The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-02
TUESDAY,, October $40 a. m.

TUESDAY, October $40 a.. M
Robert T. Paine appeared as witness, and wal
sworn.
Question.-Were you a member of the Board O.
Commissioners to adjust claims of American citi
Gems against Mexico, under the late treaty.
Anstcr.-I was. served from the beginning te
the end of the commission. 1t met the 10th Of
April, 1549. 1t adjourned on the 18th or 10Th Of
April, 1851. The Board adjourned in June, 1850
to meet gain in November, same year. Genera
Taylor died before the Board met in November.
heard of his death while at home.
Question By Mr.. Cor,oin.-Did ever appear be-
fore the Board attorney, in any case, after Gene
raj Taylor's death, and after the formation of Mr.
Filmore's Cabinet?
Anstcer. Never, sir, to my knowledge. knew
at the meeting of the Board that Mr. Corwin hac
disconnected himself as counsel in any case.
Question Were there two sets OF papers ano
proofs exhibited to the Board in the of George
A. Gardiner, at different times?
Ansper.-There was additional testimony intro
duced after the Board had decided upon the va
lidity of the claim.
Question.-Was counsel at the time that add
tonal testimony was introduced?
-dnslcer.-I cannot tell what time that additiona
testimony was filed; but it not laid before the
Board until the meeting of the Board in November,
1850.
Question.-The claim of G.. A. Gardiner was
first received by the Board on the Both November
I649, as appears from the journal of the Board
What papers were filed at that time?
Ans,oer.-E cannot say, certainly; / know his
memorial was then filed, that being the first thing
that the Board considered. When the case was
taken up for consideration, | remember that the
book of accounts and affidayits, showing the pos
session OF Gardiner in the mine, the amount Of
property he had on hand, or the value of it's fl
lures, the profits of the mine for a number Of
months, and the value of the ore on hand, and
that IN state OF amalgam, were then before the
Board, and with these there some evidence o.
title TO the mine in Gardiner but not sufficient te
establish his legal title, and other evidence goinn
TO establish the validity of his claim. do MOI
recollect what that evidence of title was-whethel
il was certificate affidavit, or what it was.
Question.-Are you certain that there was any
paper showing Gardeners title to the min,
at the time the first decision of the Board wa;
made9
but cannot tell whether there was any paper OF
not. My impression is that there was
QuestiOn.-Was there any objection at ths
Board that the title was not proved?
Ans,cer.--Itis impossible for me to speak of the
consultation of the Board in this case in particu
lar. TWAS contended, on the part OF the claimant
that ne was entitled to pay for the mine. Tha
claim was met, on the part of the Board, by say
ing that there was not sufficient proof OF his t,tlf
TO the mine.
Question.-Why were not the damages deter.
mined when the Board of Commissioners allowed
the claim?
-4nsecer.-They were determined so far as they
were in any case. The Board decided upon the
validity OF claim. at the same time looking into
the amount which they thought ought to be award
ed to the claimant. This award was however,
not considered final by the Board 1t was left
open for various reasons. The Board tholl chf
that if the award should be published az the case
was decided, il would pr oduce great deal of dis
satisfaction among claimants, and give trouble
10 the Board; and because testimony might after
wards be introduced discovered which might
materially affect the award, Memoranda were