Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1867-04-26

hopes OF the complete success OF the he
constructions Bill
The publisher of the Democrat asks us
how we know he paid no income tax last
year, and insists on our answering the CUES
ton Wei, we know it because he has
admitted the fact himself half dozen
times He has admitted recently that he
signed aa affidavit that his income during
1865 did not amount to $500, and roundly
asserted at the same time that he gave in
his income correctly, and yet he asks how
we know he paid no income tax last year
The fellow is certainly lunatic OF trying
to dodge round a corner, but he might as
well give up the latter enterprise.-we can
hit him with our boomerang as we'll around
a corner as in plain view on a direct line.
We will give him a sample now Of our
skill. The publisher, in the same article
To which we have referred, in his iss re of
last week says:
THE editor convicts himself out OF his
own mouth, for we were not assessed at all
for 1866 until after his statement was
made. What authority, then, had he
for charging that We paid no income tax:
None whatever. 1t Is purely a fabrication
of his own, and shows very plainly how
hard run he is for capital out of which 10
make case against US.
Is this not pitiful? Would an individual
conscious OF the rectitude of his actions and
intentions thus equivocate, and evadc the
issue, or misstate an opponents position?
We said he paid no income tax last year,
and every one understood us as saying he
paid no tax last year upon his income du
ring the year 1865, and yet he says, ''we
were not assessed at all for 1866, until af
ter his statement was 10 lde" WHO aid he
was? Docs he suppose he can escape
around such corner az that from an an
tagonist armed with boomerang charged
with truth and facts, such as we have al
ready cited. If he does he will prove him
self most artful dodger, or we shall de-
monstratc our inability to handle the weap-
ons with which we are armed with the skill
even Of a tyro. He insinuates that he did
paw an income tax last year when he
knows the insinuation is utterly false; nor
do we believe he would have paid an in
come tax this year had he not insdvertent
" admitted In an unglarded moment that
his income for 1866 exceeded 81 900, or
was greatly in excess of $500 for 1865; for
it is hard telling what a man will not do
whose greed is so great that he can make
charge of els for publishing the hech
lines offhs delinquent list and Auditors
certificate, in addition to the so cents per
description allowed by law. The price
allowed by law, is exceedingly liberal, dou-
BILE what it ought TO be, in justice to the
poor delinquents, and would have satisfied
any one who was not naturally rapacious-
He complains that we have tried to make
out case agnirst him. All we have done
is to compare his own statements and ask
ed him to reconcile them or admit their
incongruity.0 1t would have been impos-
sibile for us to have made cut case
against him had he not furnished US the
facts. We are not responsible for the
wonderful absurdities he is guilty of in
his statements from time to time, or for
the singular coincidence" he exhibits in
all his statements, nearly, of woful disre
gard Of truth.
The publisher further says:
s'It seems he cannot get through his pate
how we could pay for our Office, in two
years and during that time add over $500
worth Of material TO the establishment, and
vet payLo income tax for the year 1865.
Both statements, he says cannot be true.
Why are these statements not both true?
and in what manner are our Office receipts
of 1856. and ND to March 7th, 1867, affect
ed by our income for 1865? There is one
conclusion to be arrived at from his rea-
soning, and that ia, if a man does not make
5000 one year he cannot possibly make
more than $500 the next year"
In his first statement the publisher dis
tinctly stated that "within the past fsoo
years" not one year t,ro msaths and seuen days,
1--WE hare paid Cor the Office from the pre-
ceeds thereof, and besides this have added
over three hundred dollars worth Of mate
rial to the establishment" Was not the
inference irresistible that portion at least
of his PROFITS accrued in 1865? If we were
misIed II was his fault. If he made the
sll0Oor 1880 he boasts of clearing in one
year why didn't he say SO at first? But
isit true thalhis profits in 1865 did not ex-
coed $500 and in 1866 amounted to over
$1,000 or 81 900, for We take it that his
boarding. clothing, cigars, &C., we won't
say whiskey as we do not know that he
uses the article, must have cost him at least
sS002 II is possible il may be so, but il
It 10 he must have done some tall charging,
If nothing more, in 1856, which he neglect
ed to do IN 1861 Perhaps the sts he char
ged for printing the headlines, &C., of the
delinquent list was only one of a series OF
similar charges, and may reconcile his
statements which have heretofore appear
cd tn Nc 80 incongrunus- "a 's M Tell