Daily national Democrat., 1859-07-15
The Bribery Case.


The Express seems determined to keep up
the discussion with regard to the alleged at
tempt of Milton s. Latham to bribe the su-
preme Court of this State-a discussion in
which its candidate must lose ground eontin-
ually, if he pursues the same course IN rela-
ton to the subject matter of the discussion
| that he has heretofore. Since the Express
will persist in exposing its leader to the
raking fire which he should, if possible,
avoid, we must even keep up our share Of
the controversy.
AS We have said before, we make no
charge against Mr. Latham whatever, for we
know nothing, personally, OF the circumstance
of the bribery But, we do know this
thing, that it is openly declared in various
quarters that men Of distinguished political
and official position in this State are ready,
if morally or legally compelled so to do, to
testify that Mr. Latham did propose to bribe
the Supreme Court of the State of California
The names of those men have been mention
ed, and distinct reference made to them, in
the San Francisco News and the Butte Re
cord and we have copied them, with the
said reference, into this paper
SO much for what others have heard
| Now, for what ,ce have heard. Our author
ity says that "La atham informed his clients
that he could secure decision Of the Su-
preme Court, but that he must have money
to effect it with; the clients (ereditors Of
Adams d Coz gave him or placed at his dis
posal $4,000 Latham did not directly ap-
proach the Judges. but got another man
(Mr -.) to brooch the matter, and make
the proposition to Judge Murray to decide
as he (Mr --) wished, as it would put
$4,000 in his (Mr. -s) pocket, and asked
Murray to so decide as a favor to him La
Latham having proposed to Mr.. - to d.
vide the money retween themselves, if
Mr. - would obtain the decision, Latham
retaining $1,000 and the clients to be left TO
the belief that the Judges got the $4,000;
the decision went the other way John r.
Mcdonnell was Attorney General and was
instructed to prosecute the matter against
Latham, but let it die out"
Such are the statements which have been
made to as in reference to this matter And
they are statements which have been made
not only to us but to Others. If they are
untrue, it isa pity that they should be, as
they are, the common talk of the country
We may be mistaken in the notion, but it
seems to us that, where mems names are re
fereG to, and il isso directly stated that they
are cognizant of certain facts derogatory to
Mr. Latham's character, he should certainly
request of those gentlemen public declara-
ton with regard TO it. Surely, if they
know nothing wrong of Mr.. Latham and are
not cognizant Of the facts spoken Of, they can
say SO.
| In addition to the above, we are informed
that there are good reasons for believing that
Judge Bolts, of the Sacramento Standard
was the author of certain communicated ar
tices which appeared in the Sacramento I'm
ion in 1857, in reference to this same subject,
which articles gave evidence that the writer
knew the history of the whole natter
Judge Bolts can say, if he chooses, wheeler
this be true or not.
Now, if Mr. Lotham's friends feel confident
that this matter is all right, let them call
upon Judge Bolts and upon Mr.. Mcconnell
to deny that they are cognizant of the facts
which have been SO emphatieally declared
to be within their knowledge.
As to any "stabbing in the dark" as the
Express denominates it, we conceive that it
is no stabbing in the dark to speak of things
which have already been upon the tongue Of
thousands Of persons for a series of years,
and especially in a case like the present,
Vhere a man is asking at the hands of the
people an Office to which no one should as
pire, unless he is able 10 exhibit a clear and
spotess record.