The Saline County journal. [volume] (Salina, Kan.) 1871-1893, 1876-09-14

out Richards projects for the benefit of
the town of Fremont. This very ques-
ton was at the time investigated by q
Democratic Board Of Equalization, and
reported by them as all correct. 1t will
be seen that the debts more than offsets
the credits under this item, and that the
return of 81 900 in 1874 was for house
bold goods, which were not subject to
this deduction. The increase in this
item to 5000 in 1875 was due to an in
crease Hayes private library. AS to
the second charge, Hayes says he never
had and never returned q watch worth
$500. 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 twenty years.
Thirdly, Hayes had never owned a
piano at the time the return was made,
and only rented one last October for
the use of niece who was visiting him.
This summer be traded lot for one.
Fourthly, it is alleged that Hayes re-
turned in 1875 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 anything.
yet he Is listed at $50, and that the street
valuation OF the other two is $50 and
500, yet be listed them for taxation at
$3.50. His best horse cost him Sl25.
Filthy, it is charged that in 1875
Hayes returned four carriages at $3.50,
when it was known he paid $500 for one
and $3.50 for another. In answer Hayes
says the carriages referred to was not
bought till year after the alleged false
return was made, and then it was prop
erly listed, as the returns of 1875 show.
Two of these carriages were in fact q
buggy and wagon, one of which was
soon after sold tor $40, and one would
not sell at any price; but they were
listed for SIS. The other was second
hand pheaton, which cost Sl00.
Sixthly, it was charged that S33, 700
was left in Hayes hands in beQuest
made by Bichard, which he was allowed
to hold for three years, and that he did
not return dollar of this money for
taxation. Hayes says not one dollar
was left him to pay requests; that it
was intended the bequest should be paid
from sales of lands, and he was gwen
three years so that the land could be
sold for this purpose. This real estate
is, of course, taxed by the county with
out consultation or consent of its own
CIR or holder.
Seventhly, this property was all YES
ted in Hayes by the terms of Richards
will. 1t was therefore not necessary
according to Ohio laws to make separate
the property held as executor. 1t all
belonged to Hayes, and was listed as
his. Governor Hayes is authority for
the statements given above.
John NJ. Smith, prominent Demo-
crat of Fremont, who, as member of
the Board of Equalization, Investigated
the property returns of Governor Hayes.
Publishes the following card:
Fremont, Ohio, Sept. Z. 1876.
In the spring of 1874 was member
Of the Board of Equalization of the city
Of Fremont, and as such member in
luired into the tax returns of Governor
Hayes and the matter of Mr.. Richards
estate, and was satisfied that
Governor Hayes had made correct re-
turns of his property, including what-he
mad derived from Mr.. Orchards estate.
reported the mater 10 the board as
TO me, and tho board were
also satisfied. JOHN NJ. SMITH.