Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1876-09-28

eltnef mere oI III England, had Deen
devised, prepared, and successfully
passed in four di fferent States. All
this was accomplished principally un-
der the advice and with the labor of
Mr. .Tllden before the close of the year
1871. His engagements on the account
OF this railroad during that whole peri
cd were constant and engrossing.-
Whatever pay he received was for the
entire service as whole-it was not
itemized OF apporiioned.
The income tax law went into effect
on the lst of January, 1862, and the
incomes falling under its operation
were those accruing from and after the
said LIST day of January, 1862. Income
which had accrued before that time was
exempt from its operation.
do not think it necessary to occu>
cupy much time or space in discussing
the legal aspects Of this income ques
ton, or in sustaining the right of a citi.
zen to receive and retain, free from in
come tax, moneys which he had already
earned by his own labor in years wher
no income tax existed.
The rule on this subject was early
declared and promulgated by the Inter
national Revenue Department itself
and is in full accord with these views.
In 1868 the Hon. Geo. S. Boutwell,,
then late commissioner of internal reve.
nue., prepared a Emanuel of Direct and
Excise Tax System" which Mr.. Secre-
tary Chase, officially approved and au-
thorized.
Under date of May, 1868, this man
uel contains ZIP. 27a, 274) the follows
ing decision by the commissioner OF
internal revenue: 49,
"a merchants return of income
should cover the business of the year
1862, excluding previous years.
physicians and lawyers should in
clude actual receipts for services render
ed in 1862, together with an estimate
OF unrealized or contingent income due
to that year.
In view of these decisions and official
instructions of the internal revenue de-
partment, Mr.. Tilden's income return
for 1862 was made up, so that, even if
different view had since been authori-
tatlvely held and expressed, Mr.. Tilden
would stand completely justified. But
there is no authority for any different
view.
Judge Sinnott next proposes to deal
with the original income tax charge,
namely, that, while in the year 1862
Gov. Tilden returned an income subiec,
to taxation of $7,118, he has since
sworn, In answer to another suit, to a
receipt in that year from the first and
second mortgage bondholders of the St
Louis, Alton and Terre Haute railroad
OF $4,000, $4,000 having been PAID
by the bondhoders of each class. TIA.
king up first the cha, ge of receipt o,
$4,000 from the second mortgage
bondholders, Judge Sinnott says
II you will turn to page 81, folio 145
of the answer in Equity, flied by the
defendants, of whom Mr.. Tilden is one
'of four, in snit brought by the St.
Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad
Company, you will find these words:
"That for such services the defendant
Tilden made charge $4,000 agalns,
said second mortgage bondholders, anc
the said charge was paid by or on be-
hall OF said second mortgage bondhold'
ers on the 18th of October, 1862, out O.
a fund contributed by said second mort,
gage bondholders, under an agreement
between themselves dated Nov. /
1889"
Now, then, the question presents it.
selt What were the Services" fol-
which this payment was made, anG
when were they rendered ? To ascer.
tain this we need only look at folio 1913
where we find these words: "Anc
they further say, touching the state.
ments in bill of complaint as to the ser.
vices of the defendant, Samuel. Til
den, that he had, long prior to and a
the time of the commencement of the
foreclosure suit in the said bill of com
plant entioned, been the counsel fol-
the second mortgage bondholders, ir
whose behalf such suit was instituted
and that he was counsel also for tine
trustees of the said secund mort,
gage bondholders, and had beer
tor some time in the year 1857"
1t appears, therefore, that this money
was paid for services running through
five years anterior to 1862, and it does
not appear that any part whatever was
earned in that year. The decree fixing
and confirming the rights of the second
mortgage bondholders was entered a,
the August term in the year 1861, and
the sale itself took place as early as
March, 1862 No appreciate part, ii
any, of this item can therefore be
apportioned to the year 1862.
Judge Sinnott next deals with the
$4,000 paid by the first mortgage
bcndholders, quoting. again from Gov
Tllden,s answer in the equity suit, on
page 81, as follows: 80
"That the defendant Tilden, for part
of his services aforesaid, also made a
charge of the like sum of $4,000 on
account of professional services rendered
to the first mortgage bondholders and
the receivers, which was paid to him by
the said Azariah G. Flagg, 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
reorganization, or that it was resolved
ny the purchasing committee last afore-
said that any claim of the defendant
last aforesaid for $4,000 against the
reorganization be allowed as in the said
bill of complaint mentioned" (Fols.
LAG, 147. 1889
10 ascertain the time of The rendition