The daily gazette., 1876-09-06

hundred dollars were left in his hands
in bequests in the will OF Sardis Bir-
chard, which Governor Hayes was
not required to pay over for three
years, and upon which he paid no
interest for two years, and he did not
return single dollar of this money
for taxation. At least he only returned
$500 in hand in 1876. Was this per-
jury? In order to make this matter
plain, that three can be no question
about it, we give from the will of
Blrchard names of devises to whom
the 1888, 1G0 was given and the amount
bequathed to each: t4
l give and bequeath each of my
nieces, Mary Birchard, of Fayetteville,
and Charlotte Dewitt. of Elyria, the
sum of $4,000 each. give and be
queath Sara. Jane Grant, of Fremont,
o., the sum Of 5000. | give and be-
quath each of the four children of
w. A. and +. A. Platt. viz, Laura,
Fanny, Emily and Rutherford the
sum of 1880 each. | give and be-
queath to ZACH of the six children of
Austin b. Tyler. deceased, late of
Fremont, o., $4,000. give and be-
queath to Charles Birchard, son of
my brother. Austin Birchard, of Yer,
mont. the sum of 5000 per annum
during his natural life: 1t is my will
and | hereby direct that my executors
shall not he compelled to pay any of
the sums of money given and bequeath
by this will until the expiration of
three years after my decease, but in
teres, shall be paid on the same two
years alter my decease.
1t will be observed that in the oath
which r. b. Hayes subscribed he swore
that he listed all property which by
law he was reqGired to return as own
&c or holder or as husband, parent, guar
dian. trustee executor. administrator,
receiver. accounting officer, agent attor-
ney or factor. He held amounts we have
given from the will devised by Birchard
in his possession as executor, and made
no return OF any portion of money or
personal property for taxation. Was this
perjury?
The excuse cannot be made that he
owed debts to this amount which deduc-
ted, for he could not deduct debts for
money or credits which he held in ex
ecutive capacity. 1t was not his money.
He simply had possession of it as execu-
| tor, and was bound by law to return for
bttAdtlOus nc ttll EOb 90 IL, Dut SWOre all
the same that he had returned all that
was required by law to list. Our repor-
ter carefully searched record in the off 90
of Auditor, Recorder and Probate Judge,
and ascertained that no return was made
by Gov. Hayes or his co-executoT. The
fact that Gov, Hayes received into pos
session large amounts of personal pro-
periy of Sirdis Birehard, consisting of
household goods, valuable paintings,
plain watches, etc, etc, all OF which
by law was taxable, and did not return
it for taxation at more than one-tenth
of its value, and did not return it all in
1874, either as executor or as his own
property, which undoubtedly it was, is
too clear to admit OF an escape from the
charge of evading payment of taxes. In
attempting to explain the failure OF Gov.
Hayes to return money for the payment
of bequests in the will for taxat ion, il
will no doubt be claimed that he had not
yet realized money from TIE sale of the
property. 1t is all to be paid this year,
and If he has not all the money to pay
over, he undoubtedly realized some of it
or has filled to execute the will. Two
years and half elapsed, and no report
to Probate Judge, as required by law,
has been made either by Rutherford b.
Hayes or his coexecutor indicating the
payment of any Of the beqnests, so that
the presumption is that they are not
paid.