WRITINGS OF SAM HOUSTON, 1859
267
"The said party of the first part (League) binds him- self, his heirs, and legal representatives, to warrant and forever defend the title by this indenture gi-anted to the said party of the second part, his heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, against the said Thomas de la Vega, and the party of the first part, their respec- tive heirs and assigns, and all others claiming, or to claim, by, under, or through the said Thomas de Ja Vega, and the party of the first part, or either of them." This warranty, it is to be observed, is against the party's own vendor. It applied to the chain of title from him, the all- important link of which was the power of attorney to Williams to sell the land. It shows that in the transaction at Selma, Alabama, to which Judge Watrous was a party, the power of attorney was a subject of concern, and probably of debate. It sug- gests that even .then, by some of the parties, the denunciation was anticipated, which was afterwards made, of that title paper as a forgery, and a forgery, too, in the procurement of which Judge Watrous himself had assisted. This power of attorney purports to have been made in the year 1832. It appears that no attempt was made to prove it up until 1855. Thus it was kept secret, or nothing revealed of it, for about twenty-three years. It is true that Robert Hughes testified that he withdrew a power of attorney· from the gen- eral land office in 1854-twenty-one years after its purported date; that there was no mark on it showing when, or by whom it was filed, or that it was ever filed; nor is there any mark or evidence on the document to show that the power of attor- ney, the present subject of discussion, was a paper withdrawn from the land office by Robert Hughes-as he was careful not to leave in the land office any copy of the paper he withdrew. I have requested, in the progress of this narrative, that hon- orable Senators would regard attentively the man Hewitson, who apppears to have been one of the heaviest suiters in Judge Watrous's court, and a partner of League, and of Hughes in the subject-matter of the litigation, and of whose use by the court, in support of perhaps the most monstrous of its frauds, I prom- ised some revelations. He, too, is now called in by Judge Watrous, through his counsel, to perform a service at the sacrifice, as the sequel will show, of all that honest men hold most dear-such sacrifices, and such service, however, as seem to be the price of the judge's favor. In the case of Ufford, and Dykes, a verdict was rendered February 27, 1855; the 23d of the same month, and the same
Powered by FlippingBook