the consummation of the conspiracy, and fraud by the wrongful decisions of Judge Watrous on the side of his confederates, Hale and Treanor.
The committee of the Thirty-fourth Congress conclude their report by saying:
"The committee have examined numerous records, consisting of pleadings, orders of court, affidavits and depositions, and after a patient and laborious research, they have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the conduct of Judge Watrous in the case above referred to can not be explained without supposing that he was actuated by other than upright and just motives; that in his disregard of the well-established rules of law and evidence he has put in jeopardy and sacrificed the right of litigants."
In the present Congress we have a report from a moiety of the Judiciary Committee, which, on the Cavazos branch of the case, presents the following summary and well-sustained judgment:
"Every irregular or wrongful decision of the judge was in favor of the complainants and against the defendant, Mussina, and those occupying a similar position, and was to their particular injury. By maintaining the proceeding as one rightfully brought on the chancery side of the court, these defendants were illegally deprived of their right to a trial by a jury, and were compelled to submit to an adjudication upon their rights to the property in such a manner that the decision would be final and conclusive as to the title of the property, instead of one upon the right of possession, which would at once have been pronounced, on the law side of the court in an action of ejectment. By maintaining jurisdiction over the case, when a portion of the defendants, as well as the plaintiffs, were aliens, these defendants were deprived of their rights to have the questions involved in it decided by the courts of Texas, to whose jurisdiction they were rightfully amenable, and whose laws were to govern in that decision. By admitting incompetent witnesses to testify, their rights were affected by evidence given by persons who had an interest in the litigation adverse to theirs. And, finally, they are prevented from having the decision against them reviewed in the appellate court by the failure of the judge to perform his full duty to them in facilitating the exercise of the right of appeal, given to them by the law, from motives of public policy, for their own private advantage; and that, too, when there is reason to believe that the decree by the court is not in conformity with the principles of law, as recognized in Texas. Such a course of action continued through the whole progress of a cause, in favor of some of the parties and against others, is, to our minds, conclusive evidence of the existence of a purpose, on the part of the judge, to favor one party or set of parties at the expense and to the injury of others, which is inconsistent with an upright, honest, and impartial discharge of the judicial functions. And this, we believe, constitutes a breach of that 'good behavior' upon which, by the Constitution, the tenure of the judicial office is made to depend."
It appears that a decree was rendered in the Cavazos suit, in the month of January, in favor of Cavazos and others.
After the rendition of the decree, suits in ejectment became necessary. At this juncture we find Judge Watrous again acting and making a wrongful and tyrannical order for the exclusion from jury service in his court (on the regular panel) of the citizens of the four Rio Grande counties of Cameron, Hidalgo, Star, and Webb.
