WRITINGS OF 5AM HOUSTON, 1859
264
years-until the first term of the court of Judge Wafrous, after he (Judge Watrous) had obtained an interst. ,vith respect to the Ufford and Dykes suit, an attempt was made in the court of the investigation by the committee of the House to discover who were the parties in interest in Alabama. But the inquiry was' baffled. The witness who was examined as to the matter, plead his privilege as an attorney, and declined to answer. What important disclosures might have been made, had the question been freely answered, and the truth relieved from suppression, is left to conjecture. It was esteemed impor- tant to know the connections which existed in the inception of these suits. The committee sought the information; but they estopped at the very threshold by concealment, leaving the whole matter in suspicious darkness. It is also found in the Ufford and Dykes case, that William G. Hale, the agent of the fraudulent land company, as shown by the correspondence, and holding the most intimate relations with the court, is counsel for the plaintiff, and that on the other side of the case, the counsel is Robert Hughes, the confidential friend and witness of the court. The same question of title existed as in the Lapsley cases, in which Judge Watrous was interested by partnership in specu- lation with the plaintiff to the amount of one-fourth of the prop- erty, which one-fourth is valued at $75,000, and for which it appears he (Judge Watrous) has never paid, and was never required to pay, a cent of purchase-money up to the p1·esent time. The grants in both cases had a common title; and in one of them Judge Watrous had obtained an interest. It may be observed, too, that the judge professes to have purchased an interest in one of these grants, without ever see- ing the title papers, on the simple opinion of Hughes, "the best land lawyer in the Union,'' as he enthusiastically describes him, that they were good. He was willing, as he signifies, to accept this opinion absolutely as true. Now this Ufford and Dykes grant had a title identical with that in which Judge Watrous had obtained an interest. This title he had declared to be good, on the bare assertion of Hughes. He thus went on the bench in the Ufford and Dykes case, fully committed to an opinion on the title, and with nothing whatever for him on that point to adjudicate. I now request honorable Senators to accompany me to a scene in the United States district court in Texas, and to bestow upon it but a moment's criticism, in order to perceive its significance.
Powered by FlippingBook