Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1876-09-15
Gov. Hayes Property Heturns---A Sill
~ SANDER Refutcd.

1--WE, IT tue uESl tune III many years.
Gov. Hayes Properly Returns---A Sill
~ SIander Refutcd.
As that useful but over lurdened public
official popularity known as the "fool-kill.
err has never yet been able TO get his work
completely done, aud is likely to have his
hands full till the end of time, it is likely
that there are some people who have escap-
ed bis attention who are insane enough 10
place some credence in the sensational SLAM
der, lately published, with relation 10 Mr..
Hsyes's alleged Justification OF property re-
turns. The enlightenment of such indi-
viduals is an Object hardly worth aiming at
but the average reader will be interested 10
see-merely as a matter of cufiosity-how
charge put forward so prelentiously
and with so muck detail has had the bot
tom knocked completely out of it. The
charge was discIedited in advance Of the
obvious fact that it was manufactured as a
party necessity, TO offset Mr.. Ti!den's eva
sion Of just taxation. The desperate strait
of the party, in the absence Of any real flaw
in Mr.. Hayes's record and character, COM
pSiNh AhI VI anu ~
we were treated first TO the story of his alb
straclng 800 from the possession Of dead
deserter-a story which was strangled so
quickly that it may be said to have been
stllborn-and then 10 this story of false
property returns, which has now joined it
in the limbo OF campaign libels.
The charge was, first, that Sardis Birch
ard, Gov. Hayes's uncle and benefactor,
listed $685. personally in 1873, exclusive Of
money and credit, while Governor Hayes,
with tie same personally in his possession,
listed only $1,000 in 1874.
Second, that Gov. Hayes made a very
small estimate of the value Of his watches,
although one of those which he had was
alone worth $500.
Third, that he has never returned his
piano although he owns a very handsome
one.
Fourth, that lie returned in 1875 and 1876
three hors es at $500, when they were worth
$500.
Fifth, that he returned four carriages at
$3.50, when it is known that lie paid $500 for
one and $3.50 for another.
Sixth, that $50, 200 was left in his hands
as bequests by Mr.. Brchard. which he was
allowed TO hold three years, but that he did
not return a dollar of this money for taxa
ton.
Seventh, that he made no returns of the
property as executor.
The nature Of these charges reflects
world of credit upon the Paul Pry who
worked them up, and genius like his would
be displayed TO best advantage in a Con-
gressional Investig Committee. 1t is
almost apily that such an artistic piece Of
campaign lying should come to grief. But
Gov. Hayes's reply 10 these charges briefly
summarized, is AS follows:
First, Orchards return included all
notes, credits and bank accounts. When
Gov. Hayes made his return in 1874 all cred
its were swallowed up in debts, and the
same is true OF these notes. The person.
atty bequeathed to Gov. Hayes was almost
wholly bank stocks, the tax upon which
was paid by the banks. The S99s2 returned
by Birchard was more than swallowed up
by the obligations incurred by Gov. Hayes
in carrying out Orchards projects for the
benefit Of the town of Fremont. In 1874,
$1,000 was returned, which was for house,
hold goods not subject TO this deduction,
and in 1875 the item was increased 10 5000
because of an increase in Gov. Hayes's pri-
vate library.
Second, Governor Hayes never had a
watch worth $500. Tho three watches re-
turned are keepsakes, not worth $50 alto
gether, and that belonging to Mrs. Hayes
She had az hon Cchn,I IL II Ao,
been running for twenty years.
Third, Gov. Hayes owned no piano at the
time of the return was made, and only
rented one last October for the use of a niece
who was visiting him. This summer he
traded a lot for one.
Fourth, one of Gov. Hayes's horses Is
twenty-seven years old and not worth any
thing, but he is listed at $50, the other two
are worth $50 aud 800, but are returned to-
gether at $3.50. His best horse cost him
SI25.
Fifth, the carriage referred 10 was not
bought ill year AFTER the return was
made but was properly listed. Two of the
carriages were buggy and a wagon, one of
which was soon sold for $50, and the other
would not sell at any price but they were
listed for SIS. The other was a second
hand phaeton costing 500.
Sixth, not dollar was left Gov. Hayes
with which 10 pay requests. 1t was intend
ed the requests should be paid from sales
ofland, and three years time was allowed
in order to dispose of the land. This real
estate is all taxed by the county, without
consultation with the owner.
Seventh, the property all vested directly
in Gov. Hayes by the terms of the will,
and the Ohio laws do not require separate
returns as executor.
This response by Governor Hayes dis
poses of all the charges against him. II Is
pity that his rival for the Presidency can
not, with equal frankness, explain his APP
parent Justification ofincome returns. But
1t 1t Is one thing TO demollsh the idle tat
things OF a scandal-monger, and another
thing TO try to reconcile two fatly-contra-
dictOry oaths. 1t Is not likely that we shall
hear from Mr.. Tilden about his conceal
ment of income, unless the law compels
him TO disgorge; and that would be an ed
flying spectacle for Reform Presidential
candidate.-Host0R Journal