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

and nothing but talent and skill could make it anything else. The great king of Mexican mines, Perez Galvez, at last remarked his (Gardiner's) uniform success, and, taking him into favor, offered him his credit to carry forward any of his undertakings. Of these statements I think he produced proofs, in the shape of a correspondence between himself and Perez Galvez. Its extent I cannot speak of. I am not sure that it established anything beyond an intimacy between Perez Galvez and Gardiner. Among the general proofs there were some which made a particular impression upon the Board, as of a character fixing the unavoidable authenticity of Gardiner's mining operations, and chief of these the register, or book of accounts of the mine itself, kept by the Government commissary.

Upon the register or book of accounts referred to being shown to the witness, he says that, upon inspection, he still continues of the opinion that it was kept by the Government commissary.

Question by the committee. Did the Board ever take any means, by depositions or otherwise, to obtain any testimony from Mexico touching the Gardiner claim?

Answer. They did not, either in that case or any other. The counsel in the Gardiner case was, as well as I recolJect, originally General Waddy Thompson, who was understood to have prepared the papers. Afterwards Mr. Thomas Corwin was introduced into the case; then Messrs. Curtis, Lally, and Robert G. Corwin.

Question by Mr. Corwin. Did I ever appear before the Board after I went into the Cabinet?

Answer. Never. The practice of the Board was, after having settled the principle of an award, to make up the amount of pecuniary damages on those principles; but the latter were not disclosed-the former only was communicated to the public-nor known even to the Secretary himself; but this is not because he could not know, but voluntarily.

Question by the committee. When the decision in favor of Dr. Gardiner was first made, was the amount to be awarded him, as well as the validity of his claim, determined by the Board?

Of

Answer. A definite amount was then awarded. course, he (Gardiner) did not know the amount, nor his counsel; and I understood, at the time, that an intimation was given to Dr. Gardiner by the Board, that if he could satisfy them on certain points where his proofs were insufficient, his award would be increased accordingly. In this case it chanced that I heard the amount of the award before I could quit the Board, as I usually did, to avoid learning the amount of the particular award. This is the only instance in which the like happened. The amount originally awarded was, I think, $300,000.

It was the practice of the Commissioners to keep each a memorandum-book, in which he entered the amount of the award, and the particulars of which it was made up. These books were kept under their own personal lock and key; and whenever they left the city, I took care that they should be sealed up by themselves.

Question by the committee. When was the amount determined to be awarded, upon the first decision of the Board as to the validity of the claim, announced to the claimant or the public?

Answer. In this instance, as in all others, it was communicated to neither the claimant nor the public, nor anybody else, as long as I was in office, and only made known when the awards were all published together, so far as I

know.

cases.

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

$300,000 with interest, from the date of his expulsion up to the rendition of the award? Answer. I was endeavoring to get out of the way, and I only heard the sum of $300,000 named. Whether more was said or not I cannot say. EDWARD WM. JOHNSTON.

TUESDAY, October 5-19 a. m. Robert T. Paine appeared as a witness, and was sworn. Question. Were you a member of the Board of Commissioners to adjust claims of American citizens against Mexico, under the late treaty?

Answer. I was. I served from the beginning to the end of the commission. It met the 16th of April, 1849. It adjourned on the 15th or 16th of April, 1851. The Board adjourned in June, 1850, to meet again in November, same year. General Taylor died before the Board inet in November. I heard of his death while at home.

Question by Mr. Corwin. Did I ever appear before the Board as attorney, in any case, after General Taylor's death, and after the formation of Mr. Fillmore's Cabinet?

Answer. Never, sir, to my knowledge. I knew at the meeting of the Board that Mr. Corwin had disconnected himself as counsel in any case.

Question. Were there two sets of papers and proofs exhibited to the Board in the case of George A. Gardiner, at different times?

Answer. There was additional testimony introduced after the Board had decided upon the validity of the claim. Question. Was I counsel at the time that additional testimony was introduced?

Answer. I cannot tell what time that additional testimony was filed, but it was not laid before the Board until the meeting of the Board in November, 1850.

Question. The claim of G. A. Gardiner was first received by the Board on the 30th November, 1849, as appears from the journal of the Board. What papers were filed at that time?

Answer. I cannot say certainly; I know his memorial was then filed, that being the first thing that the Board considered. When the case was taken up for consideration, I remember that the book of accounts and affidavits, showing the possession of Gardiner in the mine, the amount of property he had on hand, or the value of its fixtures, the profits of the mine for a number of months, and the value of the ore on hand, and that in a state of amalgam, were then before the Board, and with these there was some evidence of title to the mine in Gardiner, but not sufficient to establish his legal title, and other evidence going to establish the validity of his claim. I do not recollect what that evidence of title was--whether it was a certificate or affidavit,

or what it was.

Question. Are you certain that there was any paper showing Gardiner's title to the mine at the time the first decision of the Board was made?

Answer. I feel confident that there was no deed, but I cannot tell whether there was any paper or not. My impression is that there was.

Question. Was there any objection, at the Board, that the title was not proved?

Answer. It is impossible for me to speak of the consultation of the Board in this case in particular. It was contended, on the part of the claimant, that he was entitled to pay for the mine. That claim was met, on the part of the Board, by saying that there was not sufficient proof of his title to the mine.

Question. Why were not the damages determined when the Board of Commissioners allowed the claim?

It was

Ho. OF REPS.

aspect in which it was presented to the Board, and have assumed that it is true as stated by the committee, that the claim is now shown to be a naked fraud. That question, I am content to leave as the committee have left it. The question for us is, had the Secretary of the Treasury any knowledge of its fraudulent character? The committee. say that there is no proof that he had, and I have attempted to show that it is proved he had not.

But it is due to Dr. Gardiner to say, as has been said by the gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. CHAPMAN,] that the testimony against him is almost wholly ex parte; and I will add, that although it makes a strong ex parte case against him, it is far from being conclusive as to his guilt. If it shall finally appear that the claim of Gardiner is a sheer fabrication, it is not only one of the most stupendous frauds ever committed, but the most extraordinary.

It is shown by the testimony that he went to Mexico in 1839 or 1840, and resided at Vera Cruz and the city of Mexico until 1844, when he left for the interior; and from 1844, until the fall of 1846, it is not shown where he was by the testimony against him. In October of that year, he appeared in the department of Rio Verde for the first time, as the witnesses examined by the committee state; but William Goyeneche, in a letter to Mr. Letcher, which is printed with the testimony taken by the committee, states that he saw him a few months after he left the city of Mexico in 1844 in Rio Verde, where he staid a short time. Gardiner's proof before the Board shows where he was from July, 1844, to October, 1846, but the testimony against him does not.

The Mexican witnesses, Mr. Barragan and others, swear that his claim was fabricated in 1848, at Rio Verde, by himself, Manuel Verastegui, José Pio Guttierrez, and Domingo Ithurry, and that it was publicly known to have been gotten up by them, in Rio Verde, in consequence of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This, they state, was generally known in the city of Rio Verde.

suppose,

Now, sir, that cannot be true, unless the testimony of Colonel Gates and C. J. Learned, Esq., both men of high character, taken to sustain the Gardiner claim as before stated, and that of Anne Chase, the wife of our Consul at Tampico, taken by the committee, are false, which, will not be pretended. The fraud of Gardiner was designed by him, if it is a fraud, before the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was made. That treaty was made on the 2d of February, 1848. The witnesses above named say, that he came to Tampico in the summer of 1847, as early as July. He applied for a surgeon's place, and obtained it, and continued there as surgeon until the American troops left the city. He represented there that he had been driven out of Mexico, and described his large property, his silver mines, and consequent losses upon his expulsion. He consulted with Mr. Learned, who was judge of the place under American authority, as to what course he should pursue to establish his claim against Mexico.

It was generally understood in Tampico, during the time our forces were there, that Gardiner had been driven out of Mexico, where he had a large property in mines. At that time there was no treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. General Scott had not taken the city of Mexico. It was between the time of the capture of Vera Cruz and his arrival in the city of Mexico. It was in the midst of the war-flagrante bello. It may well be asked, what object Gardiner could have had, prior to the treaty, to make these representations? The war was then in progress, and no man could tell what would be its termination. At that time he could have had no other expectation than that he would have to make his claim against Mexico under the treaty which he claimed had been violated in his

case.

ROBT. T. PAINE.

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

Antonio Barragan, printed in this book of evidence which was furnished to the committee, I suppose by Mr. Barragan, or brought by Mr. Slacum from Mexico, with the testimony taken by him as agent of the United States, in December, 1851. The letters are dated in December, 1851, at the time Mr. Slacum was in San Luis Potosi. The first letter is dated Rio Verde, December 15, 1851, and is written by Verastegui to Barragan, in which he complains that the Mexicans are a set of poor devils, and blames Mr. Barragan and others for the course they were pursuing in relation to the Gardiner claim, and implicating him in it. He protests that what he did was for the benefit of creditors. Barragan replies on the 22d of December, 1851, and after protesting that he was doing nothing unfair towards Verastegui, he charges that the whole story of Gardiner's mine is a pure fiction, and then proceeds:

"This fiction could only have been credited where they had not even the most distant knowledge of the country, as in effect did happen where there was no one to contradict it. But now, if it is asked of those who lived in Rio Verde, do you believe that there is one who would have the courage to say that a thing exists which never was? See the Monitor Republicano, number 2,189, of 19th May, and you will see that the money in question belongs to Mexico, and not to the North, for the total of the claims admitted comes up to $3,203,523; so that, deducted from the $3,250,000 which the North retains for the claims of its citizens, there remains to be delivered to the Government of Mexico $16,477; and this without counting the claims set up by Gardiner and Mears. To the first we adjudged £428,747 50, and to the other $153,125. These two amounts added to the anterior, make the amount $628,349 50, which undoubtedly belong to the Mexican Government."

To this letter, Verastegui replies on the 24th of December, and says, that he will now change his

course.

This correspondence shows two things: first, that Verastegui, when acknowledging his entire want of moral principle, insists that Gardiner had creditors in Rio Verde, whose interests he was looking after; second, that Barragan, who is comptroller of rents of the State of San Luis Potosi, in his testimony and his activity in this affair, believed that the fraud perpetrated by Gardiner is not a fraud upon the United States, but upon Mexico. How far that idea may have influenced the witnesses who have testified in relation to the claim, I do not know. The tenor of the correspondence referred to would indicate that its influence was considerable.

This much I have said in relation to the case of Gardiner himself, not that it has any connection with the propriety of Mr. Corwin's conduct, but simply as an act of justice to the cause of truth as applicable to him. I therefore repeat, that if it shall turn out that the claim of Gardiner is a sheer fabrication, it is not only a most startling and stupendous fraud, but one of the most extraordinary in the history of crime.

Mr. Speaker, I will now take another view of this matter. The first clause of the fifteenth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo reads as follows:

"The United States, exonerating Mexico from all demands on account of the claims of their citizens, mentioned in the preceding article, and considering them entirely and forever canceled, whatever their amount may be, undertake to make satisfaction for the same, to an amount not exceeding $3,250,000. To ascertain the validity and amount of those claims, a Board of Commissioners shall be established by the Government of the United States, whose awards shall be final and conclusive: Provided, That in deciding upon the validity of each claim, the Board shall be guided and governed by the principles and rules of decision prescribed by the first and fifth articles of the unratified convention, concluded at the city of Mexico, on the 20th day of November, 1843; and in no case shall an award be made in favor of any claim not embraced by these principles and rules."

This treaty bears date February 2, 1848. On the 3d of March, 1849, an act of Congress was passed, providing for the appointment of a Board of Commissioners to carry into effect the agreement of the United States, contained in the fifteenth article. The Board was appointed soon afterwards, and in April, 1849, met and organized. In May, 1849, Mr. Corwin was employed by General Thompson to assist him in the prosecution of the Gardiner claim. On November 30, 1849, the claim of Gardiner was presented to the Board. In February, 1850, Mr. Corwin purchased one half of one fourth of the claim. In July, 1850, he disposed of his interest in that claim, with his fee interest in thirty-six other claims pending before

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

the Board, to George Law, Esq., by an absolute, unconditional sale. In November, 1850, he received from Mr. Law the money for his claims, and made the final written transfer.

On the 3d of March, 1851, Congress passed an appropriation bill, of which I will read a section:

"For the payment of the money to those entitled under the fifteenth article of the treaty between the United States and Mexico, concluded February 2d, 1848, according to the provisions of the sixth section of an act entitled 'An act to carry into effect certain stipulations of the treaty between 'the United States of America and the Republic of Mexico, of the 2d day of February, 1848,' the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to sell the stock to be issued under the said section, and to issue it under the same restrictions, limitations, and provisions as are contained in the second section of an act entitled 'An act authorizing the issue of Treasury notes and a loan,' and approved July 22, 1846: Provided, however, That the stock so issued shall not bear a rate of interest greater than five per centum per and that it shall be redeemable in ten years from its annum,

date."

HO. OF REPS.

I have adverted to this for the sole purpose of showing that there is no real difference in principle between the prosecution of claims of this character and the prosecution of claims against private individuals.

The Mexican Claims Commission was a court created by law, and to all intents and purposes a judicial tribunal; not a permanent court, to be sure, but one created for a special purpose, all of whose functions were judicial. Such tribunals have been created from time to time since the organization of the Government. There have been two or three for the purpose of adjusting Mexican claims; one under a treaty with Spain a number of years ago for the settlement of claims against that country, and several others at different periods.

missioners.

At the time of the passage of the law of March 3d, 1851, the Gardiner claim had been passed upon by the Board of Commissioners nearly a year. Congress then knew as much about the character of this claim as Mr. Corwin. It was also known that he had been interested in claims before that Board, and had sold out. Did Congress at that time think the conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury improper? So far from it, they authorized him to sell United States stocks to pay all the claims that had been or should be allowed by the Board! The Gardiner claim had been allowed before, and was finally decided upon in April, 1851, and was paid, not a dollar of it, however, to Mr. Corwin.

Some importance is attempted to be given to this affair, because Mr. Corwin, being a Senator, was engaged in the prosecution of claims before, the Board of Commissioners-because, being a Senator, he was prosecuting claims against the United States.

Is it true that the claims allowed by the Board of Commissioners were claims against the United States, and were those engaged in their prosecution engaged in prosecuting claims against the United States? The Government of the United States had agreed to pay the claims to a limited amount-that is very true. But they were not that class of claims usually meant when we speak of claims against the Government. We had agreed to absolve Mexico from all liability for the claims of our citizens against that Republic, and to pay them to an amount not exceeding $3,250,000. We then established a court for the adjudication and settlement of the claims of our citizens against Mexico. Our Government by this arrangement liquidated the gross amount of these claims, and agreed to pay it out in the manner stipulated.

If we could pay the claims of our citizens against Mexico with a much less amount than was stip

ulated, Mexico would have no right to gainsay it. And yet there is some reason in the view taken by the Mexicans that they are entitled in equity to all the surplus, after the payment of all the valid claims of our citizens. We exacted from them the amount fixed upon, and received value for that amount. If the claims of our citizens against Mexico fall short of the amount agreed upon, the United States, by the arrangement, have the advantage of Mexico to the extent of the surplus. But if the claims of our citizens had exceeded the amount agreed upon, then Mexico would have been benefited to the extent of the excess, and our citizens would have been the losers. It was an arrangement by which we secured from Mexico $3,250,000 for the benefit of our citi

land.

In this very case, Mr. Corwin was not the only Senator or member of Congress who appeared before the Board of Commissioners and prosecuted claims. A distinguished Senator from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON;] the able Senator from Indiana,[Mr. BRIGHT;] the highly accomplished Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. SOULE,] all appeared before the Board as counsel, I am informed. Mr. Webster had many cases before it. Gentlemen of distinction in this House appeared before it, and several gentlemen who were then members of Congress, but are not now, had cases before the Board, as I have been informed.

Why, then, should Mr. Corwin be singled out from all the host who appeared as counsel before that Board, and other Boards, as the object of reproach? Why should any man be reproached for appearing before that and similar tribunals? There was no law against it. No principle of morals or propriety forbade it. And if Mr. Corwin deserves censure, then the whole practice of our public men, from the beginning of the Government, is deserving of censure. The other members of Congress who appeared before the same Board are equally subject to reproach.

I cannot see any violation of sound morality, or even punctilious propriety in the practice. The Board of Commissioners was a court as much as the Supreme Court of the United States is a court. It was a court of high character, composed of men of distinction and ability as lawyers and statesmen-men appointed by a Whig President and confirmed by a Democratic Senate. I can see no more reason to censure a Senator for practicing before such a court, than to censure him for practicing before the Supreme Court of the United States, or before the State courts. Is a lawyer to lose his character as such when he becomes a member of Congress? 1 suppose, in fact, many men become members of Congress because they are considered good lawyers; and why should they lose their characters as lawyers, and cease to practice their profession, because they are members of Congress? If that rule should be adopted, I think the bar would lose much, and the country and the cause of justice would lose more.

Mr. Speaker, I consider this to be the whole point, and the only point in this case: Shall members of Congress for the time being cease to practice their profession, if they are lawyers? If it is thought best to make such a rule for the future, I shall not object to it, though I can see no propriety in it.

Mr. Corwin was employed in the usual manner that lawyers are employed in collection cases. He was to receive a certain per cent. on the amount collected. The manner of his employment is not objectionable; his being employed at all is the impropriety, if any, in his conduct. His purchase of an interest in what he considered an honest claim is not, surely, a matter of just reproach. It is as perfectly legitimate, for aught I see, to purchase a claim for money pending before a proper

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

tribunal for adjustment, as it is to purchase any other species of property which is the subject of litigation. I know of no law anywhere to prohibit such purchase, nor any principle of morality that is violated by it.

It is not, therefore, the manner of the employment, nor the fact of his purchase of an interest, that makes Mr. Corwin's conduct censurable, but his employment in the case as a lawyer, that is the subject of complaint. On this subject I think I have said enough.

But this claim of Gardiner is shown to be fraudulent a fact which it is admitted Mr. Corwin did not know, and which it is abundantly shown he could not have even suspected-and therefore his appearance before the Board in the prosecution of the claim was improper. In other words, a lawyer is to be held responsible for the forgeries, perjuries, and other villainies of his clients and their witnesses. Mr. Speaker, this would be a fearful responsibility. That proposition is too monstrous to be thought of. If that rule shall obtain, we may well exclaim, "Wo unto ye lawyers!" Mr. Clay once said in the Senate, by way of compliment to Mr. Grundy, that if he (Mr. Grundy) were to be held responsible for all the rascals he had saved from the gallows, he would have a fearful account to render. If lawyers are responsible for all the bad cases they have, for all the perjuries and forgeries committed by their clients and their witnesses, God forbid that any of us should practice the profession!

I can see a manifest impropriety in members of Congress being interested in the prosecution of claims before Congress. I can also see that their attending to the prosecution of claims before the Executive Departments, and becoming interested in them, might lead to abuses. The intercourse between the Executive Departments and members of Congress is so intimate that the practice might lead to abuse. The prosecution of claims before Congress by the members of Congress for a compensation, is morally wrong; for upon such claims members have to decide. In the prosecution of claims before the Executive Departments the case is different, and though the practice may lead to abuse, it is not morally wrong. Claims pending before Congress and the Executive Departments are properly said to be claims against the Government; but claims pending in court are wholly different, and are beyond the reach of Executive or legislative influence.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the Mexican Claims Commission was a court, and one of high character; and neither law, morality, or propriety, was any more violated by practicing before it, than by practicing in the Supreme Court of the United States.

But it is said Mr. Corwin was employed because of his high political position, and therefore his conduct was improper. My experience is, that men will follow blindly after political and religious leaders; that they will be duped and humbugged in almost all the relations of life; but that lawyers are employed because of their legal abilities. In that matter, men generally act with reason and discretion. Lawyers are not employed because they have been judges, or because they are Senators, Governors, or Representatives, but because they are lawyers.

Mr. DEAN, (interrupting.) Will the gentleman from Ohio allow me to ask him a question? I understood the gentleman to say that these persons who prosecuted this Gardiner claim were employed because they were lawyers, and for their standing at the bar. Does the gentleman mean to say that Major Lally was employed for the same reason, because he was a lawyer?

Mr. BARRERE. I do not know what the gentleman from New York understood. I said nothing about the reasons why the gentlemen in this particular case were employed, for I do not know. I stated a general proposition as the result of my experience. What was Gardiner's motive for employing Major Lally I do not know, nor the motive of General Thompson for employing Mr. Corwin. Major Lally was a distinguished officer in the Army; whether he is a lawyer or not I do not know. I have understood that he is the confidential friend of the President elect, and I suppose is a very honest and upright man. I never heard anything to his disparagement. I un

derstand that he is a business man of high char

acter.

The morals of the profession of law I think as high-toned and elevated as those of any other class of men. I know, sir, that there are those who consider the bar as corrupt and dangerous members of the community. The question has even been argued, whether a man can be a Christian and a practicing lawyer? It is not uncommon for demagogues to denounce lawyers, and to heap odium upon the profession. But as a class I know of no more useful, honorable, and upright body of men, none who have done so much to plant and establish liberty and justice in the world. The profession, true to itself, its honor, and the cause of justice, will always condemn its unworthy members and their unworthy practices, as the whole American and British bar did the celebrated Mr. Phillips for protesting to his belief of the innocence of a client who had confessed his guilt to him. But the profession never dreamed that they were responsible for the justice of their client's causes. Like others, they are liable to imposition, and when they become cognizant of the frauds or misconduct of their clients, then it is their undoubted duty to expose them; and that an honest lawyer will do to the extent of his ability.

In this case Mr. Corwin has been shown to have rendered every assistance in his power to the full development of the nature of this claim. In July, 1851, the claim became suspected for the first time by an officer in the State Department, and from that time to the present, the Administration have been using their utmost endeavors to ferret out the true nature of the Gardiner claim, and to bring the perpetrators of the fraud to justice. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that I am insulting the House and the country by seriously arguing this matter. The committee have reported that there is nothing found in all this investigation, even having a tendency to prove that Mr. Corwin had any knowledge of the unfounded character of Gardiner's claim, or that any improper evidence was used or to be used. That, his friends have thought, was an entire acquittal of every imputation cast upon him or attempted to be cast upon him, by getting up this investigation. But from the finding of the committee, an appeal has been taken to the country. The question is before it. The committee say that the Government has been defrauded without his knowledge. They do not question either his honor or his integrity, but by their finding have vindicated both. This finding is of his political adversaries, arrived at, too, in the midst of high party excitement. If it were improper to appear before the Board of Commissioners at all, that censure he must bear; but he will bear it in with many of the purest and most distincompany guished men that have lived among us, in the earlier, and as some have thought, better days of the Republic, as well as with some of the most distinguished of his cotemporaries.

SENATE.

believes that the Mexican war was just and right -that the Government acted right in prosecuting it with all its energy and power, looking to the circumstances by which Mr. Corwin was surrounded at the time-must concede, if he have a proper appreciation of true merit, that it was not only an eloquent and powerful speech, but a speech which showed him to be possessed of superior moral powers.

What was that speech, viewed in its true spirit? Why, sir, it was nothing more nor less than an effort to impress upon the mind and conscience of this great people the importance of the rule, that they should do unto others as they would that others should do unto them.

The history of nations teaches us, that the stronger powers have always disregarded the rights of the weaker, when in conflict with their

schemes of interest or ambition.

Mr. Corwin was among the first of the distinguished men of the country who assumed the position that the law of nations ought to be practically what it is in theory; that the United States should disregard what they might suppose to be their interest, when the eternal principles of justice were in conflict with it; that the laws of God, the laws of morality, should be the rule of our foreign policy. This is the scope and spirit of that truly eloquent speech.

Mr. Corwin had then been long in public life, and had almost entirely escaped the bitterness of partisan hostility. Since he made that speech, however, he has been the object of calumny, detraction, and unsparing and unscrupulous abuse. He cares nothing about that. He knows that political abuse will pass away with the hour, and that his character and motives will be appreciated by his countrymen. The charges that gave rise to this investigation were of a different character. They impugned his honor and his integrity as a man. For that reason he demanded inquiry into his conduct in this transaction. The committee have honorably acquitted him of the injurious imputations preferred against him. Still it is insisted that he is guilty. I therefore repeat what I said in the outset, that if guilt attaches to him at all, it is of that kind that ought to consign him to the penitentiary. And I will add, if no guilt attaches to him-if he stands vindicated from the foul aspersions attempted to be cast upon him-that they ought to be in the penitentiary who wantonly and maliciously insist upon his guilt,

COLONIZATION IN NORTH AMERICA.

Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on this subject because I thought it was necessary for me to vindicate the character of Mr. Corwin. That the committee have done in the amplest manner. I have spoken because my constituents love the

man.

Mr. Corwin has never sought office; office

TUESDAY, January 25, 1853.

On the Resolutions of Mr. CASS, relative to colonization in North America. [Continued from page 103.] The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the joint resolution, which is as follows:

"Be it resolved, &c., That the United States do hereby declare that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European Power.' And while existing rights should be respected,' and will be by the United States, they owe it to their own'safety and interests' to announce, as they now do, that no future Euro

or established on any part of the North American continent.' And should the attempt be made, they thus deliberately declare that it will be viewed as an act originating in motives regardless of their interests and their safety," and which will leave them free to adopt such measures as an independent nation may justly adopt in defense of its rights and its honor.

I care not what any man may say about that speech, or what he may think of the time and the occasion of its delivery; it is a speech that will live, not only as a production of brilliant eloquence, but for its high and noble moral sentiments. No man but one of high moral bearing could have made that speech. It required a moral hero to do it. It was not a speech made to suit the popular clamor of the day. The man who

"And be it further resolved, That while the United States disclaim any designs upon the Island of Cuba, inconsistent with the laws of nations and with their duties to

Spain, they consider it due to the vast importance of the subject, to make known, in this solemn manner, that they should view all efforts on the part of any other Power to procure possession, whether peaceably or forcibly, of that Island, which, as a naval or military position, may, under circumstances easy to be foreseen, become dangerous to their southern coast, to the Gulf of Mexico, and to the mouth of the Mississippi, as unfriendly acts, directed against them, to be resisted by all the means in their power."

The question pending was on the following amendment offered by Mr. HALE:

"And be it further resolved, That while the, United States, in like manner, disclaim any designs upon Canada inconsistent with the laws of nations, and with their duties to Great Britain, they consider it due to the vast importance