The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1876-09-12
make any other oath than in the form

1
has had any business with the assessor
he must know that the assessor has re-
| qnired of him nothing further than 70
exhibit his property TO the assessor
himself has affixed the value.
Yet the Democrat says "R. Il. Hayes
returned in 1875. three horses at $500,
when his neighbors knew that valued
one. of his horses at $500. Was this
perjury"
The Democrat knows, as every man
knows, that it is not perjury; for the
Democrat knows, and every man knows
that the oath taken by Gov. Hayes had
no earthly reference to the value OF the
horses, that it related solely to the
number Gf them, and that the value
was fixed by the assessor. He doubt
less fixed il at about the rate that he
valued other horses Of the same kind.
The Democrat further says: ar. Is.
Hayes returned in 1876 four carriages
at $3.50, when il was known to many
of the citizens OF Fremont that he paid
Mr.. Moore, manufacturer of that city
$500 for one OF them, and had a phae-
ton that cost $3.50. Was that perjury?
We answer that the Democrat and
".
for the Democrat and every man knows
that the valuation is not covered or
tonched by the oath of Governor Hayes.
but was valuation fixed by the asses
sor himself.
The Democrat also says; ar. b.
Hayes returned gold watch at $500 in
1874, and in 1875 and 1876 returned
three watches, including the one re-
turned in 1874, at $500. Was this per-
jury?" We answer No, for the reasons
above stated.
Whether the watches that were ro-
turned in 1876 and 1876 embraced the
watch that was returned at $500 in IA
we suppose the Democrat knows no
more about than we do. 1t matters
not whether il is the same or not. III the
assessor has fixed the value ut 500 il
is matter for him and not matter in-
volved in the affidavit Of Gov, Hayes.
There was q new assessor each year.
The Democrat also says that by the
will OF Sardis Birchard $50, 900 in per-
sona property was bequeathed to Gov.
Hayes in January, 1874, and that Birch.
ard in 1873 returned in personal prop
erty to the assessor exclusive of mon
80, $50, and that Gov. Hayes only "re-
turned to the assessor for taxation in
1874 as his personal property, over
and above the IL enumerated items.
81 900, and asks, "Was this perjury"
We answer that il does not furnish
the slightest proof of perjury or OF
falsehood in any pai ticular.
The Democrat also says that in March
1874, Gov. Hayes held mortgage notes
against Amsden for 81 900; also others
against VanDorn, Morariety, Andrews
and Hale, amounting to S5,675-none
Of which did he list for taxation. Why
he did not list it we do not pretend TO
know. The Democrat does not pre-
tend to say. IL does not appear that
he was the owner Of them at the time
OF the listing. There may be another
very good reason stated why they we're
not listed, il he was the owner of them,
and that is, he may have had a right
not to list them. by reason Of being in
dobted himself in an equal or greater
sum, for, by the law Of Ohio, q man is
required to list for taxation only such
amount OF Indebtedness due TO him as
is in excess OF what he then owes.
The Democrat again. in drawing its
long bow, says "that $33, 700 we're left
in the hands Of Hayes by the will of
Birchard, which he was not required to
pay over for three years, aud upon
wiiicn Hayes paid no interest for two
years, and that Hayes did not return n
single dollar of this money for taxa
ton" and adds, cat least he only re-
turned $500 in his hands in 1876, and
inquiries. twas this perjury"
Now for the facts as to this matter.
There is not particle OF evidence that
the will OF Birchard put any such
amount OF money, or one dollar of
money, into the hands OF Hayes for the
purpose indicated. Ii is one thing to
provide that out OF mans estate be-
quests shall be paid, and another thing
to provide that money actually on hand
at the time OF his death may be held
by his executor for three years, or any
other time.
The Democrat proceeds TO make the
matter plain, as it says, and quotes
from the will Of Birchard rs follows:
II give and bequeath TO each OF my
nieces, Mary Birchard, Of Fayetteville,
aud Charlotte Dewitt, OF Elyria, the
sum OF 3, 600 each.
II give and bequeath 10 Sarah Jane
Grant, of Fremont, the sum Of $1,000.
81 give and bequeath 10 each OF the
four children OF VIM. A. and Fronie A.
Platt, viz: Laura, Fannie. Emily and
Rutherford, the sum OF =, 800 each.
II give and bequeath TO each OF the
six children OF Austin B. Tyler, deceas-
ed, late of Fremont, o., 81 900.
II give and bequeath to Charles
Birchard, son OF my brother, Austin
Birchard, OF Fremont, the sum OF 5000
per annum during his natural life.
at is my will, and / hereby direct
that my executor shall not be compel
led to pay any of the sums OF money
given and bequeathed by this will until
the expiration OF three years after my
decease, but interest shall be paid on
the same two years after my decease.
We now ask every candid reader
again carefully TO read this extract
from the will, aud say whether il proves
or tends TO prove in the slightest de-
gree, that the sums bequeathed were
In fact in the hands OF the testator IN
money at the time he made the will, or
that they were in money at the time oil
his death, or that the money, or any
part of it, fell into the hands OF Gov.
Hayes upon the death OF Birchard, or
has since come into his hands.
OF course the property of Birchard
out of which these moneys are to be de
rived, came into the hands Of Gov
Hayes. OF course il is the duty o
Gov. Hayes 10 convert enough OF the
property OF the estate into money, to
pay the interest on them for two years
II is manifest from the provisions o
the legacies themselves that the tim,
of three years was given to enable the
executor to convert the property int
money SO as TO pay them. Everything
tends to show that IL was out OF tn
property that Orchard expected tn
moneys 10 be raised with which thes
legacies are to be paid.
The Democrat ought 10 know. as ey
cry intelligent man does know, that nj
the real property belonging to the rs
tate OF Birchard is on the tax dupli
cate, without any reference as TO VIII
is the owner Of IL, aud there can be NJ
question but that il has been compelle
to pay all taxes assessed upon IL sine
Orchards death, the same as any 9th
er real estate.
Now, in view Of the whole subject
may we not assume the following:
4. That the friends of Tildet
wounded and silenced by Tilden's tv
contradictory affidavits as 10 his incom
; during the yqar 1862, have struck on