The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-16

questions my ingenuity, as professional man, sug.
gesied-an examination and Characterization put
them rather in the light OF cross examination because
my object was To see II could detect any missaiemeht
OF want OF consistency, or il he could give explanation
of things which appeared 10 want explanation; and he
answered all the questions put 10 him The memorial
was there Intercepted him about the substance Of
hand, would address him in this way ii see DR..
Gardiner, you stale and so and then went on and
asked such questions as at the time founded upon The
statement and he would answer | INTERCEPTED him
about the witnesses aud various other matters Il is i'm.
plssibe for me now TO state any single question which
then put 10 him all know rs, that put such questions
as thought were necessary at the time. My Colleagues
asked him several questions also, and he answered Them
all | remember now that Intercepted him closely
about his mnes-how he came 10 make such inyes.
menis The claim was large one, and he was then a
young man Ii struck me singular that he had The
meaas Of making such extensive investments, and in.
terrogated him abouti
Mr. Fendall. State what was the practice OF the
board in regard to receiving memorials.
Ans The ward 'received" had rather technical
meaning with the commission. The rules OF the board
required that memorial should be filed with the clerk Of
the board bat that was not considered being re.
seived in the in which this word IS used on this
paper Whenever papers or memorials were brought to
The notice OF the boafd-as they were every morning
the papers which filed up 10 that lime since The last
adjournment laid before the board. The first bus
ness was to examine the memorials 10 see whether they
were drawn up according TO the form which The rules
prescIibe!. The next thing to examine The aega
lions of the memorials 10 ascertain whether they set forth
substantial, valid claims under the treaty II they did,
der the treaty, they then ordered 10 be received
Therefore the word =" received was put upon any ne.
mortal thus examined and the board then decided 10 re-
ceive proof OF The claim In other words the endorse
ment of the word received sgnhed received TO 10
acted upon-receved a substantial claim for proof"
Nj May. Did these forms include the necessity OF
uTat
Ans Certainly, that would be 6i the first things al
which the commission would look II frequently hap
pened that memorials were put in which were not sworn
to. That would be OF the first things which would
attract the attention OF the board In such case
should say to the memorias " Your memorial is defect
i've you had better withdraw il and the error"
would, therefore. be informally Withdrawn, and no entry
would be made upon the journal No memorial was
ever received" in this until it was not only per-
ect IN form but so adudcaed by The board as being in
By Mr.. May Isit the practice Of the board to allow
these memorials 10 be sworn 10 before Justices OF the
peace?
Ans. All that necessary was that the oath should
be taken before person competent to administer
oath N some cases, where the applicant lived long
way oil, ii would be made before notary public, or
consul Of the United States All that we required was,
that the oath should be administered by peTson
pelen by the laws OF the place to administer an cath
BY Mr.. Fendal Then, you do not recollect the pars
tcuiar time when this examination OF Dr. Gardiner took
place
the session of the board commencing November, ls49,
and terminating during April or May following
By Mr.. May. unde stood you to say that The award
was made on this memorlal'
Ans On the memorial and all the other proofs OF the
case.
Cross examined by Mr. Bradley. | will only ask one
question You stated that in the course OF the exami
nation 10 which Dr. Gardiner submitted, you recolecl
saying that he was young man. and that you inquired
n regard to his means to make such large investments
Cues What did he say in reply 10 that
Mr. May. This evidence is only addressed to the
court, and not to the jury objec, 10 this
nation.
The Court. The court is aware that it is not addressed
10 the jury but is OF opinion the question is admissible
The witness proceeded. He said he went to Mexico
hnuf lary Ia nptL hat a I'D
sum. He might have named il, but do not recoect If
he did He stated that having been there for some
time how long do not neutrality-suspicious. year
he had accumulated, unless am deceived IN my reco
lection sixty seventy thousand dollars, inclu
ding what he carried with him | will not be confident
how long he said he had been there He stated that be
had had experience in the examination OF minerals
that he considered himself fully competent and able TO tell
their value He then explained TO Us the manner in
which mines are 'denounced"--that is, tina, anybody
finding mine vacant
Mr. Fendall | would suggest that thus is altogether
irregular.
And, after some discussion, the testimony proceeded
Cues. For what purpose was the memorial referred 10
by you
Ans In order that / might catch such points as
might want to inquire about
Cues Had you any other purpose 10 view in referring
10 it,
Ans. referred TO it in the same way as referred 10
Edward w. Johnson previously. sworn in chief was
called, and book was submitted 10 him-a journal or
record OF the board OF commissioners TO examine Mexi
was IN the handwriting OF Mr. Barnet; that there
several corrections in il which in the Handwriting OF
the Witness and that the signature is that OF witness
secretary The claims upon the record those OF James
Angus, for damages in the destruction Of his properly
Puebla Mexico, add of George A. Gardner for ha wing
been driven from his mInes in San Luis Potosi, Mexico
The record is that these claims had been . rscetped'
meaning that they were in such form 10 20 before The
commissioners Tor adjudication The date OF this entry
OF receipt is 30th November, lsl9
George Cochran was called aud qualified. Witness
was appointed clerk in the office OF the First Comptroller
IN July, 1874. tie had the revision of all accounts Of
awards made by the commissioners OF Mexican claims
case. In response 10 question by the prosecution 10
the payment OF the money This the defence adj
mltted the receipt of the through attorneys Wit
stated that the power OF attorney for the drawing oil
the money allowed in this claim 10Th May. 1851
The claim passed the Comptrolers office the 10th OF
May, 1851.
The prosecution then renewed the offer OF the memo.
rial to be read 10 the Jury The counsel for the defence
objected, and argument was had
The Court, in deciding the question, reviewed the
whole oil the evidence up TO this point and stalled that
the act OF Congress made this distinct and different Of
fence from that OF perjury, although the punishment al
tached TO the offence the as for perjury II
appeared to the court that they 10 look TO The
efficiency OF the evidence than TO legal competency.
The jury might infer from the facts that given
them IN evidence, what they thought proper the dis
crepancy IN regard 10 the dates they might infer that
was mistake or otherwise. They might infer that al.
ter the paper was filed II was given back being mper-
feet That IT was sworn TO before ii received
there could be no doubt, because il appeared from the
testimony OF Mr. Evans that II could not have been re-
ceved before being sworn TO- Ii further appeared that
this paper relates to the only claim that Gardiner bad be-
fore the commission, and could be supposed that
either the defendant ba could be oil