"Question. How much space did the statement occupy upon paper?
"Answer. I can not recollect. Not a great deal.
"Question. Did you take that part to Alabama?
"Answer. I did."
Now, it appears, in relation to the testimony of Hughes himself, that at the time of the alleged conversation at Galveston, referred to by League, he (Hughes) was absent from his home at Galveston; that these two gentlemen could never have compared notes, as alleged, at the time of receiving the depositions; and that the first time that Hughes had' ever seen the depositions was in August, three months after League alleged to have been in conference with him on the subject of the power of attorney. Here is the testimony of Hughes, establishing these conclusions beyond a doubt:
"Question. When was Hale employed in the case of Lapsley vs. Spencer?
"Answer. I do not know, certainly; I was absent from home when information was received of the taking of the deposition of Tomas de la Vega, in Mexico; when I returned, I was informed of what had occurred. The deposition was shown to me, and I was informed that Mr. Hale had been employed to assist in the case. It was a short time after it had been taken — two or three months—that I received information of it." ... .
"Question. When did you first see the deposition of Tomas de la Vega?
"Answer. I saw it at the time I spoke of, when I returned home some time last summer, and when, as I said before, Mr. Hale was employed as assistant counsel; that was the first time I saw it; that was a week or ten days before the election on the first Monday in August."
Mr. League has unquestionably committed himself in that part of his statement which I have quoted. It seems to be a strange and impossible hallucination, that he should mistake conferences, which he undoubtedly had with Judge Watrous, on the subject of these depositions, and of the best means to defeat them, as having taken place with Robert Hughes, unless he regarded them as Siamese twins.
The most glaring contradictions appear in this man's (League's) testimony, as taken from day to day before the committee, exposing his desire not so much to develop the truth as to shield Judge Watrous, the great he'ad and director of the conspiracy.
In further contradiction of the statement he had made of conferences held exclusively with Hughes, it appears not only that Hughes could not have been a party to such conferences, but that League did actually converse and consult, at the time named, personally, fully, and intimately, with Judge Watrous himself, on the subject of the depositions taken in Mexico. The fact is drawn out of him, on an examination some days subsequent to that on which he denied having conferred with the judge on the subject, that he, the judge, advised that he should go and consult the Alabama parties relative thereto.
With respect to this advice, I may make a single suggestion. There is but one course that is probable that honest men would have adopted, in an alleged discovery, such as was communicated to Judge Watrous and his confederates, in the depositions taken at Saltillo. Supposing that these parties had no previous knowledge of the fact of the forgery of this power
