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

m. nurchase the Institution Of IN" ,,,s IN ,ha
Federal Courts. the removal OF tt,. Same 70 New.
Orleans for trialioows as a Necessary incident to
the exercise Of this right, unless something else has
been done which cann"t De defended. What are
the facts II is said that odpe We-rous concealed
his interest: but, as es been shown. when the
Judge reached the first OF tine Lapsley cases, ie
announced bis liability 10 try them, and refused
posltiSe! ar peremptorlly 10 make any orders IN
them pPOn this point the testimony Is abundant
and riear. Jones. Hughes. Love. Cleveland, ana
re records Of the Court at the January term.
? l-52 leave no doubt on this important point. By
agreement between the counsel the cases were con-
tinued, and by an agreement III open Court lhey
were transferred 10 Austin for trial.
The cases were transferred to Austin, and were
continued by consent They were afierward re-
moved 10 New Orleans for trial. upon the motion
of the plaintiffs counsel. This order for their re-
moyal was the first and only order made by ia ige
Watrous in the eases. He could not have m ide II
at an earlier period The law is. not that a Judge
shall transfer case IN which he may happen to De-
interested. when be makes that interest kn' wn, or
at any other time that may suit his eonvenence-
but il can be- done on the motion of either party;
and. until that motion is made, he has no power to
act In this case the Judge made the order as
soon as the opportunity presented Itself, and the
cases were not ret,inei in bis Court by anything
that he did, q single day. Ii s expressly proved
shows most clearly that the defendants were not
injured by the delay.
The third specification Of that portion of the
Judiciary Committee who favor an impeachment is,
that Judge Wstrous sat as Judge on the trial
"of cases where be was personally Interested
in the questions involved" This refers 20 the
case of Uford vs. Dykes. which was tried by Judge
Watrous. Mr.. Tappan states the facts III Tie case
thus:
1t appears that three Mexican citizens, Raphael
de Agurre jose Maria de Agurre, and Thomas
de La Vega Jointly applied to the Mexican author
iiies for Il grant of eleven leagues OF land. The
concession was made and. upon that concession,
there We're issued three sparate grants OF eleven
legues. one to each Of the applicants-not one
grant of thirty-threc leagues to the three in COM
mon. The three joined in power OF attorney,
aking one Samuel VI. Villa ns the agent To sell
the land of all the three persons, who signed the
power. In making out the grants at the Land
Office the name of Raphael de Aguirre was in
serted in two Of the grants by mistake, and the
name of Jose Maria de Agurre left out altogether.
These. grants were located long distance apart.
Thomas de La Vegas was located upon the Braz0s
River. near the Waco village; the grant t. Ra-
phae de Aguirre upon Wllliamson's creek; the
other grant was located upon the Brazos, at the
mouth of the Bosque Ii was a part of the La
Vega grant which Judge Watrous bought Suits
were brought upon the title in his court by Mr..
Jonn W. Lapsley of Alabama, as has already ap-
peared in whose name was taken the deed from
Mr.. League, the vendor. Judge Watrous had an
outstanding equitable title in part of the lands
embraced in the grant. When the suits were
reached at the call of the docket, at the term to
which they returnable, the Judge revealed his
interest and refused To make any order in them.
The cases were transferred to Austin, and after
ward transferred TO New Orleans for trial. A suit
was brought upon the grant of Raphael de Aguirre,
which had been located upon Wiiamsons creek.
This was the care of Uhord and Dykes, which
Judge Watrous tried 1t will be recollected that
the power Of attorney under which the land had
been sold was the same as that by which the La
Vega tract had been sold-the power of attorney
was common to the two tracts of land. Now it
will be found by examining the bill of exceptions
and the testimony in the case taken before the
Committee that the power of attorney was admit
ted by agreement of counsel, and was not read ut
ALL no question was raised upon the genuine
ness of the power and no question was raised upon
it. 1t was admitted in evidence by the counsel
engaged either side of the case, and was neither
questioned doubted, and being in Spanish it
not read. 1t had been examined beforehand by
Mr. Hughes of Georgetown, Texas, the attorney
Of record in the case and being a copy had been
compared by him with the original, ard he had
satisfied himself of its correctness. Under these
circumstances the paper came into the case.
When the fact is called TO mind and united to this
testimony, that Judge Watrous had never read
the title papers in the La Vega title and knew
nothing of there being power of attorney IN the
case, he might We'll have proceeded to pass upsp
the power of attorney without the least suspicion
that the paper had any bearing upon his personal
Interest," but the proof gathered from the testimony
of all these Witnesses Is simply sufficient to satisfy
the most incredulous that the paper never read
to the Judge, and 10 use the words of Mr.. Potter
''cut no figure in the case"
But if il were not so, and the Judge had known
all about the character Of the paper still it would
have been his duty to try the case, and If he had
refused he would have been guilty of a neglect of
duty 1t is indeed Il fundamental maxim, that
Judge should not try his own cause. 1t is maxim
which should never be- lost sight Of disregaried.
The purity of the administration of justice, upJn
which rests all that We hold most dear members of
society, depends upon the strict preservation of
this vital principle. But what constitutes an inter-
est in case, such as to dlsqualty Judge from
presiding a. the trial This question was referred
lor decision by the House OF Lords in England TO
all the Judges. The answer was returned, in the
name of all the Judges, by Baron Parke, and the
interest was determined 10 be the same as that
which would dsqualify a witness. (See House of
Lords cases, vol. 3 page 7c6 Dnns agt. Propre-
tors of the Grand Ju lction Canal Company This
case is entirely conclusive; for no pretend
for moment that if person situated as Judge
Watrous had been offered as a witness, that he
could have been excluded. The interest which |
excludes witness is direct interest in the event
of the suit If II is remote contingent, consequent
tal, it does not affect the competency Of the wit
Ness.
Now what interest had the Judge in the case
before him, either direct, which would have gone /
10 the competency or remote and contingent, |
which would have gone TO the credibity None /
at ALL the event of the suit could not by possibility
= Al