The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1876-09-28

OF course no bill was ever rendered by Mr. TIL
den In the above form. But this Item, and tn
one basis on which the Times started out on thi
deiamatory crusade, 1t pretended TO have dis
covered an inconsistency between Gov, Tilden'
return Of income in 1882 and certain allegation
contained In an Answer In Equity, filed by TN
defendants, of whom Mr.. Tilden is one Of four II
a suit brought by the St. Louis, Alton and Terri
Haute Railroad Company.
If you viii turn to page 81, folio las, you vii
find these words;
That for such services, the defendant, Tilden
made charge of ten thousand dollars agains
said secOnu mortgage bOndholders, and the sait
charge was paid by or on behalf OF said seC0nC
mortgage bOndholders on the l7th OF October
1862, out of fund contributed by said second
mortgage b0ndhOlders, under an agreement be-
tween themselves dated Nov, |, 1899.
Now then, the question presents itself wha
were the services for which this payment wai
made, and when were they rendered2 To ascer
tain this we need only to look to folio ll3 where
we find these words; "And they further say
touching the statements In bill of complaint as t
the services of the defendant Samuel j. Tilden
that he had long prior to and at the time of the
commencement Of the foreclosure suit in said
bill of complaint mentioned, been the counsel fol
the second mortgage bondholders, in whose be
half such suit was instituted, and that he was
counsel also for the trustees Of the second mort
gage bondholders, and had been from some time
in the year 1857
1t appears, therefore, that this money was paid
for services running through fUe gears anterior o
1862 and 1t does not appear that any part what
ever was earned in that year. The decree fixing
and confirming the rights Of the second mortgage
bondholders was entered at the August term in
the year 1861, and the sale itself took place as
early as March, 1862,
No appreciab'e part II any Of this item can there
tOre.be GppOrtiOaed to the gear 1869.
Ninth Item. November 7, Services to Second
Mortgage Bondholders of ST. Louis, Alton and
Terre Haute Railroad Company, as per affidavit,
$4,000
This item was the original main stay of the
Times slander, and is still clung to with cOnsid'
cradle tenacity, In support of its theory on the
subject, the Times has appealed to the Answer be-
fore mentioned. To this document we shall now
refer, and at page 81 we find the following state
ments:
That the defendant Tilden, for a part of his
services Aforesaid also made a charge of the ike
sum Of ten thousand dollars on account of profess
sonal tervices rendered to the First Mortgage
| bOndhOlders and the Receivers, which was paid
to him by the. said Azariah c. Flagg, surviving
| Receiver as aforesaid.
And these defendants deny that either of the
two claims OF the defendant last aforesaid were
for or were ever stated by him as for claims
against the reorganization, or that II was resolved
by the purchasing committee last aforesaid, that
any claim of the defendant last aforesaid foTten
thousand dollars against the reorganization be
allowed as in the said bin Of complaint men-
toned" (Fos. l46 l47, liS)
To ascertain the time of the rendition of the
services on account of which such payment was
made the reader is referred to the opposite page,
at folio t44, where we find it stated that Mr.. Til.
den was also the counsel of the Receivers, and
that he also acted as the principal counsel for the
said first mortgage bondholders in relation to the
foreclosure proceedings hereinbefore mentioned,
and other proceedings connected Herewith, and
that such services had commenced prior to the
year 1852 and were rendered from time to time
during period Of upward Of three years there
after"
In other words the services were rendered in
1858, 1859, 1869 and 1861. No considerable part of
these services belong to the year 1862 The fore
closure proceedings in which they were rendered
had already reached decree in August, 1861
| i
has been putby the Times upon sentence FROM
| the answer which have here quoted, viz, the
words, "and that such services had commenced
prior to the year 1852 and were rendered from time
to time during period of uplOard of three years
| thereafter" The argument of the Times is that
| this sentence admits the continuation of these
services during the 1OhOle of the year 1862. l sub
nit that even if these words stood alone any fair
mind would read them as meaning that the ser
vices continued for upward of three years after
they had commenced which is expressly stated
to have been before the year 1859 This is the true
construction of the words. 1t is their meaning.
1t accdv Is with the facts.
But of course, if the writer desired to ascertain
the meaning and intent of this passage, and found
it ambiguous, he would look to the context, and,
indeed, to the whole answer.
BY reference TO page II of this same answer,
you will perceive that the foreclosure suit in
which these services were rendered was termin-
ated in decree as early as Aug, s, 1861 (fol. co.
and that the road was actually sold in the month
of MfCh 1862 So that there must have been at
least nine months of the year 1862 which could
not have called for these services and as to the
interval between January3and March, 1862, any
lawyer will understand that this could not have
called for much service, being the time occupied
by the running of the advertisements of sale, &c
Furthermore, the payments which gave rise to the
discussion were both made before the close of the
year 1862, and 1t is so stated,in the answer,
If l recollect rightly, the Times has on former
occasion referred to the date of the agreement of
first mortgage bOndhOlders set forth in the an
swer april 15 1861 as evidence that the services
were of short continuance. Bot this agreement
was but the final confirmation Of negotiations
| which had been going on for three years. There
ives preliminary agreement adopted at meet.
| ing of bOndhodeTs, Sept %, 1859, and modified
from time to time, and this earlier agreement was
| itself the result of prolonged negotiations, the
affairs of the road being almost hopelessly i'll.
volved with conflicting claims and interests.
Pursuant to this preliminary agreement, posses.
sion of the entire railroad had been obtained as
for back as Dec. y, 1889.
Tenth Rem,-Dec 81. Fees during year from
Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Company,
| S2O,OOO"
This item is totally false Mr.. Tilden received
no fees compensation or payments from the Chicago
and Northwestern Railroad Company in the gear
| 1862
| Eleventh Ken-"Fees during year from Toledo
and Wabash Railroad Company, $4,000.
The recklessness of this falsehood will appear
when it is known that the Toledo and Wabash
Railroad Company never, at any time, was eli
ent of Mr.. Tldens, and that he never in the year
1862 or at any other time, received any fees from
that company, nor rendered them any profes-
| siona service whichever.
| Tpelhh HeR.- Shares of bonds retained for ser.
vices during year connected with the reconstruc.
ton of the Chicago and Alton Railroad Compa-
ny, s25,oOO"
No bonds Were retained or received for such services
in 1862, nor was so large amount ever received, in.
Guiding expenses and disbursements Services
were rendered, and they were taken into account
In computing the gross earnings of that year.
Thirteenth and last item. SALARY as Trustee and
President of the Balance Dock Company, 81, ,OOO"
This item of 81 900 is correct except as to the
date and it is the only one of the whole thirteen
of which that can be said
At the outset Of these attacks on Gov. Tilden. in
regard to os taxable income for 1852 still another
| oil tiOu was rnoda ifnn Dnetiya