The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1876-09-09

which was paid 10 him by
he said Azariah G. flagi,
and which pay
ment appears under drfg
of Nov. 7. iSi2 In state
n1cnt annexed To the HIST
report aforesaid, rs having
been reeepted iOr by the
said 1tlden, "on account
lot professional services
We are happy to oblige the Times so
easily We have merely had to procure
aud read the document from which il
quotes. Indeed, it would have been enough
to read the earlier. part of the very sen
tence which it quotes in the right hand
column, above. The whole sentence will
give the Times plenty of "good reasons
for not branding Gov. Tildcn "a knaye
and a perjurer'
Here is part Of the sentence which the
Times unfortunately skipped:
And they further say, touching the statements
IN said bill OF complaint IN the services Of the do.
PENDANT, Samuel j. Tlden that he had long prior To-
and at the time Of the commencement OF tho nrclo-
sure suit In said bill OF complaint mentioned. been
the counsel for the second mortgage bondhodcrs IN
whose behalf such suit was instituted and that he
was counsel also for the trustees OF said second mort
gage bOndholders, and had been from some time In
ne year III, TO whom the railroads OF the Terre
hautc, Alton ana ~. Louis Railroad Company were
and who were subsequently made re.
cciNers thereof: and was also the counsel for said
receiver and that he also acted as the principal
counsel LOT the said first mortgage bOndhOders, In
relation TO the foreclosure proceedings hereinbcfore
mentioned, and other proceedings connected there
with and that such services had commenced prior
after"
If the Times in its enthusiasm had thus
only begun few lines earlier in its read
ing of the Terrc Hautc suit law paper,
from which it quotes, it would not have
COMPOUNDED years receipts with years
taxable income. Nor would the Times
then have suppressed the fact that the pay
ment Of these $4,000 was on account Of
professional services rendered during long
series Of years prior to the first imposition
of an income tax, aud during part only
of the first year of the existence 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 Times also implies that Mr., TiIdcn
received during the year 1862, and us a
part of the income of that year, $4,000
of bonds which he did not include in his
return. We say implies that. 1t assume
that. 1t discusses the subject on thu,
sumption, makes charges on that assump,
ton, though it shrinks from making speei
fic and definite statement of what q
assumes.
Now, on Analysing 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 surplus of bonds may exist
at some future time, which alleged surplus
is now in controversy, was itself dated in
1864. That is two years after the income
return which the Times impeachcs.
Not only that; in the report of the com.
mittec of directors published in the Times
the other day, Aug. 10, it is specifically
stated that the bonds in question rcmain
ed in the hands of Mr.. Robert Bayard
up to March IA, 1870. That is ct:gM years
after the period when portion of them
ought to be accounted for as income, on
the assumption that they were divided.
Nor does itappear that they ever were, in
fact, up to this time, actually disposed of,
rthat they ever have been in situation to
form part of anybody's income,
The very documents which the Times
quotes and relies upon thus dispose of all
the specific charges of the Times, dispose
of everything that has the appearance Of
proof or the semblance of probability.
Tho New York Financial and Com
mercial Record, speaking of this charge
against Mr.. Tilden, says;
The facts show that there never was a
more baseless charge made. What are
the facts? 1t seems that in December,
1863, Governor Tilden, like all the rest of
us, made return under oath of his in.
como for the year 1862. That return
showed that he received in 1862, subject
to taxation under the law, little over
seven thousand dollars. In suit now
pending on behalf Of the st. Louis, Alton
and Terre Haute Railroad, the Governor
swore that he received in 1862 twenty
thousand dollars for services which were
commenced prior to the year 1859, and
were rendered from time to time during
q period of three years. These arc the
simple facts and the whole of them, and
on them tho charge is made of perjury,
assuming or jumping over entirely the one
further premise necessary for conclusion,
and that Is whether, under tho law, the
twenty thousand dollars received from the
railroad should be included 10 the return.
Assuming, we say, that this twenty thou
sand dollars should be included, while the
instructions of Internal Revenue Com
missioner Lewis, issued at that time, state
clearly and positively that it should not
be included. For the benefit of those who
may have forgotten these Instructions, we
insert the following extract taken from
them, as published in our HINTS Mer-
chants Magazinc for August, 1868, page
1897
A merchant return of income should cover
the business of the year 1862, excluding pre-.
vious years. Uncollected accounts must be
estimated. Physicians and lawyers should
include actual receipts for services rendered
in 1862, together with an estimate on unreal
liked or contingent income due to that year.
Hero we have it positively stated that
the "actual receipts for services rendered
in 1862" Excluding previous years, .
with an estimate of "uncollccted accounts
or "unrealized income" from the business
or services of 1862, are the items to be
included This same idea was enforced
in the commissioners subsequent instIuc-
tons Of that year, and more infinitely to
revenue collectors In fact, the commits
sioner made this so clear that no one had
doubt as to the meaning, SO all of us,
in preparing our returns Of income from
our business, included what we had earned,
aud not what we had collected, in 1862
n ~ a