The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-12-15

thereby secured their transfer 10 New Orleans and that
he was cogniant Of the fact then he would vote
for his impeachment because e would be willing 70 vote
for his conviction but the evidence alter careful eA
animation and REORGANIZATION, failed 10 convince him
that he pryy 10 any sich Interest He thought 1t
might be inferred that the parties in Alabama had CON
sutaton and came 20 the conclusion that II would be
better TO try the in the federal courts but he be
leyed the testimony aud the correspondence between
Iapsley and Lengue and Lapsey and Hughes utter
y inconsistent with the idea that the Texas party
parties TO any such original arrangement
Mr. VAILANDIGHAM, Of Ohio, maintained that
impeachment not a criminal proceeding at ALL and
that the House not grand inquest nor grand
jury, and all analogy drawn from chat proposition tended
10 confusion The House certainly did not possess the
right to try the case for that belonged to the Senate
and he had not made up his mind of the guft limo
of the accused They were sitting IN their repre-
sentative capacity aud they had not she right 30
quit they should send the TO the Senate for nves
CATION He would be obliged to vote for the inpeach
ment
Mr. BRYAN, of Texas referred to the speech OF Mr.
REAGAS in which that gentleman had asked for the
presentation of the statement that General Austin had
purchased the three eevenleague grants Of land and
had made Samuel d. Williams his attorney for the sale
He had not laid the paper before the House then because
he did not think that that the time and place TO pre-
sent it, He convinced Of this for since in CONVEX
sation with the chairman Of the committee Mr. Hous-
TON he said he would object 10 its presentation the
ground that it not evidence before the committee
As part of his speech however, he would give it, He
then read two separate statements made by Stephen f.
Austin claiming the ownership Of this property and
sorting that the power of attorney TO take possession and
sell it was given 10 Samuel Nj. Williams The first
statement was made i'm 1883 the second in 1885, when
Mr. Austin solicited aid OF the people Of the United States
as one of the commissioners of Texas Mr. Austin also
stated that the tract in question sold with his
sent If the other charges against Judge Warous aid
Mr. baseless that the power of attorney
forged they were entitled to consideration
Mr. HOUSTON, OF Alabama, said the gentleman seem
ed to be presenting testimony to the House. and he de
sired to know whether the gentleman IN possession
Of during the last session. and if be had the evidence
them why ne did not offer it to the committee for their
action
Mr. BRYAN replied that he told the chairman and
several other members OF the committee he had this tes-
tmony at home. lie told Mr CHAPMAN and Mr.. Biz
LIsGnuRsr and when he the floor last session he
was called TO order by the Chairman, and the point Of
order was sustained by the House He then intended to
declare to the House the fact.
Mr. HOUSTON had conversation with Mr.. BRYAN
but not upon the evi ence that he had given to the
House 1t was in reference 70 the extent to which his
uncles character would be connecc WIN ene inVesuga
ton He told him there nothing be,<fe the com
mittee duplicating his uncle character He renSmpes
hearing the gentleman say that he believed his brother
probably had communication from his uncle, and
he suggested to him the propety Of having his brothers
evidence before the committee.
Mr. BRYAN did not think it necessary TO preserve the
reputation Of Stephen Il. Austin that any testimony
should be taken that point. e acquainted the chair
with the facts IL not for him to point out the
duty of that committee
Mr. HOUSTON remarked that IL he remembered cor
rectly Mr. BRYAN had corresponed with his brother
the subject As a member of the committee, he
willing to have his brother before it, for he wanted
er port evidence to control the case.
Mr.. BRYAN thought they directly at issue TO
the subject matter of the correspondence He did say he
would correspond with his brother, but to his
coming here 1t to the existence of the papers.
1t not convenient to bring the papers here and it
not for him to indicate the to be pursued by the
committee. The cold shoulder turned upon him by
the chairman and other members of the committee, and
it only from high of duty that he APP
preached the members Of the committee at all.
Mr.. CHAPMAN, of Pennsylvania wished to know
whether not he included in the category of those
who showed him the cold shoulder
3 Mr.. BRYAN replied that he not
Mr.. REAGAN, of Texas, said these charges had been
made against Judge Watrons before the Thirty fifth Con-
rcss and investigated and these papers had been
brought forward until four days ago, when his colleague
promised to disclose the fact stated to day He then pro-
ceeded to quote the affidavit of DR. Hewitso who sworc
that Gonzales executed the title himself and the testi
mony of others, to show that the LIE Vega title based
upon infamous forgery If General Austin Ind good
title it did not affect the question to whether not
the title of Williams good, or the question to
whether the power TO locate and to sell vested in
Williams.
Mr.. BRYAN inquired whether his colleague intended
to mpute any improper motives TO him when he said he
intended to crush down the investigation.
Mr.. REAGAN wanted TO say, for ALL that be i'm.
puted improper motives to his colleague If he
induced to take wrong position he believed it from
honest convictions of duty.
Mr., BRYAN remarked that, although he had stated
that he had the paper in his possession had call
ed upon him for it. Mr.. REAGAN had not called upon
him.
Mr.. REAGAN stated that he had not called upon him
because he thought the statement would be made to the
House.
Mr.. BRYAN was disposed to show the papers TO any
who would call upon him. He had no desire to
withhold them from any one but he desired to do Justice
TO injured man. who charged with perjury and
forgery Hewitson and lie Vega might have to
lie lie Vega interested to the amount of S225 600
and IL enough to affect his integrity. When in the
possession of this information to withhold the papers
could be wrong In Difference to the resolutions of the
Legislature Of his State nstructng him to examine the
without expressing any opinion to the guilt in
Of the accused, he would yield of his per
sona Independence and vote for sending the the
Senate
Mr.. BINGHAM, of Ohio was also in favor of sending
the to the Senate What evidence had they of the
crimnalty of any except that he intended the
sequence of his act z The consequence of Judge
Watrous act in transferring the title transfer Of
Jurisdiction from the court of Texas to the injury of other
parties
Mr. HOUSTON said the pressure upon all sides induced
him to move the previous question.
Mr.. STEPHENS, of Georgia, desired to speak. He
would not occupy more than half an hour
Mr. HOUSTON declined to withdraw his demand IL
the House did not wish to close the debate they would
vote down the previous question.
Considerable discussion ensucd, when finally the ques-
ton take and the House refused to second the pre-
vious question--ayes G2, 90.
Mr.. STEPHENS then obtained the floor and
On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee the House