Daily national Democrat., 1859-10-16
Language used by Mr.. BrOderick on his
Death Bed.
The following letter, published in the S.
F. Times. will explain itself:


F. Times. will explain itself:
1872 KEARNY ST, SAN FRAScIsco,
October IS, 1852.
To G. A WAsHBuRN, ESQ o-DEAR SIR: |
have received your note of this morning re-
guessing me to state the language made use
of 10y the late Senator Bruderiek. on the oc
easi0n mentioned in your note.
know not the Object of your inquiry, or
the use to be made OF my answer; but have
ever made it principle TO state the TRUTH
when it is called for, without inquiring par
iiculnrly into the motives or oil iects OF those
who call for it, Therefore will say in an
swer to your request, that the late Hon. u
C. Broderick, on the day of the duel after he
was wounded, and before reaction had taken
place. when was standing over him, as one
If his medical advisers trying to calm him.
and telling him not to exert himself too much
in talking, he holding one of my hands in
both Of his. did use the following language,
and did address the same to me, ,iz II am
kWed-I am murdered - because / acas op
posed to the ertenSion of slavery and a corrupt
administration"
pass no judgment upon the propriety of
the remarks of Mr. Broderick, but as to the
question, What did he say there is no doubt
casion.
He said many other things but as they are
not inquired for in your note, it is unnecessa-
ry to repeat them.
remain, very respectfully, yours,
|. RowELL
We believe that DR.. Rowel is an honora-
ble man, and that he would not, for any pur'
pose, state what was untrue. 1t is more than
likely, therefore that Mr. Broderick did make
use of the language ascribed to him But
we protest against the construction which
has been given to it by the organ of the Re
publican party Mt San Francisco. 1t is well
known that Mr.. Broderick was opposed to
the present corrupt Administration. 1t is
also well known that he was opposed to the
extension of slavery, in the manner sought to
be accomplished by the Lecompton party
Indeed, like other Northern Democrats, he
may have been opposed to its extension al
together, while his belief in the doctrine Of
popular sovereignty wonld yet prevent him
from opposing the will of the people, if they
saw fit, in any of the Territories, to establish
the institution of slavery in their midst As
far as his own vote was concerned, had he
been called upon in Territory where the
question was pending, he might have voted
against slavery, because he did not believe it
was policy to extend it. But this would
not hinder him, nor was he hindered, from
the full and complete endorsement of the
doctrine of popular sovereignty. as the car
dinal principle of the Douglas Democratic
creed.
That he meant, by the declaration quoted
to says that he was opposed to the extension
of slavery in the sense in which the Repub-
lican party are opposed to it, is contradicted
by his entire political career, and is not
worthy of belief
He simply wished to say that, because he
had opposed party supporting a corrupt
Administration and wishing to force slavery
where it was not wanted, he had been put
out of the way. This is the only fair inter
pretation of his words