Ashtabula telegraph. (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1874-1880, 1878-04-12
The United States VS.. Sam. j.
Tilden.

Tiiden.
1t is with becoming mOdesty, that
we enter upon the task of correct
ing some of the positions of the
Standard, on subjects pertaining to
law, for its venerable head is law
giver, and versed in all the lore of a
legal practitioner. His utteranees,
therefore, have been received as
semi-oracular, and when he speaks
of legal proceedings, it is expected
that no dog shall bark or ass bray.
Here then, is what he tells US about
the case of that "innocent man."
Samuel J. Tilden! whose character
we are charged with attempting to
stain; we quote from the last weeks
number:
The United States District court has
given decision in the case of the United
States agains: Ex-Governor Tilden to re-
cover income tax alleged to be due the
government. There were twelve counts
in complaint. On one count the demur-
rer Of Mr.. TiIden was sustained, on the
ground that he had made the returns to
the Assessor himself and paid the tax.
The defendant demurred to the other
eleven counts and the plaintiff demurred
to the answer of the defence The demur-
rer Of the plaintiff was sustained.
T. h., l. L.
counts Tilden made no return but allowed
the Assessor to make the assessment and
paid additional five per cent. penalty.
The question decided ty the count is.
that it was the duty of Tilden to have
made the returns himself. Tilden did
the same thing that numerous professional
and business men did all over the coun-
try. Rather than disclose their business
affairs thew allowed the Assessor to make
the assessment for them. If the Assessor
failed to put the figures high enough the
government lost.
This simple statement is not suf-
fered to stand unsupported. but a re-
assertion making the statement
dOubly sure, is given in the follow
ing words:
The facts are as stated above.
I'm the years covered by these eleven
counts. Tilden made no return but GllOt0-
ed the assessor to make the assessment and
paid five per cent. penaltyl
Now we should like to know, on
what authority he "allowed," &c.
The law made it his duty to make
out his own list, and in case of neg
lecting and refusing to do so, the
assessor was requiredsto make 1t out
for him, and add so per cent. there
to as penalty-not five as we are
told, as no such penalty appears in
the law in this connection. If this
is not so, will the law-giver of the
Standard office correct us?
How are we to take this informa-
tion to its readers? Is it misappre
hension and ignorance of the law? |
This being the case, such confidence
in laying it down, partakes little of
the bluff game, and becomes some
times an unsafe course of pro-
ceeding. If our law-giver on the
other hand, was, as he seems willing
to have us believe, acquainted with
the law,whose provisions he was Civ
ing, then he was very bold-very
reckless, in the assurance that such.
were the interpretations of those pro
visions. It could not be that he in
tended to ''prejudice his readers"
Again, if Mr.. Tilden refused
wholly to make out his list, there
was another and still severer penal
ty to which he became exposed, and
that was one hundred per cent.
Nothing again about any ''ive per
cent" Now will our friend tell us
which was the penalty to which
Samuel ]. Tilden, the 'innocent
man" was subjected? For it makes
a little difference in the calculation,
whether it was so per cent. or 100
per cent. to which Mr.. Tilden has
made himself amenable, and for
which the government brought suit.
The rights of the plaintiff to sue,
as are said to be admitted, and the
right to recover, which is intimated
to be questionable, we may as well
defer for the present, but the asser-
tons of our law-giver in the article
addressed to us, are singularly at
fault, and we fear, viii jsopardize
The judicial character of our gentle
leighbor.