Mexico weekly ledger., 1876-10-05

and yez this statement puts down S4, 500 as
the fee for drawing the third mortgage as
against ~, 500 for the second.
OF course no such charge or Gny other
specgtc chdrge aods ever made 6y Mr.. 1W-
den for h dra1ing of this instrument.
Sinth Nem.-st March 2. Fees for final
conveyance to Railway Company, subject to
the mortgage, Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and
Chicago Railroad Company, S., 000.'
Mr.. 7Nden neUeT made, rendered or co.,
tected, nor 1as he euer paid, any such bill
or item tn q blu.
Nor is there any thing but the dates of
these deeds ON which to base the assump-
ton, that the work on them was exclusively
done in the year 1862. tE ' I'D
And, right here, it is proper to say a few
words in regard to Mr.. Tilden's scale of
| charges. 1t is a great mistake to suppose
that counsel must have been paid in 1862 at
the high rates which ruled in subsequent
years. Mr.. Tilden, at that time, was in the
habit of charging veTylosC prices. TIL class
OF business in which he was engaged requir-
ed, particularly, great skill in negotiation
a thorough knowledge OF men, a thorough
knowledge of the railway system and bust
ness condition and prospects OF the country,
and a constructive power OF deyising and
suggesting ways and means OF reconciling
apparently conflicting peGuniary interests to
the permanent benefit and satisfaction of all
concerned. The mere draUtng OF papers
was hardly thought Of, in estimating the
value of Mr.. Tflden's services. He was paid
because he reconciled and rescued, as no
other man in this country could then have
done, interests worth millions which to many
persons seemed hOpelessly lost. Yet in this
publication he is set down, upon mere sur
mise, and without any data or authority, as
work which could not reasonably have oc-
cupied more than one month of his time,
while the Answer in the st. Louis, Alton
and Terre Haute case discloses the fact that
he was working at the same class of bust
ness, and about the same time, at the rate of
twenty thousand dollars for four consecu-
tvs years service, or at the rate of five
thousand dollars a year.
Seuenh Nem.-"J june ID. Cumberland
Coal and Iron Company, $780,
The Times allows that one-half Of this
sum should be deducted, on the ground that
it probably was not earned in 1862. Neither
was any of it.
Gov. Tilden rendered no services to the
Cumberland Coal and Iron Company IN
that gear. He did render it important
services during the previous years beginning
with 1858, but they were all concluded be-
ceived it must have been in bonds, and in
settlement Of an old account, and not taxa
BILE.
Eighth Nem.-''October II. Service to
second mortgage bondholders of St. Louis,
Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Company,
as per affidavit, SIC, 000.'
OF course no bill was ever rendered by
Mr.. Tilden in the above form. But this
item and the one next following furnished
the only basis on which the Times started
out on this defamatory crusade. 1t pre-
tended to have discovered an inconsistency
between Gov Tilden's return Of income, in
1862, and certain allegations contained in an
answer In equity, filed by the defendants,
of whom Mr.. Tilden is one of four, in a suit
brought by the St. Louis, Alton and Terre
Haute Railroad Company.
If you will turn to page 81, folio 145, you
will find these words:
''That for such services the defendant
Tilden made a charge of ten thousand dol
lars againstssaid second mortgage bondhold-
| ers, and the said charge was paid by or on
on the 18th of October, 1852, out of a fund
contributed by said second mortgage bond
holders, under an agreement between them
selves dated November LIST, 1852
Now then, the question presents itself,
what were the s'services'' for which this
payment was made, and when were they
rendered.? To ascertain this we need only
look at folio 143, where we find these words:
"And they further say touching the state
ments in bill Of complaint as to the services
of the defendant Samuel j. Tilden, that he
had, long prior to and at the time of the
commencement of the foreclosure suit in
the said bill Of complaint mentioned, been
the counsel for the second mortgage bond
holders. in whose behalf such suit was in
stituted, and that he was counsel also for the
trustees of the said second mortgage bond
holders, and had been from some time in
the year 1857
1t appears, therefore, that this money
was paid for services running through fue
gears anterior to 1862, and it does not APP
pear that any part whatever was earned in
| 4Ln% r-4a. Th4 I@n~14 - a~I a~rG ~~,
ing the rights of the second mortgage bond
holders was entered at the August term in
the year 1861, and the sale itself took place
as early as March, 1862.
No Improbable part, If any, of this item
can therefore be appOrtiOned to the year
1852.
Ninth Hem.-"November Z. Serv.
ices to First Mortgage Bondholders of ST.
Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad
Company, as per affidavit, S10,0O0.'
This item was the original main stay Of
The Times SANDER, n is still chung te
with considerable tenacity. In support OF
its theory on the subject, the Times has
appealed to the Answer before mentioned.
To this document we shall now refer, and
at page 81 we find the following statements
''That the defendant Tilden, for a part
of his services aforesaid. also made a charge
of the like sum Of ten thousand dollars on
account of professional services rendered to
the First Mortgage bondholders and the Re.
c~eivers, which was paid to him by the said
Azariah G: Flag, surviving Receiver as
"'And these defendants deny that either
of the two claims of the defendant last afore-
said were for, or were ever stated by him
as for claims against the re0rgdnizdtton, or
that it was resolved by the purchasing COM
mittee last aforesaid, that any claim OF the
defendant aforesaid for ten thousand dollars
against the reorganization be allowed as in
the said bill of complaint mentioned
(Fols. 146, lat, 14S.)
To ascertain the time Of the rendition of
the services on account of which such pay