The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1876-09-14
His LiStment Of Personal
Property for Taxes.
The Democratic Charges Against Him
in That Connection.
A Complete Demonstration Of
the Falsity of Those Charges.
The Refutatlon Based on the Authority
of Gov. Hayes Himself.

Samuel J.. Tilden is the sworn witness offered
by the Republican press in proof OF the allega'
ton that Samuel T. Tilden made and swore to
a false income return for the year 1852. There
has been so far no explanation or excuse for
this false-sWearing. The truth h. there can
be no explanation or excuse. Either one or
the other must be false. For nearly month,
now, leading Democratic newspapers OF the
q decenter sort, like the great German Stats
ZeitaJaq of New York, have been pointing Mr..
Tilden to this strange discrepancy between hls
two oaths and have been waiting for him to
show how the discrepancy may he so far recon
ciled as to allow honorable men to vote for
him. Mr. Ottensdorfer says to him, with Ger
man outrightness, 8 Clear this thing up, OF you
are no fit man for President" Having waited
until further delay was not only dangerous,
but fatal, Mr.. Tilden at last makes reply.
His reply is that Gov. Hayes listed his personal
property for taxation, under our State laws, at
less than it's true value in money.
Not one word Of explanation or excuse for
Gov Tilden, except this thieves argument,
hat another man is as bad as he Is.
Now let us see what is charged by this cleo
ioneering document, which is 60 evidently In
pired by Tilden, as a set-oH to his false and
fraudulent income return.
It sets out with what we may assume to be
Substantially true copies of r. B. Hayes
Statement of personal property, moneys,
redits etc. subject to taxation In Sandusky
1untv' for the years 1874, 1875 and 1876.
.hese returns, with affidavits, would occupy
3Iurnn of space, and we omit them, for the
JASON that the comments cover every possible
ound of objection which partisan ingenuity
as been able to invent as to their correctness
nd sufic;encv These comments we copy in
III. as follows, reproducing the tremendous
biography, so far as our limited facilities will
rmit: AskeI@A
as win be seen by reference to the return of Gov.
ayes for 1874, he returned in moneys, credits,
ok-aCcounts household goods, etc., S eco. The
Il of Sardis Orchard, who bequeathed to r. B.
ayes fully $50 0JJ IN personal property, was ad
tted to probate Jan. %, 1874, and as Gov. Hayes
IS the executor without bond, he became pos
ssed of all the property devised to him by the
II at once. Birchard returned In personal prop
~ exclusive Of moneys, credits, notes, book
counts etc $685. to the Assessor in April, 1873,
d Gov. Hayes, after having all that Brchard re-
rned added to what he owned previously, re-
srned to the Assessor for taxation, in April 1874,
his personal property, not included i'll the seven
en- enumerated items, ,000 Vas this perjury?
March, 1874, previous to making his return to
q Assessor, Il. B. Hayes held mOrtgage-nOteS
ainst l. E. Amsden for 50, 900, interest per cent?
yable annually, due in 1875 and also against
twin Van Dorm, Martin Monarchy, William He
idrews and A. j. and Elizabeth Hale, amount
z to SIS, 675, all bearing 6 per cent interest. II.
/ not list this $9675 for taxation, though he
s held the notes since 1874, previous to making
! return for that year. R. B. Hayes returned
,o.d watch at $500 in 1874, and in 1878 and 1876
iurned three Watches including the one returned
1914, at 5000. Was this perjury? K. B. Hayes
not return piano in any one Of the three years,
hOugh he had one in his parlor all the time, and
Is the boast of his admiring neighbcrs that the
e now in his parlor cost $3.50. Was this perjury?
B. Hayes returned in 1875 and 1875 three horses
$780, when his neighbors know that he values
e of his horses at $500. Was this perjury? IL. b.
aves returned in 1875 four carriages at $3.50, when
was we'll known to any of the citizens OF Fremont
At he paid Mr.. Moore, a manufacturer OF that
" $500 for one of them, and had a phaeton (sic)
1t cost $3.50. Was this perjury? Thirty-three
ousand seven hundred dollars was left In his
znds in requests in the will Of Sardis Birchard,
lich Gov. Hayes was not required 10 pay over Tor
rec years, and upon which he paid no interest for
o years and ne did not return single dollar of
is money for taxation. At least lie only returned
90 IN his hands in 1876. Was this perjury?
In order to make this matter so plain that there
d be no question about it, we give from the will.
Orchard the names of the devisees (slc) to whom
g $40, 700 was given and the amount bequeathed
II giye and bequeath to each Of my n1eces Mary
richard of Fayetteville, and Charlotte Dewitt, of
lyria the sum of $1,000 each.
Il give and bequeath to Sarah Jane Grant, CT
fremont Ohio, the sum Of $4,000
81 give and bequsath to each of the four children,
v, A. and Fronie (Fannie) A. Platt, VIZ: Laura,
Fanny Emily and Rutherford, the sum of $4,000
~ give and bequeath to each of the six children
of Austin B. Tyler deceased, late OF Fremont oho'
II give and bequeath to Charles Orchard, son of
my brother, Austin BirGhard OF Vermont, the sum
of $500 per annum during his natural life.
1T is my will, and hereby direct that my execu-
tors shall not be compelled to pay any of the
of money given and bequeathed by this swill until
the expiration of three years after my decease, but
interest shall paid on the same TWO .ears after
decease."
1t viii be observed that, in the 18th which R. B.
Hayes subscribed, he swore that he had listed all
the property which, by law, he was required to re-
turn as "owner, or holder, or husband, parent,
guardian, trustee, EXECUTOR, administrator, re-
ceiver accounting officer, agent, attorney or fac
tor" He held the amounts we have given from the
will devised by Birchard in his possession as EX-
ECUToR, and made no return OF any portion OF the
money or personal property for taxation. Was it
perjury? The excuse cannot be made tina the owed
debts to this amount which he deducted for he
could not deduct debts from money or credits he
2sld in fduciary capacity. 1t was not his money.
He simply had possession of it rs EXECUTOR, and
was hound by law to return It Tor taxation He did
not do it but he swore all the same, that ne had
returned all he required by law to list. Our
reporter searched the records III the once OF
the Auditor, Recorder and Probate Judge,
and ascertained that no returns was
made BIZ either Gov. Hayes or his co-executor. The
fact that Gov Hayes received into his possession the
large amount of personal property OF Sard1s
Birchard, consisting of household goods, valuable
paintings plate Watches etc., etc., all OF wnlcn Dy
law taxable and did not return it for taxatlon al
than one-tenth of its value, and did not return
1t all in 1874 either as executor, his own prop
erty, which undoubtedly it was is too clear to ADMIT
Of an escape from the charge of evadlng the pay
ment of taxes. In attempting to explain the fall-
ure of Gov. Hayes 10 return the money for the pay
ment of the requests IN the Will for taxation 1t w
no doubt be claimed that he had not yet realized
the money the sale of property 1t is all 20 be
paid this year. and if he has all the money ready
to pay over ne undoubtedly has realized some Of it,
or he has failed to execute the will. Two years and
a half have elapsed and no report TO the Probate
Judge as required by law, has been made by either
Rutherford B. Hayes or his co-executor, indicating
the payment of any OF the bequests thai the pre-
sumption is that they are not yet paid
Now, in order to present a clear and CON
nected statement and prevent confusion III the
mind of the reader, let us take up these matters
and dispose af them in regular order, as men
toned in the paper
l. F'1IoNEYs, CREDITS, BooK.ACCOUNTs, HOUSE
HOLD GooDss ETC" Fl & a i
Let us see what the law requires, first,
~der to understand this item. The tax-returl
@sys: Value of all credits, after deductiD;
bona tide debts" The law is given by tn
state Auditor, In his instructions to Asses
sors A #a
The term credits is defined in our tax-laws to mea
the excess OF all legal claims demands due, or
become due TO the party required to make return
whether for money, labor services, or other Walt
able thing, including deposits on time out