaction took place while Mr. Corwin was a Senator, and no part of it since he has been Secretary of the Treasury. I make no question of the right of this House to inquire into the conduct of a Senator of the United States, although I think it has not that right. If Mr. Corwin is culpable in this matter, I do not desire that he should be shielded from exposure because of any plea to the jurisdiction. I desire the fullest investigation.

I will now endeavor to show the character of the proofs that were before the Mexican Claims Commission. For this purpose I will quote the whole of General Thompson's testimony:

Waddy Thompson appeared as a witness, and was sworn. Witness resides in Greenville, South Carolina. He was counsel in the case of George A. Gardiner.

Please state what you know in relation to the claim of George A. Gardiner, and any interest or connection which Thomas Corwin had in the same.

Answer. I do not know that I have any information in reference to that claim, other than that which is furnished by the papers submitted. I first became acquainted with Dr. Gardiner in the city of Mexico, on the 25th of April, 1842, a few days after my arrival there as Minister from the United States, when he called upon me as chairman, or the first named, of a committee appointed, at a meeting of the American citizens in Mexico, to invite me to a public dinner. The letter of invitation was presented to the committee of the Senate engaged in an investigation of the Gardiner claim. I thought I had the original with me, but in the haste in which I left home-a few hours after the arrival of the messenger-1 neglected to bring the original with me. I met Dr. Gardiner occasionally, as I did other American citizens, while in Mexico; had no special intimacy with him, nor any knowledge of his pecuniary circumstances, further than a general impression, derived from him and other Americans in Mexico, that he was engaged in a profitable business-that of a dentist and physician. Shortly before Dr. Gardiner left the city of Mexico, which was in the fall of 1843, as I understood and believed, (for I never saw him there afterwards, until I left, which was about the middle of March, 1844, he called upon me to request that would give him a letter to some naval officer, who he had understood was at Acapulco, asking for him a passage in his ship to Mazatlan, or some place on the Pacific coast, as there were very few commercial vessels in that quarter, and it was difficult to obtain a passage. I complied with his request. I asked him why he was leaving Mexico, as I had understood he was making money. He said that he was; but that he thought he could do better, and that he was going to look for some mines of which he had received information. I never saw or heard of Dr. Gardiner again until I met him on the avenue, in this city, late in December, 1848, or in January, 1849. I did not at first recognize him; when I did I said to him, I hope you have made a fortune by those mines you were in pursuit of. He then told me that he had a claim before the Mexican Board about to be established, for losses by his expulsion from his mines. He called a few

HO. OF REPS.

days afterwards, and submitted his papers to me. Some of those papers were submitted in the form in which they then were to the Board; others, not conforming to the rules prescribed by the Board, were not presented. They were the same in substance, and generally the depositions of the same witnesses, afterwards presented, Dr. Gardiner having gone to Mexico to have them put in the required form. Among the papers first presented was the book of account of daily expenditures and receipts. My connection with the case was strictly and exclusively professional, and confined to written instructions given to Dr. Gardiner, as to the form and character of the testimony which he should get. The original of these instructions is in possession of the committee of the Senate, a copy of which-herewith filed, and marked Exhibit No. 10-I desire shall be taken as part of my testimony, and to written arguments presented to the Board. I never conversed nor had any communication with either of the commissioners on the subject of the claim, except to say to one of the commissioners, in January or February, 1851, that I desired, if there was no reason to the contrary, that the amount of the award might be fixed, as I was about to make a contract which would depend upon it. Some time in the fall of 1849, or early in 1850, Dr. Gardiner called at my room and told me that he had been advised to employ Major Lally in this case. I protested strongly against it, and said it would be an act of great injustice to me to do so-to employ him or anybody else without my consent. I knew nothing of Major Lally or his character which would justify any imputation on that account, but I knew that such imputations would be made, as he was nearly connected with one of the commissioners, and, as I had been informed, was not a lawyer; and that he (Gardiner) had certainly counsel enough. He replied that that was his own judgment, and that he would not employ him, and with some strong asseveration that if the commissioners thought proper to reject his claim they might do it; that he had once worked for his living, and he would do it again. I left this city about the 7th or 8th of March, 1850, for South

Carolina, and returned about the 20th of April. While I was absent Major Lally was employed by Mr. Edward Curtis, as Mr. Curtis informed me himself; he agreeing to di vide with Major Lally his fees, which were five per cent. I submit a copy of the original contract between Dr. Gardiner and myself, which bears date the 28th June, 1849. The original was before the committee of the Senate. The copy submitted is a true copy, and is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit No. 11. It will be seen by that contract that I was to receive fifteen per cent. on whatever amount might be awarded. I said to Dr. Gardiner that if it became further charge to him. I employed the Hon. Thomas Corwin necessary to employ other counsel, I would do so without

as assistant counsel, and agreed to pay him five per cent. out of my own commissions. I had no consultation about the case with Mr. Curtis or Major Lally: with the latter I never had even a conversation. With Mr. Curtis I had occasional conversations about the case, but never a consultation, in the meaning of that term as used by lawyers. With Mr. Corwin I had frequent consultations before he ac cepted his present office; never any afterwards. On one occasion, after Mr. Corwin accepted that office, I called upon him to consult about this and some other cases in which we were engaged. He said that before he accepted a place in the Cabinet he had closed his connection with those cases, and washed his hands of them, and that he could not in good faith even consult with me in relation to them.

Question by the committee. When were the first depositions filed? were they filed with the memorial, or afterwards?

Answer. I think they were filed with the memorial; I am certain they were filed about that time. I am the more confident of this, because the only reason why the memorial was not filed immediately on the meeting of the Board in the spring of 1849, was that the copies and translation of the book of account of the mines, and some other papers presented, were not finished at that time, and it was desired to present them all together.

The first six depositions, viz: Juan Soto, Antonio Marin, William Penn Jolinson, James B. Smith, Sebastian Pacheco, and William Jackson, were presented with the memorial, or about that time, to the best of my recollection, and these were all the depositions in the case when it was declared valid.

Question by the committee. Do you remember when the depositions which Dr. Gardiner presented after he returned from Mexico were filed?

Answer. I cannot give the precise date. I left Washington the 10th or 15th of October, 1850, and returned on the 19th of November, 1850. During my short absence, Dr. Gardiner returned from Mexico, and the papers had been presented before my return. My impression is that the titledeed was among the papers last presented, but the date of the official certificate to that title-deed will show whether it was presented then or before.

In answer to a question by the committee, witness says that Mr. Corwin was employed by me in May, 1819. Mr. Corwin went into the Cabinet of Mr. Fillmore on its first formation, in July, 1850; after that, so far as I know, he had no connection with or agency in the cases, but refused even to consult with me about them. It is known to everybody that prior to Mr. Corwin's going into the Cabinet be was a member of the United States Senate. The depositions above referred to, brought from Mexico by Dr. Gardiner on his last visit, were filed after Mr. Corwin went into the Cabinet.

Question by the committee. Were the first depositions taken under your instructions, or previously?

Answer. I think they were taken subsequent to my instructions, and were brought here by a person sent from Mexico by the agent of Dr. Gardiner, who arrived here just before the meeting of Congress, in 1849, which confirms my opinion that they were presented with the memorial.

Question by the committee. Were the title-papers to the mine before the Board when they decided that the claim was valid?

Answer. My impression is that they were not in the complete form in which they were afterwards presented; but

32D CONG.....2D Sess.

that there was a short official certificate of the existence of such title..

Question by the committee. Was Mr. Thomas Corwin consulted by you in reference to these instructions as to the testimony required?

Answer. I had full consultations with Mr. Corwin about the whole case. Mr. Corwin and myself, however, wrote separate instructions. I obtained the originals of both instructions from Dr. Gardiner a month or six weeks since, and handed Mr. Corwin those drawn up by him.

Question by the committee. What depositions, or testimony, were presented with the account-book and memorial of Gardiner to the Board?

Answer. As well as I remember, the first six depositions above referred to, and, I think, some papers certified by Mexican officers relative to Gardiner's expulsion, and the printed order expelling all Americans from the department, and the protest of Dr. Gardiner.

Question by the committee. What papers did Dr. Gardiner submit to you when he first consulted you?

Answer. The book of accounts, the order for his expulsion, and the official certificates referred to; his protest, and a mass of depositions, generally, if not entirely, from the witnesses whose depositions were afterwards presented, and stating substantially the same facts as were afterwards put in the form prescribed by the Commissioners. These depositions not being in the required form, others were taken from most of the same witnesses. Some of the witnesses to the depositions brought by Dr. Gardiner from Mexico, and first shown me, could not afterwards be procured by him, but most, if not all, afterwards presented in proper form, were brought with him when I first met him here, but not in the form in which they could be used.

Question by the committee. What was the difference in the form?

Answer. They were in the ordinary form of depositions, without any statement of the age, residence, place of birth, and occupation of the witness; or that they had no interest in the case, and that the officer before whom they were taken had none; and other matters required by the rule adopted by the Commissioners.

Question by the committee. Do you know anything of Mr. Corwin's purchase of an interest in this claim?

Answer. I do, as I have heard it from both parties. The negotiation and contract were by Mr. Robert G. Corwin, in January or February, 1850. I did not know until some months afterwards, that Mr. Thomas Corwin had any interest in the purchase. Dr. Gardiner consulted me as to making the contract. I advised him to do it. My reasons for that advice were, that he was obliged to return to Mexico, and he had no funds; that I thought, from what he had told me, that with the money obtained from that sale he would be able to compound with creditors in Mexico, who he told me had extorted upon his necessities, and thus indemnify himself for his loss on that sale. The other reason was, that the claims presented to the Board were three or four times as much as the amount appropriated, and it was uncertain what the pro rata payment on the awards would be. The general impression at that time was, that it would not be more than fifty per cent. The Messrs. Corwin gave for the one fourth of the claim $22,000, and relinquished, of course, their commission on that fourth, and gave, as I understood from them, a premium of five or six thousand dollars for the money they paid Gardiner. Of the money received by Gardiner from this sale he paid me $3,000 on my fees, and the Corwins, as I understood, $2,000.

Question by the committee. You say the Corwins paid five or six thousand dollars premium for the money they paid Gardiner. To whom, and for what purpose, did they pay that amount?

Answer. To Corcoran & Riggs, of whom they borrowed the money, or a large part of it, as they informed me.

Question by the committee. How much money did the Corwins pay to Gardiner for the fourth they purchased?

Answer. The whole amount, I suppose, deducting $2,000 paid on their fees, leaving $20,000.

Question by the committee. Did the Corwins receive fees and commissions upon the other three quarters? Answer. They did.

Question. How much in all?

Answer. Mr. Thomas Corwin's commissions were five per cent. I do not know exactly what were Mr. Robert G. Corwin's, but think they were much less. He can state. Question. Do you know the shares in which the two Corwins held the quarter?

Answer. Equally, as I understand. Question. Do you know the gross amount of fees and commissions paid by Gardiner to all his counsel ?

Answer. My own commissions, of ten per cent., were $42,370, of which Dr. Gardiner paid me $3,000 of the money received from the Corwins; the balance, $39,370, he paid, after he received the award, to my agent, Mr. W. W. Corcoran. Mr. Thomas Corwin's fees, under his contract, were a little over $15,000. I think Mr. Robert Corwin's a little more than $5,000; and Mr. Edward Curtis, as I have been informed by Dr. Gardiner, received about $24,000. I know of no other fees being paid.

Question. For what purpose was the second series of depositions, or mass of testimony, obtained from Mexico? Answer. To strengthen the case, and increase the amount of the award.

Witness left Washington before the awards were paid, and gave Mr. Corcoran power of attorney to receive his fees, which he did. Mr. Curtis has stated, in his examination, that he was employed by me. This is a mistake. Shortly before I left Washington, on the 4th of July, 1849, Dr. Gardiner had told me that he intended to employ Mr. Curtis. Shortly afterwards I met Mr. Curtis, and told him that Gardiner intended to employ him. This was all I ever said to him on the subject, either from that time until December, 1849, when he says he was employed, or since. did not even know the terms on which he had been employed until June, 1850, when Mr. Curtis informed me, in a letter which he addressed to me, what commissions he was to receive, which he certainly would not have done if I had employed him and made the contract.

I

The Gardiner Claim, &c.-Mr. Barrere.

Mrs. Chase says that I am mistaken as to the strong language of commendation in which she spoke of Dr. Gardiner. This is not very material, as it was only one of the many testimonials to the high standing of Dr. Gardiner; but my recollection is very distinct of the conversation. It is possible that I may not have given the precise words. It is equally probable that this highly-respectable lady may herself have forgotten them; but there is no doubt of the fact that she had a favorable opinion of Dr. Gardiner, as she now admits, and as is proved by the fact of her recommending him for the highly-honorable office of assistant surgeon in the Army, and her letter to the same effect, which was presented to the Board.

At the time of my employment in this case, I had no personal acquaintance with but one of the Commissioners, Mr. Evans, and with him my relations were never intimate or cordial.

Question. Do you know who Gardiner employed to obtain his testimony in Mexico?

Answer. I do not. I know that Dr. Gardiner went to Mexico some time in the month of March or April, 1850. Question. Do you know any other fact material to this investigation?

Answer. I do not.

Question by the committee. Did Dr. Gardiner go to Mexico more than once to obtain testimony in this case? Answer. My impression is that he did-first, in the summer of 1849; afterwards, in March or April, 1850; I am not positive. WADDY THOMPSON.

There were two several sets of depositions and proofs procured from Mexico, and used as evidence before the Board of Commissioners. Those taken first, together with the depositions taken in the United States, were all the evidence that was in the case during Mr. Corwin's connection with it. This appears from General Thompson's deposition, and also from the deposition of Robert T. Paine, one of the Commissioners. The depositions and papers filed with the memorial, or about that time, were the following, as also appears from General Thompson and Mr. Paine's depositions:

The book of account of daily expenditures and receipts. This book of account is, I understand, a large book, and has not been copied into the testimony. It is certified as follows:

RIO VERDE, June 12, 1848. Manuel Verastegui, prefect of the department of Rio Verde: I certify this book contains fifty-four useful leaves, and that it is a complete and literal copy (having put my scrawl on each leaf) of the original, which I have seen and compared, and which remains in deposit at the request of the creditors. MANUEL VERASTEGUI.

J. PIO GUTIERREZ, Secretary.

RIO VERDE, June 12, 1848. Manuel Verastegui, prefect of the department of Rio Verde: I certify that the total amount of debit resulting from the anterior account amounts to $171,402 50; and that having revised the entries, they are in every respect similar to the originals. MANUEL VERASTEGUI.

J. Pio GUTIERREZ, Secretary.

HO. OF REPS.

MANUEL VERASTEGUI, PREFECT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF RIO VERDE,

I certify that in the archives of this office, relative to the month of October, 1846, is deposited the original document of which the following is an exact copy:

HACIENDA DE SAN CRISTOBAL, October 24, 1846. MR. PREFECT OF THIS DEPARTMENT: Having received this morning, through the justice of the peace of this district, the decree of Supreme Government of the State, dated the 21st instant, which forcibly expels from the State, in the peremptory term of three days from its date, all American citizens: and whereas I am notified that I am not only comprehended in the expulsion, but especially informed by the local authorities that their orders are such as not to allow me, under any plea, extension of time, at the expiration of the term set forth in the law, thereby augmenting this general act of injustice; for if said law grants three days to those expelled to arrange their business, it merely grants me a few hours, being notified that to day, the 24th, in which I have received the notification, the term stipulated expires, and that I will positively have to leave before tomorrow's dawn, or subject myself to be maltreated and turned out by a body of troops that are hourly expected, with the sole object of carrying me, by main force, out of the State, in case I object in the slightest manner to se fulfillment of the law.

It would be impossible for me to represent in its true light the surprise and astonishment that this arbitrary act has inspired me with. To see the person who has encouraged the industry of the country; who has raised this mining district from a state of oblivion to be one of the first in the Republic; who supports upwards of five hundred families, and is the cause of the prosperity of the whole district; who has invested a capital of upwards of three hundred thousand dollars, and has never interfered in mattersof politics, nor given any cause of complaint; who has always helped the Government, whenever it has called on him, with copious sums-to behold, I again say, he who has all these recommendations, made the target of revenge of a Government, cannot but inspire horror. Your honor is a witness, as are also all the authorities of the department, that I have worked two years, investing a capital of three hundred thousand dollars, in raising and causing this mineral district to prosper, which was in a state of decay, and which is at present in a most flourishing state of prosperity. It is also well known that my presence is absolutely requisite for its prosperity, and I cannot look with indifference on the arbitrary law that obliges me to abandon to the plunder and cupidity of evil-doers my extensive property, my brilliant and flattering future. I therefore solemnly protest, as I best can by law, against the law of expulsion of the 21st of October of the present year, issued by the Government of the State of San Luis, as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust. I furthermore protest against such an unjust act as being contrary to the laws of nations, contrary to the customs of other countries, and in diametrical opposition to the treaty between the Mexican Republic and the United States, that grants six months to the citizens of both countries established on the coast to settle their business, and a year to those in the interior, after a declaration of war. I further protest against said law, because it obliges me to abandon precipitately, in the peremptory term of twentyfour hours, my extensive mining property, (hacienda de beneficio) refinery, stock of ores, grain, and effects; ores in a state of amalgamation, and everything appertaining to this kind of business. For the reasons here set forth, and as far as I have a right by law, I protest and bold the government of the State, and that of the whole nation, responsible for the damages, injuries, disturbances, and losses that my interest and business suffers, and charge it with whatever I am debarred from realizing by a stoppage of my business, the losses I may encounter or expenses incur. All of which I have the bonor of making known to your honor, that you may forward the same to the Supreme Government of the State for the desired end.

I reiterate to your honor the considerations of my respect, GEORGE A. GARDINER. And at the request of the party interested,I give this in Rio Verde, on the 20th of June, 1848. MANUEL VERASTEGUI.

J. PIO GUTIERREZ, Secretary.

PREFECT'S OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF RIO VErde. I inclose to you the original answer, which I have received from the Supreme Government of this State, respecting the authorization of your books and documents by this Prefecture, by which you will see that this just step has been approved.

I protest to you the assurance of my particular esteem.
God and liberty. Rio Verde, July 3, 1848.
MANUEL VERASTEGUI,

MR. GEORGE A. GARDIner.

GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF SAN LUIS POTOSI. His excellency the Governor having informed himself of your honor's note of the 26th of June, in which you inform him that you have certified the books and documents of the American citizen, Mr. George A. Gardiner, with relation to the damages and injuries that his mining business of Sierra Gordo suffered in consequence of the supreme decree of the 21st of October, 1846, by which he was expelled, his excellency approves of this step in the cause of justice, as there do not appear, in the expulsion of this individual, suspicions of any kind, having been a victim of a general law, without having individually given any motive whatever,