Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1876-09-15

$3.50 in 1874, while the maker of one
of the carriages states that Mr.
Hayes paid him that year $500 fol
single carriage. One horse, val.
ued at $500, is returned worth but
800 In possession of piano, he
has failed to make a return thereof
as the law of Ohio requires. With
over 100000 worth of personal
property Gov. Hayes has returned,
under oath, for the past three years,
less than $4,000 worth for taxation.
When these charges were brought
to the attention of Gov. Hayes, un.
like TSlden, he furnished a prompt
answer to them that forever sets
them at rest, and justifes his charac
ter as an honest man. The true
facts in relation to the matter of the
charge, are found in the following
special despatch to the Inter Ocean.
COLUMBUS, Ono, SEPT. ga sen.
sational story was telegraphed from
Fremont, last Saturday. stating that
it had been discovered that Govern
or Hayes had falsifed his return Of
personal property made to the Assess
or of Sandusky County. Thinking
there might be two sides to the story
your correspondent called on Gov.
ernor Hayes tonight and directed
his attention to the matter. The
Governor said the tale was
A TISSUE OF MISREPRESENTATION
but did not submit to formal inter
view, as he had already communicat
ed all the facts in the case to Gener.
al Comfy, Of the State Journal, who
would furnish proof.slips of the art.
icle he had prepared for him on the
question. From these slips I con.
dense the following: The charge is
that Sardis Orchard, Hayes uncle
and benefactor, listed s9,9s2 person
atty in 1878, exclusive of money and
credits, and that Hayes, with the
same personally in possession, listed
only $1,000 in 1874. This is not
true. Orchards return included all
notes, credits and book accounts.
Hayes in 1874 made no return OF
notes, credits, and book accounts, be.
cause all the credits were swallowed
in debts. The same is true of the
notes. The personally bequeathed
to Hayes was almost entirely bank
stocks, on which the tax is paid by
the bank. The one item of all the
personally returned by Birchard,
S9,9S2, WAS more than swallowed up
by the obligations incurred by Hayes
in carrying out Orchards projects
for the benefit OF the town of Ere
mont. This very question 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 offset
the credits under this item, and that
the return Of 81, 900 in 1874 was for
HOUSEHOLD goods, which were not
subject to this deduction. The IN
crease in this item to SIS, 900 in 1875
was due to an increase in Hayes
private library. AS to
THE SECOND CHARGE,
Hayes says he never had and never
returned a watch worth $500. The
three watches returned are keep
sakes, and altogether not worth
$50. One watch Mrs. Hayes had
when a school girl. 1t has not been
running for twenty years.
Thirdly Hayes never owned y pi.
ano at the time the return was made,
and only rented one last October for
the use of niece who was visiting
him. This summer he traded lot
for one.
Fourthly it is alleged that Hayes
returned in 1875 and 1876 three hors-
es at $500 when they were worth
$500. In answer Hayes says
ONE OF THESE HORSES IS 81 YEARS
OLD,
and not worth anything and yet he
is listed at $50, and that the street
valuation of the other two is $50 and
800, yet he listed them for taxation
at $3.50. His best horse cost him
S125.
Filthy it is charged that in 1875
Hayes returned four carriages at
$3.50, when it is known he paid $500
for one and $3.50 for another. In
answer Hayes says the carriage re-
fered to was not bought till year
after the alleged false return was
made, and then it was properly list
ed, as the returns of 1876 show.
Two of these carriages were in fact
a buggy and wagon, one of which
was soon after sold for $50, and one
would not sell at any price; but they
were listed for SIS. The other was
a secondhand phnton, which cost
500.
Sixthly, it was charged that
$780, 700 was left in Hayes hands in
requests made by Birchard, which
he was allowed to hold for three
years, and that he did not return a
dollar of this money for taxation.
Hayes says
NOT ONE DOLLAR WAS LEFT HIM
to pay requests; that it was intended
the requests should be paid from
sales of lands, and he was given
three years so that the land could be
sold for this purpose. This real es-
tate is of course taxed by the county
without consultation or consent of
it's owner or holder.
Seventhly, this property was all
vested in Hayes by the terms of
Orchards will. 1t was therefore not
necessary according to OHIO laws to
to make separate the property held
as executor. 1t all belonged to
Hayes, and was listed as his. Gov
ernor Hayes is authority for all the
statements given above.