Bradford opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1874-1881, 1876-09-23
Gov. Hayes Income Tax.

To the charges against MIN MI
Hayes promptly replies as follows
through the Ohio State Journal:
The charges were first that, Sar'
des Birchard, Gov. Hayes uncle
and bencfactor, listed $00S2 person
atty in 1873, exclusive of money
and credit, while Gov. Hayes, with
the same personality in his posses
sion, listed only $1,000 in 1874. Sec
ond, that Gov. Hayes made a very
small estimate of the value OF his
watches, although one was alone
worth $500. Third, that he has new
er returned his piano, although he
owns u very han dsOme one. Fourth,
that he returned in 1915 and 1876
three horses at $500, when they
were worth $500. Fifth, that he re-
turned four carriages at $3.50. when
it is known that he paid $500 for
one and $3.50 for another. Sixth,
that S33, 200 was left in his hands
us requests by Mr.. Birhard, which
he was allowed to hold three years,
but that he did not return dollar
of this money for taxation. Seventh,
that he made no returns of the prop.
erty as executor.
1t is almost II pity that such an
artistic piece of campaign lying
should come to grief. But Gov.
Hayes reply to these charges, briefly
summarized, is rs follows:
First-Birchard's return includ
ed all notes, credits and bank ac
counts. When Gov. Hayes made
his return in 1874 all credits were
swallowed up in debts, and the
same is true of these notes. The
personality bequeathed to Govern
or Hayes was almost wholly bank
stocks, the tax upon which was paid
by the banks. The 5000 returned
by Birchard was more than swal
lowed up by the obligations iucurr
ed by Gov. Hayes in carrying ou
Orchards project for the benefit o
the town of Fremont. In 1874
$1,000 was returned, which was fol
household goods not subject to this
deduction. and in 1875 the item was
increased to $4,000 because Of al
Increase in Gov. Hayes private Ii
brary.
Second-Gov. Hayes never had {
watch worth $500. The three watch
es returned are keepsakes, not wortl
$3.50 altogether, and that belonging
to Mrs. Hayes she had when a schoo
girl and it has not been running TO
twenty years.
Third-Gov. Hayes owned no pi
ano at the time the return was made
and only rented one for the use of
niece who was visiting him. Thu
summer he traded a lot for one.
Fourth-one Of Gov. Hayes hors
es is twenty seven years old and no
worth anything, but is listed at $50
the other two are worth $50 ant
800, bat are returned together a
$3.50. His best horse cost him $l25
Fitth-the carriage referred t.
was not bought till a year after thu
return was made, but then 1t wa
properly listed. Two of the Car
riages were u buggy and wagon
one of which soon after sold for 500
and the other would not sell at an,
price; but they were listed for $7d
The other was a secondhand phae
ton, costing 300.
Sixth--not a dollar was left Gov
It was intended the '6e4Ges'tfss shout
be paid from sales of land, and tire
years time was allowed in order t
dispose of the land. This real es
tate is all taxed by the county with
out consultation with the owner.
Seventh the property is all veste'
directly in Gov. Hayes by the tern
of the will, and the Ohio laws d.
not require separate returns as ex
ecutor.
This response by Gov. Hayes dis
1poses of all charges against him. |
is pity that his rival for the Pres
idency can not, with equal frank
ness, explain apparent classification
of income returns. But it is on
thing to demolish the idle tattlings
of a scandal,monger, and anothe
thing to try to reconcile two fatty
contradictory OathS.