The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1876-08-31
A Startling Exposure.

The New York Times has brought against
Mr.. Hidden some charges of much more seri-
Gus nature than any that have been made Itl,-
crte, and which Mr.. Tlden should not fail to
promptly refnte-if he can. II personal char
acter be of sny account in public life, then il
is moi tno much to say that unless Mr.. Iilden
can justify his action in the matters referred
to he should be forced to Withdraw from the
canvass. The statements If the Times are
made with precseness and detail, and it will
be hard to resist belief in the substantial truth
of all its conclusions. The exposure has al
ready created Intense feeling among Mr.. I'll
denis supporters in New York. and unless his
explanation is complete and satisfactory de-
fection will take place that will ruin his can
vasS at the outset.
The income tax law which WAS passed in
August, 1861. required every taxpayer to make
a II. turn of his income IN detail and under
oath. Mr.. Tilden made returns fol the years
1862 and 1868. and after that time made no re-
turn at all. preferring to leave the assessor to
guess at his income and to pay the tax upon
that valuation increased by the penalty Of fifty
per cent. which the law imposed for failure to
make return. The fact that Mr.. 1flden DELHI
erately selected this course of action is proof
that he found that it enabled him to escape
with the payment Of less than his lawful dues.
Tnis was tile conduct of the man in the hour of
his coulltry's need, when the contribution Of
every cltlZen was urgently neeucti.
For the entire period of the income tax Mr..
Tilden, millionaire as Inc was, paid a tax All
average income, penalties included, OF $l5,O01
per annum. 1t was during these years that he
was reaping the rich harvest from railroad Op
erations that gave him his great wealth The
discrepancy is too obvious to be overlooked.
But we are not left 10 Inference alone. A por-
ton Of the record makes up the clear and pos
tive charge of perjury against Mr.. Tilden. On
December 26, 1868. Mr.. Tilden swore to a re-
turn, under oath, in which he said: II hereby
certify that the following is true and faithful
statement OF the gains, profits VI Income oil
Samuel j. Tiden, of the city I New York,
County of New York, State Of New York,
whether derived from any kind Of property,
rents, Interests, dividends, salary, or from any
profession, trade. employment vocation, or
from any source whatever, from lst day Of JAN
uary to 3lst day of December, 1862, both days
inclusive, and subject to income tax under the
excise laws OF the United States. Income from
all sources, 81, 49,"
Here Mr.. Tiiden made oath that his income
was only 81, lis. and upon that amount only did
he pay any tax. But in his recent answer,
also under oath, tile bill Of complaint of
the st. Louis, Alton aud Terre HauGe Railroad
Company against himself aud others, Mr.. Til
deu swore to the following:
'sTllat for such service the defendant TiIden
made charge Of ten thousand dollars against
said second mortgage bonhoIders, and said
charge was paid by or OH behalf of said second
mortgage bundhOders OIL the Nth of October,
1862; that the defendant Tilden, for
a part Of his services aforesaid, also made a
charge of the like sum OF ten thousand dollars
OIL account of professional services rendered to
tile first mort gage bondiiolders and the receive
ers, which was paid to him by said Azariah e.
Flag, and which payment appears
under date of November Z, 1862, in a state
ment annexed to the first report aforesaid, as
having been receipted for by the said Tlden
'on account of professional services"
Here we have in one place Mr.. Tiltlen's
sworn statement that his taxable income in
1862 was only $7,1lS, while in another place
we have Mr.. Tilden's sworn statement of hav-
ing received $4,000 in that year from one
source alone. 1t is true that mans gross in
come did not represent his taxable income UNI
der the law, but it is impossible to account for
RI, Of 000 hv f,,l ,,,.,