this transaction of the Spanish Government, not generally known. Our citizens were the victims of suffering and insult, which might have been prevented by a forcible interference of our Govern "The officers of the Spanish vessels of war ordered the "It is evident that a State cannot punish an offense against its municipal laws, committed within the territory of another State, unless by its own citizens; nor can it arrest the persons or property of the supposed offender within that territory. "Wheaton's Law of Nations, pp. 169, 170. Upon what ground, then, could the Spanishment at the time. The following statement of the Government capture these vessels, their officers and crews? That they were engaged, it is said, in piracy on the high seas. Certainly on no other ground. If they were pirates, they might, I admit, be lawfully captured on the high seas, but not within Mexican jurisdiction. But the idea that they were pirates is, to say the least, wholly absurd." Piracy is the offense of DEPREDATING ON 'the seas without being authorized by any sovereign State, or with commissions from different 'sovereigns at war with each other."-(Wheaton's Law of Nations, p. 176.) Now, let the facts in the case of these vessels be examined. Whatever was intended by the officers, crews, or passengers, as a matter of fact they sailed under regular papers from New Orleans to Contoy. They committed no depredations upon anybody. The vessels had no armanent to enable them to plunder and rob upon the high seas; and I hazard nothing in saying, that this Government will never assent to the extraordinary assumption that they were pirates. The Spanish authorities having, then, no right to capture these vessels, I trust the American Government will do its duty, and submit to no longer delay in obtaining indemnity for our citizens. In my judgment, our vessels of war should have retaken the Georgiana and Susan Loud without hesitation. And while our Government pronounced the detention of these vessel an "outrage, it should have had sufficient courage to have given an instant order for their recapture. That model President, the illustrious Andrew Jackson, would have given the order without hesitation. But Mr. Fillmore shrunk from a maintenance of the unquestionable convictions of the Government, with such demonstration as those convictions would fully justify. He waited, without any forcible interposition, for the Spanish authorities to convict and pardon several of our citizens, who were on board these vessels. He received as a pardon, what should have been demanded as a right, and insisted on, if need be, at the cannon's mouth. The property of our citizens, amounting to more than thirty thousand dollars, he has suffered the Spanish Government to retain, and no satisfaction has been made to those who were captured, for their unjust detention. We are all interested in this extraordinary proceeding. Should our Government continue such a foreign policy as it has lately pursued in its intercourse with Spain, we shall soon be liable to insult from every considerable Power of the earth. It is refreshing to know that the time is at hand when it will not pursue such a policy. I by no means justify fillibustering of any kind; but we should not allow an unjust infliction by an unauthorized Power even upon an erring citizen of this Republic. Whatever may be said of the acts or intentions of the men who were captured at Contoy, I repeat, the Spanish Government have convicted and punished them without the shadow of authority. There were aggravating circumstances connected with seizure of the Contoy prisoners by eighteen of their "Having, as stated, changed their mode of procedure as To the statement of these individuals I will add that of the American Consul, R. B. Campbell, in a letter to the Secretary of State, dated, Consulate of the United States, Havana, July 16, 1850: "The captain, two mates, and seven seamen, detained by this Government, have not yet been relieved from in communication; but permission being granted to Commodore Morris for him and myself to see the prisoners, we first called at the military hopital, at ten and half, a. m., * * * * * of this day, to see Captain Benson, who had been placed in the hospital, as was understood, on account of indisposition. We found him in a room with grated windows, and had the pain and mortification to discover that his intellect was entirely destroyed, and he had become a raving maniac. The madness is manifestly real and not assumed. The acts and words of a madman it would be idle to report, and I therefore pass them unnoticed. "My feelings have been so harassed and wounded by the melancholy and hopeless condition of Captain Benson, and the conviction that, with the strongest desires, I have been impotent to save him from so sad and cruel a fate, that I hope I shall be excused by the President should I for a time visit the States, even in advance of permission being received. A few days, however, may lessen the present intensity of feeling; should they not, I shall leave by an early opportunity. * * * * * "The trial of the Contoy prisoners is, I suppose, being proceeded with. Captain Benson, of the Georgiana, it is believed, has been removed to a lunatic hospital. I feel a deep interest in his fate, and very much fear that his mind cannot be restored so long as he continues in a situation where he never hears his native language, or sees a familiar face. Should anything occur by which, officially or personally, I can in any manner serve him, the contingency will be immediately availed of." I shall not be charged with drawing on my own imagination, or with exaggeration in an exhibition of the suffering and insult to which our people were subjected while in custody of the Spanish authorities. I simply refer to the documents I have quoted. They certainly present a picture sufficiently unpleasant to awaken American sensibilities. nexation that is not brought about by peaceable negotiation. I would not involve the country in difficulty upon frivolous pretexts with a view that annexation of territory might result. But a positive right, whether the amount in dispute is large or small, should not be surrendered. In this case the amount, though comparatively small, is not small to those who have suffered. I repeat, then, I have no hesitation in expressing my own opinion as to the course this Government would have a right to pursue, if the Spanish authorities do not make immediate satisfaction. I think we should be justified in making reprisals of Spanish property. We should be fully justified in doing this. Whether the Government would do this, it is, of course, not for me to say. Vattel says: "Reprisals are used between nation and nation, in order to do themselves justice, when they cannnot otherwise obtain it. If a nation has taken possession of what belongs to another, if it refuses to pay a debt, to repair an injury, or to thing belonging to the former, and apply it to its own adgive adequate satisfaction for it, the latter may seize somevantage till it obtains payment of what is due, together with interest and damages; or keep it as a pledge till the offending nation has refused ample satisfaction or justice. As soon as that hope disappears, they are confiscated, and then reprisals are accomplished." I have called the attention of the House and the country to this subject, because my constituents, having applied to this Government more than two years ago, have failed to accomplish anything. I express the hope now, publicly, which I long ago expressed by letter to the State Department-that our Government will take this matter in hand and obtain indemnity for the men who have suffered, by what has been properly charac terized by Mr. Clayton and Mr. Webster, as an outrage upon the property and persons of American citizens. The question was then taken and the resolution was adopted. The foregoing remarks were written out and handed to the Reporter for publication in the Daily Globe, as I could get no opportunity to deliver them in the House. I gave the House notice that I would send them to the Reporter for publication, my object being to get the facts before the country. E. K. S. SPEECH OF HON. EDSON B. OLDS, OF OHIO, ON MR. CORWIN'S CONNECTION WITH THE GARDINER CLAIM. DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 6, 1853. The report of the Select Committee to prevent frauds | this impression produced by these pensioned deon the Treasury being under considerationMr. OLDS said: pendents 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. The gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] in reply to my colleague, [Mr. SWEETSER,] is reported in the Daily Globe as using the following language: 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 If gentlemen are not satisfied with their efforts the Gardiner claim. I felt, sir, that in calling for to forestall public sentiment, and with their spurithe Committee of Investigation, I had but dis-ous acquittal of Mr. Corwin, but are desirious of charged a duty which I owed my constituents and turning the war upon me, I am ready and willing the country; and even though the committee might for the conflict. 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 review, somewhat in detail, this most extraordinary transaction. "The gentleman from Ohio, in order to evade or avoid these unanswerable facts and conclusions, attempted to abuse the present Administration for its extravagant exrefusing to do right. Now, if that gentleman will look back penditures, as if their doing wrong would justify him for and observe the history of this Administration, he will see that in no one single instance, though a large majority in both Houses of Congress are nominally opposed to it, yet has there been no one instance in which they have reversed or condemned its action. The gentleman himself, or rather a colleague of his, did, indeed, in connection with the I was aware, sir, that an effort had been made, Gardiner claim, attempt to throw odium upon this Adminisby pensioned dependents, by hired letter-writers,||tration ; but it was turned back upon him by his own party.” 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 Amer-paper; and if his duty as Congressman did not ican people. Mr. Speaker, the honorable gentleman from New York, when he gave utterance to the language just quoted, should have known that it was unfounded in fact, and unwarranted by the report of the committee. He is himself the editor of a public news 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. 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 Gardiner committee. I am told, sir, that few or none of the Whig papers have published it in full. 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 I wish, sir, that I could believe that the honorpending over the United States, and more espe-able gentleman had spoken in ignorance, rather cially upon my own election; for in my Congres-than with a desire to pervert and misrepresent the sional 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 I should like very much to know whether the the men who gave them circulation, and carried them circulation, and carried honorable gentleman, when he used the language them from door to door, and distributed them referred to, had ever seen the report published in from hand to hand, supposed for a moment that any form, other than the garbled extracts, scatthey contained one word of truth. I had thought, tered broadcast over the country just prior to the sir, that when the occasion which gave them cir- Ohio and Pennsylvania elections. Has the honorculation, the election, had passed, an American ||able gentleman, himself the publisher of a Whig representative would no longer be assailed for newspaper, ever given that report publicity in his having boldly, fearlessly discharged his duty. But own paper? Mr. Speaker, I will venture the preI find, sir, from the indication given by the gentle- || diction, that even now, diction, that even now, notwithstanding the genman from New York, that this false impression,tleman 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 I "attempted to throw odium upon the Administration, but that it was turned back upon me by my own party.' 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 whom and for what consideration he disposed of his one fourth interest in said claim.” 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 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 purchase." Call you this, sir, exonerating Mr. Corwin from all connection with the Gardiner claim? Call you this "turning back upon me the odium" of Gardinerism? Secondly. The committee was "to ascertain his (Corwin's) fee interest in the claim.” "that On this specification the committee say, '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 other 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 relinquished 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. Ĉorwin." Call you this, sir, exonerating Mr. Corwin, "and turning back upon me the odium" of Gardinerism? Fifth. The committee was directed" to ascertain at what time he (Corwin) ceased to act as the counsel or agent of the said Gardiner, and to whom and for 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." Mr. BROOKS. I do not desire to interrupt the gentleman further than to request that he will extend the quotation he has just made. 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? Why, sir, was the consummation of this bargain, made in July, the consideration of which amounted 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 Wall street broker, and George Law, one of the shrewdest speculators in all the country, stipulated 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 speech of Robert Corwin, made in Lebanon, Ohio, Mr. Corwin's own town, and published in the 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 agree upon, but I found the Governor unprepared to pay so much as I considered the interest worth. I proposed myself to purchase Mr. Corwin's claim at the estimate I had proposed to Young, but to this he would not listen, 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 un 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 various 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 his mind. Sir, it could not well be otherwise; for he had just witnessed the inauguration of President Fillmore. He had just seen Fillmore enter the Cabinet of the deceased Taylor; and the this Hall to receive the oath of office, followed by 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 sem blance of a sale. "But I found the Governor," says Bob Corwin, "unprepared to pay as much as I considered the claim worth.". No doubt, sir, that Governor Young, seeing this claim enveloped in all the doubts and difficulties that hung over it at the time the Corwins purchased it, was unprepared to raise its value from $11,000 to $80,000. Consequently, by their own showing, this pretended sale remained incomplete and inoperative until these doubts and difficulties were removed. Messrs. their signatures to an instrument binding themLittle and Law were too shrewd operators to place selves to pay any stipulated sum, much less the enormous sum of $80,000, until they had some reliable basis upon which to estimate the value of the purchase. testimony of George Law and Robert G. Corwin, Why, Mr. Speaker, no man can peruse the witnesses sworn at the instance, and to give evidence for, Mr. Corwin, without a settled conviction 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 pretended purchaser, though he bought the claim unconditionally, had no knowledge of the amount he was to pay for it; and yet we are told that Corwin had washed his hands of all interest in these claims" before entering the Cabinet of President Fillmore. True, sir, Mr. Corwin had nominally sold his claims; but I ask every candid unprejudiced mind to tell me whether or not Corwin's real interest in these claims was not precisely the same after, that it was before this pretended sale,—ay, sir, up to |