New-York daily tribune., 1858-12-15
FROM WASHINGTON,
TIE CASE OF JUDGE wATROUs.
From Our Own Core'p,ndent

WASHINGTON, FTloay Dec. ~, l>po.
The case Of Judge Watrous Of Texas occupied
henouse Yesterday and to day, to the exclusion OF
every other topic. The Judiciary Cormi'eee' 70
whom the case was submitted, are equally dnlaed
ppon il. Messp. Houston of Alabama bhnhg-
hurst Of Wisconsin, Taylor of Louisiana ana
Chapman Of Peunsy lvsuia being for impeachment
while Tappsn of New Hampshire, Cralgc oi Nor'h
Carolina, Ready of Tennessee and horace r.
Clark Of Ncw-York are in favor OF Judge Watrous'
The uicth member of the Committee, Mr. Caskle
os Virginia, considered it improper for him to
have ANYTHING to do with the case. because certain
pecapiary interests of his own might be in some
way affected by tho decision. He therefore did
not attend the sessions OF the Committee, but
Am informed that h. is convinced of the innocence
Of Judge WatrOus. -.
The question does not seem 20 have any political
bearing outside Of the local politics of Texas.
Judge Watrous is lawyer and lurst OF dlstm-
rushed ability and Of high personal character; he
Is Northern man by birth and o Southern man by
residence and associations; he is native OF Con-
pectcut OF the Committee, two OF those against
him are from the North and two from the South
two of those for him are from the North and two
from he'South. OF the two Republicans Of the
COMMITTEE, Tappan is for him and Billinghurst
against him. The Texas Senators and Representa-
tives inCODgress, like the Committee, are equally
diydedOn the subject.
The defendant in the case is John C. Watrous,
Judge of the District Court Of the United States
for the State of Texas. Two memorable have been
presented to the House, praying for his imPeach-
ment 'One of them by Ehphas Spencer, and the
other by Jacob Mussina. II is alleged IN the
memorial of Spencer that Judge Watrous engaged
in extensive speculatiOns in real estate IN his judi
cal district where he knew the titles were in dis
pute and that he employed his Court as the means
of promoting the interests Of himself and partners
in the speculation, and TO secure an advantage over
Others with whom litigation was apprehended. The
evidence before the Judiciary Committee presents
the following points, stated yesterday by Mr..
Chapman of Pennsy lyania, ard to-day by Mr. Bill
Inghurst Of Wisconsin.
BY Il law Of Mexico previous to the independ
ence of Texas citizens of that State could, by
depOsitng in the Treasury 81 ,000 obtain from the
Secretary of State grant of land of eleven leagues
or about n, 900 acres. In 1850, two brothers.
Raphael de Agurre and Jose Maria de Aguirre
and Thomas de la Vega, their brOther-in-law, de-
posted in the Treasury $1,000, and received
grant in one paper OF three eleyenleague tracts of
lands on the BraZOs TO those three individuals in
severaIty. In 1852, the grantees made power of
attorney to Samuel nj. Williams then a citizen Of
Texas, TO locate and survey these several grants
A few days afterward the power of attorney to
locate and survey was executed. Samuel NJ
iS sdl0, on the part O1 Judge
WatrOus-a power of attorney from the same
parties to sell and convey these same lands. 1t is
alleged on the part of the memOrialists, that
Thomas de la Vega and Raphael dc Agurre never
executed this last power of attorney; but it is
ceded that they executed the first power OF ator-
ney.
In 1850, in the month of Nav or June, Thomas
M. League, citizen of Texas, land speculat0r
and client of Watrms before the Judge went
upon the bench, and confidential and intimate
friend afterwa1d, went to WatrOus, and prOpOscd
TO him to unite in buying the eleven-eague tract,
which located by virture of the grant to
Thomas de la Vega. Judge Watrous asked if the
title were good. Mr.. League said that Judge
Hughes had examined it. Judge Hughes was the
confidential and professional adviser of Judge
WatrOus, and he was the confidential adviser and
legal counsel of Thomas Nj. League judge
Watrous replied, Il have not the means; hut l
have friends in Alabama who will invest, if the
title be good" He wrote to his friends in Ala
bama, Messrs. Lspsley, Frow Price, Pluttenberg
and Godsby, residents at Selma. After receiving
the letter of Judge Watrous, two of these gentle
men went to Galveston, met with Watr0us, League,
and Hughes, and held consultation. Frow and
Price then went together to this land on the Brazos,
about $50 miles from Galveston, examined It, were
satisfied with its quality and value, returned to
Galveston, and came to an understanding, subject
to the approval OF their friends remaining in Ala
bama. League, up to this time, had paid Judge
Watrous for his services for an examination OF the
title. ThercupoD, Frow and Price retained Judge
Hughes, and agreed to give him retaining fee of
$500 10 conduct the litigation that might grow out
Of the purchase. This was in the month of June,
1850.
FrOw and Price returned TO Selma Ala, and IN
July, Judge Watrous, with his friend League, ap-
peared at that place and the transaction was there
perfected-League but few days before having
received q conveyance from Mrs. ST. John, who
held this land under a conveyaI ce from Samuel
NJ. Williams, the original attorney, who was the
brother Of Mrs st. John. They agreed to pay
League nine thousand and odd collars for the land
The Alabama gentlemen advanced the cOnsidera-
tion, and the deed was taken from League in the
name of John w. Lapsey alone, Watrous and
League retaining one balf-that is. one quarter
each-and the five Alabama gentlemen the other
half or one tenth each. Ii is asserted by the pros
ecution that it was understood by the parties that
litigation anticipated, and that it should be IN
the Federal Court. The evidence of Lapsley, of
Frow, of League, of Shearer, and the answer OF
Judge WatrOus, are claimed az establishing this
point When FrOw and Price visited the land on
the Brazos, they found ten or Il dozen settlers
there with houses and other improvements
They ascertained that there were head-rlght GER
tifcates located upon it, Litigation was talked
about and Hughes was retained to take care of
the litigation and to institute The suits, before the
transaction was completed. League afterward, in
receiving portion of the money, said that he had
received $500 and PAID IT over to Hughes as his
retainer, pursuant To the agreement of lrow aud
Price, at Galveston, in June.
1t is alleged that Judge Watrous knew all the
particulars of the transaction, and expected that
suits would be brought in his own Court when he
entered into the arrangement.
= I'll. ,,,its