the country; and even though the committee might acquit Mr. Corwin of the real charges alleged against him, still I felt that I had but discharged my duty, and that I might rather rejoice, than feel mortified at such acquittal. And even now, sir, I regret exceedingly that a sense of duty to myself, and duty to the constituency that I have the honor to represent in this Congress, compels me, in consequence of a remark made the other day, during my temporary absence from the Hall, by the honorable gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] to ask the kind indulgence of the House, whilst I review, somewhat in detail, this most extraordinary transaction.

I was aware, sir, that an effort had been made, by pensioned dependents, by hired letter-writers, and by paid telegraphers, to forestall public opinion upon the report of the investigating committee; but knowing that sooner, or later, the real facts of the case would be spread before the public, I was willing to wait for, and abide by the verdict that should be given upon that report by the American people.

and that it excited the closest scrutiny. What || charged a duty which I owed my constituents and does Mr. E. W. Johnson, who was Secretary to the Board, say? He says that the Commissioners suspected the case, and that Dr. Gardiner was called in again and again, and that his counsel were called upon to explain time after time. Who were his counsel? Why Robert G. Corwin and Thomas Corwin. The Board suspected that it was a fraudulent case; the Secretary of the Board suspected it; but these gentlemen did not find it out; and R. G. Corwin swears he never knew of it being suspected till suit had been brought against Dr. Gardiner. The inference is, that they either did find it out, or that Mr. Corwin has more credit for sagacity and talent than he is entitled to. The gentleman from Ohio pronounced a splendid eulogy upon Mr. Corwin yesterday, and spoke of him as being a man of great and shining talents, and of gigantic intellect; and yet with all his sagacity and experience and knowledge of men, he failed to find out that this was a fraudulent claim. The committee by saying that he had no knowledge of its being a fraudulent claim, say that he is a man of extraordinary obtuseness, and is not entitled to credit for sagacity. He either knew that it was a fraudulent claim, or else was too obtuse a man to find it out. If Dr. Gardiner's counsel failed to discern that the claim was a sheer fabrication from beginning to end, it argues but little for their heads and detracts much from their reputation for talents and sagacity; and if they had reason to believe that the claim was spurious, and was sustained by forgery and perjury, it makes them parties to the whole transaction-equally criminal with Gardiner himself, and deserving the withering condemnation of an outraged and betrayed people. The gentleman may take either horn of the dilemma. W. E. Johnson says that the counsel were sent for again and again to explain the claim. So far as the other witnesses are concerned, you might go on still further. Mrs. Chase and General Waddy Thompson seem to be at issue in their testimony. Mrs. Chase says that General Thompson is mistaken in attributing certain expressions to her in relation to Dr. Gardiner; that she never made use of them.

I find that my hour is within a few minutes of being out, which will prevent me from a more minute examination of this case; but I cannot conclude without making an earnest appeal to the House to come forward and sustain this bill, as one step towards arresting and condemning this system of high-handed plundering and swindling, which has been and is being carried on, about Congress and the various departments of Government. Sound morality, common honesty, justice, an eviscerated Treasury, all demand that something should be done to separate these vampires from the body politic. There must be something done to restore public confidence, for it is going very fast, if not already gone. The Government and the functionaries of Government are beginning to stink in the very nostrils of the nation; it is now dead and rotten in many of its parts, while the disease is rapidly making its way into the others less accessible. Its putrid stench is sent forth upon every wind and is arresting the attention of the voracious vultures throughout the land, and they have gathered, and are still gathering, around the carcass, ready to begin their foul work. They come "from the mountain tops, with hideous cry And clattering wings; the filthy harpies fly: Monsters more fierce offended Heav'n ne'er sent, From Hell's abyss for human punishment."

THE GARDINER CLAIM.

I had supposed that the thousand and one false reports respecting the action of the committee, and the honorable acquittal of Mr. Corwin, which were scattered broadcast over the country, were designed to operate upon the elections then pending over the United States, and more especially upon my own election; for in my Congressional district, these false reports, with all manner of unfair and unjust comments, in handbill form, just upon the morning of the election, came upon us as did the frogs upon the Egyptians, and it might literally be said that they "came into our houses, into our bedchambers, and into our very kneading-troughs!" But I had no idea that even the men who gave them circulation, and carried them from door to door, and distributed them from hand to hand, supposed for a moment that they contained one word of truth. I had thought, sir, that when the occasion which gave them circulation, the election, had passed, an American representative would no longer be assailed for having boldly, fearlessly discharged his duty. But I find, sir, from the indication given by the gentleman from New York, that this false impression, this impression produced by these pensioned dependents and hired letter-writters, is to be seconded and continued by the efforts of honorable gentlemen upon this floor; and that, by such a course, if possible, the tables are to be turned upon

me.

HO. OF REPS.

Gardiner committee. I am told, sir, that few or none of the Whig papers have published it in full. I should like very much to know whether the honorable gentleman, when he used the language referred to, had ever seen the report published in any form, other than the garbled extracts, scattered broadcast over the country just prior to the Ohio and Pennsylvania elections. Has the honorable gentleman, himself the publisher of a Whig newspaper, ever given that report publicity in his own paper? Mr. Speaker, I will venture the prediction, that even now, notwithstanding the gentleman would have the country believe that the Gardiner committee have honorably acquitted Mr. Corwin, he dare not publish, without note or comment, the report of that committee, with the accompanying testimony, in the New York Express.

Sir, until he has the manliness to do this, let him not attempt to tell this House and the country that 1 "attempted to throw odium upon the Administration, but that it was turned back upon me by my own party.'

Mr. ORR, (interrupting.) I rise to a question of order. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the remarks of my friend from Ohio [Mr. OLDS] are not in order when the House is considering the bill now before it.

Mr. OLDS. My remarks apply to the opinion of the committee in reference to this transaction. Mr. ORR. The House is now considering specifically a bill, and the remarks of the gentleman are not applicable to that bill.

Mr. OLDS. This bill is to prevent similar transactions in future.

Mr. ORR. My reason for making the point of order is, that if the gentleman from Ohio goes on with his remarks, some other gentleman upon the other side of the House must be heard upon the other side, and the merits of the particular bill before the House will not be at all enlightened by the discussion.

Mr. OLDS. I trust they will, before I get through.

The SPEAKER. The Chair understands that the bill before the House is reported from a committee appointed to investigate the very transaction to which the gentleman from Ohio refers.

Mr. ORR. What is the bill before the House? The SPEAKER. It is a bill to punish offenses such as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLDS] is now discussing; and the Chair thinks the gentleman is not exceeding the limits generally allowed

in debate.

Mr. ORR. I do not perceive the pertinency of the gentleman's remarks to the bill under consid

SPEECH OF HON. E. B. OLDS, mittee. He is himself the editor of a public news

OF OHIO,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 6, 1853.

The report of the Select Committee to prevent frauds on the Treasury being under considerationMr. OLDS said:

Mr. SPEAKER: When I left my home in Ohio, to return to this capital, I had not the most distant idea that I should feel called upon to trespass upon the time of this House by again adverting to the Gardiner claim. I felt, sir, that in calling for the Committee of Investigation, I had but dis

paper; and if his duty as Congressman did not require him to read the report of the Gardiner committee, certainly his duty as the publisher of such newspaper demanded that he should inform himself of the facts, that thereby he might be able to enlighten and not mislead the public.

I wish, sir, that I could believe that the honorable gentleman had spoken in ignorance, rather than with a desire to pervert and misrepresent the facts connected with the Gardiner fraud. I say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the gentleman has really spoken in ignorance, and that it may prove true that he has never seen or read the report of the

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the gentleman is arguing the necessity of the bill, and that his remarks are pertinent.

Mr. OLDS. Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] may see his error, and that the country may know in what manner the Committee of Investigation have acquitted Mr. Corwin, and turned back upon me the odium of Gardinerism, I shall direct the attention of the House to the phraseology of the resolution under which the committee was raised. It is as follows:

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

This, sir, is the language of the resolution. It constituted the committee, and it pointed out distinctly and specifically the duty required by the House to be performed by the committee.

First. The committee was required to investigate Corwin's connection with the Gardiner claim generally.

Second. The committee was to ascertain his (Corwin's) fee interest in the claim.

Third. The committee was to ascertain what interest he (Corwin) had in the claim, other than his fee interest.

Fourth. The committee was to ascertain the

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

amount paid, or stipulated to be paid, for such interest.

Fifth. The committee was to ascertain at what ⚫ time he (Corwin) ceased to act as the agent or counsel for Gardiner.

Sixth. The committee was to ascertain to whom and for what consideration he (Corwin) disposed of his fee interest, and to whom and for what consideration he had disposed of his one fourth interest in said claim.

These, sir, were the specific duties referred by the House to the committee; all the facts touching these specifications the committee were required to investigate and report to the House.

If, as the gentleman from New York charges, the committee have exonerated Mr. Corwin," and turned back upon me the odium" of Gardinerism, it must be found in their action and report upon these specifications.

Pardon me, then, Mr. Speaker, for trespassing upon the time of the House, in applying to each inquiry and specification the finding of the committee; for by this course, without the intervention of pensioned letter-writers, we shall be able to understand who has been exonerated, and upon whom the committee "have turned back the odium.” First. The committee was required "to investigate Corwin's connection with the Gardiner claim” generally.

That duty, sir, the committee performed; that investigation the committee made. But do they exonerate Mr. Corwin from all connection with the claim, and thus roll back upon me the odium of being Mr. Corwin's slanderer? No, sir; on the contrary, the committee say, that

"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 purCall you this, sir, exonerating Mr. Corwin from all connection with the Gardiner claim Call you this “turning back upon me the odium" of Gardinerism?

chase."

Secondly. The committee was "to ascertain his (Coricin's) fee interest in the claim.”

On this specification the committee say, "that 'Mr. Corwin was employed as counsel in the 'case by General Waddy Thompson, upon an agreement that he (Corwin) should have for his 'fee five per cent. upon whatever sum should be ' awarded to Gardiner by the commissioners." Is this exonerating Mr. Corwin from having a fee interest, and "turning back upon me the odium" Third. The committee was "to ascertain what interest he (Corwin) held in the claim ather than his fee interest."

The committee say, that "in February, 1850, Thomas Corwin, in company with Robert G. Corwin, purchased one fourth part of the Gardiner

claim.'

Call you this, sir, exonerating Corwin from being a part owner of this most fraudulent claim? Call you this turning back upon me the odium?

Fourth. The committee was directed "to ascertain the amount paid, or stipulated to be paid therefor, and the conditions of said purchase."

The committee say: "The Messrs. Corwin paid $22,000, and relínquished their fees on the one fourth of the claim purchased by them, and paid a part of Edward Curtis's fees.' The committee; in speaking of the final distribution of the claim, further states, that “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. Cor

win."

The Gardiner Claim—Mr. Olds.

what consideration he disposed of his fee interest, and to whom and for what consideration he disposed of his one fourth interest in said claim?"

In reply to this specification, the committee say: "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."

Inasmuch, sir, as Mr. Corwin and his friends claim his acquittal upon the score of this pretended sale, it merits a more extended comment. I am unable to perceive, even admitting the sale to be genuine, how this makes his acquittal. The resolution of inquiry implies, just what Corwin claims, that a sale of his interest in these Mexican claims was really consummated. This is what public rumor charged, and this was my own belief at the time I called for the investigation.

But, sir, let us examine this pretended sale, and see what it really amounts to.

In July, 1850, Mr. Corwin accepted a seat in Mr. Fillmore's Cabinet; prior to which a verbal contract or sale was made of his interest in this, as well as his other Mexican claims; but, sir, it appears from the report of the committee, that this sale made in July, 1850, was not consummated until November, 1850-full four months after Mr. Corwin had entered the Cabinet of President Fillmore. The committee say:

"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, (thirty-seven in number,) was executed by Thomas Corwin to Jacob Little, 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."

HO. OF REPS.

agree upon, but I found the Governor unprepared to par so much as I considered the interest worth. I proposed myself to purchase Mr. Corwin's claim at the estimate 1 had proposed to Young, but to this he would not listed, stat ing that he still should be morally involved in the matter, for if I profited by the purchase he knew I would share it with him, and if there was a loss upon it he would be us willing that I should bear the loss."

Mr. Speaker, is not this really a very pretty little farce? Why, sir, analyze it, and see its vanous parts.

Corwin felt that he would be liable to censure, if he accepted the Treasury Department under Fillmore, still holding an interest in claims against that Treasury. The verdict of the people upon Crawford's conduct, flashed vividly across ha mind. Sir, it could not well be otherwise; for he had just witnessed the inauguration of Prestdent Fillmore. He had just seen Fillmore enter this Hall to receive the oath of office, followed by the Cabinet of the deceased Taylor; and the ! murmur from yonder gallery of "there come the Galphins," which reached every part of this Hall, was still ringing in his ears. The suspicions of the people must be quieted by at least the sell blance of a sale.

He felt, too, that a sham sale to his nephew and partner would evoke rather than quiet the suspicions of the public. In this extremity, through Governor Young, George Law is made to play the part of "dummy." Bob Corwin would convey the impression that Governor Young was himse the purchaser, though the committee assign him the position of negotiator, or rather that of a “go-between."

Mr. OLDS. I wish, Mr. Speaker, that my time would permit me to read the whole of the report of the committee, and every word of the evidence upon which that report is predicated. It should be read, sir, not only by every member of this House, but by every citizen of the United States. The gentleman can do much towards accomplishing this object by giving the report and testimony a publication in his newspaper. Dare

he do it?

made in July, the consideration of which amounted Why, sir, was the consummation of this bargain, to more than $80,000, delayed until November, a period of full four months? Does not this transaction, sir, carry upon its very face the evidence

that the bargain made in July was a pretense, a mere farce? Why, sir, this sale covered Corwin's half of the one fourth interest, and his half of the fee interest. For these two interests he had only paid a little over $11,000; and yet, with all the uncertainty that hung over this claim at the time that Corwin purchased it, still hanging over it, it is pretended that Jacob Little, a cunning, crafty shrewdest speculators in all the country, stipulated Wall street broker, and George Law, one of the to pay the enormous sum of more than $80,000.

Why, sir, if anything more were necessary to show that this pretended sale was a mere farce, it will be found in the following extract from the Mr. Corwin's own town, and published in the speech of Robert Corwin, made in Lebanon, Ohio, Cincinnati Gazette, and other Whig journals in Ohio. Robert Corwin says that:

"In July General Taylor died, and the administration of the Government devolved on Millard Fillmore, who, in looking about him for his constitutional advisers, solicited Thomas Corwin to accept a post in his Cabinet as Secretary of the Treasury.

"In this request he was joined by Daniel Webster, but Mr. Corwin replied that he was interested in a private claim against the United States Treasury; that Crawford had been charged with committing a wrong in being interested in a claim while a member of the Cabinet, and he would not place himself in a situation which would subject him to a similar charge. Several days elapsed, during which he was urged to accept the post, but peremptorily refused, until Governor Young, of New York-now in his gravecame forward and proposed to take Mr. Corwin's interest in all the claims before the Board. Mr. Corwin did not know what was their value, and he proposed to take for his interest whatever sum Governor Young and myself should

Why, Mr. Speaker, no man can peruse the testimony of George Law and Robert G. Corwin, witnesses sworn at the instance, and to give en dence for, Mr. Corwin, without a settled convic tion upon his mind, that the sale in July was a mere pretense, made expressly to deceive and mislead the public mind.

Corwin, though he sold the claim unconditionally, had no knowledge of the amount he was to receive for it; and George Law, the pretende. purchaser, though he bought the claim uncondit ally, had no knowledge of the amount he was te pay for it; and yet we are told that Corwin bat "washed his hands of all interest in these claims"

before entering the Cabinet of President FLimore True, sir, Mr. Corwin had nominally sold ti claims; but I ask every candid unprejudiced mine to tell me whether or not Corwin's real interessa these claims was not precisely the same after, the it was before this pretended sale,-ay, sir, up we the time that Governor Young and Co. fixed and reported to the parties the price to be paid as the purchase money for these claims?

Suffer me, sir, to call the attention of the Horse to a few extracts from the testimony of the witness referred to. George Law says:

"Soon after General Taylor's death, in the month of Jay, 1850, I was here in Washington. Governor Young, of New York, called at my room at the National Hotel. He he had a friend who was offered a seat in Mr. Filinate's Cabinet, and who had some interest in claims that wer then known as Mexican claims, and that were to be st tled by a commission; and that this friend, from feelings delicacy, would not take a seat in the Cabinet whist was interested in such claims. Governor Young was de sirous to relieve him from that objection. I asked him if he thought that was the only obstacle in the way. Governor Young said that it was. I told him that if he (Governor Young) desired, I would purchase those claims. that he did, but that the purchase must be unconditional; because he was satisfied that if there was any understanding about the claims if not realized, his friend would s take the place. I told him that there was no necessity sa any contingency about them, and that I would leave it so him (Governor Young) to say what the value of the elaian was, and I would purchase them at his valuation. Goernor Young said he presumed that would be satisfactory,

He said

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

that the friend to whom he had reference was Mr. Thomas Corwin, and that he would go and see him. Governor Young went away. I am not sure whether it was the same day or the next morning that he returned and said that it was satisfactory to Mr. Corwin to leave it to him (Governor Young) to determine what the value of the claims was; and Governor Young said, if I was satisfied, it should be the understanding. I told him I was satisfied. Governor Young afterwards brought me a valuation of the claims, (this was along that season,) and I paid about $80,000 for them. I recollect that there was an interest in the Gardiner claim included. I think it was in all a little over $80,000 (but not much) that I paid; but I cannot say how much I paid for the Gardiner claim in particular. I gave my check for the amount for all the claims, or Mr. Corwin's interest in them."

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the only true inference to be drawn from such testimony? Why simply this, sir: Governor Young, the sub-treasurer of New York, the custodian of the Government money in that city, was the personal friend of Mr. Corwin. Perhaps, sir, his continuance in the office of sub-treasurer depended upon Corwin's assuming the control of the Treasury Department. Perhaps, too, sir, the fact of Governor Young's being the sub-treasurer, and controlling the enormous revenues of the Government in New York, will explain George Law's great confidence in, and extreme willingness to oblige him. Perhaps, sir, Governor Young's control of the Government money made it necessary, to save appearances, to use George Law, or some other third person, lest it might be said that the Government money, in the hands of Governor Young, had been used in this transaction. Perhaps the fact that George Law was one of Governor Young's sureties, his name being upon his official bond for $400,000, will account for his great confidence in the Governor, and the loose and unbusiness-like manner in which, by his own showing, he seems to have conducted this whole transaction.

Be all these conjectures as they may, there can be no doubt but that Governor Young was extremely anxious to have Mr. Corwin enter the Cabinet of President Fillmore; and in order to relieve his "feelings of delicacy," undertakes to negotiate a sale of Corwin's interest in these various Mexican claims. And to oblige Governor Young, without any investigation or examination, the sagacious George Law agrees to purchase those claims. This he does without the least anxiety or hesitation, as Governor Young is to assess their value. This, too, is satisfactory to Mr. Corwin, inasmuch as the claims are to remain untransferred, and his partner and nephew is also to assess their value. Mr. Corwin's "feelings of delicacy" are relieved, and he takes his position in the Cabinet. Governor Young and Bob Corwin wait until the award of the claims commission is known, or as Mr. Law says, until "some time along that season,' and then they assess the value; and then, and not till then, the contract is consummated and the bargain reduced to writing. The precise time, the commmittee inform us, was in November, more than four months after Mr. Corwin had entered the Cabinet of President Fillmore.

Mr. Speaker, a careful reading of this testimony has satisfied me that Governor Young, Mr. Corwin's sub-treasurer in New York, and not George Law, was the real purchaser of Corwin's interest in these Mexican claims, if such a loose unbusiness-like transaction as this could be dignified with the name of a sale. The extracts already read from Mr. Law's testimony lead the mind imperceptibly to this conclusion; and the following extract from the testimony of Robert G. Corwin, taken before the committee, confirms the impres

sion:

"Robert G Corwin appeared as a witness, and was

Worn.

"Question by Hon. Thomas Corwin. Were you concerned with me, as counsel, in prosecuting claims before

The Gardiner Claim-Mr. Olds.

he late commission under the treaty with Mexico? If so, state whether I sold out all my interest in those claims, and when, and to whom.

"Answer. I was concerned with you in the prosecution of claims up to the time when you went into the Cabinet of Mr. Fillmore. Your interest was sold prior to your going into the Cabinet, and your interest was represented afterwards by Governor John Young, of New York. I don't know exactly by whom the whole arrangement was made with Governor Young. The assignment of his interest was made to Jacob Little; he afterwards transferred his interest in these claims to George Law. I understood that Young was the negotiator, and that the assignment was made to Little to enable Young to get the money from him fairly; then it was transferred to Law, from whom the money was received. The sale was made prior to the organization of Mr. Fillmore's Cabinet, which was some time in July, 1850; but it was agreed that Governor Young and myself should estimate the value of your interest in all the claims you were concerned in. We were concerned in thirty-seven claims in all. We, Governor Young and myself, concluded the examination of all the papers, and made out the estimate a short time prior to the next regular session of the board in November, 1850,"

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask, in all fairness, does not this case really assume this one aspect? Corwin must sell his interest in these claims before entering the Cabinet of President Fillmore. Consequently, he sells to Governor Young at such price as Governor Young himself, and Robert G. Corwin should fix upon them; giving them time to wait until the award of the commissioners should be known, before fixing the value. And then, as Governor Young was Mr. Corwin's sub-treasurer in the city of New York, George Law, the intimate friend and surety of Governor Young, is used to throw an obscurity over the transaction, and give it the semblance of a sale.

Why, sir, when you have exposed and set aside George Law's connection with this transaction, you have taken from it the veil of obscurity, and it stands, like Moore's Prophet when the veil was lifted, exposed in all its "hideous deformity.' And yet, sir, this is what the gentleman from New York calls exonerating Mr. Corwin, "and turning back upon me the odium!")

These five specifications, Mr. Speaker, in the very order in which I have named them, embrace all the duties imposed by the resolution of the House upon the Committee of Investigation. That resolution, sir, nowhere charged the committee with the duty of inquiring into Corwin's knowledge of the fraudulent character of Dr. Gardiner's evidence. No such specification is made in the resolution, and as a matter of course no testimony was adduced before the committee to establish any such inference or implication. If any such thing had been attempted, Mr. Corwin, if he chose, could at once have objected to the jurisdiction of the committee, and have told them that they were going beyond the duty assigned them by the House.

Mr. BROOKS. Will the gentleman from Ohio allow me to read the preamble to the resolution? Mr. OLDS. Certainly, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. It is as follows: "Whereas, a strong suspicion rests upon the public mind that fraudulent claims have been allowed by the late Mexican Claim Commissioners, with one of which it is suspected Thomas Corwin, Secretary of the Treasury, has been improperly connected; therefore," &c.

Will the gentleman from Ohio incorporate it in his speech?

er,

Mr. OLDS. Certainly I will. But, Mr. Speakit does not in the least change the interpretation of the resolution, neither does it in the least change the character of the specifications against Mr. Corwin.

Why, sir, the committee do not hesitate to say that the commissioners allowed fraudulent Mexican claims. The suspicions of the public then, Is it not, sir, equally as clear, that the connection as affirmed in this preamble, were well founded. of Mr. Corwin with one of them, as affirmed in do the committee, as they have done in the bill the preamble, was improper? If not, sir, why now under consideration, seek to make, in future,

precisely such a connection, a misdemeanor, even though the claim may not be a fraudulent one? Mr. Corwin, sir, is welcome to the full benefit of all his friends can make out of this preamble.

honorable gentleman from New York, or any honNow, sir, with these facts before us, will the orable gentleman, rise in his place and say, that the committee have not fully sustained every specification made in the resolution of the House? I may, perhaps, be told that, in the remarks which

HO. OF REPS.

I had the honor to submit to the House, at the time I introduced the resolution calling for this committee of investigation, I made certain charges against Mr. Corwin, which the committee felt itself called upon to investigate; and that upon those charges they have acquitted Mr. Corwin, and "turned back upon me the odium" of being an "infamous slanderer."

On the 5th of March last, in my remarks in this House upon the land bill, I charged that Corwin had been employed in this case, that it might receive the aid, not of his legal abilities, not of his great eloquence, but of his political position, and the influence of his great name. He is not charged with being a party in the fraud, but the charge is, that he sold his political position and political influence in aid of a claim, fraudulent in itself, and sustained by perjured testimony. I repeated the same language, showing my precise meaning in the remarks I submitted at the time of calling for the committee of investigation. That I may place myself right, and be correctly understood, I will read from the remarks then made, as reported in the Congressional Globe, page 2303, part 3d of the 24th volume, and repeated in the Appendix to the same volume, page 266:

"Sir, let me divert the attention of this committee for a single moment to charges that common rumor fasten upon the present Secretary of the Treasury, and which the country demand to have investigated by this Congress. I refer, sir, to his connection with the Gardiner claim. Public rumor charges, sir, that Mr. Corwin received $79,000 as the agent of this Gardiner claim. Now, sir, the inquiry naturally arises, Why did Mr. Gardiner stipulate to pay Mr. Corwin this enormous fee? Was Mr. Gardiner so dumb that he could not act as the agent of his own claim? Not so, sir; he is a man belonging to one of the liberal professions, and cannot be supposed to be devoid of common sense; and, sir, if his claim was a just one, he could himself present it before the proper tribunal and ask a decision upon its merits. But if his claim was bad, he would naturally desire to bring the stronger influence to its support. He could not have selected Mr. Corwin because of his great eloquence; for, sir, a plain, simple statement of facts was all that was allowed before the tribunal. He could not have selected him on account of his legal acumen in taking and arranging testimony, for, sir, this case was prepared and the testimony taken in Mexico; and every one knows that Mr. Corwin, though a great favorite tn Mexico in consequence of his bloody hand and hospitable grave' sentiments, was never in Mexico. Nay, more, sir; a grand inquest of the country, upon their oaths, have said that this whole case is a forgery. Why, then, sir, was Mr. Corwin selected? The answer is obvious: Mr. Corwin is a great man with his party. He has been made so, sir, by the Whigs of Ohio. They made him their Representative first in this House; then, sir, they made him their standardbearer of the party in Ohio, by selecting him as their candidate for Governor; then, sir, they sent him to the Senate of the United States. But this is not all; he was at one time the favorite of his party in Ohio, as a candidate for the Presidency. His name, in connection with that office, was at the mast-head of his party press. Sir, Mr. Gardiner, as a shrewd man, knew all this. He knew that this man must be possessed of great influence with a Whig Administration; and for the exercise of this influence, for the power of this position, Mr. Gardiner could afford to give Mr. Corwin $100,000, if thereby he could get allowed his claim of $480,000. But, sir, in what light does it present Mr. Corwin before the country? The people had sent him here to guard their interests; they were paying him eight dollars per day to watch the National Treasury; they supposed, sir, that with the vigilant and ever-watchful eye of Mr. Corwin upon the Treasury, all would be safe. But, sir, rumor says that they were mistaken in their man; for whilst receiving pay from the people to watch and guard their Treasury, this Mr. Gardiner, knowing his man, feed him on the other side -he outbid the people. Gardiner's $100,000 was as omnipotent over your National Treasury as was the 'Open sesame' of Ali Baba over the cavern of the Forty Thieves.""

Mr. Speaker, the evidence of General Thompson himself, as well as that of Edward M. Johnson, the secretary of the board of Mexican claims commission, fully demonstrate it was political influence that Gardiner desired to aid and strengthen his claim, and not forensic eloquence or legal ac

cumen.

Johnson, in his testimony, says:

"After the first instances, the board became satisfied that Dr. Gardiner himself understood his own case better than anybody else, and that the best means of arriving at the truth would be to receive his own statements, and cross-examine him on all these points."

Gardiner, then, was fully competent to the management of his own case; and in the selection of his counsel and agents, his object was to secure the aid of such persons as had power and influence with the commissioners.

This is shown in the testimony of Waddy Thompson, who, in speaking of the employment of Major Lally, a near connexion of one of the commissioners, says:

32D CONG....2d Sess.

"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."

Gardiner, Mr. Speaker, most undoubtedly employed all these men, and gave them most enormous fees, that he might have the influence, not only of their political, but also of their personal position, in aid of his doubtful and fraudulent claim.

The charge against Mr. Corwin was, and is, that he sold his political position, being United States Senator, and his great personal influence with the Whig commissioners, in aid of a claim, fraudulent in itself, and sustained by perjured testimony.

I am aware, sir, that my colleague, [Mr. CAMPBELL,] in a speech delivered by him in this House in August last, by the quotation of a single para. graph from a speech of mine, made in July previous, not upon this subject, but upon the state of political parties, attempted to make me the accuser of Mr. Corwin, as being a party in the forgery and perjury committed in this case. In reply to my colleague on this precise point, I took particular pains to be correctly understood, and consequently put my exact meaning into the form of specific charges. They may be found on page 2303 of the 3d part of the 24th volume of the Congressional Globe. They are as follows:

First. "That Mr. Corwin, while acting as Senator, and receiving eight dollars per day for watching and guarding the National Treasury, took a contingent fee, said to amount to $100,000, for the prosecution of a claim against that Treasury."

This specification, excepting so much as fixes the amount of Corwin's fee, is fully sustained by the committee, who say "that in May the Hon. 'Thomas Corwin, then a member of the United 'States Senate, was employed as counsel in the 'Gardiner claim by General Waddy Thompson."

Second. "That when about to become the head of the Treasury Department, he sold his contingent fee to a citizen of New York for a large amount, said to be $79,000, and that said claim, amounting to nearly half a million of dollars, was paid upon the draft or warrant of Mr. Corwin."

The finding of the committee upon this specification has already been stated. It is, that "the 'Hon. Thomas Corwin resigned his seat in the 'Senate, and accepted the appointment of Secre

tary 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 Sec'retary 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;" and further, that "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."

Third. "That Thomas Corwin and Robert G. Corwin, his nephew, through Mr. Corcoran, purchased the one fourth interest of this claim for the sum of $15,000. That with this $15,000 Dr. Gardiner twice visited Mexico in the preparation of his papers and evidence, to be presented to the Board of Commissioners."

I have already shown, from the report of the committee, that Thomas Corwin and Robert G. Corwin purchased the one fourth of the Gardiner claim for a sum of over $22,000 instead of $15,000. The report of the committee also shows that after receiving this money, Dr. Gardiner proceeded to Mexico to complete his testimony. But to substantiate fully the charge that with this money Dr. Gardiner proceeded to Mexico with the instructions of General Thompson and Thomas Corwin in his pocket, allow me to refer again to Robert G. Corwin's Lebanon speech, in which, in speaking

The Gardiner Claim-Mr. Olds.

both endeavored to negotiate a loan for him, and failed. We also failed in our efforts to sell a share of the claim. Capitalists were afraid to invest, because, as they remarked, the commissioners had yet several months to sit, and in the mean time it might occur that Gardiner's claim lacked sup port, and the board had the power to revoke all it had done in his regard. At this time Dr. Gardiner came to me and insisted that I should purchase a share of his claim. At first averse to the proposal, my objections were gradually overcome, and I purchased one fourth of Dr. Gardiner's claim for the sum of over $40,000. This being a larger amount than I could command, and one half being a cash payment, I raised the money by getting my friends in Washington and Ohio to indorse my paper. Among others, I asked Thomas Corwin, and you know Corwin signs everybody's note.

"After this I proposed to Mr. Corwin that as we had been associated as lawyers in the case, and heretofore in business, he should join me in my purchase of an interest in the Gardiner claim. He did so after weighing the matter in his own mind, and finding no valid objection to such a course. This was in March, 1850."

Again, in his testimony before the committee, Robert G. Corwin says:

I purchased the one-fourth of his claim. His reason for selling it was to raise money to go to Mexico and get this additional proof."

There is not a remaining doubt, then, but that, as charged, this sale was made in consequence of Gardiner's necessity to have money to visit Mexico. And the fact is equally as well established, that, the instructions of Corwin and Thompson in his with this money, he actually visited Mexico, with pocket, and that he returned with his forged testi

mony.

Fourth. "That Dr. Gardiner's claim was founded upon his right to a silver mine in Mexico, from which he alleges he was expelled by the Mexicans."

The committee say:

"The claim of George A. Gardiner was a claim for damages alleged to have been sustained by him, by reason of his expulsion, on the 24th day of October, 1846, by the Mexican authorities, from mines which he alleged he was extensively engaged in working in the State of San Luis Potosi, in Mexico."

Fifth. "That no such silver mine as the one claimed by Dr. Gardiner, ever existed."

Upon this specification, the committee say:

"Upon examination of the evidence taken by them, it appears from the testimony of José Antonio Barragan, that he is well acquainted with the place in the department of Rio Verde, State of San Luis Potosi, in Mexico, where Gardiner's evidence locates his mine; that there are silver mines in the State of San Luis Potosi, but that there is none at that place, or in the department of Rio Verde." Again, the committee say:

"Two witnesses, John Baptiste Barragan and Pantaleon Galvan, testify to the forgery of the documentary evidence of Gardiner; and both testify that they are acquainted with the locality of Laguinillas, in the State of San Luis Potosi, and that there is no silver mine there. These three witnesses are Mexicans, residing in the vicinity where Dr. Gardiner's testimony locates his mine; they are all gentlemen of character and respectability in their own country. The first named, José Antonio Barragan, held, from 1843 to 1846, the office of collector of the customs at Rio Verde. Laguinillas belongs to this district. He now holds the office of comptroller general of the State of San Luis Potosi. They all came to the United States as witnesses, under an arrangement made by George W. Slacum, Esq., an agent of the United States Government, who went by direction of Hon. R. P. Letcher, the American Minister in Mexico, to the State and city of San Luis Potosi, for the purpose of investigating the character of the claim of George A. Gardiner, and the Mears claim, and obtaining testimony in relation to them."

The Sixth and last charge. "That the evidence upon which the Mexican claims commissioners awarded nearly half a million of dollars to Gardiner, Corwin & Co., was a forgery from beginning to end."

I have already shown from the finding of the committee, that "John Baptiste Barragan and Pantaleon Galvan, gentlemen of character and respectability, testify to the forgery of the documentary evidence of Dr. Gardiner."

The committee add:

"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."

These charges, Mr. Speaker, let it be recollect

HO. OF REPS.

and made the specifications as I have made them. And yet, sir, the gentleman from New York woul call this an honorable acquittal of Mr. Corwin, and "turning back upon me the odium by my own party.'

Mr. Speaker, I will not say that at the time! offered the resolution calling for this committee investigation, that I had not a settled convicte upon my mind, that Corwin must have known, or at least have strongly suspected, the fraudulen » character of this claim. That conviction has t been changed, but greatly confirmed, by the ev dence reported by the committee. But, sir, notwithstanding these convictions, I had no purpose of making any such charge in the resolution, knowing the utter impossibility of proving a man's thoughts or impressions. Nothing in the languag of the resolution, or in the remarks with which! accompanied the resolution, can be construed inte such a charge. Upon this precise point, sir, E ¦ commenting upon my colleague's account of Cor win's connection with this transaction, in which I supposed he had involved himself in seeming contradictions, I used the following language:

"What, sir, is to be the interpretation of these cost dictory statements? I fear me, sir, that my colleague basself will convict Mr. Corwin of being a party to the fresc I fear me, sir, (that from my colleague's own showing, the case is likely to be far more serious upon Mr. Corwin a his worst enemies had apprehended."

This language does not look as though I de sired, at that time, making Corwin a party to the fraud. I repeat, sir, no matter what might have been my settled convictions, this language shows that I designed making no such charge. It shows, sir, that I designed imposing no such inry upon the committee. Yet, sir, because the comittee inserted in their report, a paragraph simply stating the fact that "no testimony has been si

duced before the committee proving, or tending to prove, that the Hon. Thomas Corwin had an 'knowledge that the claim of the said Gardine 'was fraudulent, or that false testimony or forged 'papers had been, or were to be, procured to sins'tain the same," I am to be told that the committee have acquitted Mr. Corwin of the actr charges, "and turned back upon me the odium." Why, sir, I never for a moment supposed that the cunning, sagacious Corwin, had so committed himself, as that his knowledge of the fraud word be proved. He would have been a fool, indest, had he not well covered up his tracks; and s withstanding he was surrounded by his friends and accomplices, kept his own secrets closely locked up in his own bosom. But, sir, apply w Mr. Corwin a principle universal in your cours of judicature, that a man's inward intentions shall be judged by his outward acts," and the tell me if you can, sir, that Corwin has established his honest intentions, and vindicated t innocence.

But, sir, the committee do not undertake to say that Corwin had no such knowledge. Ther merely assert a fact, viz: that no such evidence was adduced before the committee. Upon the contrary, the inference to be drawn from the dee laration and the action of the committee is, that they did infer that Corwin must have had suspicions, amounting almost to a certainty, that the whole case was a fraud. For it must be admitted upon all hands that the commissioners who allowed the claim had no better information as to the char fidential counsel and agent of Mr. Gardiner. acter of the claim than had Mr. Corwin, the con

It is not to be presumed that Mr. Corwin would have purchased one fourth of so large a claim without having as closely scrutinized its validity and honesty as did the commissioners. Neithe is it to be presumed that if the case had been devel of suspicion that the Messrs. Corwin could have purchased one fourth of $428,000 for the sum of $22,000.

The committee do not hesitate to censure the commissioners. Does not that censure apply

from Mexico, he says:

"Dr. Gardiner was now in an embarrassed condition. The destruction of his property in a foreign country had left him almost destitute. As one of the consequences, he had left the country largely in debt, and deemed it unsafe to return in his present condition His old friend Perez Galvez

was dead, and he had no powerful friends in Mexico on whom he could rely. He had no money for so expensive a journey. In this dilemma, General Thompson and myself

mony in this case. And yet, sir, every one must admit, from the finding of the committee, after having all the testimony before them, that if they had desired to put the facts of this case, as they report them, into specifications for the purpose of introducing articles of impeachment against Mr. Corwin, they would have used the language, I

"The committee, at the same time, are of opinion that there were circumstances developed during the course of the trial which should have induced the Board of Commis

sioners to have given the case a more thorough investage

tion.

"It is in proof, from the testimony of the secretary af the board, that the claim was suspected by the board from explanations." the first, and that Gardiner was frequently called on for

32D CONG....2D SESS.

Were not these circumstances and suspicions as well known to Corwin as they were to the commissioners? To suppose anything else, is to deny to him that sagacity which his friends so fully accord to him.

Mr. Speaker, the committee do not undertake to say that Corwin had no knowledge of the fraudulent character of this claim. They merely assert the fact that no such evidence was presented to the committee. But, sir, is it not fair to infer the opinion of the committee as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Corwin from the recommendation made by the committee to the House? That committee, sir, had been appointed and instructed to investigate Corwin's connection with the Gardiner claim. And what is their finding? Why, that Corwin, whilst acting as Senator, had been connected with this claim as the agent or counsel of Gardiner; the committee find, sir, that the Messrs. Corwin had a large fee interest in the claim; they find, sir, that Thomas Corwin and Robert G. Corwin had purchased the one fourth of this claim; they find that the claim was most fraudulent; and they find that it was sustained and allowed upon forged testimony. And what do they do, sir? Why, they report the facts to this House, and they accompany that report with a bill making the recurrence of just such transactions as Corwin had been guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishable with fine and imprisonment.

Mr. Speaker, every line, every word of that bill speaks trumpet-tongued the opinion of the committee as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Corwin. The very caption of the bill has a significance in it not easily misunderstood. Listen to it:

"Mr. PRESTON KING, from the Select Committee appointed to investigate the connection of the Hon. Thomas Corwin with the Gardiner claim, reported the following bill."

A bill for what, sir? Why, "A bill to prevent frauds upon the Treasury of the United States."

Does not this imply that a fraud had been committed upon that Treasury? And does it not connect Mr. Corwin with that fraud? Mr. Speaker, let me ask honorable gentlemen to listen to the reading of the bill, section by section, and then let them say if it is not a most fearful censure cast by the committee upon Mr. Corwin for his connection with the Gardiner claim:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all transfers and assignments hereafter made of any claim upon the United States, or any part or share thereof, or interest therein, whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor; and all powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities, for receiving payment of any such claim, or any part or share thereof, shall be absolutely null and void, unless the same shall be freely made and executed in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, after the allowance of such claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That any officer of the United States, or person holding any place of trust or profit, or discharging any official function, under, or in connection with, any Executive Department of the Government of the United States, or under the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States, who, after the passage of this act, shall receive any gratuity from any claimant against the United States, or shall act as an agent or attorney for prose cuting any claim against the United States, or shall in any manner, or by any means otherwise than in the discharge of his proper official duties, aid or assist in the prosecution or support of any such claim or claims, shall be liable to indictment, as for a misdemeanor, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction for the trial of crimes and misdemeanors; and, on conviction, shall pay a fine not exceeding twice the amount of gratuity, fee, or compensation received by the person so convicted, or suffer imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding one year, or both, as the court, in its discretion, shall adjudge.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That any Senator or Representative in Congress who, after the passage of this act, shall receive any gratuity from any claimant against the United States, or shall, for compensation paid or to be paid, certain or contingent, act as agent or attorney for prosecuting any claim or claims against the United States, or shall in any manner or by any means, for such compensation, aid or assist in the prosecution or support of any such claim or claims, shall be liable to indictment, as for a misdemeanor, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction for the trial of crimes and misdemeanors; and, on conviction, shall pay a fine not exceeding twice the amount of the gratuity or compensation received by the person convicted, or suffer imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding one year, or both, as the court, in its discretion, shall adjudge.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the provisions of this act, and of the act of July twenty-ninth, eighteen hundred and forty six, entitled "An act in relation to the payment of claims," shall apply and extend to all claims against the United States, whether allowed by special acts of Congress or arising under general laws or treaties, or in any other manner whatever; and every offense against the provisions of this act shall be a misdemeanor.

Foreign Policy-Cuba-Mr. Marshall.

Call you this bill, sir, exonerating Mr Corwin from all suspicions?

I will admit, sir, that if this bill had been reported from one of the standing committees of the House, the case would have presented a different aspect. But not so, sir. The bill comes from the committee appointed to investigate Corwin's connection with the Gardiner claim. If that connection had been all right and honorable, why has that committee reported this bill? Scrutinize this bill, sir; examine all its provisions. Why, sir, every section of it has been drawn by a masterhand, to meet precisely, and punish by incarceration within the walls of the penitentiary, exactly such a case as that presented by the committee against Mr. Corwin.

Mr. Speaker, if this committee designed exonerating Mr. Corwin from all censure, they have done him great injustice by reporting this bill. For it is impossible to separate Mr. Corwin's connection with the Gardiner claim, from the necessity which has called from that committee this most fearful and stringent bill.

And yet, sir, with all these facts staring him in the face, the gentleman from New York has the hardihood, may I not say the audacity, to tell this House and the country, that the committee have exonerated Mr. Corwin, " and turned the odium back upon me.

Why, sir, this bill, if it were a law, would not reach the case of any of the parties interested in the Gardiner claim, except the case of Thomas Corwin. It would not reach Waddy Thompson, for he is not a member of Congress. It would not reach Bob Corwin, or Mr. Curtis, or Major Lally. They are not members of Congress, neither are they connected with any of the Departments. If, then, the committee desired to exonseek to punish, by incarceration within the walls erate Mr. Corwin from all censure, why do they of a dungeon, any Senator or Representative in Congress, who shall do precisely what Mr. Corwin has done?

Ho. OF REPS.

will it cause suits to be instituted against them, to recover back into the National Treasury their portion of this enormous plunder?

Be the action of Congress what it may, sir, I have discharged my duty, and am content to abide the result.

FOREIGN POLICY-CUBA.

SPEECH OF HON. E. C. MARSHALL,
OF CALIFORNIA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 6, 1853,

In the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the conduct of the present Administration in regard to Cuba, and our foreign policy generally.

Mr. MARSHALL said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I had not wished or intended to claim the attention of the committee to the remarks I propose to make to-day. I had intended, and still intend (unless the duty is discharged by some one who can bring before the House the authority of a greater name) to offer a resolution to this effect: That the Committee on Ways and Means be directed to report a bill placing at the disposal of the President of the United States the sum of five or ten millions of money in the Treasury, and not otherwise appropriated, to meet any exigencies which may arise before the meeting of the next Congress in our foreign relations. I wished to have presented some such resolution in the House, not only that it might give rise to discussion of matters of a practical and important bearing on the interests of the country, but that such discussion might be followed by some action on the part of this House which would have significance before the people. I had hoped, and still hope, that a vote of the House, giving unequivocal expression of opinion upon practical questions will be taken, and I entertain the fullest confidence that that vote will have the happiest effect at home and abroad. The expression here in committee of abstract opinions on questions which may never arise, and which certainly will only arise in the remote future, is no part of my purpose to-day.

Suppose, Mr. Speaker, that this bill had been passed into a law, prior to Mr. Corwin's connection with the Gardiner claim, what would have been the consequence? Would he not have been indicted under it? Would he not have been liable to its pains and penalties? Mr. Corwin is innocent then, only from the fact, that we have no law to punish just such a case as the committee make out against him. But the committee recommend the passage of a law making it a misde-fatal to the honor of the nation. Fortunately, our meanor, and punishable with fine and imprisonment, to do precisely what Mr. Corwin has done.

There are affairs now pending in regard to which the action of the Executive, so far as any action has been had, has been, as I think, and as I shall endeavor to prove, ruinous to the interests and

foreign policy may yet be changed, or rather, a foreign policy may be established consistently The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that a stupendous with the faith of treaties and all our obligations, fraud has been perpetrated against the Govern- while the public interests are protected and the ment. The National Treasury has been robbed national honor redeemed. The resolution which of nearly $500,000. So barefaced has been the I propose to introduce will announce to the incomJuly, 1852, the United States instituted a chancery fraud, that the committee informs us "that in ing Administration our perfect confidence in it, as the popular vote in the late election has done on 'suit in the circuit court of the District of Colum-the part of the people themselves. It is offered not 'bia, to enjoin in the hands of Corcoran & Riggs moneys and stocks belonging to G. A. Gardiner, 'to the amount of between $90,000 and $100,000; ' and also in the same month, in the circuit court of the southern district of New York, to enjoin in the hands of the New York Life Insurance and Trust Company moneys and stocks belong'ing to George A. Gardiner, to the amount of '$130,500."

Gardiner, it seems, sir, is to be made to disgorge his portion of this fraudulent claim-Gardiner is subjected to a criminal prosecution-Gardiner, the humble citizen, in all probability will be convicted, and suffer the extreme penalty of the law. But, sir, what will be, or rather, what ought to be done with the other parties interested with this stupendous fraud?

The Messrs. Corwin and Waddy Thompson, no matter what might have been their original impressions about this claim, are now fully aware that it was a naked fraud upon the National Treasury. Will they come forward like honest men and refund their portion of the plunder? or will they tighten their grasp upon their ill-gotten gain?

The committee, sir, have reported a bill to prevent and punish the recurrence of such transactions. Will this Congress content itself with the passage of this bill? Or in case of the neglect or refusal of Thompson, Corwin & Co. to refund,

as a war measure, but simply implies that a change of policy is desired, and that the Executive will have the support, the earnest and effectual support of Congress. A vote of confidence of this character is not without precedent in our history; and it is also established firmly in the Government from which many of our usages and laws are derived. I shall urge this measure upon the Democratic party as a peace measure, and one which strikes me as the most important upon which we shall have to act, in its effects upon our national character and national interests. The subject of our foreign relations has been introduced by gentlemen in committee, and questions have been debated which, although not identical with those which I think render necessary the vote of confidence of which I have spoken, are yet cognate questions; and as the points to which I attach the greatest importance have been almost neglected and doctrines inculcated of the worst influence upon the State which I represent, in part, I have determined to give my own views of those questions at this time, although I think the subject would have come up with more propriety and effect upon a resolution before the House. I shall call the attention of the committee to the diplomacy of this Government in the Island of Hayti and the Republic of Nicaragua, because there we have incurred the deepest shame and sustained the greatest loss, and because these evils are not without easy remedy;