and also the amount of gain charged against him upon the same, in making up his accounts, by the accounting officer of the treasury. They have also procured copies of the vouchers furnished the department by Mr. Forsyth, showing the rates at which he sold these several drafts respectively, whether sold for pesos or francs. And they have caused elaborate and accurate calculations of the losses and gains which were in fact really incurred or realized upon the sale of each one of them. And they find, that instead of realizing gains upon the sale of each one of them, Mr. Forsyth actually sustained loss upon the sale of all of them except two; and that the aggregate of his losses amounted to $760 81, while the aggregate of his gains was but $28 04, showing an excess of loss over gain of $732 77. Whereas, in the account made up with him at the Treasury Department, he is charged with the sum of $1,407 29 as gain upon the sale of his drafts on London. It follows, therefore, that he stands charged, in the account as made up with him at the department, with $2,140 06 more than he ought to have been charged with. In other words, upon the final settlement of his account, the United States was really indebted to Mr. Forsyth in the last named sum; which the committee think ought to be refunded to his legal representatives, and they report a bill accordingly.

Your committee also submit herewith their calculations named above.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MAY 20, 1858.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. GREEN submitted the following

REPORT.

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred a resolution of the Senate, directing them "to inquire into the expediency of conferring on the district courts of California, in the investigation of facts relating to cases pending on appeal from the United States land commissioners, the powers given to the courts of the United States by the judiciary act of 1789, in regard to the taking, of depositions," have had the same under consideration, and report:

The act establishing a board of commissioners to ascertain and settle private land claims in California, evidently intends that any witness examined in support of a claim should be subject to oral cross-examination by the district attorney, or other proper officer of the United States, whether the testimony was taken whilst the claim was pending before the board, or when removed by appeal into the district court. Under this act more than two-thirds of the claims to land under Mexican or Spanish grants have been adjudicated.

In the progress of proceedings under the act, it has been developed that many claims have been preferred, founded on forged title papers, and supported by fraudulent testimony, and, it is scarcely to be doubted that some, if not many, have succeeded in establishing claims by such testimony. The existence of a numerous class of claims, most of which are still pending, in which the sole question is, whether the claim is founded on false and fraudulent evidence is undeniable, and the effect of extending the provisions of the judiciary act of 1789 beyond the limits of the United States, and of dispensing with an oral cross-examination by the proper officer of the United States, would have the evil consequence of facilitating frauds upon the government, by removing the greatest safeguard against fraud. The language of the Supreme Court, in speaking of that species of testimony, which would be made available against the United States, if the provision of the judiciary act were extended to foreign countries, in cases now pending in the district court of California, is the result of judicial experience, and would seem rather to require the restriction than the extension of that act. "At best it is calculated to elicit only such a partial statement of the truth as may have the effect of entire false

hood. The person who prepares the witness and examines him can generally have just so much or little of the truth, or such a version of it as will suit his case. In closely contested cases of fact, testimony thus obtained must always be unsatisfactory and liable to suspicion.' "The provision of the act of Congress should never be resorted to, unless in circumstances of absolute necessity."-(Walsh vs. Rogers, 13 Howard, p. 286-'7.) This absolute necessity does not seem to exist in California, but on the contrary, the district attorney, as well as the special counsel of the United States, have both declared, that with such an alteration of the law, it will be a vain effort for the government to resist fraudulent claims, and that in those pending and resisted by the United States, on the ground of fraud, the resistance will be unavailing if the change is effected.

The only object of such a change of the law is to enable claimants to examine witnesses in Mexico as to California land grants in cases now pending, without their being subjected to the test of an oral cross-examination. Two-thirds, at least, of the claims in California have been disposed of without resort to such testimony, and considering the low state of private and public morals in Mexico, the unsettled and disorganized condition of its government, and the experience of the United States in relation to the facility with which fraudulent and forged documents can be established there, the prevention of fraud would seem imperatively to require that the provision of the act of 1851, organizing the land commission, in relation to the mode of obtaining testimony, should remain unaltered.

The committee are of opinion that it is not necessary for the pur poses of justice, or expedient, that any additional power in relation to taking testimony, inconsistent with the provisions of the act of 1851, should be conferred on the district courts of California.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MAY 20, 1858.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. DOOLITTLE submitted the following

REPORT.

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom were referred the memorial and joint resolution of the State of Iowa, in behalf of James B. Thomas and family, sufferers by Indian depredations, respectfully report :

That they are unanimously of the opinion that, upon the papers presented, they cannot present a bill for relief.

While there is enough in the papers to show that the memorialist has been a severe sufferer in the loss of one son actually killed by the Indians, and in the loss of another from exposure in escaping from them, there is no evidence to show that any amount of property was actually destroyed or taken away by the Indians; and there is no evidence to show that the matter was presented to the notice and consideration of the Indian agency. The committee, therefore, ask leave to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.