The Rutland weekly globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-09-29
TILDEN'S TAXES.

After taking a month in which to think
it over, Governor Tilden Las concluded
that it will not be wise to undertake de-
fensc of his income tax return for the year
1862. But the same reflection has served
to convince him and his friends that this
income tax business, this charge of perjury,
ana consequent defrauding of the govern
ment in connection Herewith, is NOT, and
will not be taken as, a mere campaign
story, and will net down at mans bidding
be he Samuel J. Tilden, Abram S. Hewitt
or any other mau; and so he has deter
mined that defense shall lie put forth
which may be taken as coming from him if
1t shall prove satisfactory, bat which may
be repudiated if, pcrchance, it shall fail Of
its intended object. And 50 we have an
explanation of the "return," defense of
Governor Tildens course, or whatever you
may bs pleased to call it, made by Judge
John p. Sinnot of the Marine court of
New York city, who was "conlldentill law
" clerk" for Governor Tilden during the
entire period during which an income tax
was levied. We gave the substance Of
this defense, Friday, aud we have now
brief comment to make thereon.
To IS 1t seems little suspicious that the
explanation. should come from Judge Sia-
not instead OF Governor Tilden. The fact
that the explanation is made at all, and
especially that it is made at the call Of
Abram S. Hewitt, chairman of the demo-
cratic national committee, shows that an
explanation was deemed Necessary; that
an ugly charge had been made which
could not be laughed down; charge
which, unless met and rcfuted, would he
fatal to Governor Tlllen's candidacy
This being 50, the country was entitled
to expect an explanation. If one wa,
made at ALL which should conclude Cover
nor Tilden, and not one which cluld De re-
pudiaied should it prove unconGusiye. Ii
the facts are as stated, why does not Gov
ernor Tiden, himself, say SO, instead of
leaving it TO John T. Slnnot, a man who
owes his political position to the personal
friendship of Samuel j. Tilden?
But whether the facts are as stated or
not, concedng the truth of SinnoPs qta,c-
ment, what of it? Is the answer complete
and conclusive Does it remove from
Governor Tilden the suspicion Of perjury,
of defrauding the government Not at
all. Withouc spending time enough to re-
view this answer in detail, il is sufficient to
say that IL il eyasive. 1t does not pretend
to state what Tilden's income was in 1862
1t simply deals with a hypothetical esti-
mate, made by the New York Times, of
certain of the supposed items of his income
for that year, AMI attempts to dispose Of
them. And this it does by saying that GER
tain Of these items we're not learned" dur
ing that year, while others were not "re
"ceved," thus changing the ground of the
defense as .'e facts Of the case seem to rem
der necessary. If it was necessary that
the fee1 should be learned" in a given
year to make them "income" for that year.
then this explanation leaves Governor Til
den still defrauding the revenue, still COM
hitting perjury. If, on the other hand, 1t
was necessary that the fees should be ere
"ceived" during tho year, the governor is
left in the same boat.
But concedng, if you please, that the
explanation a5 TO the income return for
1869, is full, perfect and complete, that
the charge of perjury is satisfactorily an
swered, how does it leave Samuel j. Til
denH The fact still remains that his net
income from 1862 to 1879 was over one
million of dollars, and that he only paid
lakes on some one hundred and fifty thou
SAND dollars. 1t may be that he did not
commit perjury, but he defrauded the gov
eminent all the same, did lac not ? OF this,
there is and can be no question. The only
attempt at explanation made by Judge
Sinnot 10 in these words; "Mr. Tilden
received no faYUrs from the government
8. officers and sought none. He did nothing
but pay all they imposed upon him." In
other words, the government officers knew
nothing of the amount of Tilden's income
simply because he would not inform them
about 1t; and having assessed him for less
than one-tenth of his legitimate income, he
was not going to be fool enough to inform
them of their mistake. Human nature
perhaps, but hardly the man to commend
himAo'f to the people as "reform candi-
date" for the presidency is he n The
st. Lonis platform says that "reform Is
necessary" in the manner and mode of
taxation, that the taxes have mt heen ho,,