New-York tribune., 1879-09-26
MR.. rILpEN,s INCOME TAX.
RRrrF or rnr DrrHNpANI's COUNSEL ASKING Iol


RRrrF or rnr DFFENpANIs COUNSEL ASKING TOR
A BILL OF PARTICULARS.
I'm the suit brought by the Government
against samuel j. Tden for unpaid income '"N' - -
Ymderpoc yesterday hied his hrief ON The motion
made by the defendant Tor hin Of particulars argue"
last Thursday before Judge C1oatc The hrie'' "'''r
referring 10 the necessity for bil of parcu"r' s'y
fe motion j. met by an affidavit Of the Dstrct-AtoF
ev ring forth hat 70 is Ia his power aud, to ine
best of hi. knowledge and belief not IA the power 81
the pati- to state all The item. or particulars WnicH
have ~ ne considered IN determining what he 'eien'
ants taxable income for the several years Ia gnc'
ton. The brief continues;
~ for the additional nfiavt submitted by me DIS
Atorn'y, we "hi 'ny ta) r IL, ~ -, n,
LEGAL aruncu than we possess TO discover IL az
counts sipply alleges that The defendant during ~"
specified years received gross hmonht %. ln'oI' ~ =,
Il is tie proper function nf lfhs Court ~ enter up"
general QUESTION n % thc amount oi ihe u'is''
Is to determine upoD III .~ues raised by te peaHs,
then our motion Should be granted Inc 'oinp''m. @ ~.
fully taxable IN excess or the sum upon "hlch We
paid lax Is ane s"rwIf t,at we o no., Snow w MON
what the complaint i ba-ed. Does the United states
rrc,ipt of winch we dcnyl Does the United
states hold that, of sum admitted 10 De y.
ceiyed by as,a r-er p9ap Does ne Tnlted states
claim treat as taxable income receipts Nh,h . We
claim 10 be exempt nom i"e Lax In i1r winch
we can inc lawful right make None Of these qi's-
ons can he answered nom the peadns. aud they Ger
ta.nly should be made PLAIN before We enter on 'Ae
tria. -, - -.
nnt u obiected that The motion should have been
ma r sooner No can le iOnndIn when Dl "l par
tenlars mas been denied iu consequence OF di"ndaHts
decay IN applying therefor, uhcss the CIRCUMSTANCE
have br.n snrh t. ggcst pO~'ib e. pitJudicc 10
p!ainf'4 rirhfs To result rom the granting an 'Td'
tftrr f. DELAY Here the defendants reason Tor nor
sooner SuqlyIpg iully pc forth, and IL cdhno p'
cIaimef rtrhrr That The drfcuuInt would nave hefu
betc on # re motion had been sooner made, nor tHat
the plalntin will now bc pleiudicod IA amy MANNER
bv an order made al the present lime raih'r
fnan earlier No discussion 10 fhc form ~ "a hih
seem, auprOVrafe Tie present coinn ~ the nii-
ter ~ inference against the drienaan's rigAt Tor
biI OF particulars ne drawn from the iAct tHt nc
answered ready at the April Term OF the Court. ne
then rtay 10 meet sucn cvifenc" as Dc heli'Ffu re
United states be ready 80 produce. The defendant
40 in open court express hs VIII gnesS 70 GlNe the
United states opportunity 10 apply ~ bnl ~ ais-
cnvrrv. H. subscqlrntiy. the Di-trci-AUorn"Y hi'd
bI which makes ale atlOn more d, finite nHn nose
made ia the complaint, NO CONCLUSION can hc i-if'y
drawn against the defendant ON this motion hectu'" h
chooses 70 submit the COuri whether he = bound 80
answer. / tie defend MT owes no Tax TO me Unlt.
stair., Dc Is no manner called upon To frahY lnr
lmpernent curiosity OF tho Dlsifct-ANuIAc5 as 10 DIS
private transactions.