our illustrious predecessors, or shall we mark out many considerations of this sort, inspire in him a Why, sir, what was the notion of our forefathers who framed our glorious Constitution, upon this subject? We find a clause in that Constitution to this effect: "No titles of nobility shall be granted by the United States." What means this? Why did our forefathers thus frame the Constitution of our glorious Union? Was it right? Yes, sir, it is one of the wisest provisions, in my opinion, of that most memorable instrument which the history of the world has ever seen. Sir, we should adhere to the native simplicity of that instrument. General Scott is commander-in-chief of the American forces. Millard Fillmore is President of the United States. We know Millard Fillmore only by the title of President of the United States. Why not call Millard Fillmore "Ireutenant President of the United States," or "lord lieutenant President of the United States," or "lord lieutenant of the United States," or, if it will flatter your vanity still more, why not call him "Emperor" of this great and mighty empire? Why should we not do all these things? Simply for this reason: that it is in contravention of republican institutions, and that its tendency is to overthrow and destroy liberty. be absent. But if I want to find a truly brave man, I will go-not to the battle-field, where there are so many witnesses, and where a man is sure to meet with the plaudits of a mighty nation-where his deeds are sure to meet the approbation of his fellow-citizens throughout the land;-I would go where I have seen men go, to the place where the "pestilence wasteth at noonday"-where contagious disease rages through families, and even throughout whole countries. Let a man go there, and let him, unobserved, save by the victim who falls in silence-struck down by the dread destroyer-let him expose his life there, day after day, and night after night, without any of his companions to stimulate his courage to bravery, and without the incentive of a hope of glory as a reward, and there you will find true bravery. There is a bravery which is not artificial-which is notexcited by the shouts of the multitude, but prompted by the inward workings of a courageous heart and by the feelings of humanity. But, sir, do such men receive the titles, honors, and distinctions of our country? No, sir, I have seen such men go down to their grave in neglect and want; their bravery and usefulnesss forgotten, save by those who have shared in the benefits of their kind offices. only passport to position in society. There are Why, sir, this proposition not only confers an empty title at the present time, but it places our It is these considerations which make me obmilitary force in such a position that in future|ject to this principle of making military glory the it will be attended with future additional expenditures of the people's hard earnings. That is another objection which I have to it. Will any gentleman here contend that the organization of the American Army would be promoted by such a title? Is there any gentleman upon this floor who will contend that it is necessary in order to establish discipline and command the obedience of the American forces? No, sir. The organization of the Army would not be at all improved by it, and hence we are only being guilty of the folly of crea-chanic, year after year, toil on; I have told them ting an empty title and increasing the expenditure of the people's money. myself, "You are sinking prematurely to your Now, what do you propose to do? To over- These pensions and titles in my opinion, are destructive of the liberties of any nation. They have, it is true, to a certain extent, been granted by this Government. We are now in the early history of this Government, but we are nevertheless tending to the same path which has been traveled by the monarchies of Europe. Look at the pensioned nobility of those countries. Look at the pension lists that are now loading down the productive energies of the great mass of the laborers of Europe. Look at the people of the French nation especially-worshiping military glory and casting their liberties from them-throwing their republican form of government from them, merely for the sake of having a nephew of their great military lord reign over them. And are we not tending in the same way? Are these propositions not of the same stamp? May they not be placed in the same political category? We are traveling in the same path, and I ask the American Congress to pause before they take another step in this downward course. What, sir, does any sensible man want with honorary titles-these empty baubles? Do they add anything to his fame as a hero, a statesman, or a patriot? Cannot the American people judge of a man by his merits without his titles? If they cannot, then titles are pernicious; and if they can, then they are useless, and should not be conferred. We are too apt to be dazzled with the blaze of military glory. There is something attractive in the fact of a man going on to the battle-field, and exposing himself to the deadly shot of the cannon and musket; there is something terrific in the thought of a man meeting man with the steel, in deadly conflict, to shed each other's blood. It is a manifestation of bravery and daring which attracts and dazzles; but look at it-look at it stript of the charm which is thus thrown around it, and what do you see? Is the military the only field where bravery may be manifested? Is that the only place where true courage can be displayed? No, sir; the martial music, the shouts of triumph, and the approbation of the country which always fol-field Scott. It is his alone, and cannot be asserted low a successful campaign, stimulate a man on to the battle-field. The disapprobation of his comrades, when he shrinks from fighting bravely, and Now, will General Scott be satisfied with the by any other man after him, nor can it be asserted HO. OF REPS. Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and a hos others, it shows up the whole thing in its na deformity, and becomes too ridiculous to be b cussed by the American Congress. If it had : been that the proposition has not been realy tertained, and has been really asked-and whe say it, I feel my cheek tingle with shamebeen voted by the American Senate-I could s have believed that that august body would stooped to such consummate folly as to confer empty title upon a military hero. Let those v aspire to distinctions and honors endeaver merit them, and let them be satisfied with s praise which will ever be conferred by a grate. American people. So much, then, for the first part of my subie which I proposed to discuss at the commenceme of this rambling discourse. Following upon the heels of this propost comes another of similar import, marking ou future course of our country in regard to the matters of war. It is one which more emine than the one I have just noticed, marks the dov ward tendency of this Government. It is to see from the Army and Navy a number of officen be pensioned by the Government during es mainder of their lives, out of the hard earnings the American people. Look at the proposa There it stands. A petty aristocracy, set ex from the great mass of the American peopl consume the hard earnings of the laborious titude. Will the people of the country ever erate such a proposition? I admit that there i one merit in this proposition, and only one tha can see. But I think I can propose a remedy ic the evil which would be far better than that pre- ; vided in this proposition. It has been, I beers universally admitted upon the floor of this Hou and upon the floor of the Senate, that we have si large number of American officers now ins Army and Navy who are entirely useless it i vice and absolutely an incumbrance to the of in the Army. I say this has been universally | mitted. It is notorious to everybody that be are a large number of officers upon the retired who are receiving their half pay, in order wa ready to go forth to command the soldiers in Army if the exigencies of the country should require it. But these men, as I said before, unfit for command; many of them made st their indolent habits; many by their hab| licentiousness, and many by their habits of dru enness. They are neither fit to command in 21 Army, nor are they fit to command a ma vessel upon the high seas. Now I admit that some proposition should brought forward by which the American print should be rid of these officers-these burdens aper them-those festering sores upon the Army, all purposes of national defense. But shall a pension men who have disqualified themselves i the discharge of their duties? Shall we rets them in the public service for their lifetime, de P cause they have made themselves drunkards, mi thereby rendered themselves unfit for the discharg of their duties? Why, sir, what do we do in the other pertin of our public service? Do we employ mer upon the extension of this Capitol at seventycents a day, and when the appropriations run o place them upon half pay, in order to keep t for whatever may spring up? You have refuses to make an appropriation to keep them at wes much less to give them half pay. Why is the Is it because the sympathies and I say it w regret-of the American Congress are in favoriti the officers and grandees of the nation, and not's favor of the working classes? We have not bess able to wake up a single spark of sympathy i the poor toiling laborer, who gets not one is enough to supply his natural wants when enployed. Why, the men who draw out from the Treasury thousands upon thousands annually, when they become disabled, and unfit, from drunkenness and licentiousness, to discharge their public duties, what then? Why, provide a retired list, and se themselves up as an aristocratic class over the heads of the laboring mass of the American natisa Out upon such democracy! Out upon such repas licanism! If this is to be the future path of our nation; if this is to be the future policy of o 32D CONG.....2D SESS. country, I proclaim here to-day, that the choice etween republicanism and monarchy is not worth he choosing. If we are to be cursed by an idle, centious nobility, and robbed for the purpose of itting them for that position, it will be no better or the American nation than if we had a king to|| ule over us. Lieutenant General, &c.—Mr. Skelton. to our duties as American statesmen. We should promote intelligence, virtue, industry, honesty, integrity, and all the virtues which tend to ennoble a people. We should develop the industrial resources of our country by wise and judicious legislation. We should maintain peace with all the nations of the earth, as far as can be done compatibly with the honor and interest of the American nation. But when, at any time, our rights and liberties shall be invaded by a foreign or domestic foe, we should then be ready as one man, and an united nation, to hurl the tyrant, who would invade our liberties, from this continent. It is for this reason that I have considered it my uty, when these measures are presented to the American Congress, to express not only to that Congress, but to the nation, and particularly to the istrict which I wish to represent honestly, what s going on in the American Congress, and what believe will be the effect of this disastrous and criminal course of procedure. Why, sir, I know something about them, because I have the honor of appointing a gentleman to a seat in the Military Academy at West Point, and I happen to know hat a great many of the people of my district were anxious to get their sons into that establishment, and consider it a very great favor to get a son edu-improving the military arm of our country, I would cated at the national expense, who, when he gradutes, comes out an officer. But, sir, I took one from the mechanic's bench, and placed him in that institution, and I hope he will reflect honor and credit upon himself and his country some day or other. But when he comes out, he will receive better pay than he could have realized as a mechanic. He will be able to lay by more money than he would be able to do, were me to continue a mechanic, and yet not be combelied to work half as hard. And in addition to hat, sir, he is placed in a higher circle of society, oy the false notions-which I regret to say, prevail in this American Republic-that an officer is more respectable than a mechanic. I say by the False notions of society he is placed in a higher social circle, and paid better wages; and then, sir, if he disqualifies himself by drunkenness or idleness or any other means, for performing the duties assigned to him by the nation, shall we place him, after educating him, after having paid him well for his services, after he has squandered his income, which ought to have given him a competency in his old age,-shall we then pension him upon the American people, in a class of noblemen, educated for the American Army? No, sir. Out upon such republicanism! Out upon such injustice! It is downright robbery of the American people, to speak in plain English. But, sir, are these the men we are to depend upon for the defense of our liberties? Are these the men that are to defend our territory from foreign invasion? No, sir, these are not the men. Suppose to-morrow war is declared by any foreign Power, and where will the United States Government look for the defenders of our liberties and honor? Why, sir, they will look to the farmers and to the mechanics' workshops. They will look to those classes of American citizens, and those will be the men who will be compelled to fight our battles, and defend our liberties; and allow me to say, sir, that these are the only classes of men upon whom we can rely on such occasions. What are standing armies? What is this military nobility? Look at the history of the world. They have always been ready to sell their country's liberties to the highest bidder; but not so with the great mass of the American people, who all have a common stock in that liberty. We all fight for ourselves when we fight for our country, and we will refuse to sell our country's liberty, because we sell our own therewith. But not so with the professional soldier, Sir, the policy I would pursue, and have the Government pursue, would be to detract from no man's real merits. Reward merit wherever you find it. Judge a man by his deeds and leave empty titles to kings, fools, and knaves, and not insult a free independent nation like this by conferring these empty symbols upon the American people. Our Government was established for the advancement, the prosperity, and the happiness of the people. It was not established for the benefit of a ruling military dynasty, nor for a military nobility, nor do we want to convert our happy Republic into a military Republic, to cut the throats of our neighbors, and to destroy the liberties of our own citizens. Sir, when we turn our eyes from the true path of prosperity for our country, we become derelict | I am no soldier; I admit: but let any foe plant his foot upon our soil, and I guaranty to this House, that every man would shoulder his musket for the purpose of defending his home, his fireside, his children, and to protect the honor of his glorious ancestors. If you want a proposition for strengthening and propose that we reward merit by throwing open the ranks of promotion to the common soldier. If you want to stimulate men to deeds of bravery, whenever you find a brave man upon the decks of your vessels-of-war, let him be promoted; let him be advanced to position. Sir, this proposition would give greater power and energy to the American Army, and to the American Navy, than ten thousand lieutenant generals to domineer over the great mass of the soldiers that fight our battles. How did Napoleon Bonaparte acquire his distinction, and his mighty power, as a military hero? Why, he rewarded merit. Monarch and Emperor as he was, when he found a brave and worthy private man in the ranks of the Army, or the Navy, he immediately selected that man for promotion, and advanced him, step by step, as far as his merits would warrant his promotion. But when a man degraded himself by cowardice, or drunkenness, or vice of any kind, then Napoleon cashiered the man. But, sir, what stimulus is there to the soldier, the marine, or the sailor, on board your national ships, to fight the battles of the country? He may fight as bravely as Julius Cæsar, or any other brave man, and he is a sailor and marine still. He never can have his shoulder braced by a gold epaulet, or his cap by the towering feather that crown some of our distinguished men at the present day. Never, never. His country closes its ears to the demands of his merits. But if he enters as a midshipman-a more respectable position, according to the silly false notions of societythen the rank of promotion is open to him, and he is sure of promotion; and according to the proposition pending in the Senate, he is sure of pay for life, be he ever so degraded, or mean, or vile. There is another proposition, Mr. Chairman, which I shall be obliged to glance at very briefly, as I do not wish to occupy the attention of the House in an unnecessary debate. As I remarked before, following upon the footsteps of its "illustrious predecessor," the bill for conferring the title of lieutenant general, comes the retired list, and then the bill for increasing the salaries of our foreign ministers. Why, sir, I have recently read in the public journals that a man cannot sustain himself with dignity as a foreign minister on $9,000 a year, and $9,000 outfit. A man cannot shine with that sum, like the ministers of foreign courts. What does all this mean? Is it necessary, when you send a man to a court of Europe, that you should send a golden calf? If that is so, make a golden calf, and set him up there. It would be less expensive, as he would eat nothing, or drink either. Or is it better that you should send a man with brains; a man of intellect; a man of force of character, who can meet the diplomatists of Europe with superior intelligence? What is it to command respect throughout the world? Is it the golden calf the towering feather-and the shining epaulet? Is it the drunken bacchanalian feasts, given by our foreign ministers on European shores? Is it these things which command respect? No, sir. Men are not quite such fools as they appear to be, in some particulars at least. Show me a man of superior intellect, and I will show you a man who will command respect wherever he goes. Look at one of our humble citizens, who went over into Germany. I refer to Count Rumford. Ho. OF REPS. Though he was poorly clad, though he made no professions, though he had no title, nor towering feather in his cap, nor shining epaulet upon his shoulder, the King, seeing that there was merit there, immediately selected him as one of his Prime Ministers, and placed him in an elevated position, in order to retain his services. And, sir, at this day the humble name of Rumford, who went from one of the eastern cities to Europe, and afterwards became a count, is more honored throughout the world by the glorious achievements of his superior intellect than all the titles which could ever be conferred upon him would make it. Such men's names are passports everywhere. Commanding intellect, intelligence, and virtue will command respect everywhere; and I would say to those of the American people in humble positions, to the American mechanic, who is looked down upon with contempt by his more lofty neighbors, Stand erect as men, and if you discharge your social duties with fidelity and integrity, you equal as a man the best in the nation who may glitter in gold and purple, and roll in a lordly carriage. I do not want to be understood as disposed to the founding of artificial distinctions in society, and arraying one class against another; but I do wish that the industrious, virtuous, and intelligent shall be elevated to positions of respectability and authority, where their merits demand they should stand. But shall we increase the salaries of our foreign ministers, that they may ape the fooleries of foreign courts? Do you not see the consummate folly of such an attempt? Can you find intelligent-really intelligent men capable of competing with Emperors and Kings in displays of jewelry and fine linen, and costly banquets? Can we expect it? No, sir; double their salaries, if you please, and you will still find your ministers misrepresenting the people of this nation, and commanding no more respect than they did before. Look at Franklin at the Court of France. I recollect an anecdote of him which, though old and heard by all, is still worthy of repetition, because it illustrates the point. A gentleman of an aristocratic cloth passing alongside of him, observed to a lady who accompanied him, "There is the American Minister!" "What!" says she, "that shabby-looking old gentleman?" "Yes, madam; and be careful how you speak of him, for he governs the thunder and lightning, and may strike you." Mr. CARTTER. Good! Mr. SKELTON. Benjamin Franklin at the Court of France, clad in his humble garments, gave no feasts to make himself and associates drunk. That man moving in his humble sphere, representing, as he did, an humble nation, has never been equaled by any foreign minister since, and he never will be until you select the best minds to represent us at European courts. Do this, and leave the vain display of glittering jewelry and gaudy dress to kings and fools. Be it our ambition to excel in virtue and intelligence; and when they talk about the degradation of an American nation being represented by an humble citizen, what will be said? Look across the broad Atlantic to that happy land, at its commercial marine, its manufactures, its intelligence, and enterprise. Our prosperity, under the influence of these plain, unassuming republican principles, has been unparalleled in the history of the world. Aristocrats may sneer and laugh at our simplicity and our plainness as much as they please, we will point them to our nation wherever we go with just pride and say, Ridicule, if you please, but you shall feel our power if you insult us as a nation. The time will soon come, if we are true to our instincts, true to our principles and our republican institutions, when we may dictate terms to the world. We Look at the rapid growth of our nation. number 24,000,000, though not three hundred years old. In fifty years, if we increase in the ratio, that we have heretofore, our sons will see this mighty nation spreading from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, from the frozen shores of the North to the Isthmus at the South. And this mighty Republic will be inhabited, by what? Not by a military republican people, not by an aris tocracy, not by an indolent, proud, licentious people, but by an industrious, intelligent, virtuous and prosperous nation, who will be able to dic 32D CONG.....1ST SESS. Frauds on the Treasury-Gardiner Claim-Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee. tate terms to the nations of the world on any subject. That prospect makes my heart glow. That prospect, when compared with the proposition to clothe with purple and fine linen our representatives at foreign courts to misrepresent the simpli- | city of our republican institutions, makes it dwindle into insignificance, and as scarcely worth a reflection of ridicule. What is the principle upon which our Government is based? It is the principle incorporated in our glorious Constitution and in our glorious religion: the principle that he who would be chief must serve; that he who would be the ruler must be the servant of the people. And shall we clothe our servants finer than we clothe ourselves? Shall they fare more sumptuously than their masters? Shall the subject be above the monarch, because in this country we are all monarchs, and not speaking boastfully either? Power emanates from the people, and rules are established for their benefit. That proposition no one will dispute. Let us have an eye single to that point. Let the rulers bear in mind that they are servants of the people; and I would ask Congress to remember that all of us are only the servants of the people to carry out their will, and to promote their interest and advance their institutions. Why, sir, the whole history of the world shows that the human race, from its creation to the present time, has lost sight of man as man in his true dignity, and fallen down and worshipped idols. At the present day, we are man-worshippers as well as golden-calf-worshippers. And I think the time has arrived when man should arise in his true dignity, assert and maintain his rank as man everywhere. We have a mission, Mr. Chairman, and that mission is to raise up the downtrodden throughout the world, to spread civil and religious liberty everywhere. I say that this is our true mission. We should keep it in view, and the time will rapidly roll round-more rapidly than we can scarcely imagine-when, under the benign influence of our institutions, an impulse will be given to the human mind which has been unparalleled in the history of the world. Our progress within the last forty years has been greater than all of the nations of the earth put together for six thousand years. Our free institutions, and the elevation to the true standard has given an impulse to the human mind that will spread as the lightning's flash, and we are destined, if we are true to our mission, to extend this impulse throughout the globe. If we are true to our mission we will arise as the morning sun in its glory, and emperors, kings, and nobles, shall sink into insignificance on the page of history, and be looked upon as follies that bewildered and estranged the human intellect from its true path. May God in his mercy and wisdom direct and preserve this Government and people to the accomplishment of our true and glorious mission. FRAUDS ON THE TREASURY-GARDINER CLAIM. SPEECH OF HON. A. JOHNSON, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, should be made legally wrong. The object of The second section of the bill proposes, upon HO. OF REPS. say, in a judicial capacity. They ratify the treaty establish a board of commissioners to whom s confided the duty of awarding millions of d lars-which is intrusted to them among those who have claims against the Government, and immediately after the ratification of the treaty, ne out before this board of commissioners created bi that same treaty, and prosecute against the Ge ernment claims which you have provided for a the very treaty they have ratified. Now, how do you find the practical operation of this thing? Notwithstanding you provide t treaty for the payment of money, there is anothe power to be exercised before the money can be paid. After having prosecuted the claims to awe. before the commissioners, the money must be rpropriated by the appropriating power, before can be paid over to the parties to which it is awarded. Then we immediately see the impropriety members of Congress acting as agents, as the duties as Senators and Representatives comer direct conflict with the duties of a claims age. i They cannot protect the interests of the people their capacity of Representatives, and at the sam time prosecute a claim against this Governmer. It is a conflict of interest and duty which cam be reconciled. I know it may be said that wea step out of the House of Representatives, betin a board of commissioners, and divest ourseite! of all interest in the first character. Can we retur from the successful prosecution of claims bein that board, to a vote in the Senate, and say wee disinterested? This whole matter is morally wrong and pe litically wrong, and it ought to be made legally wrong, and should be punished as contempiste in this bill. It seems to me that it is improper fr a member of Congress to form any such connertion with claims of this sort. Such a connectia | is improper, because it is immoral, because its unsound in politics; and if it is unsound in the two points, it ought to be made so legally. In the first instance, the Government can pay no claim unless there is an appropriation made; and if a member of Congress accepts a fee or a present, I care not upon what principle, he becomes involved in a position inconsistent with his public relations. He may say that he, as a lawyer, has a right to practice before courts of the But, Mr. Speaker, I am going along with h United States, and aid in getting claims through question. There seems to be some two or the such tribunals. But is that position consistent other questions connected with it. My intention with the duty of a Representative? The people is, in the main, to discuss the bill and the pr send a Representative here for the purpose of guard-priety of its passage; but in this discussion the ing their interests, and at the same time doing jus- has sprung up a question not altogether legitima tice to all those who may have claims against the and I claim the privilege, which others have a people through the Government. The people dulged in, of diverging from the true line of send Representatives and Senators here as guard- bate. ians of the Treasury, and the holders of the pursestrings, to make such appropriations as are just, and to withhold all that are unjust. Now, while a Representative is acting in his character as such, while he is standing as a sentinel upon the watchtowers over the people's interests, while he is protecting the Treasury, can he change his character and divest himself of all interest and become an agent for prosecuting claims against the Government which cannot be paid unless he, acting in the character of a Representative, appropriates money for such payment? We find that interest and prejudice are so closely blended, that they cannot be separated in matters of this sort. And when a member of Congress is acting in his capacity as such, he should not run the risk of being swerved from his duty as a Representative, by becoming an agent for the prosecution of claims against the On the Bill to prevent Frauds or the Treasury of Government for particular individuals. For in the United States. Mr. JOHNSON said: stance, we agree to pay a certain amount of money, by treaty stipulation with some other Government, Mr. SPEAKER: I shall commence what little I or even with an Indian tribe. It is ratified by the have to say upon this subject by asserting-for it Senate,-for the Senate is a part of the treaty has really become a debatable question-that there making power, and here, for instance, a member are such things as right and wrong, and that the of Congress may be interested in a claim which question of law-making is to sustain legally, what a tribe of Indians or a foreign Power may have is morally right; and to prohibit legally, what is against the Government of the United States. The morally wrong. I know there are various opin-treaty is made, providing for the payment of cerions among men, and even among moralists, as to what is abstractly right or wrong in itself. There are some things declared offenses in law which are not offenses morally in themselves. And again, there are other things not made offenses by law which are offenses in sound morals. The great object in making laws should be to sustain, develop, and carry out what is admitted to be morally right. We find more or less violation every day of what we in our minds and hearts consider sound morals, and we find no law to prohibit the violation of those morals. Now, I think, where there is moral wrong, there is political wrong, and it tain amounts of money, upon certain conditions; it When we come to examine this Gardiner can which is the root out of which this bill has spring through this special committee, we find the basi of this claim rests upon the twenty-sixth are of the treaty made in 1831. That treaty provide for and secured certain rights and privileges to: citizens in Mexico. Three of those privilege were, that where our citizens lived upon the cons or in towns, in the event that a war should break out, they should have six months' notice to leave the country and take away their effects. If ther lived in the interior, pursuing the business of zer chandise, they were to have twelve months. £ they lived in the interior or other portions of the country, pursuing any other occupation, so lee as they behaved themselves and acted in subordation to the existing authorities, they were per mitted to remain and be protected in the enjoyme of their lives, their liberty, and their property. Under this article of the treaty of 1831, ins claims sprung up on the part of the citizens of th United States against the Government of Mexic They increased. Depredations were committe of various kinds-spoliations, if you think prose to call them so-and claims, in behalf of citizens accumulated to a very considerable amount. In 1839, there was formed another treaty ws! Mexico, which treaty provided for the establ} ment of a Board of Commissioners to sit upe, and adjudicate the claims of citizens of the United States against the Government of Mexico. The : Board was a mixed one. A part of it was created by the United States, and a part by Mexico; a the claims which they might award, were to be paid upon certain conditions. In relation to the claims which could not be agreed upon, there was an umpire to be selected who was to determise upon their validity. We find that the Board established by the trea of 1839 resulted in a failure. There were some awards made, it is true, but in many cases then 32D CONG.....2D SESS. Frauds on the Treasury-Gardiner Claim-Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee. were none. Some of the awards made were not paid, which circumstance resulted in the calling of another convention, and the making of another treaty in 1843, and the creation of another Board. This Board did but little; and there was another convention, which was to have been ratified on the 20th of November, 1843. That ratification never took place. During all this time these claims were increasing, and our citizens were without redress. The difficulties between the two Governments were thickening, and a war was expected. We find in 1840 that this Mr. Gardiner went to Mexico as a kind of itinerant dentist, plugging and filing teeth for a livelihood. He wandered around until 1843; and the last seen of him was in the city of Mexico, in the year 1844. He was seen there by General Thompson, and by some others. He stated, and it is so stated by others, that he repaired to the interior, where, he alleges, he commenced mining operations to an amount of $300,000. All this time the difficulties between the Governments were constantly increasing, and war was expected. Mr. Thompson returned home, and Mr. Slidell was sent out. War was declared, as you will remember, in 1846. Gardiner commenced mining operations with little or no capital, and in two years' time he had invested, as he assumes, some $300,000. There are contradictory statements in regard to this matter; but it must be manifest to all reasonable and impartial persons who will make themselves familiar with the history of this whole transaction, that Dr. Gardiner had little or no capital to vest in mining operations at that time; and if he had, it is not reasonable to suppose he would have done so, in view of the belligerent attitude about being assumed by the two Governments. We now come along to 1846; war was declared, this Gardiner was expelled from Mexico, his property lost, and his mines taken from him; and he now comes forward and sets up his claim, under the twenty-sixth article of the treaty of 1831. The war continued; and on the 2d of February, 1848, there was another treaty made. Mr. Gardiner was an observing and a shrewd man, and he saw, as every one who knows anything about such matters knew, that whenever a treaty of peace should be made, Mexico would be compelled to pay money to the United States, and be compelled to provide for the payment of claims, on the part of our citizens, against that Government. By the treaty with Mexico of the 2d of February, we provide after agreeing to take so much territory and pay $15,000,000-for the indemnification of citizens of the United States against the Mexican Government to the extent of $3,250,000. By this same treaty, another Board of Commissioners was created, to consist of three members, and to hold its sessions in the city of Washington. Mr. Gardiner, having returned from Mexico to the United States, met here and renewed his acquaintance with Mr. Thompson. He stated his case to him, and they at once commence to conjure up or make out this claim-which did or did not exist to be brought before this Board. The claim was presented, and as the declaration will show, for the sum of $500,000. I will not say that Mr. Thompson, of South Carolina, was cognizant or guilty of anything wrong, but I will state as a fact, that when he came forward with the claim, as the documents will show, he had a programme for the taking of evidence, and as to what had to be done to establish the claim before the Board, and that, too, before he returned to Mexico, and before the declaration was made out. Both Mr. Thompson and Mr. Gardiner had been in Mexico and understood the condition of the two Governments, and were aware that Boards had set at various times upon claims between the United States and Mexico. When Gardiner returned with his proofs, a declaration was made out and filed before this Board. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I would ask the gentleman from Tennessee, whether Mr. Thompson did anything more than give instructions conformably to regulations previously established by this Board? Mr. JOHNSON. I state facts, and it is for others to draw inferences. He drew a chart, or written instructions, by which this claim was to be made out. I am fully aware that lawyers sometimes give instructions as to how a case is NEW SERIES.-No. 5. to be made out, and what character of proof is to be taken for that purpose; but in that instance, other things conform to the case. In this instance, however, the programme is made out, and the case is made to conform to it. Mr. STEPHENS. Is it not the practice in all of the Departments of the Government-the Pension Office, for instance-where claims are to be presented, to establish rules of evidence by which claims are to be supported? Did not this Board do so in this case, and did Mr. Thompson do anything more than give instructions conforming to those regulations? Mr. JOHNSON. I stated, when I first alluded to Mr. Thompson, that I would not charge that he was cognizant of, or intended to do, anything wrong, but would only state a fact. Mr. STEPHENS. Certainly; and I ask the gentleman to state another fact. Mr. JOHNSON. And that fact was that the affidavits were taken, and the case made out, in compliance with those instructions. Mr. ORR. I will in this connection ask the gentleman a question, as he is familiar with the testimony in the case. Was it not proven before the committee that Dr. Gardiner exhibited to General Thompson the affidavits of certain persons in Mexico previous to the preparation of these instructions, and that those instructions were gotten up for the purpose indicated by the gentleman from Georgia? Mr. JOHNSON. I think that the gentleman will find that fact stated by General Thompson himself, and by no one else. Mr. ORR. General Thompson is an honorable man, and it is due to him that his statement of fact should go out. Evidence of parties in Mexico was brought here by Dr. Gardiner, and the instructions given by General Thompson, as I understand him, were to put the affidavits referred to in formi. Mr. JOHNSON. They were instructions to him to make out his case. Here is the published testimony, and it is for the public, and not for me, to draw inferences. We find that in compliance with those instructions the case was made out and presented to this Board, and that an award was made to Dr. Gardiner of $427,000. About these facts there can be no mistake; and I tell gentlemen now, that before I am done I shall come to the touchstone in this matter. You may talk about high-minded, pure men, who lift themselves above all that is low, and groveling, and disreputable, but there is a point in this case that will put them to the test. One thing has been ascertained since this claim has been allowed, and that is, that it is a fraudulent one, based only upon perjury and forgery. We know that perjury and forgery were the means by and through which the amount of money I have specified as being awarded to Dr. Gardiner, was taken out of the Treasury. Now, this fact, no one will controvert. The committee were of the unanimous opinion that it was a naked fraud upon the Treasury, sustained only by forgery and perjury. Then, if Mr. Thompson and Mr. Corwin are the recipients of money extracted from the Treasury by means of fraud and perjury; if they are the high-minded and honorable men they are represented to be, they will, upon every principle of sound morality and justice upon the doctrine that the recipients of stolen goods shall, so soon as the fact is ascertained, restore them to their rightful owners-replace that money in the Treasury. Everybody acknowledges it is right that this money, which has been filched from the Treasury by fraud, so far as we can reach it, should be enjoined; and if a certain portion is enjoined in the hands of Corcoran & Riggs as money belonging to the Government, is it not equally right that another portion of the same money which has passed into the hands of Corwin and Thompson ought to be enjoined? I know that legally you cannot reach it, but I say that they are morally bound to return it. There is the touchstone. You that talk about honor; you that talk about having no knowledge of a fraud being intended at the time the claim was being prosecuted before the Board, know now that it is a fraudulent claim, and that you have stolen goods in your possession, which I know you are morally bound to restore to the rightful owner, to the last dollar. This tests the whole thing, and why debate it? Ho. OF REPS. They plead ignorance of the fraud whilst the claim was being investigated; they did not know it was a fraud, but they know now that it is. They know now where and how the money came; and, as honest men, worthy of public confidence and entitled to occupy a high place in the Government, they are bound to restore it. Mr. GOODENOW. Major Lally ought to be involved in the same category. Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Maine says that Major Lally ought to be involved in the same category. I say that all, though there were a captain's company, the recipients of the proceeds of this fraud, ought to disgorge. If they retain it, I say in my place here, that in sound morals they are as filthy as a cage of unclean birds. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. CHAPMAN] knows that I will make no unkind allusion to him. Since we formed each other's acquaintance here, our personal relations have been of the most amicable character. I am proud of his acquaintance. I have found him a shrewd and active business man. He has talents and business tact, and if I was not convinced of this before, I was on yesterday by the defense he made in this case. You saw his conciseness, his method, and the dependence of one part of his argument upon another. If you admit his premises, and follow him along to his conclusions, you will see that it is one of the prettiest and fairest cases in the world. It did his head credit; and I will not doubt his sincerity in the basis upon which he placed it. During the delivery of his speech I imagined myself in a criminal court, listening to the defense of a criminal, and that the gentleman was trying to make it appear not that his client was guiltless, but that the prosecution was malicious. It seemed that he wanted to mitigate the sentence of the court or the judgment of the jury, by pleading that the prosecution was a malicious one, without at all looking to the merits of the case. And we find, too, that is done very adroitly in this connection, by associating the idea of malicious prosecution as regards Mr. Corwin. Says he, "I am not his foe nor is he my foe; can the member from Ohio [Mr. OLDS] say as much?" Do you not see the course which he intended this thing to take, so as to impress upon the public mind the idea that there was enmity and ill-feeling existing between these two gentlemen, and that the whole proceeding here was malicious on the part of the member from Ohio, [Mr. OLDS?] Is it not evident that he desired to give that direction to the public mind? I do not know what the relations are between those two gentlemen. I have met and received them both as gentlemen, and I know nothing of their personal and political differences. I have looked upon them heretofore as equals, so far as those matters were concerned. Nor do I intend to inquire into their personal difficulties. But I can say for myself, as the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. CHAPMAN] did, that I am not Mr. Corwin's foe, and I hope he is not mine. I have no reason to be his foe, as I have never received anything from him but kindness. I have met with him and passed the usual civilities of gentlemen, and nothing unkind has passed between us. The reason I make this remark is that I am in as favorable a condition to speak of this transaction as the honorable gentleman from Connecticut. Then why do you not acquit your man upon the merits of the case, not by innuendo, by indirection, and by making a false issue before the public mind, and there rest your case? What was the other ground upon which the gentleman relied? It was this, that the proceedings were ex parte. Ah! A malicious prosecution, based upon an ex parte examination of the witnesses. How does that fact stand? Was not Mr. Corwin before that committee? Did he not have the witnesses summoned, and did he not cross-examine them? Mr. CHAPMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee misunderstood me if he understood me to say, so far as Mr. Corwin was concerned, that this was an ex parte examination. I made no such intimation; but I said, in express terms, that so far as Dr. Gardiner was concerned, it was due to him to say that it was ex parte, with the single exception to which I have adverted. Mr. JOHNSON. I intended to come to that. The impression was made by what the gentleman 32d Cong.....2d SESS. Frauds on the Treasury-Gardiner Claim—Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee. said, that it was an ex parte proceeding. I do not know what his intention was. Mr. CHAPMAN. The intention was to make myself distinctly understood. Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps it is owing to my obtuseness, and not his want of clearness, and I will let it go in that way; but the impression calculated to be made by his speech was, that it was an ex parte proceeding, and that the witnesses had not been cross-examined. Well, so far as #Mr. Gardiner was concerned, there was no ex parte proceeding. Mr. Gardiner was not on trial before that committee, and this bill contains no provision that would punish Mr. Gardiner, so far as I know. Mr. Corwin was the man with whom the committee had to do; and his connection with the Gardiner claim was what the committee were investigating. The gentleman from Connecticut nods his assent. This is the true state of the case. Mr. Corwin was present at the investigation, cross-examined, and had most of the witnesses summoned himself. So far as Mr. Gardiner is concerned, he is not upon trial at all, but we are to get at Mr. Corwin's connection with the Gardiner claim. That is what we are trying to do; and how does the matter stand so far as Mr. Gardiner is concerned? He was not on trial, and he was not before the committee, but he was heard by his counsel. About the close of the investigation, Mr. Gardiner writes a letter to the committee, which he speaks of the investigation as being an ex parte proceeding, and claims the right of being heard. Did not the committee notify him that he could be heard and fix a day for him to come? Did Mr. Gardiner come? Do you not see that the two main grounds upon which the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. CHAPMAN] relies, show that his argument is a specious one, made in true lawyer style, to acquit his client upon special pleading, when there is no merit in his case? That is the position which he occupies. We find in this connection that there has been something said by gentlemen about the committee going beyond the record. What does this resolution say? "Whereas a strong suspicion rests upon the public mind that fraudulent claims have been allowed by the late Mexican Claim Commission, with one of which it is suspected that Thomas Corwin, Secretary of the Treasury, has been improperly connected; therefore," &c. How does the fact stand? We are not to investigate whether Mr. Corwin knew that it was a fraudulent claim, (which we will come to directly,) but we are to investigate whether Mr. Corwin was improperly connected with the Gardiner claim. That is the point. Does not this investigation show that he was connected with it, and that he got a part-eighty-odd thousand dollars of it? I think it does. Is not his connection, then, with the claim improper? We say that it was an improper connection, that it was mere speculation, and that it was morally wrong. In the bill before us, what do we propose to do? We intend to say that legally such a connection is wrong, not binding him more than anybody else, who has been guilty of the like offense. The offense was an improper one. Why was it so? Mr. Corwin was a Senator of the United States, placed there by the people to guard the people's Treasury, to take care of their money, and also, as one of the Senate, with the President of the United States, to make treaties with foreign Governments. We find when this very treaty was concluded between the Government of the United States and Mexico, on the 2d of February, 1848, that Mr. Corwin was in the Senate himself, and acted in his capacity as Senator. We find in this very treaty, as I remarked before, that three millions and a quarter were set apart to pay the claims of citizens of the United States against Mexico. We find that by this very treaty a Board of Commissioners was established. We find that while Mr. Corwin was Senator, when he was acting upon the treaty which made an appropriation of three and a quarter millions to pay these Mexican claimants, he received a fee to prosecute claims before the very Commissioners which he assisted in creating, and got a portion of the money appropriated out of the Treasury. Mr. STANTON, of Ohio. I wish to know of the gentleman whether he considers that the committee were bound to inquire into anything be yond what had been practiced by all of the members of Congress? whether he did not think they were bound to show that there was something peculiar in the case of Mr. Corwin from that of others? HO. OF REPS. justify Mr. Corwin's connection with the claim morally, but he is willing to make it an offense gally. I cannot reconcile that sort of argument. It reminds me of a position assumed at one period of time by Professor Hoffman. He wrote as long ago as 1598-just two hundred years before the Virginia resolutions were adopted that phics. truth was divisible into two branches, one phas sophical and the other theological, and that what was true in philosophy was false in theology, and vice versa. Now, the gentleman from Ohio seems to occupy this position, that that which is right morals, is wrong in law, and that that which a right in law, is wrong in morals. I confess I cannot swallow that proposition. It seems to me that morals should constitute the basis of law. Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Ohio desires to know if Mr. Corwin acted differently|| from other members of Congress. If the gentle-ophy was the mortal enemy of religion, and that man will read the resolution, he will there find what we were appointed to do, and that was to ascertain Mr. Corwin's connection with the Gardiner claim, and whether that was an improper connection. We have found out what his connection was with that claim, and it is for the country and the House to determine whether it is an improper one or not. I consider it such, from the fact of his being a Senator at the time the treaty was made, voting for the appropriation to carry out the provisions of that treaty, and prosecuting a claim againt the Government provided for by that very treaty; and I think that the country will so determine it. I do not intend to find fault with the report which the committee make here, but I wish to refer to it. The committee go on, and do what? They have ascertained Mr. Corwin's connection with the claim. They have shown what it was, and the country understands it. This committee after going on, and summing up the whole case, state at, No testimony has been adduced before the 'committee proving, or tending to prove, that the Hon. Thomas Corwin had any knowledge that 'the claim of the said Gardiner was fraudulent, or 'that false testimony or forged papers had been or 'were to be procured to sustain the same." Now, do we not see how clearly that misses the case? The resolution required them to ascertain the improper connection. Does the improper connection depend upon Mr. Corwin's knowledge of its fraudulency? That is the point. The committee did not say that the connection was a proper one, but that he had no knowledge of the fraud. This connection was improper without a knowledge of the fraud, and if he had a knowledge of the fraud, it was but an aggravation of the improper connection. That is the whole of it, and you may turn as you please upon this question, he stands improperly connected with this fraudulent claim, successfully prosecuted against the United States, and the money was obtained from the Treasury. Mr. BARRERE. I believe they have laws in some of the States that the citizens shall catch fa in certain streams only at certain seasons of the year. It is, therefore, legally wrong to catch fis in those streams at other seasons, but I do bet think that if there was no such law, it would be morally wrong. Mr. JOHNSON. It might be morally wrong in some places and not in others. That would de pend just upon the locality and the circumstances of the case. [Laughter.] But the gentleman goes on to justify Mr. Corwin on the ground that the fee was a contingent one. Now, I expect they have got a law in his State that no lawyer shal take a contingent fee; in other words, that if lawyer brings suit for a certain amount on condition that he shall receive a certain proportion of it, he shall be stricken from the roll of lawyers. They would find him guilty of champerty. Mr. BARRERE. The gentleman has misunstood me. I did not take the position he supposes with regard to the fee being a contingent one. Mr. JOHNSON. I think the gentleman vil find it difficult to understand his own position, when he sees it on paper. In the States we cosider champerty immoral, and we pass law making it a legal offense, because it is immoral. We say that it is morally wrong for a man to g about getting up suits in a neighborhood, and taking contingent fees, and we pass laws to pusish him. But the gentleman tells me, with hs profound understanding of theology and philos phy, that taking a contingent fee in a claim agains the Government is a different thing from taking a The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BARRERE] seem- contingent fee in a case before a court of justice. ed to strike a happy vein of argument yesterday Now, if champerty is immoral in the States, and upon this question; and it was that Mr. Gardiner a punishable offense under State laws, I ask how, was a bad man, and that Mr. Corwin was not re- in the name of morals and common sense, it be sponsible for it. He illustrated it by telling a story comes right and moral in Secretaries, members of which Mr. Clay related of Mr. Grundy, that if Congress, and other persons here? Such is the Mr. Grundy was responsible for all the criminals state of things here, that practices which are conhe had defended he would have a great amount of sidered immoral in the States, and are conse sin for which to answer. That may be all true, quently made indictable offenses, can be practiced but it is not Mr. Grundy defending a criminal in with perfect impunity here, and no one must inthis case, but it is Mr. Corwin aiding a man inquire into them. It is time that we had arrested prosecuting a claim against the Government. He appears for the plaintiff and not for the defendant -for a man who is trying to commit a fraud upon the Treasury with the knowledge of its being a fraudulent claim, as I believe. We say it is wrong in that connection, and still more if he knew it to be wrong. The cases are not analogous at all. this thing. The attention of the country is directed to it. It is high time that the indiscrim inate plundering which is going on about the De partments, and about this capital, was put a stop to. Sir, I have not time to go into the testimony a this case. I had intended to have done so. But you will find, on looking over the whole of it, that the case was shrewdly anticipated by Dr. Gardner and his coadjutors. He saw the various con Government; he saw the difficulties thickening that war would be the result; that a peace word be made, and that the Government would have indemnify our citizens; and he commenced, with Mrs. Chase, Mr. Larned, and others, making ups basis upon which to rest this spurious claim. He carried on the case shrewdly, until he succeeded in getting it before the Commissioners. It is a fraud, and a fraud by which a large amount of money has been extracted from the Treasury of the country; and the recipients of the money thus fraudulently extracted, should restore it back to the coffers of the Treasury, if they are honest mes and men of sound morals. The gentleman from Ohio presented one or two other really strange ideas. He set out with saying that he should vote for the bill, thereby admit-ventions, and the claims against the Mexicn ing that this thing should be made an offense legally as it was morally, because we proceed upon the idea in this, and most other countries, that to have anything like a perfect system of jurisprudence, law must be the perfection of reason, and, I will add, of sound morals. The morals must precede the law, and the law should be made to sustain the morals. If it is not morally wrong to do this thing, I tell the House and the country, that it is wrong to pass a law making it a legal offense. If it is morally wrong, pass the law and make it legally wrong. If it is not morally wrong, pass no such law; for if you do, you at once make law and morals antagonists; you have them running counter to each other. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BARRERE] seems to argue morals on the one hand, and law on the other-that what is right in law is wrong in morals, and that what is right in morals, is wrong in law. He seems willing to But, upon a further examination of this case, we find the witnesses differing with each other in their statements of facts. Mr. Payne, who was one of the Commissioners, says that they suspected it was a fraudulent case from the beginning, |