Treanor, claiming to be agent as aforesaid. This man Treanor appears to be a notorious person in the district of the Rio Grande, to judge from the testimony of Brevet-Major W. W. Chapman, of the army, when stationed at Fort Brown, who briefly describes him in a public official letter, as "a man without character or standing in the community." Sufficient indications of his character, however, are given in the part assumed by him and his confederate, Hale, in this Cavazos case. It appears from the record of this case that at least five of the Mexican families or parties claimed to be represented, had never given any authority whatever for the institution of the suit; and as to one of the five, Treanor himself was constrained to admit that his interest was diametrically opposed to the claim, for the establishment of which he had been made a party plaintiff. Here, then, in the very inception of the suit, we see fraud prominently and boldly standing out. In the whole progress of the suit, too, we remark John Treanor and William G. Hale as the managers throughout. Their numerous affidavits support the case to the end. In no part of the proceedings do we find the complainants acting or participating. It is Treanor, the "man without character or standing," and William G. Hale, the agent and attorney of the land company, I have been referring to, the intimate friend of Judge Watrous.
It appears, moreover, that for purposes of collusion it was managed that Hale and Johnson, the two lawyers imported for purposes already referred to, should take opposite sides. Further than this, and to still greater outrage of justice, it appears from the record that James N. Reynolds, a member of this New York land company, is appointed by Judge Watrous United States Commissioner at Brownsville, to take testimony. Thus the company, or its members, were represented by their agents and attorneys, who act as counsel on different sides of the case, and by Reynolds, the active manager of their affairs, who, as United States Commissioner, took the principal testimony for the defense, which it evidently appears to have been the object of the company to defeat.
The fact of collusion, the committee of investigation in the Thirty-fourth Congress have determined unanimously, and in passing judgment upon it they say:
"In the case of Cavazos et al. vs. Stillman et al., the record affords sufficient evidence to satisfy the committee that there was collusion between the solicitors for the complainants and a part of the solicitors for the defendants, and that a part of the defendants, or one of them at least, Jacob Mussina, was defrauded and betrayed by such collusion. They would further state that there is evidence to satisfy them that a part of the defendants were concerned in the conspiracy, and that the judge of the court knew of the collusion during the pendency of the suit."
I may also suggest here that it will be found profitable to fix attention upon the man Treanor, as hereafter he will be found figuring in another important matter in active connection with Judge Watrous.
I am disinclined to trespass upon the time of the Senate by following this Cavazos case through its tortuous progress, and to its final acts of injustice and oppression. What little I have said of the patent fraud, in its inception and management, will prepare the minds of honorable Senators to understand the conclusions arrived at by the committees of investigation in the House, as to
