Daily national Democrat., 1859-07-28
Latham, the Time-Server.

on Tuesday night last, had the merit of being
new to the larger portion of the assemblage
who had never before heard Milton Shake
speare "splurgc," and they thought it was ;
pretty good effort But with his merits al
an orator we have nothing TO do, nor do W,
conceive that they are of any special con
cernment to the people at this time. Their,
are matters of much graver moment eonnec
ted with the name and character of Milton
5. Latham in this canvass. Accusations ar
made against him of oifenses which are blacl
and damnable, and with so much circumstan
tiality in the manner in which they ar
brought, that something moro is required a
his hands than the general staggering denia
which he gave them ON Tuesday night. II,
is accused of having attempted at one time tc
bribe the Supreme Court of California. III
never mentions this charge, but says that all
that has been said against him in this cam
pagn is false and slanderous. Parties are re-
ferred to who, it is said, k,,ow that he is gull
ty, and are called upon to state what they
know They remain silent because they
do not choose to speak unless Mr.. Latham
himself calls upon them to do so. Why does
he not demand of them a statement to the
public involving matter of such deep and
vital interest to him? The inference is in
evtable, that he is afraid to have them speak
out If everything is right, if the accusations
are false, why should he have any fears about
calling upon Judge Heydenfelt, Judge Bald
win, Judge Bryan, and the other parties
named in connection with this affair, and
who are said to be cognizant of the fact that
he (MiltonS. Latham) did undertake to bribe
the Supreme Court of this State, while Judge
Murray was on the bench that for that Of
fense, he was forbidden to practice in that
Court, and that the Attorney General of the
State was instructed, but neglected, to prose
cute him for the crime? True, Latham's Or
gans have denied the charge, but has Latham
ever denied it himself? Has he ever alluded
to it in any shape or form? He has taken
particular pains, on several occasions, to spe-
city and answer or attempt to answer other
charges, but never does he specify or answer
this one. His organs claimed that he was
not bound to answer any accusations which
were not definite; that is to say, that they
must be made upon the authority of some
man who would not refer to some other man,
but would say that he himself stated thus
and so of his own knowledge They want
ed, they said, something tangible. Very well,
Mr.. John White, editor of the San Francisco
News, declares that lie and Judge Bryan
heard Judge Murray speak of the transaction.
Now, here is something tangible What
does Mr.. Latham have to say in regard to it ?
Nothing
AS to the charge of the larceny of a letter
from the papers of Judge Tilford, Mr. La
than says he will answer that at Nevada.
As it is a matter between him and Senator
Broderick, we shall leave it where it is for
the present, promising that he will have a
good time answering it.
Mr.. Latham says that he stands by the
Administration Of James Buchanan-thinks
Mr.. Buchanan has ever acted in accordance
with sound Democratic principles-has never
deviated from the Democratic faith &c. &c. |
How long has he been of this opinion? We
stated some time ago, that we heard the late |
lamented W. |. Ferguson say, in a public |
speech at Sacramento, in 1858, that at the |
time that the Kansas issue was sprung upon
the country, Latham actually bored him,
upon The streets and in every place where he
could see him, with encomiums upon Doug
las and denunciations of Buchanan. We
notice that this speech of Mr.. Ferguson was
never reported, and we regret much that we
have not his identical language before us
now, inasmuch, as Mr. Latham has endeav- |
ored, we believe, to make it appear that he
never had any such conversations with Mr.. |
Ferguson as have been reported, and never
encouraged or aided him in his (Ferguson's) |
Anti Lecompton Resolutions, sustaining Mr..
Douglas and denouncing Mr. Buchanan.
But, unfortunately for Mr. Latham, there is
something of record in regard to this matter,
and we here produce it. The Sacramento
Bee of August 6, 1858, alluding to the speech
of W. l. Ferguson, delivered the night before,
says:
at was not long after he Latham) had spoken
IN front OF the Orleans, when w. l. Ferguson ad-
dressed the Anti-Lecompton crowd in front of the
Dawson House, and there stated that Hr la
than had patted him on tile shoulclerS for opposing
IN Me Senate the Presidents LecomptoR poljcy
and furnished him a0ith facts to make an arga-
Baoat against it,"
Now, is not this a full, or at least con
clusively corroborative confirm alton of what
DIR. Powell recently said at Shasta to-wit
''W |. Ferguson stated in speech in Sacra-
mento, that Mr.. Latham had aided him in
getting up his Kansas resolutions 6y furnish.
ing doeamcntS, ETC., and had remarked, after
they ~ere drafted, that he Latham thought
ne had dPapers By the aid Of ,chich heH (the
resoiations) could be made a little stronger"
How Mr.. Latham can have the audacitv to
deny his share in getting up these resolutions,
after all this recorded and corroborative
proof against him, we confess we cannot see.
His only relief from the embarrassing posi-
tion in which he is placed is to charge a dead
man in his grave with falsehood, unless,
indeed, he choose to assume the responsibility
of giving the lie to the living AS far as any
denial of his may be concerned, of the de-
liberate statement of W. l. Ferguson, all we
have to say is that a dead man in his bloody
shroud, (or rather, it may be now, in his
mouldering cOfin,) may not be able to make