The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-08-30
GROSSLY "UNFAIR.n

The Troy Press is very brilliant, as well
as very indignant, about Tilden's income
tax. Il says that "it is unfair to single out
" one year and hold that up as a sample of
/" his returns" OF course, it is grossly
" unfair" as "uniair" as it would be to
try man for stealing when the proof
against him was unquestionable, instead of
tor forgery, of which he was entirely inno-
cent. Tie democracy would like to try
Governor Tiloen the same way. 1t is grossly
unfair to "single out one year, and that
year 1862, because his sworn income return
for that year, when contrasted with his
sworn answer in the St. Louis, Alton and
Terre Haute railroad suit, filed within a
few weeks past, looks just trifle ugly. 10
ore aili5avit, he sweais that his income was
less than eight thousand dollars. In the
other, he swears that he received, in 1862,
twenty thousand dollars in single case.
Some people are disposed to call this clash
ing of affllavits by the ugly name of
perjury" There are the aflldavts. The
charge of perjury is openly made. The
proof seems evident and yet Samuel ].
Tilden is silent as the grave. He does not
explain, or attempt to explain-apparently
for the very good reason that explanation
is impossible OF couTse it 10 grossly
unfair to single out" this Que year.
But tays the Press, let the republicans
be fair about it, "let them take his returns
"year by year during the time the income
tax was asscssable, and show the respect
"ive amounts that he returned. This they
will do, if they are honest" Yea,vefily |!
Here is where the Press displays its accus-
toned intelligence and acuteness. and we
| might almost say cruditon. Why not,
| take his relurns, year by yearp That GER
tainlY, would be fair and honest. There is
only one little difficulty in the way, and
we can state that difficulty in tie language
of the Press already quoted, with slight
alteration "This they would do, if Til
" den had been honest" The difficulty is
that the "model reformer" didn't make any
returns. From 1868 to 1872, when the law
imposing an income tax was repealed, Sam
uel j. Tilden neglected aud refused 10
make any returns of his income, but sub
mtted to an assessment and an addition to
such assessment of fifty per cent. thereof
by way Of a penalty, and paid his income
tax thereon. How then, in heavens name,
can we take his returns year by year,
how can VIC avoid the "unfairness" OF
'' singing out one year ?"
How stands the case -? In 1862 Samuel
j. TiIden made sworn return of his Sin
" come from all sources as only 81, 110.
1t appears from his sworn answer, made
in 1876, that he received in one case alone,
in 1862, $4,000. 10 he not by his own
showing, under oath, convicted of perjury,
of 6ef audiug the government? And this
without taking into the account the other
tins of income he is known to have re.
ceived during that year.
From 1868 10 1872 he neglected and nc
fused to make any retlrn Of his income,
bat submitted to IN assessment, which
win the repaly OF nity per cent added
amounted to fifteen thousand dollars 6
year, or, in gross, $4,000, on which
he paid an income tax. During the same
years he is known to have received an iu
come of over 81 100000. Is he moi
guilty of swindling and defrauding the
government out of the tax en- the differ
ence b veen these amounts, on, at least
S800,000? And yet this is the man VIZ
are asked to support for president OF thu
United States.