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

~ date. 1t is inferred from tins that not ceht
.ss even expected to be paid ont Of the pocket ci
.Judee Watrous, but that his liability would be as
charged out tf the proceeds of sale. Spencer
swears that although he attended the Courts at
Galveston and Austin, he never heard ot tins IN
terest of Judge Watrous until about the time Inc
cases were removed to New. Orleans for trial,
which was nearly four years after their INSTITUTION
in his Court; and Taylor, counsel for others oi the
defendants, swears that although he has FAINT re-
collection Of something having transplred IN relation
TO the Judges interest before the cases went
from Galveston to Austin, still lie ls satisfied that
he could not have known of the existence of that
interest otherwise he would not have applied for
their removal t0 Austin, for Judge WatrOus pre-
sided there and the same difficulty would exist.
The sccusers of Judge Watrous maintain, in brief,
that il appears by the evidence that the ultimate
purpose was that these causes should be instituted
in bis Court and transferred 60 the Circuit Court
at New Orleans. so that trials before Texas Jures
would be avoided: and that is the point in this part
Of the case against him. He is charged Hith de-
libeIate attempt TO remove these cases from the
Courts of Texas, To deprive the people OF Texas OF
trials before JuTies of the vicnage, to impose on
them the necessity of changing their counsel, and
all the Inconvenience and Disadvantages of increased
expenses which would result from their removal
hundreds of miles further from their homes, and
the same distance nearer the residence OF the other
party and to have done this for his own aggran-
dizement
1t is also charged against Judge WatrOus that he
sat upon the trial of cases in which he was inte-
rested in the questions involved. Promident among
those cases was that of Uiord agt. Dykes, tried in
his Court in 1855. Uhord claimed, under grant
or concession made, or purpOrtiDg to have been
made by the Government of COahuila and Texas
in 1892 of 33 leagues OF land. 1t is maintained
that the decision of this case involved the decision
in the Lapsley cases, in which Wstrous had, as
above stated, large pecunary interest Incidental
to the case is question about the authenticity OF
power of attorney TO sell the land given by certain
Mexicans at Saltilo. The accusers of Judge
Watrous maintain that this document was forgery,
and that the Judge was concerned in the improper
procurement of testimony to substantate 1t.
In brief, the charges against Judge Watrous, as
summed up in the Report from the Judiciary Com
mittec adverse to him, are these:
Fyst: That holding the Office Of District Judge OF the
s, he e. ehssea @ aT,,ds wo ovb M s s.e ,he m
titles 10 which be knew were in dispute aud when litigation
10 aid himself aut partners specaon in lands aud
advantage other persons with whom litigation was sp
Third That he sat Judge in the a fcase where he
added particle the improper procurement fest
nony 70 advance bis own and partners interest"
The fullest defense that has yet been made of
Judge Watrous, was the speech yesterday by Mr.
Tappan of New Hampshire. Mr.. Tappan began
action in the matter. As a member ofthe Judiciary
Committee of the XXXIVth Congress, he gave his
assent to the impeachment OF Judge WatrOus,
while as Il member of the same Committee OF the
XXXNth Congress he has signed Report exon
Grating the Judge. When the subject was before
the Committee of the XXXIVth Congress, the pro-
ceedings were entirely ex parte. Neither Judge
Watrous, nor any Of his friends, was before the
Committee. The papers in the case were never
examined bv any member of the Committee except,
perhaps, by the one who drew the Report. Little
attention was given to the case by the Committee,
while there was great pressure upon them in favor
of the prosecution. There was clamOr on all sides
against Judge Watrous. No man said word in
his favor. The Committee reported in favor of I'M
parchment, without havnelnade an investigation
into the case or taken any testimony.
But the Judiciary Committee of this Congress
pursued very different course They went fully
into the investigation. Testimony was taken on
both sides. Judge Watrcus was permitted to
come in and defend his cause, and to produce wit
nesses. Mr.. Tappan said that from the clamor
that bad been raised, and from what he had heard
about the case he had mbibed great pre- udice
against the Judge. 1t was with difficulty that he
could bring his mind into condition to weigh the
testimony fairly and impartally. But he had
endeavored to do this, and had arrived at the con-
cusiOn that there was no evidence to sustain the
charges against Judge NatrOus.
great clamor had been raised in Texas against
the Judge, and resolutions against him had been
got through the Legislature of Texas, but the fact
is that this clamOr and these resolutions originated
in the dissatisfaction that was created by decision
made by him i'll the case of the Union Bank agt.
Stafford, a decision sustained by the Supreme
Court of the United States, before which tribunal
the question subsequently carried. That deci
sion decided the construction to be gwen to the
statute of limitation of the State of Texas, and
touched the pockets of great many people who
had gone TO Texas from other States to avoid the
payment of their debts. 1t was contended by these
people that the statute of limitation commenced
running at the time the debt fell due no matter
where the debtor then resided Jude Watrous de-
cded that the statute ran only from the time when
the parties came under the jurisdiction Of the 4
Court of Texas This decision affected the prop
cIty OF a numerous and powerful class, who imme
diatcly raised an outcry against the Judge, which
tEey have ever since kept up. Strong aud bitter
preudices were excited against him also by another
decision affecting the titles to certain lands, which
decision, though against the popular feeling in
Texas was sustained by the Supreme Court of the
United States before whom il was brought on ap-
peal.
Mr. Tappan declared that there was not scin.
iilla of evidence even tending 10 prove that Wat
rous ever contemplated sitting AS Judge in his own
cause. Even Simon Mussena, who drew the memo
rial himself disappointed litigant in Judge Wat
rous's Court, and who has pursued the Judge with
ndefatigable zeal and pertlnacity, swears that he
has no knowledge of the truth of the charges con-
tanned in this memorial. The evidence is all the
other way, and shows that when, contrary TO Judge
Watrouss expectations and wishes, suit did find
s way into his Court, he took the earliest oppor.
tunty to disclose his interest, and made no order
or ruling in the case, only the one he was
obliged by law to make, and that was TO remove il
IN nearest (lrcuIt of the State of r,yas