The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-12-14

eeven-league grants OF Land him 10 satisfy the
House that he did not intend that the natural
qnenees OF his act should follow thereafter He must
show that he had knowledge intention, that his
Office should DO used for the purpose OF eecting trans
fer OF those cases 10 New Orleans lac must be held
guilty. If he said more gentlemen must agree with
him IN saying that Judge Waltrous must be held ac-
countabe.
Mr. TAYLOR of Louisiana believed 1t was their duty
upon the facts presented, TO call upon the Senate, the
great constitutional tribunal bring Judge Watrous
trial He should not attempt an investigation of the
testimony because that had been gone into length by
number OF gentlemen in calculated TO arrest
the attention OF the House. He would cite, however
two or three facts which could not be dsproved 1t
shown that the eleyen-eague grant purchased by
parties in Texas and parties Aabama Of whom Judge
Watrous was that Judge Watrous ut the time the
purchase made, had agency connexon with the
management OF the business but afterwards assumed
certain responsibilities. The design of these parties
10 bring these suits in the federal of Texas in
der that they might remove them 60 the State of Lous
Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, said If that design was
brought home To Judge Watrous he then should be pre-
pared to impeach him. He would say that the facts
showed that League and Watrous were partners in
common undertaking, partners in the prosecution
OF a common design, partners deriving a common
beneht Under these circumstances instead of its be
ing necessary to prove what he suggested, IL
ccssary for Judge Wrous to prove the contrary in
der to exonerate himselfhe legal presumption being
That, they partners in the transaction they
partners in the guilt 1t said that the ruling OF
Judge Watous was of judgment and that
Of Judgment could not be regarded Ia inquiry of this
knd--that an error of Judgment not amenable to
this House and could not be dsproved by the action OF
the Senate, sitting high court of Impeachment
These gentlemen said judge could not be impesched
unless he had been guilty OF corruption had done
some act which involved the acquisition of unrghteous
gain to himself He denied the of that prop
oston The contrary had been shown by the practice Of
the government from its foundation.
Mr. MAYNARD, of Tennessee, pointed out the
rions charges against Judge Watrous contained in the
memorials OF Mussna and Spencer, and said that only
portion OF them touched in the reports of the
mittee, and the main charge rested elsewhere. Ii
Judge Watrous were guilty, it would be their duty
not only to impeach him, but to do all in their
power to see that he removed from his place
but he did not believe him guilty and proceeded
to state his reasons at length. He would not take
up the time of the House in answering allegations that
Judge Watrous went to New Orleans for the purpose of
debauchng and corruptDS the supreme court OF Lous
for there transactions that required only
to be stated either to be proven disproven and this
of them. The other charges against Judge Wat
rons that he procured the removal of the to New Or
leans, and Others of official misconduct he contended
were not sustained by the evidence, Whether not
Judge Watrous was popular unpopular mat
ter they had no right to examine. When this argu
mcnt was brought to bear upon Chief Justice Mans
field, and he told that the popular sentiment
required that he should take a particular drec
tion lie said (and the sentiment worthy Of
immortal record lie would rather be of the pillars
of the Temple of Justice to uphold the State than the
weathercock to point out the notwithstanding brcezes OF
popular opinion. He should be guilty of high crime
and msdemeanor if he to consent the putting
upon trial of this judicial officer, whose conduct far
he had been able to see from the volumnons record
scrutnized and scanned it had been by the eyes Of
malice aided by public detraction not such would
warrant his impeachment He thought he should be
sent back to the people of Texas and perhaps the day
would come when they would know what it is to have
upright Judge 1t not the first time that clamor
had been raised against judicial officer, and he hoped
the House would not conne its action to anything that
would add fuel to the flame.
Mr.. READY, Of Tennessee caused portion Of the un-
delivered remarks of Mr. REAGAN of Texas to be read
from the Clerks DESK in which that gentleman called
the attention of the House to the statement OF that por
ton of the committee against the impeachment that the
eleven league grant had been purchased by General
Stephen f. Austin and sold by Samuel NJ Williams his
attorney. Mr.. REAGAN desired to know OF Mr. READY
upon whose authority that statement had been made in
the report. There was no such testimony before
the committee that he aware of and he
wanted to know who it that had given the name OF
that great to prevent the trial of Judge Watrous
Mr. READY should not have deemed it necessary to
the question: the facts stated simply given
the historical narrative of the La Vega caim but that
it apparent the gentleman abored under the impress
sion that individual whose did not appear in
the report had communicated the information In order
that his mind might be dsabued he felt it to be his
duty to answer, well to relieve the gentleman to
whom the question more particularly pointed The
statement had not been made by any gentleman whose
docs not appear on the record but was made
IL appeared that General Austin the owner Of the
land 1t also appeared that General Austin left Texas
Mexico shortly after the purchase and returned in
1885, and part of the history of Texas that du
ring his absence he prisoner The proceeds OF an
other claim had been used for his maintenance whilst in
generated in Mexico and it strong inference that
the proceeds Of the LIE Vega grant took the drec
ton.
Mr. REAGAN, Of Texas, had nothing in the tceti-
nony in reference to that purchase and nothing that
showed that the proceeds of The sale had been appro
riated to procure the release of General Austin He
made the inquiry because he thought it unauthor
zel abuse of great mans name. He did not believe
Colonel Austin had authorized any such statement
Mr. READY said he should have read the testimony
Of Samuel NJ Williams that subject but he did not
wish to read than necessary to proper under
standing of the facts He had said in his first speech
hat it inference drawn from the testimony of
Williams He certainly had not made the statement for
The purpose of casting mpuation upon the character
If General Austin nothing further from his mind
He had knowledge of that gentlemans character
up to 1885, and the pleasure and honor of personal
acquaintance with him He could testify that he was
of intelligence and he believed him to be honest
in every of the word brave and patriotic
my that breathed the breath of life He would
DC as far from casting stain upon his honor any
living.
Mr.. REAGAN imputed no improper intention to Mr. |
READY and satisfied with the statement he had made
% the House. 1t was an inference, and not fact.
Mr.. ADRIAN, of New Jersey then proceeded to argue
favor OF the impeachment The only motive he could
attribute to the parties in securing Judge Watrous
partner that of obtaining the removal of the trial
If the to New Orleans for shortly after the title
rested they found suits instituted in the federal
Texas, over which Judge Watrous presided.
Mr.. TAPPAN. of New Hampshire said the evidence 1