The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1876-09-16
THE PERJURY BUSINESS.

The charge against Samuel j. Tilden ls'
that in 1873 he swore that his entire incoiho
for the year 1872 subject to taxation uhuef
the income tax law of 1872, was $.,ii0'
while it is shown by his answer IN me ierfe
Haute and Alton Railroad case, mat ne re-
ceiyed IN 1872, $4,000 as fees for services III
that suit So it is alleged that he admits the
roce;n, If 5000 o that year and swears to an
income of but $711S. Nothing can be more
J indefinite and unfair than such a charge
The incom. law levied tax only on the
gains and profits from the actual earnings OF
that wear Nov, Mr.. Tilden, like any other
active business man, might have taken IN sou
900 in 1862, and yet the actual gains or prof.
I its on his earnings for that year might nave
been So 900 or nothing,
| There was not merchant in Ottaws that
took IN less than S50,0C0 IN 1862, yc' we
doubt whether a single one returned TAXA
bic income of 81 600 But in Tildcn's case
the answer is simple and perfect. The mo-
ment the charge against him appeared in the
New York Times he directed his clerk 10
state in card to the public that although ne
had receiced the 100000 in 1869. The money
had been earaed during five years pervlous TO-
1869, so that, under the income tax law, IT
WAS not taxable as income for 1862. TINS
answer was round, full, and complete ana
lett nothing more to say, and Mr.. lllden very
properly has condesccndcd to take no iurther
notice of the charge But while the vndlca,
ton of Tllden is thus prompt and complete,
how is it with Mr.. Hayes, against whom a
similar charge Is brought?
The undisputed facts in the case are these
In 1878 Mr.. Hayes, while lawyer in Cincln-
natl, boarding at a hotel and owning only his
library and Office furniture, returned TO me
assessor his whole personal property al ST.
700. Before the next years assessment me-
accedcd to the fortune of his uncle Sardls
Blrcharu, valued at from $250,O0J to S5OO,OO0,
and including personal property which Birch-
ard himself a cose-fisted, penurlous man, me
wear before had returned rs worth $4,000.
Yet with this important addition to his means,
Hayes for 1874 returned under oath his whole
personal property at S2,5Sl; tor 1919 at
5000, and for 1876 at S5,7l0. though it is
proved that he owned carriages, horses, pic
lures, library, &c, &c, worth at least ,0OO
always had a comfortable cash balance at his
bank, and held mortgages in his olon name, to-
say nothing of $4,000 worth he inherited
from his uncle to the amount of $l36SO.7S,
every dollar of which the law required him
to return, but not dollar of which appears
IN his sworn tax return. In short, the records
OF Sandusky county, Ohio, show Hayes to-
h We been IN possession, in 1874, OF personal
property worth S57,0UO, in 1875 worth S47,-
2Ou and in 1876 worth $4,000, while in his
tax returns he swears to his total personal
property as worth 1851, $6,l2 and S5,7lOI
for the same years respectively.
There is no getting around this. Hayes
has authorized the editor of the ColumbusI
state JOurndL to publish an explanation of the
damnlng discrepancies between his tax re.
turns and the record, but the explanation fails
woefully to explain. 1t Is confined entirely
TO such matters as his horses, watches, car
riages, die bequest money left in his hands,
&c, but he utterly ignores the most serious
and stubborn part of all, the mortgages on
the records at Fremont IN his own name,
taken IN pay for lands and lots which he has
sold for his own benefit. Nothing is said
about the $4,000 uncle Blrchard left on de.
post; nothing about his $500 worth of
paintings, his $500 diamond, his $4,000
mortgages, &c, DC. The truth is, Hayes
in the business is most seriously
smirched, and whether elected to the presi-
dency or not, the pitch can never be wholly
rubbed off