The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-12-16

former appropriations which was referred TO the Com
mittee of Ways and Means
Mr.. COMlNS, OF Massachusetts, gave notice that ho
would Introduce bill for the mobilization OF the tam
in certain important respects aud providing for specific
duty on iron and other articles
Mr.. HUGHES OF Indiana, asked leave 10 introduce a
hill providing for the appointment Of mdshipmen IN the
navy in certain cases but objection WAS made.
nlkropAcoo TRADE
Mr. BOWIE, Of MaTSspd on leave, introduced Joint
States; which were refeN 70 the Committee on Agri-
culture.
rHE CUSTOM, nor AT GALVESTON
On motion of Mr.. REAGAN. of Texas, Senate resou-
ton for changing the plan of the custom house at Gal
weston, in the State OF Texas referred to the Com
mittee on Commerce
IMPEACHMENT wATRoUs.
The House then resumed the consideration of the report
of the Committee the Judiciary in the case of John e.
Watrous district Judge Of the United States for the dis
trict of Texas
Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. would endeavor 10 lay
down some rule by which his vote would be governed in
this 1t had been said that this the first case
of impeachment in this country of any official person
where corruption has been the charge He believed that
this true and it matter of eongratuation to
all He thought the same could not be said OF any other
country the earth IL was therefore, from iis very
nature, grave question The House was acting under
limited powers and he did not agree with those gentle
VINO argued that misdemeanor is term in the
saon used in contradstinction TO good behavior The
constitution authorized them 10 inpeacl for treason,
bribery and other high crimes and msdumeanos 1t was
not to be understood by this term midemeanor that IL WAS
whatever majority of the House and majority Of the
Senate might think misbehayior From the days Of
Magma Charta iii England, and much more so in the
United States no man could be deprived OF lie liberty
property in any manner be injured in his state or
reputation but by violation of law In his opn-
ion before they could try man they must make law,
and where there law there was no sin, either in
the Divine human code He quoted from Judge Story
Ia CHI. led lyE of
of impeachment that jurisdiction, when given TO be
exercised according to the common law In determining
what were high crimes and misdcneanors, the common
law to be their guide and it was not every offence
against the law that impeachable for
it must not only be offence, but high crime They
first to determine the offence according TO the prnc
pies of the law and then it must be high crime
aud misdemeanor All that had been said in the debate
about the purity Of the bench and the OF preserving
it, he fully admitted and every word that had been utter
ed he endorsed And when he took up this case and
looked at the facts there not single one that led
him to believe that the sanoty purity of the bench in
the person of Judge Watrous had been sullicd I
not that Judge Watrous had become interested in
the matter charged in the memorial OF Spencer secretly
and for the purpose of litigation in his own court II he
had and had kept it secret until detected he would say
put the brand of eternal infny upon him. But when he
took up the book Of evidence, he found that Judge Wat
ros had avowed his interest ut the commencement of the
claim and had never passed single ORDER from begin
ming to end in any case in which he was interested
Mr. REAGAN of Texas cited the testimony of Spen
Ger to prove that he had.
Mr. STEPHENS did not want to have anything to
do with Spencer further than the record, and when
man forward and proclaimed to the House
of Representatives that Judge Watrous had con
ceaed his interest for four years before he was de-
tected and exposed and when he saw from the
record that it was untrue he would not believe him
upon oath He could not believe that there n
member in the House who believed that that power of
attorney was a forgery The Supreme Court of the
United States had decided that it not forgery and
in addition to that he would cite the statement OF the
gentleman colleague Mr.. BRYAN, which proved con-
cusvey that the power of attorney had been granted
Every ruling of the court in his judgment as lawyer
right and if there had been appeal onght
to have been taken
Mr.. HOUSTON, of Alabama then moved the previous
question; which seconded, and the main question
ordered
Mr.. H. proceeded to close the debate, twas utterly
impossible in the of hour for any gentleman to
state the various points which in the case and it
less in his power than in that OF many other mem
bers of the House, because naturally he spoke slow
They not trying the guilt or innocencs OF Judge
Watrons, his friend from Georgia Mr. STEPiENsI
seemed disposed to argue, but they investigating
whether those charges in the proof before the House JUS
titled them in sending him to the only tribunal that had
power to investigate his conduct and pass upon s quit
or innocence The resolution of the branch OF the com
mtee to which he belonged doeg not pass upon his guilt
or innocence but impeaches him Of high crimes and mis-
deneanors, and turns him to the Senate Gentle
said they sent the case to the Senate it would be
IL
much il would be stained by going there for trial
than by those clouds of charges hanging upon him
1t was act of justice to send him where he could
vntlicate his innocence where he could stand pt-
riied before the world without those clouds upon him
1t said that the sending of the case to the Senate
would involve great expenditure of time and money.
That was no argument there should be no consideration
of expense or Of consumption Of time. The accused
should he placed before the tribunal where the trial
would be satisfactory to the government the country,
the State of Texas and which ought to be satisfactory to
himself The gentleman from Georgia MIR. SIEpnESsl
said the House had not the constitutional right to
impeach unless for violation of law, and yet he
had said he would impeach for an offence not indict
able by the common law II Ruah were the fact, he
would like to know what security the country had
against the misconduct Of q Judge II they adopted
the principle laid down by that gentleman there was
no restraint upon them, there modtSby which
they could be punished Suppose judge should appear
upon the bench drunk, and in condition unfit and un-
a to discharge the duties of his Office would not gen
tlemen saw that he ought to be impeached Suppose
iudce should say lawyer that he had no right to APP
nenr in lbs ck ard when the lawyer would demonstrate,
saving that he did not know chat he was Disqualified, he
should order him to sit down and the clerk to strike his
name from the roll Of attorneys was that not matter for
impoachmentY Every member would say that. He re-
ed to the case Judge Pickering to show that accused
iudees had been sent to the Senate for similar offences
There was no law ndctng Judge Pickering for drunken
ness upon the bench and yet The House Of Representa-
tjyes and the Senate had impeached him. He did not
agree with his friend from New York. Mr. CLARK, who
held ina they ought not to send him to the Senate Tor
anything short OF pct that would oohVo,
him Such proof not Necessary IN inc HOUSE. ana
he would refer that gentleman to prev-ent 10 SNOW
that wherever there for prosecution it odght "