The Nevada journal., 1859-08-05

Faction is doing its worst to blacen the fair fame
of our norlc standard bearer, Latham, bu. like a
waye-lashed rock, ne stands unmovcd, and the dark
waters Of vituperatior fall back from him in harm
less mists. The principle charge made against him
by MS vilhers is, that nc tried to bribe Judge of
the Supreme Court. To this accusation we put in
the plea of not guilty" and call for the legal
proof. The main evidence relied on in support of
this charge is the declaration Of the late Judge
Murray, made to several gentlemen Of standing,
that Latham tried to bribe him, Judge Murray
The fact is, we suppose that Murray did make this
declaration and those who acquainted with him
well satisfied that, if he made this declaration
it is true But respectfully submit that this is
not legal testimony, and should not be admitted in
the case. In determining most sacred right of
person and property in courts of justice, We obey
the rules ofevidence wtich have been established
by the common law; and why, we ask, should we
notbe governed by those rules in determining mat
ters of this kind, at the bar of public opinion
Now, every one knows that at common law, hear
cay testimony, a general rule, is not admissible.
1t is not even claimed that the declaration of Judge
Murray in question DYING declaration. But
even were it such, las emies may yet claim
to have been,) answer that dying declarations
arc admissible ONLY in cases of murder Ruling
out, hen this declaration of Judge Murray, where,
ask is there any evidence upor which to convict
Mr.. Latham of this charge? Not partc le, any
where. His defense is triumphant.
But suppose, Cor moment, that I-ttiham DID Of
fer money to have certain case decided in a certain
way, it docs not necessarily follow that there
anything wrong in this. 1t depends entirely upon
the INTENTION with which the offer was made La
than was a lawyer well as Judge Murray; he
may have thought land doubt did think that
his side of the right; he may have be en-
fearful tha: the Supreme Court would decide the
Law wrong. andthe case against him; and he there
lore. may have offered the money in order to have
justice done iS the premises. 1t would be improper
30 procure WRONG decision by the of money
but is there anything wrong in using every avail
able means to procure RIGHT decision.
And then, again. Latham was young man with
n long future before him which he expected to
spend N this state and of course interested in all
that appertlined to our young commonwealth
Judge Murray you'll probably be Supreme Judge
for InaLy years Lat an may have wanted to salts
fy hms IL to what kind ofStJH our Supreme Court
was made of: e may, therefore, have made the offer
in crderto TEST THE ISTEGEITY ofJudgG Murray ,and
may have bcea highly delighted wheE Murray mdig-
nantly spurned the proposition. In fact, many
views NAV be taken of the matter consistent with
Latham's innocence. and, therefore, we dismiss the
silly charge without further comment.
CHALLENGE DIR. Powell CHALLENGED
the Hon. John B. Weller to a public
discussion of politics at Grass Valley on
Wednesday evening but we are glad
Mr., Weller's good sense prompted him
to refuse the invitation. Mr.. Weller's
broad and "statesmanlike" views of
public affairs are not easily understood
and appreciated by the common people.
and lie would have been discomfited in
n contest with such plausible speaker
as DIR. Powell. We must not give our
opponents any such an advantage as
that would have been.