The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1876-08-31
The Case Against Gov. Tilden.

1t is novelty in American politics to find
Presidential candidate convicted out of his own
mouth of perjury and fraud, and still more of
novelty to find him attempting to dodge such
an issue by legal quibbng which would dis
grace Tombs shyster On Tuesday last the
New York Times made the following charges
against Governor Tilden:
l. That on the Goth Of December, 1868, Mr..
Illden made an income tax return, undero oath,
III which he said that his total income from all
sources for the year 1862, amounted to only
S7,llS and on that amount his tax was paid.
But on the 9TH OF August, 1876, Mr. Tilden
made another deposition under oath, in the
form OF an answer to the St. Louis, Alton and
Tcrre Haute Railroad in which he said that
ON the 17th OF October, 1862 he was paid for
professional services by the bondholders OF
That road, the sum OF $4,000, and that on No
vember 7, 1862, he was paid a further sum OF
$4,000. On the assumption (Which is Of course
preposterons one that these two fees rep
resented Mr.. Tilden's sole professional income
1or 1862, it may be argued that he was legally
entitled to make certain deductions for taxes,
repairs, etc, which would reduce his taxable
income to the amount given in his sworn depo-
sition. But we have Mr.. Tilden's own testimo-
| ny that in 1868 lie was unable 10 figure out the
| deduction allowed by law at more than Sc, 552,
and we have his further testimony under oath
that he admitted an annual income of about
| $4,000 from dividends and interest on invest
ments. BY way of completing this part of the
case against Mr.. Tilden, we may add q new
| item OF his income, of which we can produce
the legal evidence, viz, the receipt on June IA,
1862, OF So, 1000 from the Cumberland Coal and
Iron Company. Keeping, then, strictly with
| in the evidence which can be proved to the sat
faction of court Of law, we have the follow
ing case against Mr.. Iden in relation to his
| income 1862:
Fees from Terrc IIaute Railroad. $40. 900
Dividends and interest. 1000
Cumberland Coal and Iron Company 5000
Total. ...,....... ..................... .s3s 900
| Deduct expenses, taxes, ete............... 6,552
Net proved income. .....................S 31 AS
Net income stated under oath.. Ills
| Income fraululently concealed. ..... $24, $50
| We need hardly say that the case against Mr.
| Tilden, when it comes to be fully investigated,
will prove very much stronger than this. A man
who made five millions of dollars in fifteen
years must have reckoned on his annual in
come by hundreds of thousands. But, without
going beyond demonstrated facts, we have
shown that in 1868 Samuel j. I'illen cva(ed
by perjury.
| 2. After 1868 and down to 1872, when the in
| come tax was abolished, Mr.. Tillen made no
| return of his income. He allowed the Asses
sors to guess at the amount, and was perfectly
content to pay the penalty of fifty per cent
| Tor failure to make return, since he could
| thus dcfraud the Government without running
| the annual risk of prosecution for perjury
That he did defraud the Government is sufii-
GENTLY obvious from the fact that ne paid tax
during all these years Oh an average income.
penalty included, OF only $15, 1000 it is per
fectlv clear that Mr.. Tilden, during the ten
years in which he was accommodating the largest
part OF his enormous fortune, must have had
an income more than ten times rs Great rs that
| on which he paid tax.
To these grave accusations of perjury and
fraud there has been given but one reply. 1t
IS that the $4,000 received from the Ierre
llaute Raroadin 1862 represented the earn
lngs OF several years, and was therefore not
chargeable to the income OF that year. The
answer totally fails to meet the case. L. Be
cause half of the fee was actually earned in
1862. 2. Because there were half q dozen
similar fees received in 1862, of which the Cum
berland Coal Company's was one; and, 3. Be-
cause the law has been clearly and repeatedly
declared to bc-by Judge Blatcllford, among
others, so lately as March last-that the taxa
Die income OF given year is represented by
the money actually received in that year, no
matter when it was earned. The igilorancc of
the Inv displayed b5a Mr. 'Ftlcn'sa pologists in
the press may be real or feigncd; that 1gno-
rance is nor was shared by Mr.. Tlden him
self. The Times has not pronounced Mr. Til
den perjurcr and a swindler without due de-
liberation and ample proofs; it will not with
draw these epithets until Mr.. I'lden or his
friends produce equally satisfactory proofs 70
sustain the assertion that he did not swear
Tntc 4 a. ,1,e.a Al,
We need hardly add that if these expressions
are not Withdrawn, Mr.. Tilden would best con-
suit his own interests and those of his party by
withdrawing from the canvass.