The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-08-26

We are happy to oblige the Times SO
easily. We have merely had TO procui
ana read the document from which t
quotes. Indeed, il would have been
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 TImcs plenty Of good rea-
sons for not branding GOV. TILDEN "a
4nave and n pcrjurer.'
Here is the part OF the sentence which
thc Times unfortunately skipped;
And they further say, touching the statements
sn said bill OF comulint as 20 the services OF the
1efendant. SAMUEL J. IIfDEN, that he had. long
prior to, and at time OF the commencement Of
she foreclosure suit in said bill of com plaiut men
tioued. been the counsel for the second mort
gage bondholdcrs. In whose behaf such
also for the trustees Of said second mort
eage conductors, and had been from some
fne 10 tns '9M io 40 mno nnd i"e ~ "is
Railroad Company were surrendered and W 100
were subsequently made receivers thereon ana
was also the counsel for said receivers, and that
he also acted As the princll al counsel for the
said first mortgage bondholders, 10 relation 10
the foreclosure proceedings nercinbefore men
toned, and other proceedings connected there.
with, and that such services had commenced
prior to the year 1859. aud were rendered, FROM
time to time, during period Of upward Of three
years thereafter"
II the Times in It's enthusiasm had thus
only begun few lines earlier in it's read
ang Of the Terre Hautc suit law paper,
from which II quotes, II would not have
COMPOUNDED a year receipts with year >
taxable income. Nor would the Times
then have suppressed the fact that tho
payment Of these 100000 was on account
of professional services rendered during q
long series of years prior to the first impo-
.sition Of an income tax. and during part
only Of the first year OF the existence OF
the income tax.
Did the learned proprietor of the TimC
compute in his own payment of income
lax for lsG2, his earnings for the previous
ycars u 1857, 1e5s. 1859, 1SG0 and 1862
The Times also implies that Mir. TIDE
received during the year lSG2, and as par
nf the income of that year, SS3, 900 Of bonds
which he did not include in his return
Ave say implies that. II assumes that L
discusses the subject on that assumption
makes charges on that assumption, though
il shIinks from making specific anC
uennitc statement OF what it assumes.
Now, on analyzng the documents OF
(which II Pounds its charges we find tina
The report Of the company referred TO il
the bill of complaint, aud expressing th'
opinion that a surplus of bonds may oxis
nj some future time which alleged surplu
j. now in controversy, was itself dated il
aS4. That Is two years after the incom
return which the Times impeaches.
Not only that; in the report OF the com
mittee of directors published in the Time
hhe other day. Aug. 10, ii is speoincall.
stated that the bonds in question renaine'
IN the hands Of Mr. ROBERT BAYARD up 1
March H. 1870 17,dt Is eight gears ate
the period when portion Of them ough
L. bo accounted for as income, ON the II:
rumpuon that they were divided.
Nor does it appear that they ever were
in fact, up to this time, actually dispose
~, or that they ever have been in situi
lin 10 form a part of anybodys income
The very documents which the Iim'
quotes and relies upon thus dispose Of a
Il, specific charges of the Times dispos
.of everything that has the appearance {
Vroul or the semhlnnce Of probability.