The Placer herald., 1859-08-06
.nother Libel against Mr.. Latham re-
n .,+od... Letter from Judge Heydenfeldt.
' SAN FRANc1sco, July 3Oth, 1859.

sn+ed--.Letter from Judge Heydenteldt'
'" SAN FRANc1sco, July 3Oth, 1859.
u,,;,or of the Standard:-I have hereto
remained silent on the subject of the
l1 ,,ro made against Mr.. Latham OF at
cm~' to bride Judge of the Supreme
Court. because have great reluctance to
10 conspicuous, and because did not ina
Zine that mere hersay, traced to man in
10 crave. would be relied on 80 sedulously
w. w. affect the reputation of man whose in
.oority had never before been questioned.
sRnt as by constant reiteraton, this mole
Iii hos GROWN into something of a mountain,
It is inappropriate that should be silent any
longer.
and az 7 am confined to my room, and have
H Ie for the last four weeks, am not able
~ refer to books or papers to aid me, SO
will mention none.
T. is true that while the Supreme Court
Bencb was filed by Judges Murray, Bryan
and myself. Judge Murray made the charge
" has been alluded to-founded, as he
so;d mon a statement of Mr.. J. R. Beard,
then clerk of the Court, and he consulted
me upon the subject.
In the consultation had with him, which
was our second conversation, Judge Murray
axnlaiued. fully and distinctly, that as he
had understood Beard, it was not ali attempt
70 bride him, Murray, but to- bride Beard to
ohta;n the knowledge of a decision anterior
to its publication,
Latham we're peculiar, and | had watched
liz ooroer with interest.
told Judge Murray that it was his duty
70 have public investigation, and if the
.boroa was true, that Latham's name should
be stricken from the roll.
He asked me how it could be brought up.
told him first to get the proof in positive
shane. so that there could be no mistake,
and | would find some one to make the
charge and bring it up He answered that
he would do so.
Some time elapsed before the subject was
renewed-how long | do not remember. In
the interval knew that Judge Murray men,
toned it and consulted with two or three
members of the bar, and always with great
deal of acrimony.
1t is here proper to state, in parenthesis,
that long anterior to this period, Judge Muir
ray disliked Latham very much, and would
have indulged his prejudice to the injury
of Latham, if there had existed any good
grounds for doing so.
When we conversed again on the subject,
brought it up by asking Judge Murray
what he was going to do about the charge
against Latham? He answered that he could
do nothing; that he could not prove any
thing; that he had subsequent conversation
with Beard, in which Beard assured him that
he had entirely misunderstood him; that
Beard had given him version of their pre-
vious conversation which was very different
from the way he had at first understood it;
and it amounted to nothing, and therefore
the matter would have to drop.
After this period, although my relations
with Judge Murray continued most intimate
up to his death, and my association with
him was constant, do not remember ever
having heard him alude to the subject, al
though Latham, during Murray's lifetime,
was appointed Collector, and was candidate
for the United States Senate, upon either of
which occasions such charge might have
been welded against him to his injury, if
there had been any substance in it,
| have now stated all that know about
the matter, and that is a correct account of
the hearsoy from the man in the grave.
In conclusion, beg to call attention to
the salient points which are here presented.
1t will be Observed
LIST. The charge made against Latham is
from hearsay; that is the say so of Judge
Murray who is dead.
I'd. The charge made by Judge Murray
was from hearsay; that is, the say SO Of Mr..
Beard.
Sd. That Judge Murray, upon investiga
ton, ascertained that he had drawn an in
correct inference from his conversation with
Mr.. Beard, and consequently there was not
epen hearsay to sustain the charge, and so
it was dropped. S. HEYDENEDLDr.