The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-10-14

WILLIAM A. GRAHAM.
The Gardiner Ciaim-Mr. Corwin and hi.
Assailants.
The attempt of the Democratic party in the
HOUSE of Representatives 10 manufacture cap
ital for the campaign by insinuating suspicion
against Mr.. CoRwIN's proceedings in connexion
with the Gardiner claim, was bad enough; but
1t was meritorious in comparison with the
course now pursued by Democratic journalists
upon the same subject. 1t was, perhaps, con-
sistent with the exigencies Of the period that a
party which had found it necessary to make the
MERwETHER attack upon General ScoTr in
the Senate should also contrive method of
assaiIing some distinguished Wing through
the agency Of the other branch of Congress-
1t was polite, too, if not necessary, that
the attack should in each instance be infer
entail rather than direct Fair antagonists
are accustomed to proceed openly, with a
full avowal Of their purpose, and with an
unreserved acknowledgment of their respon-
sibility. When, however, party can find no
better instrument than an OLps with which to
work in the premises-when it is reduced to
the humiating predicament of putting forward
as its mouthpiece a man without character In
his own State, and without position in the
House-we can have no pretence for expecting
honor or righteousness at its hands. The MIR.
OLDs who figures in this affair as Democratic
Representative from Ohio, has been stigma
tised by Democratic presses in that State as
ga mere mercenary soldier fighting fo- pay"
as "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and as one
who "died for the want of honest principles"
And yet what this political adventurer dare
not do-what the Democratic House of Repre-
sentatives shrank from doing--is now being
done by the Democratic organ in this city, and
by its co-laborers throughout the country.
The utmost that Mr.. OLDs had the courage
to say was that Mr.. CoRwIN was suspected"
Of having been Improperly connected" with
fraudulent claim" The House could be
induced to endorse no more, and its committee.
after full investigation, reported that even sus-
picion was wholly untenable. After Mr.. OLDs
has failed, and after the committee, with a ma
jority Of Democrats, has pronounced against
the charge. the Union steps forward and deals
out columns of abuse for days in succession, in
direct contradiction to the conclusions forced
upon its own committee.
II the Union speaks truly the House COM
mittee have failed to discharge their duty, for
its assertions are at variance with their con-
illusions. On the other hand, if the committees
report be, as it purports to be, a statement Of
facts arrived at after careful examination, then
a. T,.o ID
author of charges which it knows to be false,
and as the reckless, disreputable, and dishon-
est assallan, of the integrity of public officer
The issue, in this particular, is between the
Democratic organ and the Democratic commit
tee. 1t is one that concerns most deeply their
characters, and must be settled between them
selves.
Of the validity of DR.. GARDINER's claim we
have no desire to speak. 1t is yet the subject
of judicial inquiry, and although the committee
present strong prima facie case against it,
the proper course appears to be to withhold
opinions touching its merits until the pending
proceedings are finally closed. Partisan writer's
may find it convenient to assume the perpetra-
ton of fraud for the purpose Of charging third
party with connivance; but the assumption,
however plausible, is scarcely compatible with
decent regard for justice az between an in
dividual and the law. Surprising, for the &C.
cason, that the estimate formed by the COM
mit,ee of the Gardiner claim is correct, the
question arises, Does that estimate involve facts
which justify the Union in alleging that "the
public treasury has been plundered through the
fundamentally of Wing oficials2'' Is Mr.
CoRwIN, or is he not, justly amenable to pub
lie ceDsure? Let US look at the case as pre-
sented through Democratic medium.
Mr.. CoRwIN's relationship to the claimant
was strictly professional. 1t began before Mr..
CoRwIN became a member Of the Government,
and was regulated in regard to the fees by the
arrangement common to business of this nature.
With the preparation Of the case he had moth
ing to do. The instruction to prepare certain
evidence In support of the claim was given by
Mr.. WADDY THOMPSON, not by Mi CoRwIs,
as some Of our contemporaries imagine. Mr..
THOMPSON, indeed, employed Mr.. CoRwrN,
who had no knowledge of the claim except
that which he derived from testimony fur
nished to him the same testimony being
subsequently, deemed satisfactory by the com
mIssioners appointed to adjudicate on Mex
lean claims, More than year after the date
Of the original retainer, Mr.. CoRwIN accepted
Office as Secretary Of the Treasury; and before
entering upon the duties of that appointment,
he transferred to others the interest he had &C
quired professionally in the claim. From that
period his connexion with il ceased. He re-
fused an application for consultation made by
Mr.. THOMPSON; and the whole evidence before
the committee shows that, while Secretary of
the Treasury, he carefully abstained from
every step that could in the least compromise
his position as member Of the Cabinet. He
did not appear before the Board. and had no
thing whatever to do with the decision. 1t
was given by those over whom he had no con
troll, with whom he had no official connexion,
and on evidence which had been rendered to
him at the outset as the material of the case.
In all this what did Mr. CoRwIN do that