WRITINGS OF SAM HOUSTON, 1859
287
advantage over other persons with whom litigation was appre- hended. That he sat as judge on the trial of cases where he was personally interested in questions involved, to which may be added a participation in the improper procurement of testimony to advance his own and partner's interests." Into the merits of the legal question, ,,vith respect to the appeal sought to be taken by Mussina in the Cavazos case, I do not propose to inquire. It is indispensable, however, to insure a clear understanding of the case, and to complete its history, to notice the matter, and to read here the judgment pronounced on this branch of the vVatrous case by the following honorable gentlemen, composing a moiety of the House Judiciary Com- mittee 'before alluded to: Messrs. Henry Chapman, of Pennsyl- vania; Charles Billinghurst, of Wisconsin; Miles Taylor, of Louisi- ana, and George S. Houston, of Alabama: "And finally, they are prevented from having the decision against them reviewed in the appellate court by the failure of the judge to perform his full duty to them in facilitating the exercise of the right of appeal, given to them by law, from mo- tives of public policy, for their own private advantage." It appears Mussina applied to the Supreme Court for a rule for a mandam,us against Judge Watrous, who had, as he con- ceived, refused or defeated his application for an appeal, which was within the time prescribed by the law. To this Judge Wat- rous answered, and sustained his answer by the testimony of Cle.veland, Parker, Jones, Love, and son. It is revealed in the testimony that William G. Hale was here in Washington, on the spot. Mr. Love, the clerk of Judge Watrous, says: "Mr. Hale sent from Washington city a copy of Mr. Mussina's affidavit before the Supreme Court of the United States." "I got four or five affidavits, and inclosed them to Judge Watrous. All of us [i.e., Cleveland, Parker, Jones, his son, and himself, all creatures of the court] agreed in making the affidavits on our own recollection." It .is unnecessary to review the testimony of these witnesses before the House committee. A mere inspection of it will present the contradictions with which it abounds, and will show the changes and shifting of the witnesses, according as their recol- lections are refreshed from time to time by ,Judge Watrous. It would appear that on this testimony, and the statement of Judge Watrous, the rule for a mandamus was denied. In a further part of the testimony taken in the Watrous investigation it is shown that the Supreme Court would not permit the truth of a judge's
Powered by FlippingBook