The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1876-09-15

W. SAsH nc AsvCOsME A1As
The democrats are now trying to bsacs up
against the proofs Of Tlden's dishonest returns
Of his income ct time in our national history
when this act on his part shows peculiar
malice, by undertaking TO Offset the local o.
sessment Of Gov. Hayes personal property Tor
1874, 1875, and 1876. But this attempt on
their part must be fruitless, for the cases are
not analogous, nor is any dishonesty shown on
the part OF Gov. Hayes.
The Columbus, Ohio, Journal OF "Wednesday
published an answer to the charges relative TO
Gov. HAYES tax returns which were made re-
Gently by the Toledo Democrat. This article
WAS prepared from facts furnished by Gov
HAYES rimself, and is a complete answer to the
SANDER.
We invite to it the attention OF all ourreaders.
Ii takes up, item, by item, every charge made
by tho Democrat and demonstrates that in
every instance the valuation was fully up to the
actual value of the property in question. This
statement OF Gov. Hayes utterly demolishes
the charge brought against him, and shows that
in this as in every other action Of bis life. he
has acted the part Of a conscientious and hon.
orable citizen.
The following is a synopsis OF the Columbus
Journals reply to the sensational charges:
/. The first charge is that Sardis Orchard,
Hayes uncle and benefactor. listed 9,0S2 per-
sonaly in 1878, exclusive Of money and credits,
and that Hayes, with the same personality in
possession, listed only 81, 900 in 1874. This Is
not true. Orchards returns included all notes,
credits and book accounts Hayes IN 1874 made
no return Of notes, credits and book accounts,
because all the credits were swallowed IN debts.
The same ID true OF the notes. The property
bequeathed 10 Hayes was almost entirely bank
stocks, on which the tax is paid by the bank.
The one item OF all the personality returned by
Birchard 1882, was more than swallowed up by
the obligations incurred by Hayes in carrying
out Orchards projects for the benefit OF the
| town OF Fremont This very question was at
the time investigated by democratic board Of
equalization and reported by them as all cor
rect. 1t will be seen that the debts more than
offset the credits under this item, and that the
return OF $1,000 in 1874 was for household
goods, which were not subject to this deduc-
ton. The increase in this item to $4,000 in
1875 was due to an increase in Hayes private
| liberty.
2. AS to the second charge. Hayes saws he
never had and never returned watch worth
| $780, The three watches returned are keep
sakes, and altogether not worth $3.50. One
watch Mrs. Hayes had when a school girl. 1t
has not been running for 20 years,
3. Hayes had never owned piano at the
time the return was made, and only rented one
last October for the use OF a niece who was
visiting him. This summer he traded q lot for
one.
T. 1t is alleged that Hayes returned in 1876
and 1876 three horses at $500, when they were
worth $500, In answer, Hayes says one OF
these horses is q years old, and not worth any
thing, yet he is listed at $50, and that the
street valuation Of the other two is $50 and
800 yet he listed them for taxation at $3.50
His best horse cost him 1925.
5. IL is charged that in 1875 Hayes returned
four carriages at $780, when 1t is known he
paid $500 Tor one and $3.50 for another. Ir
answer Hayes says the carriage referred to wal
not bought till year after the alleged false re
a turn was made, and then il was properly listed
az the returns OF 1876 show. Two or thes,
carriages were, in fact, buggy and wagon
one OF which was soon after sold Tor $40, ant
= one would not sell at any price; but they wer,
listed for S75. The other was a second hant
phaeton which cost 800.
= 6. Ii was charged that :33, 700 was left il
0 Hayes hands in requests made by Birchard
which lie was allowed to hold for three years
and that he did not return dollar OF this mon
ey for taxation. Hayes says not ono dolla
y was LETT him to pay beqnests that it was in
8 tended the requests should be paid from sale
: of lands, and he was given three years 30 tina
the land could be sold for this purpose, Thi
i real estate is, OF course, taxed by the countr
:. without consultation or consent OF Its owner O
4 holder.
= 7. This property was all vested in Hayes
u the terms OF Orchards will. II was therefor
D not necessary, according to Ohio lave, to max
a separate the property held as executor. 1t a
:, belonged to Hayes, and was listed as his. Coy
= Hayes is authority for all the statements give
G above.
Now, while Gov, Hayes character stands pei
: fectly bright until something is proved agains
y him, we ask what democrats are satisfied wit
e Tildens explanation OF what Is proved againt
= him and what is proved against him and whit
:, he substantially admits. Do we want pres
Il dent who w manage things by legal bubble
4 technicalities, mysteries, conundrums, CROOKED
;. nesses, ETC.. which ALWAYS need explspatio
!, and never have clear one, or a president wi
u goes straight forward with yeoman like, goo
common sense: