Page:Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston of Texas (1884).djvu/571

Rh collusion, and for the betrayal of parties who stood in the way of the land speculations of Judge Watrous and his confederates. Therefore, this is illustration the second.

It will be seen hereafter, as I proceed toward the completion of the narrative of facts I have undertaken, that the power of attorney alluded to plays a very important part in the scheme of fraud by which Judge Watrous was attempting to appropriate an immense tract of land situated within his judicial district.

The legal title to the La Vega grant was conveyed by League to John W. Lapsley, of Alabama, who held the property in trust for the several parties in interest, including Judge Watrous.

In the deed of conveyance there is to be remarked a very singular feature. There is no general warranty of title; but there is a special and extraordinary warranty given in the following terms:

"The said party of the first part (League) binds himself, his heirs, and legal representatives to warrant and forever defend the title by this indenture granted to the said party of the second part, his heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, against the said Thomas de la Vega, and the party of the first part, the respective heirs and assigns, and all others claiming, or to claim, by, under, or through the said Thomas de la Vega, and the party of the first part, or either of them."

This warranty, it is to be observed, is against the party's own vendor. It applied to the chain of title from him, the all-important link of which was the power of attorney to Williams to sell the land. It shows that in the transaction at Selma, Alabama, to which Judge Watrous was a party, the power of attorney was a subject of concern, and probably of debate. It suggests that even then, by some of the parties, the denunciation was anticipated, which was afterward made, of that title-paper as a forgery, and a forgery, too, in the procurement of which Judge Watrous himself had assisted.

This power of attorney purports to have been made in the year 1832. It appears that no attempt was made to prove it up until 1855. Thus it was kept secret, or nothing revealed of it, for about twenty-three years. It is true that Robert Hughes testified that he withdrew a power of attorney from the general land office in 1854—twenty-one years after its purported date; that there was no mark on it showing when, or by whom it was filed, or that it was ever filed; nor is there any mark or evidence on the document to show that the power of attorney, the present subject of discussion, was the paper withdrawn from the land office by Robert Hughes—as he was careful not to leave in the land office any copy of the paper he withdrew.

I have requested, in the progress of this narrative, that honorable Senators would regard attentively the man Hewitson, who appears to have been one of the heaviest suitors in Judge Watrous' court, and a partner of League and of Hughes in the subject-matter of the litigation, and of whose use by the court, in support of perhaps the most monstrous of its frauds, I promised some revelations. He, too, is now called in by Judge Watrous, through his counsel, to perform a service at the sacrifice, as the sequel will show, of all that honest men hold most dear—such sacrifices and such service, however, as seem to be the price of the Judge's favor.