The Southern Intelligencer. (Austin City, Tex.), Vol. 3, No. 14, Ed. 1 Wednesday, November 24, 1858 Page: 1 of 4
four pages : ill. ; page 22 x 17 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
SOUTHERN
BAKER, LAMBERT & PERRY,
VOL. 3.
Til E INTELLIGENCE'!),
IS PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY.
flffite on Hickory St.. Corner below DulTau's
'IN SWI'.NWON'S NEW BUII.DING.
TIlUHUl
TWO DULI.AIIS AND FIFTY OK NTS PKlt YKAIt,
l'AYAUl.K IN ADVANCE.
Sa Subscription will be received without
30 nrrumpanying it.
V Kit.MS:—Sluglu Copy, poryt-iir $ 3 3^
To Club —Five sent to one address 10 00
Ten «out tu one iuiilrt'Nit 18 50
Fifteen sent lo on address ti5 00
Twenty to one address UO 00
1UTR« OV ADVKUTIMIIVtt t
l?ie fiquare, tor one inserción, $ 1 00
One .Square, for every subsequent insertion, 50
One .Square, iix months, T. 7 00
One Square, one year . 10 00
A liberal discount will be tundes tram tho above ratea,
loradvertUmeuts of more than one square.
A square is ten lines nonpareil, (this sise tpye.) Fifteen
Hues in tlrevier type '
A^OriKCBYIRKTMi
For County Ofllcers, $ «r> 00
F«r State OUicers iO 00
BOOK AND JOB ftMII.VriNK:
Our m aerial being entirely new, we are prepared to
execute every variety r.t
■look Job,Curd,iiimI Oriitiiiieiititl ft*riailintf
i'. ruasonable rates, and in a stylo unsurpassed by any
office in the .South.
All business ciumiinlcatious addressed to
ItAliliR, LAH1BKKT A* PKItltY.
AUSTIN Cl'i Y DIRECTORY
B
MERCHANTS.
IlKMOM). John, Dimlor in .tupio awl fumy «Iry
pood., l'et«n* rcet. i« • — I y
1AHn, It. I)., Ue.ler 111 clothing, Coiigre Avenue.
J TilS ¡y
¡MIEKMAN .V C«i.. llio ., Pinli'i. in dry guoiln mid
gritrorijn, rerun "tret, nl'i-ly
HANCOCK, tleorgi-, Mrrrbaut. comer Pernn nuil
tTontre Afluir. iil~-l >' _
■fOIINSON k IIA1CItKI.t., Doler in <lry good., Con-
.* ftriM Avenue. nl-'-ly
AVAMil'Uli A Km . Under. in «tupio kikI liimy llry
J uoods. Congress Avenue. ^ ^ 11 ,
rlIKI.fS .t JOHNSTON, Under. lu «inpta «ni t.ni-y
drv iíiioiN. eor. llol. il'Arr «td i'wnsreii. Avi'tiue.
«BIlíSON A fon, Diiiilru lu diy goodi und groen
ríe*. PwiU WTfet. . Si-1--
OlllN.-ÜN Si HTKI.l'OX. Pelar. in dry gimd. nnd
irsMrisf fííintfMS inútil
Q1NN1MJ80N. Henry, Denier in cigars ano tobacco,
O U -njiHsa Avenue.
SAMPMON it IIKMIICKH. Dealers in dry goods and
K^at-eiieS* e r. Pecan aud Avenue. 13
MTONO «fc PATTERSON, Dealers in groceiies and pro-
L vUlnrs. Cnntgr**** .-fvnno 1S_
1
J
11
ir
MM PI'S Jfc Co . K
JL Cotisrass /Iveuue.
UmWs in groceries and provisions.
B
MECHANICS.
It 1754II, H. II , Mnnufnetur r and dealer in tin ware,
stoves, etc.. ere , Concreas Avenue.__
HIHUor. Joaiab, Watch and clock maker, Consjress
sf venue.
I^AIIN. a.. Manufacturer anil dealer in jewelry, Con-
J) ureas Avenue.
BraVII ti INOItAM, A'uutliern I'ire 1'roof roofer.,
(Toturréas Avi nne
Tj KNüKNKK, II
i> Av
Hoot and Shoe maker, Congress
Avwtu*.
IJ* XffLAKD 4- Co., J. \V„ dealers in furniture, Pecan
.ijereet. • _
I^OWI.KR, WM. M., Carriage maker and lllacksmitb.
Pe* aitrret. _ _
HKHZOO, II, Afercbant Tailor, no S, Zillcr's Bui d-
ir <r I'eean atrfl"f, ,
HOKNnKllOi:it, J., Tailor, in bis new shop, Cengreas
Av nu«*.
| OOMl.i A* «MIUIHTIAN,
curpnntors and joiueri
Conpres* Avenue
MIM/tWr, C. F., carpenter and joiner, Congress
Auenue. _ ^
OUPIIANT, Wm, silversmith and jeweler, Pecan
.street ' _
PKNUOl), H. R«>ot and shoe maker, Congress
zt venue.
nuTOmsTs.
"lJAKF.lt * HMYTI1, Apothecaiies and DrugiiisJs, Pe
csn srree\
IJlOWNKfF.ND, M W„ dealer in Dru^s, hardware and
lea<her, Coiiifresa Avenue.
CONFECTION AK IK S.
MÁMT2KY, Louis. Rcftatirant and Confectionary,
Ccngress Avenue.
MONTAIONK, O. P., French llakery and Confection-
ary. and hot eofT«w aaloon. Congress Avenue.
rjltLLM^N, Kd., Restaurant, Confectionary and Hak
ARTISTIC.
BARKF.1l, M. W , Photographic aud Ambrotypo (lal-
le t. Comrress Ucmio
HARPKR. A. 8., Ambrotypist, over Freeman's old
store, Pecan street.
O'RRIF.N, Woi.G., Ainbrotypist, at Bridger's old gal-
lory. Pecail street.
MISCELLANEOUS.
«.".wv
AUSTIN City l.ivery Sf.lili1. John T. Mll'nr. propri-
etor; Corner ConirrrM Avcmif and Hoi. d'nrc
O mitiií HOTRL. rurnt-r Conp-rM Avrtmio nnil I'ecmi
rJ Itrerr. K. B. .«iniili, Proprlntor,
WALPII'rl Liver r'tnlilo buck of lheSwen«on build-
t ill, ' D. WAI.PII.
Pkrtty Women.—11' wo linvu a weak
liosa, it Í8|<>ur nduiirution <jf pretty wo-
well, Tlit! following corrcct dcHcription
•of owe ef 'cm, must linvc b«n n written
Riy one who wuh similarly uffocted
A pretty wonnin is one of the insti-
tutions of the country—i n nngt l in dry
^tKJdt avd.gkny. She makes the niiii-
+liine, blue riky, (nnrtliof July, unci hup-
,pine«8, wherever she goes. Her path
<8 one of delicie roses, perfume nnd
^ffnty. She i'h u nwcut poem* written
in rlirc curln, choice calico and princi-
pio*. Men stand up before nor us so many
admiration points, to melt into cream
•and then into butter, tier words float
rtwud the car like nunlo, birds of Para-
■di ;, or the chimes of Sabbath bells —
Without her, society would lose its
truest attraction, the church its fittest
reliance, and any young man the very
best of comforts and compnny. Her in-
fluence and generosity restrain the vic-
ious, strengthen the. weak, raise the
luwlj, Sanuel-sliirt the heathen, and en-
courage the fahn hearted. Wheaevir
yon find the virtuous woman, you also
find pleAsaat firesides, boqn ts, clean
clothe*,order, good living, entle hearts,
piety, music, Tight and model institu-
tions generally. Site is the flower of
bimanity, a very Venas in dignity, and
* bar inspiration the breath of bearen.
Tlte Letter of Phil. N. Cuny
Jo Jiitlge John C. Wulroui, iu rtply lo l/u
ospersuns cost nyo<i the write ,i/ie Lrgis'ti
line, anil the pwjileif Ttxn.i, by Judge
IVnt (jut, in his answer to the Manorial
of Jociib Mussina, fur his impecchnieiit,
before the Commit tee on the Juilicitiry of
tie House of RepmenlnUvti of the. if. S.
Slit:—I very recently leanicil tllut,
in your answer to the proceedings
before Congress for your impeach-
ment, you have strongly insinuated
tliut 1 wits actuated by unworthy
motives, in introducing into our Leg-
islature the resolution requesting you
to resign the ollice which you hold.
Properly considered, your answer, in
this connexion,* is a slander, not only
upon nio as a Senator, and upon the
Legislature, by which tlmt resolution
was passed, but also, upon the great
body of the people of*Texas. You,
in your answer, 111 effect say, that it
was passed not for any oi the reasons
set forth in its preamble, but from
dishonest motives, and upon false
pretences. You say that this resolu-
tion was passed mainly because in
the case of the Union Bank of Lousi-
an a against Josiah S. StiiHbrd and
wife, you decided that our Statute of
limitations "did not begin to run
from the maturity of the contract, but
from the time the party pleading it, ¡
had been within the jurisdiction of
the Court."
In another portion of your answer
you say that, "at the tima these
resolutions were passed,you had tried
but two cases," and you add that "a
recent examination of the records of
your Court, enables you to state this
tact with perfect certainty.*'
While on the same subject you
say, "the mystery is solved by the
simple fact that one of these cases
involved the construction of our Stat-
ute of limitations, to which so many
of the emigrants in Texas had looked
asasure and certain protection against
those creditors whom they left be-
hind; and who," you ironically add,
"were so unreasonable as to follow
them into the country of their adop-
tion, and commenced suits upon the
liens which had been created upon
property to secure the payment of
these debts."
You also ironically add, "it was
indeed a just subject of complaint,
that the Statute of limitation was not
declared to be a sponge to wipe out
all the debts of the citizens of Texas."
You further say "if you hud put the
construction on the Statute required
by the exigencies of the case and the
popular cry; if you could liavtf been
driven from your position by any of
the means resorted to; if you had
consented to surrender your reason
and your judgment, and to tamper
with your conscience and your oath,
these resolutions would never have
been heard of," &c.
Then you impute the odium inwliich
you are hel.d to the fact that you "conld
not tamper with you conscience and
your oath;'' that you could not yield
to "the exigencies of the case and the
popular cry;" and declaré our Stat-
ute of limitations "to be asporige to
wipe out all the debts of the citizens
of Texas."
Though yon contend that this
resolution was passed because of your
unpopular decision upon the Statute
of limitation in the Stafford case, by
reference to the record, it will be
seen that the plea of limitation was
not filed in that case nntil the S8th
of June, 1848, more than three
months after the passnffe of the reso-
lutions; ftudthatyoiirdecisionTTHS not
tnnde upon that plea, until near four
months after its passage. Aud, in
order to give greater weight to your
assertion on this subject, you say that
you "had tried but two cases;" and
that a recent examination of the
records of the Court, enables you to
state the fact with perfect certainty.
Who can read this statement, and
resist tlic conviciion that you here
srntcd a mean and malicious false-
hood? Since this is proven upon you
oy the recordsofyour own Court,what
course will you now pursue? Will
you retract the falsehood as publicly
as you have told it, oryou will shame-
lessly endeavor to take the benefit of it?
You further say you are informed
that I am the brother-in-law of Mr.
Stafford, and you meanly insinuate
that I had a personal interest in the
que.stioii decided in his case, viz:
that he must have been "within the
jurisdiction of the Couit four years,
the time limited by the Statute,"
ueiore the claim was barred, if you
««(I been disposed to tell the truth,
ypu could have easily ascertained
that I was not the brother-in-law of
Mr. Stafford, and that I had resided
for near eight years within the juris-
diction of the Court, snd could not
have had the slightest interest in the
question.
Too also say that in the Stafford
esse you «'ordered his negroes, mors
thun a hundred in number, to be
placed in the hands of a receiver."
1 hat "a motion was mude by Mr.
Stafford's solicitors, that he should
be permitted to take his negroes into
possession upon giving a good and
sufficient bond." That you overruled
his motion, and that "this ruling «ave
great offence."
What good reason can bo given
for refusing to permit Mr. Stafford to
take the possession of his negroes
during the pendency of the litigation,
"upon his giving good and sufficient
bond ?" 1 understand that the prin-
cipal of the debt of the Union flank
against Stafford amounted to less
than forty thousand dollars, and that
of the Canal Bank, upon which suit
was also brought iu your Court, was
something like twelve thousand dol-
lars; that the litigation lusted about
seven years, and the proceeds of the
hire of more than a hundred negroes
amount to less than four thousand
dollars per year.
If they had been permitted to re-
main in the hands of Stafford upon
"a good and sufficient bond," would
not their proceeds, under anything
like prudent management, have been
nearly sufficient to pay the entire
indebtedness ? Were not matters so
managed, that the proceeds of their
hire and the proceeds ot their sale
were insufficient to pay these debts ?
lu other words, did not your refusal
to permit Stafford to keep the ne-
gioes uponagooiT and sulhcient bond,
cause tlie plaintiffs to lose a portion
of their debts, and did it not also
cause Stafford alid Wile to be entirely
ruined ?
The appointment of receivers is n
remedy exceedingly harsh—the ef-
fect is to take the possession of the
property ot the defendant before the
trial, uiul consequently before the
establishment of the plaintiff's da-
mand. It is in a great degree to
condemn the defendant before he is
heard. It is w practice which, I un-
derstand, is seldom resorted to in
other Courts—in yours, however, it
seems to be the favorite mode of pro-
ceeding.
The appointment of a receiver has,
I learn, been often asked for in your
Court, and probably never once iu
vain. Has the appointment of a re-
ceiver in your Court ever failed to
injure either the plaintiff' or the de-
fendant? and lias it not sometime
proven ruinous to both? But lias
any receiver ever failed to reap a
golden harvest? With the funds iu
hand, have not receivers frequently
accommodated other officers of the
Court ?
Tbo-igh the power of appoint-
ing receivers, it is said by those
learned in the law, belongs exclusive-
ly to equity jurisdiction ; it appears,
you are so partial to this mode ot
proceeding, that you have ordered
the appointment of one in some ad-
mirulty causes. When the schooner
Star and her cargo were respectively
seized for a supnused infraction of the
revenue laws ot the United States,
you went a little iu advance of what
had been done before, and made on
order that a receiver should be ap-
pointed. When Mr. Alexander me-
morialized Congress for your im-
peachment, you obtained from this
receiver aud the other officers of
your Court, certificates iu regard to
your conduct and character, and these
you published in the newspapers of
Texas.
An no other Court had ever made
an order for the appointment of a
receiver in such causes; as the causes
had remained on the docket of your
Court an unusual length of time; as
the claimant experienced more than
ordinary difficulty in bringing them to
trial; and as the fund was sufficiently
large to be tempting; this receiver
(whose Certificate you had published)
was called tipou in the public prints,
to state among other things, how
much you owed him, and from what
fund that indebtedness arose. This
he declined to answer, upon the
ground that lie was not bound to ex-
pose his privute matters to the pub-
lic.
When the cases were brought to
trial, you, much to the surprise ot
every one, decided them in favor of
the government—though it appeared
that, at the time the offence was ul-
ledged to have been committed, the
vessel was not within the waters of
the United States, and consequently
could have been guilty of no infrac-
tion of the laws.
After this decision was made, the
counsel for. the claimant filed a mo-
tion for a new trial, and after a full
argument, you overruled his motion;
Then an appeal had to be taken, or
the money in the hands of the re-
ceiver had to be paid. I understand
the receiver then oalled on the coun-
ael for the claimant, and requested
PROPRIETORS.
practicing in your Court, have been
lore
ced to submit to tho humiliating
condition of being compelled to trans-
fer their cuses anil their fees to some
one of these favorites of yours, in or
dor to save their clients from ruin ?
These favorites have never been averse
" Homing nrtrnuaff, nor set fcolun nuqbt in malice/'
AUSTIN CITY, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 34, 18 5s!
him to appeal, stating ut the same
time, that the money entrusted to
him could not be raised. He even
went so far us to offer to furnish the
appeal bond, if the appeal were taken.
This generous offer the attorney
declined to accept.
This receiver then left iu apparent
despair, but in a short time returned,
and told the attorney, if the motion
for a new trial were renewed, lie
thought it would be. successful.
Upott this hint, tho attorney of
course renewed it. The case hail
been twice fully argued—once upon
the trial, and again upon tho motion
—and you had, after iniiclfapparent
deliberation, twice decided against
the claimant. His attorney (having
by this time acquired confidence)
submitted his renewed motion upon
the siime law and the same evidence.
With just tho same lights before you,
you clearly saw that the renewed
motion for a new trial, should be
granted, and you granted it accord-
ingly-
By this time, Mfc Ulide, who was
tho claimant, had become fully sat-
isfied that the fund would never be
reached through your Court. Being
u subject of Great Britian, he pre-
sented his claim to tho (ioverninent
of the United States, and twenty-live
thousand dollars have been allowed
upon it. Then, as a mutter of course,
the funds in the hands of the receiver
belonged to our Government.
It was then, reasonably supposed
that payment of the fund could be
no longer delayed. But, by this
time, tTie receiver and his sureties
were all insolvent, and of course he
failed to pay. 1 understand that
tho ridiculous farce was then enact-
ed, of citing the receiver to appear
in your Court to show cause why he
should not be punished for his failure
to pay over the fund. When inter-
rogated with the professed view of
ascertaining whether ho was a wil-
ful defaulter, it is said that his an-
swer was ubout to the effect, "that
the money was gone." Some search-
lug inquiries were then propounded
to him by the counsel tor the gov-
ernnnint, and this, it is said, made
him, and probably your Honor also,
a little nervous.
About tliis time, I understand,
you kindly interposed, and remarked
to the attorney, "suppose the receiv er
does not choose to answer these ques-
tions-" As it had become apparent,
to all, that the matter was exceeding-
ly delicate, the examination closed,
leaving the Government swindled out
of thU large fund.
It is I think, now universally be-
lieved by all those having any ac-
quaintance with the subject, that the
receiver profited far less than some
of the other officers of the Court, by
this truly infamous transaction. If
he had appropriated tliis large fund
to his own list; and benefit, every one
knows tlmt, with his habits of busi-
ness and of economy, so far from
being insolvent, he must have
amassed no ordinary fortune.
It is known that he recently
held, and doubtless still holds, your
notes for a large sum of money—but
how that indebtedness arose anil
what influence it exerted upon your
decisions in those cases is for you to
explain, ami for other people to con-
jecture.
By attempting to explain your
course in those cases, you would in-
cur no hazard; for the most signal
failure, could, 1 think, make sus-
picion against you, no stronger than
it now is. Your rulings in these
cases have attracted no ordinary at-
tention, aud they have never tailed
to make you a fruitful source of
laughter and contempt.
Those well acquainted with your
character, will derive no little amuse-
ment from reading that portion of
your answer which relates to the
specifications in the preamble ol the
resolution requesting you to resign
the office which you hold.
If an unsophisticated stranger were
to read what you have there said, he
might be betrayed into the belief
that you were a man of a nice and
delicate sense of honor, and that
(rreat injustice had been done you by
the passage of the resolution.
Let us see what are the merits of
your complaints in this particular.
The first of these specifications, is to
the effect that it is bcliccal that you,
while seeking the office ol Judge,
gave legal opinions iu cases aud
questions, &c., which would render it
necessary to transfer a large number
of suits thereafter to be com-
menced, out of the State for
trial. Whnt injustice wns done
you by this specification ? Did you
not gife to James S. Holman, while
you were tcekirig tho office of Judge,
opinions to the effect that the Mason
claims, amounting to hundreds of
leagues, Was legal and valid ? Did
you not give one or more opinions to
the same effect ojtir you had been
appointed to tlmt office? Did you
not admit to Judge Peter W. Gray,
or to Hon. M. M. Potter, or to both,
that you had given such an opinion
after you hud received your appoi it-
ment? And has not each ol them
stated on oath, that you made such
an admission ? Did you not give
some of these opinions after these
claims had been denounced by two
different constitutions us fraudulent
and void? Did not your opinion
enable Mr. Iiobnau to sell *omoof
these claims, ami realise a large sum
of money from the speculation ?—
Did you not, while seeking the same
office, repeatedly give tho opinion
that the truudulent certificates were
valid in law, and would be establish-
ed ? Have yon not repeatedly given
opinions to the same effect since your
appointment? But why complain
of anything in tliisspecification, when
far worse things have been recently
proven upon you ? Tho late inves-
tigation shows "that while holding
the olliee ot Judgo of the District
Court ot the United States, you were
engaged with other persons iu specu-
lating in immense tracts of land
situated within your judicial District,
the titles to which you knew were iu
dispute, and where litigation was
inevitable,"
"That you allowed your Court to
be used as an agent to aid yourself
nuil partners in speculation iu luuds,
and to secure an advantage over other
persons, with, whom litigation was
apprehended. That you sat as Judge
on the trial of cases where you were
personally interested iu questions in-
troduced and that you "participat-
ed in the improper'procurement of
testimony to advance your own
and partner's interest."
Since the proceedings before the
committee of Congress havo thus
clearly established that yon have not
even scrupled to prostitute your
Court to the base purposes of your
own speculations, do you think that
anything iu that specification bus
done you the slightest injustice ?
Tho second specification is that "it
is believed that you, while in office,
aided aud assisted certain individuals,
if not directly interested yourself, iu
an attempt to fasten upon this Stu*«
one of the most stupendous fraud
ever practiced upon any country or
any people, the effect of which would
have been to rob Texas of millions ol
acres of her public domain, her only
resource for the payment of her nub
ic debt."
Tho third and last specification is,
' that your conduct in Court and
elsewhere,in derogation ofyourduty a*
a judge, has been marked by such
prejudice and injustice towards tlw
rights of the State, and divers of tlw
citizens, us to show you do not deserve
the high station you occupy."
Since the passage of the resolutions
ic has been ascertained that you Were
guilty of much more than was charged
against you in the second specification,
for it is not only known that you,
while in office, assisted certain indi-
viduals in their efforts to establish the
fraudulent laud certifícate*, but tliut
you had a direct interest "in fastening
upon theStato that stupendous fraud."
No fact in regard to these claims,is bet-
ter known, than that you were their
strongest advocate both before and
a/lcr you became a Federal Judge.
It was a matter of piblic notoriety
that you were not only the advocate
of tliesj claims, but tliut you caused
suits to be instituted in your own
Court and also in the Courtsof the
State lor their establishment. Were
you not at every trial which occurred
before the passage of the resolution/'
And were you, on any of these occa-
sions, an indifferent spectator?—
When tho first caso was tried in the
Court of the State at Galveston, were
you not personally present watching
ti with intense interest at every stage
of the proceedings I >id you not, to
some extent, participate as counsel on
the part of the claimants?
Though tho State was the only p ir-
ty interested in the defense, did you
not, without due notice to the govern-
ment, transfer f>r trial beyond the
limits of the State, these suits that
were instituted in your Court?—
When you removed them to New Or-
leans for trial, did you not leave un-
finished the business of your own
Court, and go with llieru to that city,
to give to these claims the weight of
your personal and official influence ?
And would you now pretend that you
hud no interest whatever in tho result?
All knew that these claims were based
exclusively upon fraud and perjury,
and would you now place your advo
cuey upon the ground, that your sym
pathies were upon the side of fraud?
The public are no longer at a loss
to determine why it was that Eliol
Smith"- left Texas, unit domiciliated
himself in Arkansas for the more priv-
ilege of iiistifoving his suit iu your
Court, against thO^ojtizens of Austin.
He know the iniquity «4' his case, and
that you wore just the to try
it. This was nothing moreSlmn an
action of trespass to try the titV.fo
limits. Why was it placed on tli
Chancery docket of your Court? And
to having it understood, that in your
C\ urt their services are indispensable
tohqccess. This practice has become
why did you decide that it should l o so fir nly fixed, that some of them
" ■ ' have bccimje not only presuming, but
even ¡nsolenfc^
You have imputed improper mo-
tives not only tonic, but to all others
who have been iu anyvwuy connect-
ed with this prosecution" a^fiinst yott.
To Mr. Jacob Mussina, wbo Bí^ni-
oriulized Congress for your impeach-
ment, and Mr. S. Mussina, his brother
and agent, who attended to the mat-
ter for him, you have paid the most
especial attention. You say that Mr.
Jacob Mussina is to you an utter
stranger; and that with Mr. Simon
Mussina you hud a slight acquaiut-
nce, before the commencement ol
the suit which led to this investiga-
tion ofyour conduct. You add that
your feelings towards him were of tho
very kindest character; not on his
own account, but because of bis being
a brother-in-law of tho Rev. Isaac
thero tried? Wai it bocause you
wished to deprive tho defendants of
the right of trial by Jury ? —
Had tho caso been submitted to
you, this would have been the crown
ing act ofyour iniquity; for who, that
knows you, c m doubt but that by your
decision, tho e tizens of Austin would
havo lost their homo.*, and tho State
its Capital ?
It ¡6 known that you were engaged
in making locations upon tho Islands
on our sua cotu-t, and upon the Suit
Lakes iu the Western portion of t!io
State, when you knew that they had
been reserved by a special law for
the payment of our revolutionary debt.
Has there been an attempt to prac-
tico any fraud of magnitude, upon
Texas, wiiliin tho last twenty years,
in which you did not either conceive
tlie design, or act ii conspicuous part
in its execution?
But in the face of till this, you, after
the passage of tho resolution, went be-
fólo tho Grand Jury of your own
Court, and solemnly assorted, that.you
had no interest in the fraudulent land
certificates, m order to get them, as
far as it could bo done, to whity-wosh
your character.
Though you had dono this, you had
so little regard for your reputation,
that within a very short time thereaf
ter, nnd wliilo the litigation was still
pending, you made a contract by which
you sold three of these fraudulent cer-
tificates, (which were unlawfully pur-
chased under your supervision, at an
average price of fifteen dollars each,)
to Mr. Richard J. Lowe, for property
in the city of Philadelphia, estimated
at the sum of six thousand dollars,
and you guaranteed to make Mr. Lowo
a good title ao soon as the Supreme
Court of the United States should do-
oido in favor of the New York Com-
pany which you originated.
By selling those claims, you vec
guilty of an offense, the punishment of
which, ululer our laws, is thirty-nine
lashes on the baro back. It is true,
that the prosecution has been long
«iUce barred by our law of limitation,
<o tliut you muy regard yourself as in-
debted in no small degree to that pro-
vision of tho stututo. But let us Biip-
poso that you had been duly prosecu-
ted for this oftenso against law and
honesty, and "that you had beon con-
victed, as you surely must have
been. Let us farther suppose that you
had then been tied to a public whip-
ping poHt, and received thirty-nine
lashes on your bare buck. What
course would you have then pursued ?
Would you, from n feeling of shame,
havo hidden yourself from the public
|ri r.ef or would you have drawn your
shirt upon your bleeding back, nnd
have gone upon the Federal Bench, to
try causes between honest men/ The
latter would doubtless have been the
course which you would have pursued,
since you and your counsel have re-
peatedly snd strenuously contended
before thu committee, that such would
have boon your right, and wince such
a course would have been in strict ac-
cordance with the delicacy of your
character?
Who would havo had the shameless
effrontery to attempt to hold the late
tnrin of the Court at Galveston but
yourself? You hail boon charged with
corruption, three-fourths of the mem-
bers of the two committees had re-
ported resolutions for your impeach-
ment, and you stood in the light of a
culprit before this whole country.
Strange as it may appear, the hot-
ter feelings of our uuturo seem lo be
utterly unknown to you. You have
aiot, only proven yourself in be i ti < n
omy to tin; best interests of tho State
in which you claim to reside, but
you have not shown the slighlest
sympathy for even the lawyers of
Texas, a class to which you once be-
longed. Oil the contrary ; have you
not driven them frwn the practise
before you, by importing from abroad,
and fosterifig around you a set of fa-
vorites ofyour own selection, to mon-
opolize the.business of your Court?
llave nof some of these, like yourself,
been ill deadly hostility to tho best
interests of the State? Have you
not carried this feeling to such an ex-
tent. that no lawyer now enters upon
the trial of a cause in your Court, no
matter how just, with any hope of
success, unless he bus associated with
him some one of the clique of law-
yers, who are known to have Influ-
ence with you Has not this been
clearly understood and practiced up-
on for more than ten yean ? How
often has it Iwpjieufld, that lswjm*
Henderson, &e., to whom, you say
" you were indebted for many kind-
nesses, and that your gratitude" to him
is to tliis day deep and glowing." I
another portion ofyour answer, yoi
submit that Mr. Jacob Mussina " liui
been treated by you with an unusua
aud unprecedented degree of mildnes*
and forbearance."
Let us see what are the views
tuken by the Committees of Congress
which havo investigated thechargesin
the Memorial ofMr. Mussina, for your
Impeachment. Tho Committee of
the session before the last, reported,
" that during the progress of the cause,
(of ('a vasos against Stillman,Mussina
aud others,) the well established rules
of law und evidenoo were repeatedly
disregarded by you, and in all cases
iu favor of tho complainants, and
against the defendants." They add,
that "the teftimony ol' interested *it-
jirojstS was received in evidence,
against the objection of the defend1
ants; and tho deposition nnd affida-
vits of (Wm. G.Hale, Ksq.,)the Attor-
ney for the complainnuts, was rcceiv-
:d iu evidence, against the objection
of the defendants, although it Wu
shown by his own testimony, that ho
was prosecuting the suit under an
ugreuinent of champerty—that is, h«
was to share tho proceeds of the sale
of the property, after it should have
been recovered und sold." ¡
They further reported, that " yoq
allowed the use of translations of im-N
portent documents, tending to prove
the title of the complainants to the
property in question, which bad been
mudo out by (Mr.Hale,)the same At-
torney who wss by the agreement to
share in the profits of the suit, wheu
the land should be recovered und
sold, without acting under the sanc-
tions of an oath, and without- the
translations being verified by oath.—
And you also overruled the objec-
tions of the defendants to the use of
such translation . There was sonu
record testimony before the Commit
tee, showing these trunslutioue wen
false," &c.
They further reported that you as
sorted, when you rendered the dtcret
in the Oaviisos case, that you hat
seen or conversed with the parties
and that they had consented to, oi
were satisfied with it, when "in truth
and iu fact, you had not seen or con-
vertí '<1 with Mr. Jacob Mussina, or
any person representing his interest;
iiii.-l the pi ótense, tliut he consented
to tlie decree, or was satisfied with it,
was without foundation or excuse."
Tin y also suid in their report,
that "there wits collusion between
the solicitors of the complainants, and
a part of the solicitors for the defend-
ants; tliut Mr. Jacob Mussina was de-
frouded and betrayed by such collu-
sion ;" that the evidence satisfied
them tliut u part of the defendants
were concerned in the conspiracy ;
and that you knew of the coIIubíoo
during (he pendency of the suit; ond
that you alluded toaionversation be-
tween yourself and one of tho solici-
tors who whs concernid in the collu-
sion, when you remarked "that the
defendants were satsfied with, the
decree." They say in addition that
they I ove reluctantly come to the
coiiclufion that your conduct in this
case " < annot be explained, without
supposing that you were actuated by
other than upright and just motive ;"
und th«y unanimously reported • res-
olution'for your,impeachment.
Four members ot the Com mitt e«
that investigated the «ame charge
at the last suasion of Co'.mree , re-
i
i
4ti
Í
'i
t Í
*1 1
4 ....
i'm
1*
i
continued
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
The Southern Intelligencer. (Austin City, Tex.), Vol. 3, No. 14, Ed. 1 Wednesday, November 24, 1858, newspaper, November 24, 1858; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth179977/m1/1/: accessed April 27, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History.