The Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, Ohio) 1853-1861, 1854-05-06

WV
when the fact is, less than one-third of that
sum was for the Gardiner claim, after de-
ducting the original purchase money, which
he paid for his interest the balance was for
his contingent fees in the other cases before
the Board, some of which were admitted in
whole or in part, and some entirely rejected
as either not coming under the provisions Of
the treaty, or not being supported by suffi
cient testimony; and, without being able to
vouch positively for the fact, | understand
that Mr.. Law, or rather the person who was
the purchaser from him, did not make any
money by the speculation. The following
is then d recapitulation of the facts of this
case so far as Mr.. Corwin is concerned, all
of which are fully sustained by the report Of
the committee of Congress and the accom-
panying testimony annexed thereto:
|. That Mr. Corwin divested himself Of
all interest, directly or indirectly, as counsel
or otherwise, in that claim before he enter
ed the Cabinet of Mr. Fillmore in July,
1850.
2, That the proofs in support of the
claim were neither completed nor laid before
the commissioners at the time Mr.. Corwn'S
connection with the claim ceased and one
of the principal documents in support of it
was acknowledged before and certified to by
the American consul at Monterey, in Mexi-
co, towards the close OF August, 1880, six
weeks after Mr.. Corwin had sold out his in
tereSt.
3, That the Commissioners at the above
time had taken no action, and come 20 no
decision as to the peCuniary merits of the
claim, and did not make their award until
the following year.
d. That Mr.. Corwin had no interest, di-
rect or indirect, in that decision, and it did
not make to him pecunlary difference to
the extent of one cent whether the claim of
Gardiner had been finally rejected altogether,
or double the amount awarded that the
Commissioners finally agreed upon.
8. That no portion OF the money paid on
this claim from the Treasury was ever re.
ceived by Mr.. Corwin, or that he was bene-
fitted by such payment in any way, directly
or indirectly.
All disinterested and candid minds,
think, will agree that Mr.. Corwin in the
whole business was guided by high sense
of propriety and delicacy, which should
shield him from the unmerited censure which
has been SO unsparingly heaped upon him.
The investigating committee of Congress,
in their report, page z, say:
"The Hon. Thomas Corwin resigned
his seat in the United States Senate and
accepted the appointment of Secretary
of the Treasury, in July 1850. In the
same month and previous TO going into the
Cabinet of President Fillmore, as Secretary
of the Treasury, a sale of his fee, interest in,
and also of his half of the one-fourth part
of the Gardiner claim was negotiated,
through the Intervention Of Gov Young, of
New York, to George Law, Esq. From this
time the said Thomas Corwin refused to act
as counsel, or consult with the other coun-
sci who had been associated with him in
relation to the same, and took no further
part in the Gardiner claim. The assignment
of his fee interest and his interest in the
Gardiner claim, and all his interest in all
other claims before the board of commission
ers, (twenty-seven in number,) was executed
by Thomas Corwin to Jacob Little of New
York, and the money for the purchase was
then paid by George Law, to whom the as
signment to Jacob Little was transferred
"No testimony has been before this com
mittee proving or tending to prove that the
Hon. Thomas Corwin had any knowledge
that the claim of said Gardiner was fraudu-
lent, Or that false testimony and forged pa
pers had been Or were to be procured to sus-
tain the same
1t will be recollected that majority of
the Committee were political opponents of
A. 4l,o,, IL