Daily national Democrat., 1859-08-13
Renrd,s Card.

and almost month after month, while the
tide of public Indignation was setting in
against Milton S. Latham, on account of the
Supreme Court Bribery accusation, comes
out at this late day with a card in which he
fully denies that Latham ever offered him
any money to do anything improper with
the Supreme Court. His statement howev-
err is not very fortunate in some very essen
tial respects, for it contradicts pointblank
certain testimony on this subject which is
quite authoritative. Judge Terry. in his
statement to Mr.. Beatty, declares that Muir
ray informed him that Latham had remarked
to Beard that the authorities in respect to the
Underwater case were about equally divi-
ded, and that the decision might be made
either way without any violation of princi-
Pile, and that he would be willing to pay
IS, 600 for a decision favorable to his client
He also states that Heydenfeldt called on
Latham for an explanation, and Latham did
not deny bdr,ng offered the money 10 Beard
but said it was offered, not to influence the
Beard to procure an early decision. (Othe.
witnesses have corroborated this reported
acknowledgment of Latham, and it has been
proven that he said that he (Latham) could
make money out of the decision let it be
made either one way or the other-he only
wanted it to be rendered speedly) Beard
declares in his card, that Latham simply re-
quested him to hand the record to the Judges
and have them decide it as early as possible,
and to send him-in the event Of his being
in San Francisco-the earliest information of
the decision OF the court, after its being filed
IN his office. For his trouble in commuuica-
ting this information, he desired to remuner-
ate him (Beard)-no sum being mentioned. -
In the above explanation of Beard, there
is an acknowledgment that a speedy decis
ion was desired, and that Latham offered to
remunerate him if he would obtain a speedy
decision and give him the earliest iniorma-
ton of what the decision was Immediately
upon its being filed in his ofiice-the remu-
nerating sum not being specified. We asl,
any candid man to read the above extract
from the card and see if it does not legiti-
mately bear this Interpretation Was there
nothing Improper in this approach to Mr.
Beard lfa Clerk may be hired to hurry
up decision, where the fact of its being
speedily rendered will put money into his
hrer's pocket, may he not with the same
propriety be hired to influence the character
of the decision itself? What is the difference
in either case, whether he receives large
snm or a small sum as a remuneration? Has
he any business to receive n remuneration at
all for business outside the prescribed prov
ince Of his duties 1t appears very clearly
from Boards own statement that there 10dS
something Improper in the approaches
made to him by Latham, while at the same
time he contradicts in the general tenor of
his declaration the statements of other wit
nesses in regard to the transaction, and even
contradicts Latham himself Now, William.
son, for instance, distinctly asserts that he in.
formed Latham as to the reports against him,
and Latham told him "all about the matter,
stating that he was to receive fee of several
thousand dollars, let the case result as it
mig ht that he and his clients wanted spec
dy decision (observe the stress that Latham
laid on a speedy decision y and that he told
Beard that Jhe Beard toould hurry up the
Judge, or something to that effect, he ocould
pay linn so much money, or divide the fce."
No wonder the three Judges, Heydenfeldt,
Terry and murray concluded us II mas ueen
testified they did, that according to Letham's
o,cn acknowledgment. he ought to be expelled
from the bar.
Mr. Beard may think this business was all
right aud Proper, and Mr.. Latham may think
SO, and the Lecompton press may think so
also. Their thinking may depend upon the
medium through which they look and the
character of their mental and moral optics
but the public at large, we opine, have a
rather different standard of morality.