The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1876-09-16

ould have been enough to read the earlier
part of the very sentence which 1t quotes
above The whole sentence will give the
Times plenty of good reasons" for not brand.
ing Gov. Tilden "a knave and perjurer."
Here is the part of the sentence which the
Times unfortunately skipped:
And they further say, touching the state
wees of the defendant, Samuel J. Tilden, that
he had, long prior to, and at the time of the
commencement of the foreclosure suit in said
bill of complaint mentioned, been the coun-
sci for the second IN ortgage bondholders, in
whose behalf such suit was instituted. and
that he was counsel also for the trustees Of
said second mortgage bondholders, and had
been for some time IN the year 1857, 10 whom
the railroads of the Terre Haute, Alton and
ST. Louis Railroad Company were surren.
dcred, and who were subsequently made re.
ceivers thereof; and was also the counsel for
said receivers, and that he also acted as the
principal counsel for the SAID first mortgage
bondholders, in relation to the foreclosure
proceedings herelnbeiorc mentioned, and
other proceedings connected Herewith, ard
that such services had commenced prior TO
the year 1859, and were rendered from time
to time, during period of upwards of three
years thereafter.
If the Times in its enthusiasm had thus on.
" begun few lines earlier in its reading Of
The Terre Haute suit law paper from which
il quotes 1t would not have Contounde. q
years receipts with years taxable income.
Nor would the Times then have suppressed
the fact that the payment OF these S2OOOO
WAS on account of professional services rem
dered during long series of years prior to
the first imposition of an income tax, ana
during a part only of the first year OF the eX.
isrnce of the income tax.
Did the learned proprietor of the Times
compute, in his own payment of income tax
for 1862, his earnings for the previous years
of 1857 1858, 1859, 1860, and 1861?
The Tis.es also implies that Mr. Tilden re.
celved during the year 1862 and as part OF
the income of that year, $33, 900 OF bonds
which he did not include in his return. We
say implies that. 1t assumes that. 1t dis.
cusses the subject on that assumption, makes
charges on that assumption, though 1t shrinks
from making specific and definite state
mcnt of what it assumes.
Now, on snalyzing the documents on
which it POUNDS its charges, we find that the
report of the company referred to in the bill
of complaint, and expressing the opinion that
q surplus of bonds may exist at some future
time, which alleged surplus is now in con-
troversy. was itself dated in 1864. That is two
years after the income return which the Times
impeaches.
Not only that; In the report of the commit
tee of directors, published in the Times the
other day, August 10, it is especially stated
that the bonds In question remained IN the
bands of Mr. Robert Bayard up to March IA,
1870 That is eight gears after the period
when a portion OF them ought to be account
ed for as income, on the assumption that
they were divided.
Nor does it appear that they ever were, in
fact, up to this time, actually disposed of, or
tnat they ever have been in a situation to
form a part of any body's income.
The very documents which the Times quotes
and relies upon thus dispose of, ell the spe-
ciic charges OF the Times, dispose of every.
thing that has the appearance of proof or the
sCmblance of probability.