286
WRITINGS OF SA.M: HOUSTON, 1859
Watrous, on his examination as a witness before the House com- mittee. But what does he say? "Question. Was the power of attorney from Santiago del Valle, authorizing Williams to sell, to the Hancock and McKinney case? "Answer. I do not know. It is a long time since I saw that record." Now, is it to be supposed that this active counsel in the case where his client and patron, Judge ·watrous, was interested to the amount of four or five thousand acres of the most valuable land (situated immediately opposite to the seat of Government) would have failed to recollect the existence of this all-important link in the chain of title. Thus, as in the case of Ufford and Dykes, so in the case of Hancock vs. McKinney, it is managed to obtain the admission, and to avoid all question as to the author- ity of Williams to sell the land. So it appears, that of the parties, Judge Watrous and his counsel, Robert Hughes, at least, went into the La Vega land speculation, their attention directed, especially directed, to the power of attorney from La Vega to Williams, which they had to look to as the principal link of title. The investigation touching the official conduct of Judge Wat- rous, which was had in. the Thirty-fourth Congress, was made in the most deliberate, painstaking, and thorough manner. Dis- tinct votes were taken at different stages of the proceedings. Nearly the whole available time of the session was devoted to the examination of the records -offered in support of the charges, which records in fact composed the entire evidence in the cases. With respect to the charges assigned by Spencer, the commit- tee found a verdict against the judge, and proclaimed that "he had given just cause of alarm to the citizens of Texas, for the safety of private rights and property, and of their public do- main, and had debarred them from the rights of an impartial trial in the Federal courts of their own district." This judgment was followed up, and its conclusions enforced by a moiety of the present Judiciary Committee, in whose elab- orate and conclusive report the following finding of the facts is included: "That while holding the office of district judge of the United States, he engaged with other persons in speculating in immense tracts of land situated within his judicial district, the titles to which he knew were in dispute, and where litigation was in- evitable. "That he allowed his court to be used as an agent to aid himself and partners in speculation in land, and to secure an
Powered by FlippingBook