The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-02
kent bv deponent and Mr.. Smith, of the Board. OF

kept by deponent and Mr.. Smith, of the Board, of
the amounts of the awards.
Question.-When the claim was allowed, was
there any intimation to Gardiner, or his counsel,
that the award would be increased upon the pro.
duction of additional proof?
Anstoer.-I cannot undertake to say whether in.
timation was given to Gardeners counsel or not.
know the Board did not give such fntimaton to
Gardiner am confident the Board would not
have allowed consequential damages unless Gar
diner showed title to the mine.
Quesfion-Do you remember what amount the
Board decided to award when they first deter
mined that the claim was valid?
Anssoer.-I feel confident that the members of
the Board did not agree on this question but the
award was augmented by the introduction of the
subsequent evidence, though not very largely
| think some nifty or sixty thousand dollars.
| Question by Mr.. CortDin.-Did you, as of the
Board, have the papers in this in your custo-
| dy, and give them a careful examination
| Ans,oer.-I did, for it was one of the largest
claims before the Board; and there were rumors IN
circulation in relation to the claim, and received
| an anonymous note cautionng me in relation to
/ it. The note bore the stamp of the Irving Hotel,
and was signed BY North Carollnlan used
every exertion to find out the writer, but could not
Question.-Before the final award, were there
any suspicious or suggestions OF fraud in the tes
| timony?
Ansacer-There were none; and never heard of
any until saw it in the public papers.
/ Queston.-Do you know any other fact material
| to this case?
Anstcer.-l do not remember any other
ROBT. T. PAINE.
Mr.. Speaker, am done with the case in the as
| pect in which it was presented to the Board and
have assumed that it is true, stated by the com
mittee, that the claim is now shown to be naked
| fraud That question am content to leave as the
| committee have left it The question for us is,
| had the Secretary of the Treasury any knowledge
| of it's fraudulent character? The committee say
that there is proof that he had, and have at
tempted to show that it is proved he had not.
I ia due m DIR to saw as ao hoep
said by the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr.
CHAPMAN,) hat the testimony against him is almost
wholly &c parte; and l will add, that although it
makes strong parte case against him, it is far
from being conclusive as to his guilt. If it shall
finally appear that the claim of Gardiner is a
sheer fabrication, it is not only one of the most
stupendous frauds ever committed, but the most
i extraordinary.
/ 1t is shown by the testimony that he went to
| Mexico in 1889 or 1910, and resided at Vera Cruz
and the city of Mexico until 1914, when be left for
| the interior; and from 1874 until the fall of 1916
it is not shown where he was by the testimony
against him. In October of that year he appear
ed in the department of Rio Verde for the first
time, as the witnesses examined by the committee
state; but William Goyeneche, in letter to MIR.
Letcher, which is printed with the testimony taken
by the committee, states that he saw him few
months after he left the city of Mexico in 1874 in
Rio Verde, where ne staid short time Gardi-
ner's proof before the Board shows where he was
from July, 1874, to October, 1876, but the testimony
against him does not,
The Mexican witnesses, MIR. Barragan and
Others swear that his claim was fabricated in lS46
| at Rio Verde, by himself Manuel Verastegui Jose
Pho Gutierrez, and Domingo Ithurry, and that it
| was publicly known to have been gotten up by
them in Rio Verde in conseq hence of the treaty of
| Guadalupe Hidalgo. This, they state, was gen.
orally known in the city or Rio Verde.
4 Now, sir, that cannot be true, unless the testi
mony of Colonel Gates and c. ]. Learned, esq.,.
both men OF high character taken to sustain the
Gardiner claim, as before stated, and that of Anne
| Chase, the wife of consul at Tampico, taken
by the committee, false, which, suppose, will
not be pretended The fraud of Gardiner de-
signed by him, if it is fraud, before the treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo made. That treaty was
made on the I'd of February, lS4S. The witnesses
| above named say that he came to Tampice in the
summer of lS47, as early as July: He applied for
| surgeons place, and obtained it, and continued
there surgeon until tn American troops left the
city. He represented there that he had been
driven out of Mexico and described his large pro-
perty, his silver mines and consequent losses upon
| his expulsion He consulted with Mr.. Learned,
| who was judge of the place under American au-
thorty, as to what course he should pursue to
tablish his claim against Mexico.
1t was generally understood in Tampico, during
the time our forces were there, that Gardiner had
been driven out of Mexico, where he had large
property in mines. At that time there was no
treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo. General Scott had
not taken the city of Mexico. 1t was between the
time of the capture of Vera Cruz and his arrival in
| the city of Mexico 1t was in the midst of the
war-Jfagrante bello. 1t may we'll be asked, what
| to make these representations? The war was then
in progress, and no man could tell what would be
| its termination. AT that time he could have had
no other expectation than that he would have to
make his claim against Mexico under the treaty
which he claimed had been violated in his case.
After the Commissioners made their final award
in April, 1851 Gardiner deposited in this city and
New York Ss220,000 nearly the whole of the
amount awarded, that was coming to him and
when in July suspicious that the claim was unjust
were entertained, and proceedings commenced
against him, that amount found in the hands
of Corcoran & Riggs, of this city, and in the Life
Insurance and Trust Company of New York.
In this connexion, there is singular corre-
spondence between Manuel Verastegui and Jose
Antonio Barragan, printed in this book of eyi.
dence which was furnished to the committee, /
suppose by Mr.. Barragan, or brought by Mr.
| Slacum from Mexico, with the testimony taken
by him as agent Of the United States, in Deem
Der, 1851. TheEletters dated in December
| 1851, at the time Mr.. Sacum was in San Luis
| Potosi. The first letter is dated Rio Verde, De-
cember 10, 1851, and is written by VerastegLi to
Barragan, in which he complains that the Mex
| leans are set of poor devils, and blames Mr.
Barragan and others for the course they were
pursuing in relation to the Gardiner claim, and
duplicating him in it. He protests that what he
did for the benefit of creditors. Barragan
replies the 22d of December, 1851, and, after
protesting that he doing nothing unfair to.
wards Verastegui, he charges that the whole story
of GARDENERS mine is pure fiction, and then pro-
ceeds:
ssThis fiction could only have been credited
where they had not even the most distant know
ledge of the country, in effect did happen where
there was one to contradict it.. But now, it is
asked of those who lived in Rio Verde, do you be-
lieye that there is who would have the courage
| to say that thing exists which never was? See
the Monitor Republican, number 2l69, of 10Th May,
and you. will see that the money in question be-
| longs to Mexico, and not to the North for the
total of the claims admitted comes up to S $685.
523; SO that, deducted from the 1920, 900 which
the North retains for the claims of its citizens,
there remains to be delivered to the government
of Mexico S46,477, and this without counting the
claims set up by Gardiner and Mears. To the
first we adjudged $42s,747 so, and to the other
$l53,l25 These two amounts added to the ante.
rior, make the amount 1928, 349 so, which un-
doubtedly belong to the Mexican government
To this letter Verastegui replies on the Oath of
December, and says that he will now change his
course.
This correspondence shows two things: first.
that Verastegui, when acknowledging his entire
want of moral principle, insists that Gardner had
creditors in Rio Verde, whose interests he was
looking after second, that Barragan, who is comp
troer of rents of the State of San Luis Potosi in
his testimony and his activity in this affair, be-
lived that the fraud perpetrated by Gardiner is
not fraud upon the United States, but upon Mex
ico How far that idea may have influenced the
witnesses who have testified in relation to the
u