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? 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 re Suffer me, sir, to call the attention of the House to a few extracts from the testimony of the wit-lieve his "feelings of delicacy," undertakes to ness referred to. George Law says: "Soon after General Taylor's death, in the month of July, 1850, I was here in Washington. Governor Young, of New York, called at my room at the National Hotel. He said he had a friend who was offered a seat in Mr. Fillmore's Cabinet, and who had some interest in claims that were then known as 'Mexican claims,' and that were to be set tled by a commission; and that this friend, from feelings of delicacy, would not take a seat in the Cabinet whilst he was interested in such claims. Governor Young was desirous 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. He said that he did, but that the purchase must be unconditional; because he was satisfied that if there was any understand ing about the claims if not realized, his friend would not take the place. I told him that there was no necessity for any contingency about them, and that I would leave it to him (Governor Young) to say what the value of the claims was, and I would purchase them at his valuation. Governor Young said he presumed that would be satisfactory; 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." * * * * * * * * "I did not know anything of the value of the claims, except what was stated to me by Governor Young. My object was not to make or lose money, but to do Governor Young a favor." "I made the purchase, relying upon Governor Young's judgment and integrity. I did not undertake to go into the matter in detail." 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. negotiate a sale of Corwin's interest in these va- 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 impression: "Robert G. Corwin appeared as a witness, and was sworn. "Question by Hon. Thomas Corwin. Were you concerned with me, as counsel, in prosecuting claims before the 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. Now, sir, with these facts before us, will the honorable gentleman from New York, or any honorable 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 may, perhaps, be told that, in the remarks which 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: Mr. Corwin, though a great favorite in 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 tion; and for the exercise of this influence, for the power be possessed of great influence with a Whig Administraof this position, Mr. Gardiner could afford to give Mr. Corwin $100,000, if thereby he could get allowed his claim of before the country? The people had sent him here to guard $480,000. But, sir, in what light does it present Mr. Corwin 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 pay from the people to watch and guard their Treasury, this that they were mistaken in their man; for whilst receiving 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: diner 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." "Some time in the fall of 1849, or early in 1850, Dr. Gar Gardiner, Mr. Speaker, most undoubtedly em 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 coun-ployed all these men, and gave them most enortry demand to have investigated by this Congress. I refer, sir, to his connection with the Gardiner claim. Public ru mor 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, mous 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, sir; he is a man belonging to one of the liberal profes that he sold his political position, being United sions, 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 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 paragraph 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 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;" 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." | 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. associated as lawyers in the case, and heretofore in busi "After this I proposed to Mr. Corwin that as we had been ness, he should join me in my purchase of an interest in the Gardiner claim. 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, with this money, he actually visited Mexico, with the instructions of Corwin and Thompson in his 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 extensively engaged in working in the State of San Luis Mexican authorities, from mines which he alleged he was 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 But to sub-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 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 of the necessity of procuring additional testimony 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 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 support, 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 investigating the character of the claim of George A. Garlation to them." diner, and the Mears claim, and obtaining testimony in re 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." was adduced before the committee. Upon the contrary, the inference to be drawn from the decThese charges, Mr. Speaker, let it be recollect-laration and the action of the committee is, that ed, were drawn up before the taking of any testi- they did infer that Corwin must have had suspimony in this case. And yet, sir, every one must cions, amounting almost to a certainty, that the admit, from the finding of the committee, after whole case was a fraud. For it must be admitted having all the testimony before them, that if they upon all hands that the commissioners who allowed had desired to put the facts of this case, as they the claim had no better information as to the charreport them, into specifications for the purpose acter of the claim than had Mr. Corwin, the conof introducing articles of impeachment against fidential counsel and agent of Mr. Gardiner. Mr. Corwin, they would have used the language, It is not to be presumed that Mr. Corwin would and made the specifications as I have made them. have purchased one fourth of so large a claim And yet, sir, the gentleman from New York would without having as closely scrutinized its validity call this an honorable acquittal of Mr. Corwin, and honesty as did the commissioners. Neither and "turning back upon me the odium by my is it to be presumed that if the case had been devoid own party. 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 equally as strong to Mr. Corwin? They say: "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 Commissioners to have given the case a more thorough investigation. Mr. Speaker, I will not say that at the time I offered the resolution calling for this committee of investigation, that I had not a settled conviction upon my mind, that Corwin must have known, or at least have strongly suspected, the fraudulent character of this claim.. That conviction has not been changed, but greatly confirmed, by the evidence 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 language of the resolution, or in the remarks with which I accompanied the resolution, can be construed into Were not these circumstances and suspicions as such a charge. Upon this precise point, sir, in well known to Corwin as they were to the comcommenting upon my colleague's account of Cor-missioners? To suppose anything else, is to deny win's connection with this transaction, in which I supposed he had involved himself in seeming || cord to him. contradictions, I used the following language: "What, sir, is to be the interpretation of these contradictory statements? I fear me, sir, that my colleague himself will convict Mr. Corwin of being a party to this fraud. I fear me, sir, (that from my colleague's own showing,) this case is likely to be far more serious upon Mr. Corwin than his worst enemies had apprehended." "It is in proof, from the testimony of the secretary of the board, that the claim was suspected by the board from the first, and that Gardiner was frequently called on for explanations." to him that sagacity which his friends so fully ac 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. This language does not look as though I desired, 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 designed imposing no such inquiry upon the committee. Yet, sir, because the committee inserted in their report, a paragraph simply || stating the fact that "no testimony has been ad'duced before the committee proving, or tending "to prove, that the Hon. Thomas Corwin had any 'knowledge that the claim of the said Gardiner was fraudulent, or that false testimony or forged 'papers had been, or were to be, procured to sus"tain the same," I am to be told that the committee have acquitted Mr. Corwin of the actual 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 would Mr. Speaker, every line, every word of that bill be proved. He would have been a fool, indeed, speaks trumpet-tongued the opinion of the comhad he not well covered up his tracks; and not-mittee as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Corwin. withstanding he was surrounded by his friends and accomplices, kept his own secrets closely locked up in his own bosom. But, sir, apply to Mr. Corwin a principle universal in your courts of judicature, "that a man's inward intentions shall be judged by his outward acts," and then tell me if you can, sir, that Corwin has established his honest intentions, and vindicated his innocence. But, sir, the committee do not undertake to say!! that Corwin had no such knowledge. They merely assert a fact, viz: that no such evidence 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. hardihood, may I not say the audacity, to tell this 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 exonerate Mr. Corwin from all censure, why do they seek to punish, by incarceration within the walls of a dungeon, any Senator or Representative in Congress, who shall do precisely what Mr. Corwin has done? 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 prosecuting 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 misde-law to punish just such a case as the committee meanors; 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. Call you this bill, sir, exonerating Mr. Corwin from all suspicions? 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 make out against him. But the committee recommend the passage of a law making it a misdemeanor, and punishable with fine and imprisonment, to do precisely what Mr. Corwin has done. 66 The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that a stupendous fraud has been perpetrated against the Government. The National Treasury has been robbed of nearly $500,000. So barefaced has been the fraud, that the committee informs us that in July, 1852, the United States instituted a chancery 'suit in the circuit court of the District of Columbia, 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 belonging 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? 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 con- The Messrs. Corwin and Waddy Thompson, nection with the Gardiner claim. If that connec- no matter what might have been their original imtion had been all right and honorable, why has pressions about this claim, are now fully aware that committee reported this bill? Scrutinize this that it was a naked fraud upon the National bill, sir; examine all its provisions. Why, sir, Treasury. Will they come forward like honest every section of it has been drawn by a master- men and refund their portion of the plunder? or hand, to meet precisely, and punish by incarcer-will they tighten their grasp upon their ill-gotten ation 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 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, 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. |