The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-08-29

We are happy to oblise the Times so east
". We have merely had to procure and
read the document from which it quotes.
Indeed, it would have been enough to read
the earlier part Of the very sentence when
it quotes in the right-hand column above.
The whole sentence will give the Times
plenty OF (. good reasons" for not branding
Governor Tilden ga knaye and perlurer."
Here is the part OF the sentence which the
Times unfortunately skipped:
Sand they further say, touching the
statements in said bill of complaint as to 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 for the second mortgage bondhold-
ers, i'll whose behalf such suit was lnstl-
tuted, and that he was counsel also for the
trustees of said second mortgage bondhold-
crs. and had been from some time in the
wear 1857, to -whom the railroads OF The
Terre Haute, Alton and ST.. Louis Railroad
Company were surrendered, and who were
subsequently made receivers thereof; and
was also the counsel for said receivers, and
that he also acted as the principal counsel
for the said first mortgage bondholders In
relation to the Foreclosure proceedings,
heretofore mentioned, and other proceed
incS connected Herewith, and that such
services had commenced prior to the year
1859, and were rendered from time to time
during period OF upward OF three years
thereafter, ..--. =.
!. II the Times in its enthusiasm had thus
only begun a few lines earlier in its reading
OF the Terrc Haute suit law-paper from
Which it quotes it would not have confound-
,3o n;,,fc with q rnar3c fovnhIn in.
come. Nor would the Times then have
suppressed the fact that the payment OF
these O,OOO was on account OF professional
services rendered during a long series Of
years prior to the first imposition OF an in
come tax, and during part only OF the
first wear OF the existence OF the income
tax. u--------.------ ~
Did the learned proprietor OF the Times
compute in his own payment OF income tax
for 1862 his earnings for the previous years
of 1857, 1865. 1850, 1860, and 1861! ,r Is
The Times also implies that Mr.. Tilden
received during the year 1862, and rs a part
OF the income Of that year, $50, 1000 of bonds
which he did not include in his return. We
say implies that. 1t assumes that. 1t dis
cusses the subject on that assumption,
makes charges on that assumption, though
itslrinks from making a specific and def
mite statement OF what it-assumes. e..
= Now, on analyzing the documents on
which il POUNDS its charges, we find that the
report OF the company referred to in the
bill OF complaint, and expressing the opin-
ion that a surplus of bonds may exist at
Some future time. which alleged surplus is
now in controversy, was itself dated in 1864.
That is two years after the income return
which the Times impeaches. III
:, Not'ony that in the report Of the COM
niittce OF directors published in the Times
the other day, August 10Th, it Is specifically
stated that the bonds in question RENAME d
in the hands of Mr.. Robert Bayard up to
March II, 1870. That is eight years after
the period whena portion OF them ought to
be accounted for as income, ON the assump-
ton that they were divided. . ..,......et -
Nor does it appear that they ever We're, in
fact, up to this time, actually disposed of,
or that they ever have been in . situation to
form part OF anybody's income. -, u!
The very documents which the Times
quotes and relies upon thus dispose Of all
the specific charges OF the Times, dispose OF
everything that has the appearance OF proof
or the semblance OF probability. air y!