Daily national Democrat., 1859-08-04
Latham's Defense.

defense of himself, at Nevada, on Monday
night, denying all and singular the charges
against him, and paying very particular at
tenton to the matter Of the Golden Key
/ He produced certain letters and afidayits
which he seemed to think cleared him.
Let us examine these proofs little and
see. In the first place, he pronounces Judge
Beattys statement that he (Latham) did not
90 into the Supreme Court Room during the
life of Judge Murray-after this alleged
transaction--faise. Very well, those who
choose to believe Latham can do so, and
those who choose to believe Beatty can do
the same. In the next place he reads a letter
from J. r. Mcconnell in which he says: 81
have no personal knowledge of the charges
made against You, and l never was instrue-
ted to prosecute you" 1t had been stated
that Mcconnell while Attorney General
had been instructed to prosecute him on nc
count of this alleged bribery. Mcconnell
says he was not so instructed. That matter
is therefore settled But it was not very
material. Mcconnell, however, does not dis
claim having Heard responsible parties sag
that the effort at bribery was made At
least, no such disclaimer appears in the re-
port of his letter He next reads letter
from Vince Geiger, in which that gentleman
saws that he once had conversation with
Judge Murray, who told him of these charges,
and that, after the conversation, Judge Muir
ray "agreed with him that the charges could
not be sustained" Not that he did not be-
lieve them'to be true, but that they could not
be sustained He next reads letter from
Judge Heydenfelt, and what does Heyden-
felt say? Why this, that the charge is a
"hearsay traced to man in his grave" "It
is true,' he says, " that while the Supreme
Court Bench was filled by Judge Murray
Bryan and myself ,J,,dge Murray made the
charge which has been alluded to, founded
as he said, upon a statement of Mr.. j. r.
Beard, then Clerk of the Court; and he con-
suited him upon the subject" He then goes
on to say that Murray afterwards stated that
Beard had informed him that he (Murray)
had misunderstood him. The inference is
that Murray must have been very obtuse in
the first place, or that Beard had backed out,
for some reason, from his first statement.
Heydenfelts card is partially sustained by
a card from Beard, in which the latter denies
emphatieally that Latham ever offered
through him to bribe the Supreme Court
This may all be very well, so far as it goes
but if we have not mistaken certain ntima-
tions which have been thrown out, it does
not by any means clear up the difficulty, for
the reason that there are other channels
through which the bribery of court may
be attempted than simply the Clerk, and for
other reasons also We shall await further
developments on this subject and should they
turn out in favor of Latham and not against
him, no one will more cheerfully acknowl-
edge his innocence than we. But we by no
means expect these developments to be favor
able.
In this connection, the following remarks
by the Sacramento Bee are worthy of atten-
tion:
Now comes Mr.. Boards letter, or affidavit, rath-
er. He denies that Latham approached him in
1885, and endeayored to procure through him
from Judge Murray decision in the case of Da-
wilson against Gorham, favorable to the plaintiff
who was llatn0nn's ehent. Latham made no such
proposal to Beard and Beard made no such pro
posal to Murray; neither did Latham ever hint at
desire to have Murray decide the case in his ci-
eut's favor. lie Beard never had any authority
from Latham to make such a proposition to Muir
ray and he never made any such. And he also
states that in no manner, shape or form did Latham
ever make to him any proposition to bribe the Su-
preme Court or any member thereof And this
is the fair substance Of both these letters, or of
this letter and this affidavit.
Now. taken together what do they amount to
Murray told Heydenfelt that Latham did not at
tempt to brbe him or the Supreme Court but
that he did attempt to brbe Beard to obtain the
knowledge of a decision anterior to its pubca-
ton, and this, Murray said, he had from Beard
hmsef This is the charge, as explained by
Heydenfelt Now, what does Beard swear to
Simply that Latham did not, through him, at
tempt to bribe the Supreme Court, or any men,
ber thereof; but he never once says nor does
he even intimate, that Latham did not attempt to
bribe him to ascertain in advance what the decis-
ion would be- twas not according to Heyden-
telts story, for an "attempt to brbe the Supreme
Court, or any member thereof" that Latham was
to be stricken from the roll of attorneys but for
| du dltelnpl 10 DTlDe tne OleTh OI iudl court 10
gain information of its decisions, by which he
might make twenty to thirty thousand dollars for
his client This leaves the bribery case then
just where it was-asserted most positively, and
not denied.
The only change in the programme caused by
this defense, lies in this that whereas, as it for
merly Stood Latham charged with at
tempt to bribe the Court for a decision in his IA
vor now it is asserted that the attempt was to
bribe its Clerk, one of its sworn officers and that
is not denied. The Clerk himself never aludes
TO what now seems to be the real charge.
| We doubt whether the position is whit more
favorable to him than it was before There is
more to be said yet upon this subject. All the
writers upon it touch it gingerly-they seem to
evade the real issue. They dodge about the bush,
and try to put thefpeople on false track The
question now is Did Latham attempt to brbe
the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and if so, what
was the result -
FATAL ACCIDENT.-We learn from the Ne
vada Democrat, that Mr.. j. Franklin, a work
man on the Magenta Aqueduct was fatally