The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-09-04

Here follows the formal oath Of II. 3. Bayes.l

In publishing copies Of sworn returns Of Gov
Hayes, OF bis properly for Ration. comment
ING upon discrepsncies. omissions, and :rregu-
lartties In his statements under oath. we intend
to- keep within uie record and facts. as can be
shown nv mot irrei!agiule proof. ~ win be
seen 10y reference To the return or Gov. Hayes
for 1874. lie returned MONEYS, ctedits, book
accounts, household goods. Sc. slU0. The will
81 rdls Orchard. admitted To PROBATE j n. ~.
1874. beque thed X. ID. HIVES fully &5O.eU per
sunai property. and GOV. IL yes was the
executor without bond. he became possessed OF
all the property devised To him by will at once.
Bircnaid returned his personal property, exclu-
siye OF MONEYS. credits. notes, book accounts,
&c. as sg.aeSs to tne Asses, or In April, ls.3 GOV
"A yes. alter having ali Birchard returned, ado ad
what he owned previously and re urned TO tie
Assessor Of Taxation In April. 1874. all his per
sunai property not included in the seventeen
enumcra cd items, sl0c0. Was this PERJURY
In March. 1874 previous TO masking his return
to the Assessor, Il. IA. Hayes held mortgage aud
notes against j. L. Amsden for $4.tO0 interest at
against Edwin Van Dorm. Martin Nonarty VIM.
IL. Andrews, aud A. J. and Elizabeth Hale.
terest. lie dld not list tnis 1868 for tax ton,
although ne had he'd notes since ls7i. previous
10 making MS return that vehr. X. n. HAYES re-
turned gold watch. tS1, IN 1874 nd IN 1873 aud
1870 returned three watches, including one re-
turned IN 1874, At s9l0. Was this perjury2 X. d
Hayes did not return piano IN any one of the
three year,, although he had IN his parlor
all the time. and Il Is the boast Of his admiTing
neisnbois thai the one now In his parlor cost
gSO. Was tuis PERJURY
X. b. heye- returned in 1879 and 1879 three
horses. $500. wuen MS neighnOrs know that he
values one Of his horses at $jOO Ma this per-
jurvf X; Is. HAYES returned In 1875 four ear
RACES. $50. when IL was well known u many OF
tue citizen, OF Fremont that he paid ar. Moore.
manufacturer OF that eity, 300 for then, and
mad phaeton that cost $50. Was this per
juryl lnirty-thres thousand seven hundred
dollars were left In his hands IN SeQuests IN tue
Will Of sardis Birchsrd wnIcn Gov LA was
not required to pay over for three years, and
| upon which he paid no interest for two years,
and he did not return single dol AT OF thls
| $50 IN hand IN 1870. Was this perJuryY IL
order to made this matter plan, th.t tnere
be u" question asout IT, We give from the will OF
Brehord names OF deVisees 10 whom tie $500
VS. gwen ana the amount eeaueatned 10 each I:
give AND p,aassn each 81 ny niscs Mary Brsh.5a
81 5000 csea sve and sqees,h sarah ne ne S.r su
OF Fremont, o. the su oi tb'o,O. ave aud uequeath
W. Laura Fanny. Lmi' aud Rutherford. tns sun y
S G f Of . d Rssqs-ia 20 te ,s St Of Tue #!
mont o., 5000 eve ana osGaeaIn 10 Cbare. MIR
the sum OF ,4u9 per annl curing his natural e. II
~ my " H. sna eer,pi aTeSt mat my ei.eni9s sha
gwen and osqassacd BY TINS viii us.ii Tue sIpirslios
| pad on the same Two YEAR, after my dece Sc
! II will he observed that In the oath which X
! H. Hayes subscribed he swore that he listed all
! property which by law he was required to re-
turn A. owner or holder or a. husband. parent,
guardian, trustee, executor, administrator. re-
eever accounting ohcer, agent, attorney or
factor, tie held amounts We have given from
the will devised by BlrchArd in his possession as
executor, aud made NO return Of any portion VI
money or personal property Tor taxation. Was
| this perJurNf
| Tue excuse cannot DO made that he owed
debls TO the amount which he deducted, for he
could not deduct deb,s from money or credits
| which he held in executive capacity. Ii was not
his money. lie simpy had Possession of 1t as
| executor, ana was bound by Law 10 return Il or
taxation, He did not do II. out swore all the
same that he returned all that he was required
| by law TO list. Our reporter carefully searches
records IN the Offices OF Auditor, Recorder and
| Probate Judge, and sceTtained that no return
| was made by Gov. Hayes or mis- co-executor.
The fact that Gov. Hayes received into pos
session large amounts of personal property Of
Sardis BirchaTd. consisting of household goods,
| valuable paintings, pl,te, watches, &c, all OF
| which by law " As taxable, anu did not return IL
for tax llon al more than one tenth Of It's value,
| and did not return II At ali In 1874 either ne
executor OF as his own property, which un-
| doubtedly II was, Is too clear To admit of an
| escape from the charge OF svading payment OF
| taxes.
In attempting to explain the failure OF Gov.
| Hayes to return money IOT tho payment Of
| beouests in the will for taxation, II will no
| doubt be claimed that he had not yet realize cd
| mOnev from the sale OF the property. IL il all
! TO be paid this year, and II ho has not all the
money u pay over, he undoubtedly rosliLed
some OF II or has faiie 4 to execute the witt Two
wears and half elapsed, aud no report The Pro-
| bate Judge, as required 10y law, has been made
either by Rutherford Il. Hayes or HE cosxecu-
| cor indicating the payment of any of the be-
| quests. 40 that the presumption is that they are
| not YET paid.