The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-02

The Board was appointed soon afterwards; and in
April, l649, met and organized. In May, l849, Mr.
Corwin was employed by General Thompson to
assist him in the prosecution of the Gardiner claim
On November 80, l049, the claim of Gardiner
presented to the Board In February. 1850, Mr..
Corwia purchased one-haif Of one. foufth Of the
claim. In july 1850, he Disposed Of hs interest in
that claim. with his fee interest in thirty sx other
claims pending before the Board, to G&0rge Law,
| esq.,, by an absolute, unconditional sale In No
vember, 1850, he received from Mr.. Law the mo-
ney for his claims, and made the final written
/ transfer.
/ On the Sd of March, 1861, Congress passed an
| appropriation bill, of which will read section:
| "For the payment of the money to those entitled
under the fifteenth article of the treaty between the
| United States and Mexico, concluded February I'd,
1S48 according to the provisions of the sixth section
of act entitled sAn act carry into effect GER
tain stiDulations of the treaty between t. United
States of America and the Republic Of Mexico, of
the I'd day of February, 164S the Secretary of the
Treasury is hereby authorized to sell the stock to
be issued under the said section and to issue it
under the same restrictions, limitations and pro-
visions as contained in the second section Of
an act entitled IAN act authorizing the Issue OF
treasury notes and loan,' and approved July %,
1916: Provided, h0treuer, That the stock issued
shall not bear rate Of interest greater than five
per centum per annum, and that it shall be re-
deemable in ten years from its date -
By this section it appears that eight months af-
ter Mr. Corwin had ceased to have any interest in
the Gardiner claim, and more than three months
after he had made the final transfer and received
his money, Congress authorized him to sell United
States stock to pay the claims of those en-
titled under the fifteenth article of the treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo. What claims? Those that
had been and should be awarded by the Board OF
Commissioners.
At the time of the passag e of the law of March
3, 1851, the Gardiner claim had been passed upon
by the Board of Commissioners nearly year.
Congress then knew much about the character
of this claim as Mr. Corwin. It was also known
that he had been interested in claims before that
Board, and had sold out. Did Congress at that
time think the conduct of the Secretary of the Trea
sury improper? So far from it, they authorized
him to sell United States stocks TO pay all the
claims that had been should be alowea by the
Board The Gardiner claim had been allowed be-
fore, and was finally decided upon in April, 1851,
and was paid-not dollar of it, however, to Mr.
Corwn.
Some importance is attempted to be given to this
affair because Mr.. Corwin, being Senator, was
engaged in the prosecution of claims before the
Board of OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES, being Sena-
tor, he was prosecuting claims against the United
States.
Is it true that the claims allowed by the Board
of Commissioners were claims against the United
States, and were those engaged in their prosecu-
ton engaged in prosecuting claims against the
United States? The Government of the United
States had agreed to pay the claims to a limited
amount-that is very true. But they were not
that class ofclaims usually meant when we speak
of claims against the Government. We had agreed
10 aDSOlVe MEXICO from all NanlltY Tor the claims
| of our citizens against that Republic, and to pay
them to an amount not exceeding s 1850, 900. We
then established court for the adjudication and
settlement of the claims of citizens against
Mexico. Our Government by this arrangement
liquidated the gross amount of these claims, and
| agreed to pay it out in the manner stipulated.
If we could pay the claims of our citizens against
| Mexico with much less amount than stipu
| lated, Mexico would have no right to gainsay it..
And yet there is some reason in the view taken by
the Mexicans that they entitled in equity to all
| the surplus. after the payment Of all the valid
claims of our citizens. We exacted from them the
amount fixed upon, and received value for that
amount. If the claims of our citizens against Mex
leo fell short of the amount agreed upon, the United
| States, by the arrangement, had the advantage
of Mexico to the extent of the surplus. But if the
claims of our citizens had exceeded the amount
| agreed upon, then Mexico would have been bene-
fitted to the extent OF the excess and citizens
would have been the losers. 1t was arrange.
| ment by which we secured from Mexico $325O-
600 for the benefit OF our citizens.
The claims presented before the Board of Com
missioners were as conceive in no legitimate
sense of the word, claims against the United States
The Commissioners were merely appointed to
award to the several claimants their proper shares
of the sum stipulated for their liquidation.
have adverted to this for the sole purpose of
showing that there is no real difference in princi
pie between the prosecution of claims of this cha
racter and the prosecution OF claims against pri-
vate individuals.
The Mexican Claims Commission was court
a
judicial tribunal; not permanent court, to be
sure but one created for special purpose, all of
whose functions were judicial Such tribunals
have been created from time to time since the or
ganization of the Government. There have been
two three for the pur pose of adjusting Mexican
claims; one under treaty with Spain a number
of years ago for the settlement of claims against
that country and severao Others at different periods
The practice has always been for members of
Congress to appear before them. From the first
sir, men of the most undoubted honor and integ
rity, and of commanding influence in Congress,
have engaged in practice before such courts
They never dreamed of its being improper, or
disparagement to their character or position No
one thought 30. The celebrated Mr. Pinckney,
one of the ablest as well as purest public men of
his day, appeared before the Board of Commits
sioners for the settlement Of claims against soain
while he was Senator from the State of Mary.
land.
In this very case, Mr.. Corwin was not the only
Senator or member of Congress who appeared be-
fore the Board of Commissioners and prosecuted
claims. distinguished Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BENToN;) the able Senator from Indiana,
Mr.. BRaHT;) the highly accomplished Senator
from Louisiana, (Mr. SouLE,) Ill appeared before
the Board as counsel, l am infoi med. Mr. Web
ster had many cases before it. Gentlemen of dis
tincton in this House appeared beforeit and seve-
raj gentlemen who were then members of Con.
gress but are not now had cases before the Board,
as have been informed.
Why, then, should Mr.. Corwin be singled ont |
from all the host who appeared counsel before
that Board, and other Boards, the object of re-
proach? Why should any man be reproached for
appearing before that and similar tribunals? There
was no law against it. No principle of morals or
propriety forbade it. And if Mr.. Corwin deserves
| censure, then the whole practice of our public
men, from the beginning of the Government, is
deserving of censure. The other members of Con
gress who appeared before the same Board are
equally subject to reproach.
Icannot see any violation of sound morality, or
even punctlous propriety in the practice. The
Board of Commissioners was court as much as
the Supreme Court of the United States is court
1t was court Of high character, composed of men
OF distinction and ability as lawyers and states.
men-men appointed by Wing President and
confirmed by Democratic Senate. can see no
more reason to censure Senator for practicing
before such court than to censure him for prac. |
ticing before the Supreme Court of the United
States, or before the State courts. Is lawyer to
lose his character such when he becomes mem,
Der of Congress? suppose, in fact many men
become members of Congress because they are
considered good lawyers; and why should they 10
their characters as lawyers, and to practice
their profession, because they members of Con-
gress! If that rule should be adopted, think the
bar would lose much, and the country and the
cause of justice would lose more
Mr.. Speaker, consider this to be the whole |
point and the only point in this case: Shall mem
bers of Congress for the time being cease to prac
tice their profession, if they lawyers? If lit is