The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-09-26

has been the attack and how clear 10
IA that its authors should have rcfrained
from making IL. The charge that GOV.
TILDEN had committed perjury IN max
ing his income return for particular year
was clearly a charge that no CONSCIENTIOUS
person should have made, without "a kihd
aud amount of evidence in his possession
that would warrant jury in finding
verdict afIlrmatory OF the charge. To say,
aud 10 say publicly, that man has COM
mitted perjury. without evidence that
Will establish the fact, is us heinous an
offence as It would be to charge that
ho has committed murder, without
evidence that ought to convict him of that
crime
what then, was the evidence in the
possession of those who devised this infu-
nous charge against Gov. TILDEN2 Was
there any evidence To which any rational
mau would have attached tue slightest i'm
portauce, II Gov. TILDEN had remained in
private station, and had not been "a caudi-
date for very high ofIicef TO put the
moral test that ought to he applied to
this matter, let 1t be supposed that Mr.
TILDEN had not been a candi date for office
OF any kind, but that some personal enc
my, or some person wishing to expose him
Il ON any bad or even innocent motive,
had delibein tcly published cnarge that
he had committed perjury in making au
income return, with no other evidence
than that which was III the possession of
those who have made this charge from
polite motive. What was this evidenceY
First. IL consisted in the fact that he had
sworn his income to have been u certain
amount; secondly. that certain assumed
facts, not proved but assumed. could be
employed 10 show that his income
was much larger. Now, If the issue
of perjury or falsifcatIon of the return
was ON trial in "a court, the accuser would
be required TO show how no obtained the
facts which sustain the charge, and that
they were facts In this case, IL would have
turned out that the accuser had no facts
on which 10 base the charge; that he had
assumed the receipt of certain sums
at certain times which never were
received at those times or at any time. The
whole charge would have fallen to the
ground; aud il would have left the inevi-
table conclusion that the supposed facts
had been invented Tout of whole cloth"
Now the modes OF Investigation in
courts of justice, in matters of this ma
ture. are only the logical methods of
ascertaining truth, which rational men
apply in Investigations out OF court. The
results OF applying the tombstone of
truth are the same, whether il IL applied
by twelve men in n jury box, by n mil
lion OF men in the country, or by
single candid individual. Human belief,
in matter of this kind-the charge
being one of wilful aud CONSCIOUS falsehood
and fraud-can have but one meth
Cd of testing the truth, but one mode
Of reaching rational conclusion. II
the charge res,s upon one iota of
fabricated evidence, there is an end
Of it. False in one false in all, is u maxim
not only of the law but of sound reason
and common sense.
In this ease the public now have the
means OF determining that not only
one fact has been alleged, but whole col
lection of facts that never had any exist
euoe; and that these have been made the
bass OF an infamous charge against an
innocent man. We think that the real
authors of this miserable SANDER had bet
tor remain concealed behind the imper-
sonal organs which they have used to pro-
ru'gate il, and that the Journals them
selves had better decline the office OF pro-
pngating and disseminating II further.
Neither the spirit nor the language with
which our Republican contemporaries
have met the refutation is creditable to
them.