WRITINGS OF SAM HOUSTON, 1859
299
strong influence in electing Houston Governor of the State (see Southeni Jntcl/ig6ncer, March 16, 30, 1859). Watrous was given the opportunity to rebut, and his partner, William E. Hale, made speeches throughout Texas, condemning Houston and praising Watrous (Southern Intelligencer, April 20, 1859). Several of the impeachment charges which probably carried the most damaging evidence against Watrous centered about his purchase of an interest in the Tomas de In Vega eleven-league tract of land, a large tract of land lying along the Brazos River, opposite the city of Waco. The title to this land rested largely on the validity of a power of attorney from Stephen F. Austin to Samuel M. Williams to sell it. A document that seemed to make clear the transfer of the land was in hand, but there was a ques- tion concerning its validity, and on this doubt, came the chance of fraud in the title. Guy M. Bryan, however, saved the day for Watrous on this score, when he came forward at the last minute, with two letters, written by Austin, which established the validity of the power of attorney beyond doubt. While Bryan stated that he intended to vote for impeachment, because he believed Watrous guilty of corruption in office, the Austin letters turned the impeachment proceedings in Watrous's favor, and they were dropped. Watrous· went scot free, and continued in office until the outbreak of the Civil War. He was not allowed to hold courts in Texas during the Civil War, but as soon as it was over, he resumed his seat, and continued in office until he was stricken by paralysis in 1869. He resigned then, and moved to Baltimore, Maryland, where he died on June 18, 1874. See Baltimore Sun, June 19, 1874; Thrall, A Picto1·ial History of Texas, 630; Frank Brown, "Annals of Travis County and ·of the City of Austin" (MS.), Chapters XVIII, 74, and XXXIII, 69. 4 See Phalen v. Herman, 14 Howard 97 (U.S.); League v. De Young and Brown, 11 Howard, 188 (U.S.); also La. An. Reports, 334. · ~In a case tried in his court, known as Union Bank v. Stafford, Watrous ruled that the limitation of statute applying to the outlawry of a note- four years-began. to run not on the due date of the note but at the date when the defendant who pleaded limitation came within the jurisdiction of the court rendering the decision. This ruling was in equity, not in law; it affected many cases pending in Texas, and was generally considered ques- tionable. 0 See Mussina v. Stillman, Belden, Alling, Basse & Hord, 11 La. Annual Reports, 568; Mussina v. Cavazos, 20 Howard, 878 (U.S.); also 2 et seq., 17 et seq., Appellee's Brief [Judge R. L. Batts]. Much information concern- ing this case may also be found in Committee Reports, 35th Cong., 1st Sess., No. 540, p. 1115; also Revort No. 548, 20-21; and 12 La., 799. •The case of Reynolds v. Henry M. Lewis was filed in the United States District Court at Brownsville, on May 12, 1849, but was transferred to the U.S. District Court of New Orleans on June 7, 1850. Court records for this case are not available, but Houston analyzes it in his speech. 8 The case of Joseph Ufford v. Josiah Dykes was filed·in the U.S. District Court of Texas (Watrous's court), in February, 1855. This is one of the cases in which Watrous was charged with passing on his own land titles, and it centers about the validity of the power of attorney from Stephen F. Austin to Samuel M. Williams to sell certain eleven-league grants of land.
Powered by FlippingBook