, 1876-08-24
"1s GOV. T1LDEN A PERJURER4"

Inc a0oVo Ii tho rAt1ef ataftAnB capnon
of an article In tho New York 1Gass of
Tuesday; but tho context Of the article
seems fully to warrant tho question, and cer-
tainly calls for direct answer and sotisfac-
tory explanation from Mr. T1DEN. When
1nan who is not running for President
makes two sworn statements that mutually
contradict and exclude ona another, ho is
generally characterized as perjuror. As
this ia precisely what 3fr. T11pEN seems to
have done in a certain caso, the fact TINT he
is tho Democratic candidate for President
will scarcely relieve lim from the Same fudg-
ment that would be passed against an oral-
naay mortal, unless he Possesses in moro
eminent degreo than hos yet been Developed
the Democratic faculty of harmonizing con-
trndictions.
The caso IL a simple ono. The income
tnx was imposed from the years 1861 to
1872, mud tho Inv required every one to
mike return of his income under oath,
which good, loyal citizens did. Atr. TnpEN
made return Of his income for two yoars
only, and thereafter concluded itwna cheaper
not to do 60. The roturn which Ao mado
for tho year 18Ga, after making the detailed
statement provided in the formula, con-
cluded ns follows:
hereby certify that tho following IL tyne and
faithful statement Of thu gains, profits, or incomo
Of SAMrEL ]. TILnEN. of the City Of New, York,
ana County Of New York, State OF New York,
WHITTIER derived from my kind Of property, rents,
interest, dividends. snlary, nr from any psofeaslon
trade. employment, or vocation, Or from any
nthcr source whtGvcr, froHl 1st tlhy 0f January 10
3lst day Hf DcctMbrr 1Nd., h,tll days inclusive,
Rnu subject to mn tAcnmc tax Under tho Excise
lava Of tho United States. Income from al!
suurces, B7,llH.
This return, Of course, WAS sworn to as
! provided by tic law, and all TINT Mr.. T1LpEN
paid d tar upon rs his income for the yen1
1869 was the comparatively small susa Of
$7,118. But in his answcr to tho lawsuit
brought against lin hy lie st. Louis, Alton
Il Terre 1Iauto Railroad Company, which ho
Inns also sworn To-, he makcs the following
| statement:
| That for snch services the defendant TE.nEA
nadu charge Of So 900 aga |nEt saitl second mort
gage banlholders, mud the said charge was paid, by
and oh balla!f Ut aa1l sernn.[. .mnfsgage bondhold
| cTEe, OIL fhv lfth Ut t,ctohcr, lH'j2; thai
tho defendant TtLuES, fur part Of l,ts seryIces
| aforesaid, also made Charge oE I he like snn, o
$40. 100 TN account Ut professional services rem
dercl to the Arst. .tnattSase londhol}crs and the
Receivers, which was paid 10 hlm by the said AxA
HAL e. FLABd, >. anl which payment ap,
pcars under latc of Nov. 7. 1Ss'o, in a statement
annexed to The 6rat report nfnresa!d, ~ having
been secel ptct for by the aaid Tlpks, "ouaccouu
| of professional acryices."
llcro We have Mr.. T1LpEN swearing tint /,
tho year 1869 (when 10 swore his entire in
come subject to tax was only $7,ll8) lie 70
ceiyed in q single case and from aing!
Company tho sum Of $4,000, OF nearl,
thros times AZ much as he lad proyiousl,
sworn to, without counting his other fees
salaries, dividands, interest, rents, or othe
income. Any theory that the amount Of re
ductions allowed by the low would bring hi
taxable income down to the low figure a
which he returned 1t nntlar oath see1us to b
liasipated by tho fact that tue total e1emp
tions figured up by himself in Lis sworn re
turn for the year 1859 were $G,55o. De
tluctiug these exemptions from the single fe
Of $4,000, It would leays his net In
como for that year (not counting IN
other resources) sls,44s, or noarl
double the amount which lie actual
returned. But the fact that lie lad other re
sources, besides being Belf-eyideat, seems t
be sufficiently demonstrated by Lis returnin
iu tue year following al income from div
londs and interest {outside Of professions
foes md railroad jobs the sum Of <sl3.0
It was during the years that intervened b.
twaan lBl1 aud 1879 that III, T11pxa il bt