Middletown transcript., 1876-09-09

We are happy to oblige the Time.
SO easily. We have merely had to pro-
cure and read the document from which
it quotes. Indeed. it would have beer
enough to read the earlier part of the
very sentence which it quotes in the
right hand column above. The whole
sentence will give the Times plenty ol
.'good reasons" for not branding Gov.
Tilden ga knave and a perjurer. -
Here is the part Of the sentence which
the Times unfortunately skipped
"And they further say, touching the
statements in said bill Of complaint as
to the services of the defendant, SAM
j. Tilden, that he had, long prior to
and at the time of the commencement
of the foreclosure suit in said bill oi
complaint mentioned, been the counsel
for the second mortgage bondholders,
in whose behalf such suit was institut-
ed, and that he was counsel also for the
trustees of said second mortgage bond
holders, and had been from some time
in the year 1857, to whom the railroads
Of the Terre Haute, Alton and St.
Louis Railroad Company we're surren-
dered, and who were subsequently made
receivers thereof; and was also the
counsel for said receivers, and that be
also acted as the principal counsel for
the said first mortgage bondholders. in
relation to the foreclosure proceedings
hereinbefore mentioned, and other pro-
ceedings connected Herewith, and that
such services had commenced prior. to
the. year 1859. and were rendered from
time to time during period Of upward
of three years thereafter"
If the Times in its enthusiasm had
thus only begun few lines earlier in
its reading Of the Terre Haute suit law
paper. from which it quotes, it would
not have confounded years receipts
with a years taxable income. Nor
would the Times then have suppressed
the fact that the payment of these $2O,-
600 was on account Of professional SER
vices rendered during long series of
years prior to the first imposition of an
income tax, and during part only Of
the first year Of the existence of the in
come tax.
Did the learned proprietor Of the
Times compute, in his own payment of
income tax for 1862, his earnings for
the nreyious wears of 1857, 1858. 1859,
1860 and 1861?
The Times also implies that Mr..
Tilden received during the year 1862,
and as part Of the income Of that year,
1888, 900 of bonds which he did not in
clude in his return. We say implies
that. It assumes that. 1t discusses
the subject on that assumption. makes
charges on that assumption, though it
shrinks from making specific and def
mite statement Of what it assumes.
Now. on analyzing the documents on
which it founds its charges. we find
that the report Of the company referred
to in the bill of complaint, and express
ing the opinion that surplus of bonds
may exist at some fature time, which
alleged surplus is now in controversy,
was itself dated in 1854. That is two
years after the income return which the
Times impeaches.
Not only that; in the report Of the
committee of directors published in the
Times the other day, August 10, it is
specifically stated that the bonds in
question remained in the hands of Mr..
Robert Bayard up to March IA, 1870.
That is eight years after the period
when portion Of them ought to be ac-
counted for as income, on the assump-
ton that they were divided.
Nor does it appear that they ever
were, in fact, up to this time. actually
disposed of, or that they ever have been
in situation to form q part of any
body's income.
The very documents which the Times
quotes and relies upon thus dispose Of
all the specific charges Of the Times,
dispose Of everything that has the ap-
pearance of proof or the semblance Of
probability From New York San Of
Saturday sceek.
C;nuv srv,o-. IL rok -...A .k.:-.1