The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-03-23

l,--l =
per having seen that paper before the board?
ans. 1 40 not know any thing Of its being befor
me Doard. 1t one of the sheets of these paper
athose marked and 8 were separated from al
the others. 80 as to destroythe general appearance
| OF 1t as part of them, do not know that woul
recognise it.
l think the endorsement on the translation is il
the handwriting of Mr.. Robert G.. Corwin, one O
the counsel in theca
Colonel r. T. Payne s.porn
CUES. Were you one Of the Board Of Commits
sioners on the adjudication of claims against Mex
leo?
/ Ans. ! was one of the Board Of Commissioner
appointed under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidal 20
remember very we'll the claim of George A. Gar
diner; it was decided upon by the board.
cues. Could you identify any of the papers be
fore the board in that case? Aia
Ans. do not know that could designate an,
OF the papers. (Papers and shown.) Witness
CATER examining them. 1t is proper for me t,
state that have seen this paper before, because
was shown to me few moments ago. do no
remember 1t except by its general appearance
do not know that would recognise it anywher.
/ else, no more than could bank bill by the SINH
1 larity.
CUES Do you remember that he filed any pape,
| about mining title before the board? q
/ Ans. remember he filed such paper. | re-
member that there was title deed, or an abstrac
| OF title, bled among the papers.
! GUS. Was there more than one? $50
Ans do not think there was but one 4H%
| Cues paper shown.) Do you recollect thai
paper?
Ans. cannot identify this except by its general
appearance
| Cues. Can you not identity it by the translation!
! Ans. don't think can. (Transation shown y
know this, only as did the other one by its an.
pearance. am not Spanish scholar, though
have an imperfect knowledge of the language
used sometimes to take the TRANSACTIONS and com
| pare them with the Spanish, to see if they were
correct and frequently used to appeal to the secre-
| tary on matters in which / had doubt as to the
| TRANSACTIONS. remember there was translation
of this paper filed, and of my reading it. If this
| paper, however, were shown to me with George
| A, GARDENERS name stricken out, do not say /
could recognise it. @f ~
Cues. Colonel, read the first page, and see if you
| can recognise it by it's contents. = r#
Mr.. BRADLEY objected to that course
| The CoURT said the witness could state il he re
cognised it by that means ~ @s
Witness, (after reading the papers) All can
state Is that this paper is similar to the which
was before the board it relates to thesame subject
matter. recollect the names of the mines as laid
down in that paper; have no means of recognis-
ing 1t except by my recollection Of its appearance
and of its contents.
Cues. Was the paper before you when your
Ans. OH yes; it was upon this paper and the
other evidence filed with it that the award was
increased; am sure it influenced me- The coun
sci conended they were entitled to the value of the
| mine as in fee simple. The board said to them
| that they had shown no evidence of title sup
pose it was in consequence of that that this evil
dence of title was filed. There was no amount
fixed by the first decision; nothing done but to
decide upon the validity OF claim. This paper h ad
the effect OF augmenting the amount allowed to a
sum greater than any of us would have allowed
without it. Such, however, ia my own impress
slon (Other papers shown.)
have recollection of this testimony, (contain ed
| In these papers.) There no written evidence
of title before this. The board told the counsel,
when they asked for the value of the mine that
there was no evidence of title in the case. After
that this paper, as well as can recollect it, was
filed with other evidence. have no doubt it aug
mented the amount allowed.
The only decision on the claim, made by the board
before the final award, was to decide upon it's va
lldlty This was a case upon which the board
could not agree as to the amount to be allowed. |
do not suppose my own impressions would be evi.
dence can state readily what effect this evidence
had on my mind. The only disagreement in the
board was as to the amount. We all agreed tina t
the claim was valid one.
Cross eramined.-The first decision as to tn va
lidity of the claim made on the memorial and
the evidence filed with it.
Cues. Have you any knowledge that the evil
dence was submitted BY the board to the Mexican
Minister with reference to it's authenticity?
Ans. think the secretary was directed to do 80
Cues, Did you not give this claim your closest
scrutiny? -
Ans. / did. .~sF .-..
CUES. Was DIR. Gardiner, at your instance, or
that of any member of the board, invited to come
before you for the purpose of personal explana
ton?
Ans. 1t was not at the suggestion of the board
The board often asked counsel questions as to
facts, not as to evidence; for instance, as to Dr.
Gardner's means of engaging. in these extensive
operations they said he could answer that matter
himself. remember it was said that it vas rather
unsafe TOR them to allow their clients to come be-
fore the board, because in one case a party had
defeated his own claim by his own statements
They said they had no fear of DIR. Gardiner that
would mt to but to
board. The board said they had no objection. He
came before it. Il asked him many questions, and
remember took notes of some portions of his
testimony. He mentioned the names of MANY
persons engaged in the mines and the technical
names of the different departments of the mine /
afterwards asked him, when suppos, d he had for.
gotten these, and he repeated them over. did
give his the closest scrutiny. | received an
anonymous letter warning the board, not as to the
validity OF the claim, but to the amount of the
award.
have recollection of putting the papers in his
case in DIR. Davis's hands for any particular ex-
animation. l may have done SO, but do not
remember. l do not remember that DR.. Davis
made any report on this to me before our
making the final award.
My impression is, that the final award wa made
about the time OF the closing of the board and
after DIR. Davis was secretary. cannot say it was
made before Mr.. johnson left No final amount
was fixed in any when we decided on its va
lidity. If had heard any thing up to the last
before the board.
Remember book having been presented in the
first evidence filed in his case; it had red cover
(Book shown.) This was the book, or there was
book presented similar to this. / do not think
there is any doubt in my mind to this being the
book. There was translation of it.
had no conversation with Mr.. La Rosa, the
Mexican Minister. He could speak no English,
and could speak no Spanish. and consequently
we had no conversation with him.
We did not give him the value of the mine. We
considered if he owned the mine before he owned
it then, Mexico had not confiscated the mine. |
am not skilled in the Mexican law. y
Several questions were put to Mr.. Payne as to
what would have been his opinion as to the loss by
Gardiner of the mine, were the Mexican law as
stated ~ 80
To Mr.. May. DIR. Gardiner, in his examination
before the board, described his mine it was de-
scribed in his memorial, as in some district in San
Luis Potosi.
CUES. Was his description of it then the same
as was in his evidence of mining title filed after
wards?
Ans cannot remember. have no recollec-
ton that the description given by him in his con-
versation with the board the same as was
given in the abstract of his mining title; but there
was general conformity between them-a con.
sformity in name and description.
Mr.. MAY. We offer now in evidence thu paper
marked No. g. and it's translation, marked No. g.
Mr.. BRADLEY. You do not. then, offer that
evidence filed with the memorial You do not offer