The daily union., 1852-10-15

Do the committee anywhere intimate that, because Mr.
Corwins knowledge OF the fraud is not proved before
them, therefore MIR. Corwn does than what is
right and proper when he still keeps, and, suppose
means 10 keep, every dollar of the large OF money
which he has received account OF this forged claim
both counsel and as part owner
The tohg party. il is true, jus6es all this. All the
whg organs with voice, say tits all right and proper
They Tell us that nothing better than all this asked
peeled by the wing party from whg officials" and
that ISSUE and that standard OF whg morals in the guard
anship OF the public money they go 10 the country and
ask 10 be continued in executive power But the COM
mitlee in their report by put themselves in any
such predcamen Ga the contrary, the facts and cir
cumsances OF suspicion and "improper connexon" SET
forth in their report, unquestionaby not only fully
justify the language of Mr. Olds's resolution, but
fully warrant the OF stronger terms In the
judgment OF the country hold those reported facts
abundanty demonstrate that Mr.. Corwins connexion
with the claim and his action in regard it. have been
and are altogether "improper" and of evil and perous
example
For. mark now the third point which we notice in the
Republics article:
Mr. Corwn's relationship the claimant strictly
professional 1t began before Mr. Corwin became
fees by the arrangement common 10 business Of this
ture With the preparation OF the he had nothing
do The instruction to prepare certain evidence in sup
port of the claim given by Mr. Waddy Thompson,
by Mr. Corwn, some of our contemporaries imagine"
If there were mol good suppose that the Re
publies defence of MIR. Corwn made by authority"
that gentleman, when he the above passage, might
well exclam. /" Save me from nay frienGsw Was il
strictly professional in Mr.. Corwin to buy an interest
in the claim when he had already conditional interest
as counsel' Was it strictly professional" for Mr..
Corwin as such counsel, to have nothing TO do with
the preparation Of the casep The Republics statement
would be absurd even if its main averment not
false, but utterly false it is Mr. Cortvn dd haze much
to do ruth the preparation of the CASE His associate
counsel positively TO the fact We invite the Re-
public peruse the following extrac, from the testimony
given by Hon. Waddy Thompson, one OF Gardner's
counsel. before the committee:
"Ques,ion by committee. Was Thomas Corwin con.
suited by you in reference these instructions the
testimony required
Answer. had full consultation with Mr.. Corwn about
the whole Mr.. Corwin and myself, however,
separate instructions obtained originals of both in
suctons from Dr. Gardiner. month six weeks since,
and handed MIR. Corwin those drawn up by him"
Mark the force OF this testimony. In the Republic Mr.
Corwin rests his defence the ground that he did not
help prepare the case and that the instructions given
to Gardiner, 10 the testimony he should get up.
were given by MIR. Thompson only, and not by
Mr. Corwn. The fact turns out to be not only that
Thompson and Corwin consulted together fully abou,
the instructions for the geng-up of the iestimo-
ny, but that each Of them drew OF, separate set OF
for that purpose. Mr. Thompson's insIuc
tons put in evidence before the committee, and sp
pended as an er,ba their report OF the testimony But
what has become OF Mr.. Corwins Set of instructions
Two months ago Gardiner gave them back Mr. Thonp-
son. and he gave them back to Mr. Corwn Where arsose
Why are they not on file with Mr. Thomp-
sons Why they shut Of The Why is the fact
of their having been made by Mr. Corwn denied by the
Republic, and eRphatcaly denied in the very teeth OF
the testimony Are they destroyed. or only held back
In judging how far Mr.. Corwin's connexion with this
has been proper or improper, the country would
like first 10 know what ihsy are, next 10 know why
they not put in evidence, and then TO know why
Mr. Corwin's defence is put on the ground that he
gave instructions al all, nor in any way helped 10
prepare the case. Meantime we would beg leave
10 inquire whether the committee. when they say
that Mr.. Corwins knowledge Of The fraud was not
proved before them, have in any way certified that these
facts stand free from grave and ugly suspicion. We
affirm. the contrary that they look badly pos
sible; and we await with impotence for Mr. Corwins
explanation, il he has any to give.
We come now 10 another point in this case Hon w
Thompson states that Thomas Corwin was employed
by him in ay, 40, and that he went into the cabinet 10
July, So and after that had eonnexion in any OF the
cases, and refused TO consult even with him (Thomp
SOM about them. We ask the attention Of the
RsppbE and Of the country 10 the following further ex
tract from Mr. Thonpson's testimony
"Queston by committee Did the Corwins receive fees
Or commissions upon The othc5 three quarters
Answer They did
"Ques,ion How much In all
Answer Mr.. I Cjrwin's commissions were per cent
DO know exactly how much Mr.. II, c. Corwins fee,
were but think they were much less lie can state.
Qaostion DO you know The shares in which The Cor
wins held the quafteri
Answer Equally, as understood
"Question D. you know the gross OF fees ard
paid BY Glrdinof all his counsel
"AnsweE My own commission Of 10 per cent was
SO 370 OF which d. GAner paid me 50 money
from the Oorwins the balance OF s39g70 be
paid after be received the award to my agent, w. w
Corcoran. Mr. Thomas Cowin's fees under hs conraet
were lue over $1,000. think Mr. Robert g. Cotwins
were a ue than 50, 600, and Mr.. Edward Curtis MS
have been informed by Ds Gardiner received about s2i
90 know Of no other fees being paid"
BY this testimony it appears that Mr.. Corwin con.
'racted 10 act as counsel in the prosecution OF the claim
tha, in about thirteen months after, and ten months be-
fore the atonrd uas mad,, he rholiy tchdew from hs
ela and sch out his 4oie eonditopi interest in H. both
as counsel and a, part ownui and vet that euery dol.