288
WRITINGS OF .SAM HOUSTON, 1859
return in a case of this nature to be questioned ; "that by the practice of the Supreme Court it did not allow a question of fact to be raised on the return of any of the judges on a rule nisi for a mandamus, but took the judge's return as absolutely true in relation to the facts." I ask honorable Senators to pause here. I beg them to consider to what this question of appeal from Judge Watrous's court has reduced itself. I ask, has Judge Wat- rous proved himself the man of truth and honor, that his word should not be permitted to be questioned? Is he the man whose statement should not be gainsaid? Is he the man to be con- tinued in a position where his statements are to govern and override all contradiction? Is he the man to remain on the bench? It has been shown now what steps were taken by Judge Wat- ' rous and his court officers to baffle and finally defeat, the appeal of Mussina. This was the right of appeal, a right so absolutely recognized as essential to the interests of justice, and so important with reference to public policy, denied the petitioner. Such, indeed, was a fitting conclusion to the series of acts of collusion, tyranny, and oppression which had signalized the action of the judge in the celebrated Cavazos case. As to the final act of collusion on the part of Judge Watrous, and his confederates in preventing Mussina's appeal, the judg- ment of the committee in the Thirty-fourth Congress is so strong and clear that if I could afford the time I might comment at length upon the deliberate and atrocious circumstances that mark this last act in the Cavazos case. But even apart from this, there appear additional reasons why an appeal was not taken in the Cavazos case, even if it had been possible; or why attempt was not made at an earlier day, despite of the machinations to prevent it. There were reasons to esteem the record as partial, collusive and false; and a party might well hesitate to risk his case upon such a record. He might well fear the effect of a made-up record; and one made up, too, as the testi- mony would show, under the eye of William G. Hale, the chief actor in the scenes we have described. But I conceive a special and particular reason to prevent a party from risking his rights on such a record as that in the Cavazos case. I allude here to one of the most open and bare- faced acts of collusion possible to be imagined, having been countenanced by the judge, and put falsely upon the record, so
Powered by FlippingBook