Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1858-12-01


prcssiye, tymnnical aud partial; that he de
:gnedly disregarded well settled principles o.
law, and that his whole conduct was inconsis'
tent with the dignity and honesty ofan upright
Judge, And he particularly complains Of cer-
tain proceedings in which the Court attempted
to punish him for,contcmp,.
The charges Of Spencer are OF much more
serious import, lie represents that Judge Wa.
trous purchased an interest in valuable and
immense trac, Of land in Texas, about which
there was dispute concerning the title; that
he had the suit Instituted in his own court in
the name Of other parties, and "lor nearly four
years, fmudulcnty aud corrupicdly coHcealed
his interest in the subject.matter Of litigation"
and he cOmpans..of fraud and corruption gen.
emlly.
,,Xe next find the Texas House of Rcprcscn.
a s requesting Congress 10 impcach him.
ThIfsSus not acted upon in the Texas Senate.
twS24tffn, because Of the adjournment Of the
| Legislature.
The complaints of Mussino aud Spencer
were referred by Congress to two committees,
who examined the whole subject with patient
and Iaborious attention, They examined many
witnesses and volumiuous records, and were
compelled in their Investigations 10 decide
many difficult points Of law.
The first of these committees made their
report in 1851, and in the Mussina complaints,
they unanimously conclude that the proceed
ings for sontempt "were irregular, unjust and
illegal, and, taken in connection with the prev
ous proceedings'and rendition of the decree
oppressive and tyrannical," and they report
against the Judge on the Spence! charges and
coincide BY saying:
"Thc committee have examined numerous
records, consisting of pIeadngs, orders OF court
IalIidavits and positions-and after patient
and laborious research, they have reluctantly
i come to the conclusion that the. conduct oil
Judge Watrous, in the cases above referred TO
can not be explained without supposing that he
was actunted by other than upright and Just
motives; that in his disregard of the well-cs.
tablished rules of law and evidence, he hns
put in jeopardy and sacraiced the rights of
litigants, and in acquiring title TO property in
| lingnton or held by adverse possession, he has
given Just cause Of alarm to the citizens of
Texas for the safety Of private rights and
property, and of their public domain, and has
debarred them from the rights of an impartial
trial in the federal courts OF their own district.
ain view of the above-rccited facts. nnd the
conclusions Of the corImittee, they report the
evidence and the following resolution:
"Resolved That John G. Wa:rous, Uaited
States District Judge for the District Of Texas
be impcuched Of high crimes aud misdcmean-
'ors.",
It is due to Judge Watrous to state that this
committee proceeded in the nature of a grand
Jury inquest and examined only those wiVes-
cs summoned for the prosecution.
In 1853, the whole matter was referred to a
new committee, who concluded to hear Judge
Wa'rous through counsel, and TO examine all
witnesses for and against him.
After pltient investigation of the testimo-
Inv, and after argument, two reports were made
'by the Committee, one in favor of and one
arainst the charges. One of these reports was
made by Judge Chapman, of Pennsylvania,
and signed by three others, and among them
was Miles TAYLOR our able Representative
We have read this report with care, anda more
elegant convincing, and logical paper we have
never read. 1t is in all respects a master.
piece. 1t comprises twenty-four pages of
closely printed matter and contains besides
concise analysis OF the evidence, masterly re-
view of all the law difficulties with which the
case was embarrassed His conclusions in
the Spencer charges, as to Judge Watrous,
Iare-- .
"That while holding the office Of District
Judge of the United States he engaged With
other persons in specializing in immense tracts
of land situated within his Judicial District,
the titles to which he knew were in dispute,
and where litigation was inevitable.
That he allowed his court to be used as an
iarcn. to aid himself and partners in specuIa-
tion in land, and to secure an advantage over
other persons with whom litigation was arpre-
Ihendel. That he sat as Judge on the trial of
cases where he was personally interested In
ouestlons involved to which may me added
participation in the improper procurement oil
Testimony to advance his own and partners in
Iteres's,"
And as to the complaint of Mussina, he
saws that there was mo foundation whatever
for the proceedings against him for a contempt,
that the action of the Judge with respect to it
was unauthorized by law, and was intended to
be vexatous and oppressive" and that OF the
many errors of the Judge in the chancery suit
in which Mussna was party, "every Irregu-
lar or wrongful decision of the Judge was in
favor of the compainants and against the de-
fendant, Mussina," and to his particular injury;
and he andthree Of the Committee recommend
that John c. Watrous "be impeached of high
crimes and misdemeanors:"
The report prepared by Mr.. Ready and also
signed by three of the Committee Is about five
pages long, and concludes by stating that the
testimony "ls insufficient to justify the prefer
ment of articles of impeachment"
We have thus, at the expense of the patience
of our readers, given a brief synopsis of this
extraordinary case 1t is one of great inter
est, and will soon attract the attention oil the
whole country.-N o. Delta.
- -, 'pba New Orleans