, 1876-08-29


DEN varied, and that, between the iecetpts Of
tho year and the taxable income, thoro was n
wide distinction. Suppose tho earnings did
vary? The law required tax on tho actual
receipts of tho year from all gonrcea wllntso-
over, no matter when they wero earnod, less
certnin exemptions. Mr. TtLpEv returned
Ills total income for TINT year at somathing
near $4,000 aud olaimod exemptions for
nearly $4,000, yet he himself has sworn that
his receipts from single client In that year
were go, 900. It 4emainB, thon, That he
must have falsilol in one case or tue other.
The Tines is also inclined To complain that
Just ono year has been selected "to convict
the Governor Of dishonesty" Docs thia
mean that II Is not very serlons mntter 1t
tho "Govarnor " was only dishonest one year,
or committed perjury only onco2 But
there was good reason for selecting this par-
ticular. year. It WINS found TINT the " Gov
crnor" had sworn few years later TINT his
income for that particular year was In
single instance about three time a. much as
he had returned It under oath when the tar
was to DO paid. But tho Times thinks that
ia man who wonld cheat tlh tax ono year
would cheat It every year during it's imposi-
tion." Worry likely. Indeed, this seems to
suit Mr. T11DENs case oxactly, for, while ho
only made returns for two yenrs mud failed to
comply with the law thereafter, 1t seomss
that he. did SO because he concluded that 1t
would be cheaper and suffer, and the fact Is
that the averago income assesscd upon him
during ali the years tho tax WINS imposed was
only $4,000. As 1T WA during these years
between 1861 and 1872-that Mr. T11pxN ac-
qui1ed largo part Of personal fortuuo that
is estimated AS high rs hyo millions Of dol
lars, tho inference iB that he did cheat tho
Government every year when he paid tho tar
On only $4,000 year, which wonld give
him d personal fortune OF only $185,00O,
even il 1t had cost him nothing to live in the
meantime. Still. II he had swindNd tho
Government only once and perjured himself
only once, most people will think that
man guilty Of these crimes should not DO
olooted to the highest Office in The Republic.
Tho, 9tdats- Zeitung, which has been half
inclined to look favorably upon Mr. Tn.pEN,
has also been 1oundering around in tho dcs-
perate effort to mako Lis two contradictory
statements under oath harmonize and, In
this ondeavor, has suggested that even II
Mr.. T11DEH had enjoyed m income Of
$4,000 in tho year 1869 (Which is cor
tainly not improbable, as ho has sworn
single cliont paid him $4,000, 1o
may hive sustained Losses amounting to
$3.50, 600 in that year, which would hayo
brought his net income down to the $s14, 900
which he actually returned. But tho trouble
about this theory is that Tho law required n
return Of the gross Income from all sources,
and tho very blink form On which Mr. Tn
DEN made his return contained tho spaces
for making deductions for losses and other
exemptions allowed by law. Now, blr. Tn
DEN swore that his gross income was only
$4,000, and all the exemptions which he
claimed, including losses, wassomething over
$4,000. So this theory fai1s, as does also
another theory Of the Staats-Zt!tung, that
tens Of thousands Of other "highly respect
ablo men" falsiacd their Income returns,
Tic fact remains that oil who did swinlled
tile Government, and swore falsely in order
to 10 SO; aud tho question is whether tho
American people aro prepared to make
national defense Of perjury by elocting ono
Of these men Chief Magistrate. Here is tho
case as said to be stated by bIr. T11pxH him.
self:
Or Dee. 30, 1909, Mr.. j. hts .an.istr TO The
andsr oath, IN trhieh 6s GolH IT tis Uaitea
, ri Il, hereby .ea certify That = LSsl:, 1Hes ="