Los Angeles herald., 1890-10-30

10 pOSsiple. n ltttcI QudItCi
of an inch high in the original
may be magnifed so as to be foot high
in the plate. Another plate may be
made with the letters half foot high,
or one inch high. or one may be made
in which the whole letter shall be
imprinted on the size of dollar, OF of
dime. Now that is actually all the ig
norant or deceiving person in the Ex-
press has made out.
The Republican press has been very
foolish about this letter, and Mark
ham has been much more so. The fact
that he wrote the letter cannot be
doubted by unbiased people. If it had
been let alone, certain voters Of
Irish birth would have been in
fiuenced by it; but the effect
would not have been so disastrous
as it will be now. As it is, the PROPOSE
ton of Markham to cheat his friend Ike
James out of part of his mortgage, the
fact that he gloried in having sold the
mine on cheek, the fact that he used
language so foul, so vulgar, in a letter
that it cannot be reproduced, have all
come out. We do not refer to BIAS
phemous expression here and there in
the letter, but to the grossly vulgar and
utterly indecent language.
Another effect of this harping on the
letter has been to put Markham before
the public in the light of irst-class liar,
with very bad memory. When the let
ter first came to light in this campaign the
Examiner interviewed Markham on the
subject. This was October 14th, and at
that time Markham said ANY such
letter is forgery. The whole thing
was gone over in my previous campaign,
and l offered then as l do now, $1,000,
for the production of that letter." Then
the fact was published broadcast that
the letter never saw the light here until
December, 1887. Markham, by his pre-
vious campaign, referred to his running
for congress in 1884. He saw this would
not do, so he had to get up another
story. A week or ten days later he was
at Fresno, and then was interviewed as
to the letter. Here is what he had to
say on this occasion: II have never
seen that letter, and have never pro-
nounced it forgery. l never offered
$1,000 for the production ofsuch letter"
But Mr.. Stump, chairman of the Repub-
lican state central committee, has said
Col. Markham has pronounced that let
ter forgery.
Now all these are facts, and we would
respectfully suggest to the Express that
it investigate that document, bill OF
exceptions, in the case of Hallock VS..
Markham, and find out if Markham was
examined as to this very letter, and il
he is lying when he says he never saw
it, and if he is lying when he says he Of
fered $1,000 for it in 1884, whereas it did
not come to the surface until 1887, before
it talks OF any remnant of decency, and
calls respectable body of men, not .one
ofwhom has ever been charged with any
crime, forgers.
That letter is not a forgery. Markham
wrote it. He crowed over the discharge
of the Irish miners. He plotted to cheat
Ike James, his friend, out Of part OF his
just dues. He boasted of selling the
mine ON his cheek. And he used Ian.
guage such as would disgrace drab-
all in that very letter. And before there
is any more talk of penitentiaries, it
would be well to see that Mr.. Mark
hams political groom is in one for steal
ing $31 900, and that good many OF the
Republican officials here at home are
fairly tried and duly punished. Then
talk of remnants of decency.