New-York daily tribune., 1858-12-15

mllltp sIhlt.
But Mr. Tsppan said that he denied most en-
phatically that Judge WatrOus Knew that 4" ht "a
u ton was inevitable" or that the proof iarly sus-
tains this charge. On the contrary, the evidence
is that the whole subject Of the purchase or specu-
lation was brought incidentally 10 hs no lee, with
out any deep.laid plot or scheme 10 have any qe'-
tops that miyht rise tried in one Court or another
When first brought TO Judge Watrouss notice, II
appeared that if the purchase could be effected
something handsome must inevitably he made our
of il: for in relation 10 a considerable portion oi
the tract. there were no adverse claimants ana 'ne
original title not only appeared to be undouo'eo
but there was also cumulative title, growing out
of head right certificates which lad been purchased
in. aud which, to this large 'rtion Jf the tract
ms De the title wholly beyond dispute or question:
On looking into il futher, Judge Watrous also as
certained that the main questions as TO the tte. II
any should by possibility arise would be- settled IN
the Supreme Court of Texas in the csse OF Han
cock and Mckinney 6 Texas Reports, in which
Judge Watrous's brother was Interested. And the
whole tenor of the testimony goes 10 show that
Judge Watrous from the beginning, wished and
expected, il any litigation should arise. that it
might be had in the Texas Courts. And why
should he not desire that the litigation should be
there Ii was most manlestly for his interest
that il should be- for IL l. not contr0yerted that
questions as to this or similar titles were before
the Texas Courts, and would be settled fayorably
to the title.
There is no evidence that goes to prove that
either tf these parties supposed that the title
so far in dispute as TO render Litigation inevi
table" The testimony of Mr.. Lapsley shows that
be went into the purchase Of the land anticipating
litigation as probable although he states that hc
" did not kI Ow but that the squstters might give
sup the land; if not. he intended to sue them
He gave his instruction 70 his counsel (Judge
Hughes) and Judge Watrous had nothing -
do with it. All parties seemed to have the ut
most confidence In Judge Hughes; for as a real
estate lawyer, he stood deservedly at the head Of
his profession in Texas Nr Lapsey preferred to
have the suits brought in the Federal Court on ac
count OF the prejudice which he understood existed
in Texas against claims of this character.
IuIing the net citations IN Selma, Alsbama,
Judge WatrOus was present part OF the time but
took part in the discussion as to the title. The
testimony shows that lapsley pay have contem-
plated suit in the Federal Court but there il
nothing to show that Watrous had any connection
with such purpose. On the contrary, he always
wished the litigation, if any was necessary, to be
had in the State Courts. The suits were brought
in the Federal Court against the expressed wish Of
Judge WatTOus, and without his knowledge On
this point the testimony is abundant and clear.
Nj. Tappan maintained, however that whether
Judge Watrous had knowledge of the fact or not.
was of no consequence If the original purchase
of the land bv the Judge was right and proper-if
he went into it in good faith, in the hope merely
that he might by the speculation better his embar
rassed circumstances believing that there would be-
no prOtracted Litigation IN the ease, as the evidence
clearly shows he did believe, and without any de-
sign Of improperly using his own Court to advance
his own private interestthen if subsequently liti-
CATION, contrary TO his expectation, did arise, he
had right TO direct and advise in regard to it, and
o1, lei, bac Lv of INN Ia.
ment
But even if il should turn out that Judge Wat
rous, learning incidentally of this opportunity to
purchase this tract of land, and thereby egitimatey
make some money by the Operation-haying good
reason to believe that the case of Hancock and Me-
Kinney, and other cases in the Texas Courts,
would settle the question of title, if any such ques
tions should arise-he would not be compelled to
forego the purchase even though in order to raise
the money he might be obliged to apply to friends
residing without the State of Texas. did so
apply Mr.. Lapsey, and other gentlemen of Sci
ma, Ala, where Judge WatrOus had formerly re-
sided, and who were his personal friends were
brought into the purchase. There was nothing
wrong or improper in all this; there was nothing
improper III yesting for convenience, the legal title
in Mr.. Lapsley, provided tlat there was no inten-
ton on the part of any OF them to use the position
of Judge Watr0us to advance their own interest.
And if Mr. Lapsley aiterward found it necessary,
or in any way preferred to institute proceedings in
the Courts of the United States, he only did what
he had right to do; he only exercised right
which the Constitution and the laws gave him.
But it is charged that Judge Watrous allowed
his Court TO be used to aid himself and partners in
the speculation. But how and in what way did he
allow his Court to be used for any such purpose
The fact that Judge Watrous was interested in the
purchase, was no reason why Mr.. Lapsley might
- Ita. he. th.sr. "A Ia
ferred to bring If in the Federal Court rather than
the State Courts of Texas, the only way he could
do So was to commence proceedings in the District
Court, and then have the cause removed for trial
agreeably to the provisions Of law in such cases
made and provided. W hen the suits were com
menced in the Federal Court, Judge Watrous was
absent ut the North and il was done without any
conference with him. and without his knowledge
Upon this point the testimony is distinct and clear
Dir. League states that, when the Judge learned
that the suits were brought in his Court, he ex-
pressed his dissatisfaction in strong terms. When
the cases were reached upon the docket, Judge
Watrous refused to have anything 10 do with them,
on account of his interest which he then disclosed
lie did not conceal his interest, but, on the con-
trary, made it known at the earliest possible oppor-
tunity as is proved, not only by the testimony of
numerous witnesses, but by the records of the
Court. which were produced before the Commit
tee. An agreement was made by the counsel for
the parties TO substitute some member of the Bar
TO try the case, in place of Judge WatrorS Why
this agreement, if his interest not well under
stood by all concerned The suits were com.
menced by Lapsley in January, ISL, and this
agreement was made at the April or May term,
1851, showing that at that early day Judge Warous
had disclosed his interest. At the January term,
I-j2. the cases were removed to Austin, BY the
of counsel, and in 1854 were trans
fcrred to New Orleans for trial. by the order of the
Judge upon the plaintiff motion. This was the
only order made in the case BY j ldge Watrous,