The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1876-10-04

| 1urnlShed the only basis on WHICH lii
Times started out on this defamatory cru
sade. It pretended to have discovered
an inconsistency between Governor Til
den's return of income in 1862, and GER
tain 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 $1,000 against
said second mortgage bondholders, and
the said charge was paid by or on behalf
of said second mortgage bondholders,
on the 18th of October, 1862, out of a
fund contributed by said second mort
gage bondholders, under an agreement
between themselves, dated November
1, 1852"
Now then, the question presents itself,
What were the Services" for which this
services was made, and when were they
rendered? To ascertain this we need
|
these words: ''And they further say,
touching the statements in bill of COM
plant as to the services of the defen-
dant Samuel J. Tilden, that he had long
prior to and at the time of the commence
ment 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
instituted, and that he was counsel also
for the trustee of the said second mort
gage bondholders, and had been for some
time IN the gear 1857.
1t appears, therefore, that this money
was paid for services running through
flee gears anterior to 1862, and it does not
appear that any part whatever was earn
ed in that year. The decree fixing and
confirming the rights of the second
mortgage bondholders was entered at
the August term in the year 1861, and
the sale itself took place as early as
March, 1862.
No appreciaJZe part, If any, Of this dtena
can therefore be Gpportloned to Hteyear 1862.
NSa9th lem November z. Services
to first mortgage bondholders of st.
Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad
Company, as per affidavit, $4,000"
This item was the original main stay
of the ZEmes's SANDER, and is still clung
I to with considerable tenacity in support
of its theory on the subject, the Times
has appealed to the Answer before men
| toned. To this document we shall now
refer, and at page 81 we find the follow
! ing statements:
''That the defendant, Tilden, for a part
| of his services aforesaid, also made a
charge of the like sum of $40, 900 on ac-
count of professional services rendered
to the first mortgage bondholders and
| the receivers, which was paid to him by
the said Azariah G. Fragg, surviving re-
! ceiver as aforesaid.
| And these defendants deny that either
of the two claims of the defendant last
aforesaid were for, or were ever stated
by him as for claims against the reorgaas5-
zGtion or that it was resolved by the pur-
chasing committee last aforesaid that
any claim of the defendant last aforesaid
for $40, 900 against the reorganization be
allowed as in the said bill of complaint
mentioned, (Fols. 146, 147, 49,"
To ascertain the time of the rendition
of the services on account Of which such
payment was made, the reader is refer
red to the opposite page, at folio IA,
where we find it stated that Mr.. Tilden
/ Al 1 4
that he also acted as the principal coun
sci for the said first mortgage bondhold-
ers, in relation to the foreclosure pro-
ceedings hereinbefore mentioned, and
other proceedings connected Herewith, 4,
and that such services had commenced
prior to the year 1859, and were render
ed from time to time, during period of
upwards of three years thereafter"
In other words, the services were rem
dered in 1858, 1859, 1860 and 1861. No
considerable part Of these services belong to the
gear 1862. The foreclosure proceedings
ir which they wele rendered had already
reached a decree in August, 1861.
Fam aware that a most disingenuous
construction has been put by the Times
upon a sentence from the answer which
have here quoted, viz, the words,
land that such services had commenced
prior to the year 1859, AMI were render
ed from time to time, during period OF
1t1aoards of three years ther eafter." The
argument of the Times is that this SEN
tence admits the continuance of these
services during tie ac1io1e of the year 1862.
1 submit that even if these words stood
alone, any fair mind would read them
as meaning that the services continued
for upwards of three years after they had
commenced, which is expressly stated to
have been before the year 1869. This is
the true construction of the words. II
is their meaning. 1t accords with the
facts.
But, of course, if the writer desired to
ascertain the meaning and intent of this
passage, and found it ambiguous, he
would look to the context and, indeed,
to the whole answer.
BY referring to page II of this same
answer you will perceive that the fore
closure suit in which these services were
rendered was terminated in decree as
early as August 8, 1861 folio 67, and
that the road was actually sold in the
month of March, 1852. So that there
must have been at least nine months ol
the year 1862 which could not have call
ed for these services, and as to the inter
val between January and March, 1862
any lawyer will understand that thii
could not have called for much service
being the time occupied by the running
of the advertisement of sale, &c. Fur