The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1882-08-10
THE TILDEN INCOME TAX
SUIT,

WASHINGTON, August 6.-The Income
tax case of the United States against
Samuel j, Tilden has been for some
time under consideration by the Secre-
tary of the Treasury aud the Attorney
General. The following is the substance
of a recent correspondence on the sub
ject between Secretary FOlger, Mr.. Ed
wards Pierrepont, special counsel, and
the Attorney General. On the 23d of
May last Secretary FOlger addressed a
letter to Mr.. G.. B. Raum, Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, in which he said:
"YOu have placed before nieAa letter
from the Hon. Edwards Pierrepont and
one from the United States Attorney at
New York city, in the matter of the suit
of the United States against Samuel j.
Tilden. 1t is a case that should not be
brought to trial without a reasonable
prospect of success. 1t is one, also, in
which, if there is no reasonable pros
pect of success, there should be no at
tempt to try it, nor should any terms be
insisted upon or sought upon throwing
it up. OF course, intend to place upon
the counsel for the Government the re-
spOnsibility of advising as to the pros
pect of success, or rather l Intend to
leave that responsibility upon them, as
of right it belongs there, and suppose
you have given to counsel all the facts
that you are able to supply. 1t is for
counsel to determine and advise whether
they are enough to warrant the trial of
the suit. If they furnish fair prospect
of success on trial, it should be had at
once. If they do not, the case should be
discontinued. 1t is due to the citizen
that he be brought to trial or that he be
freed from the expectation of it, and If
there is not enough in the facts to re-
fuoa him tho lotfar IL dnnQ NOT GnaTn IN
me Just or worthy of the Government
that it exact OF take from him price
for the privilege"
On the 10th of July Mr.. Edwards
PierrepOnt, special counsel for the Gov
ernment, wrote to the AttOrney-General
and urged the subject upon his atten-
tion. Mr.. Tilden's counsel, he said, were
entitled to some kind of decision, in or
der that they might know how to act.
The pending question, as he understood
it, was whether the case should be dis
missed with or without costs.
On the 21st of July Attorney General
Brewster, to whom Secretary Folger had
referred the papers relative to the suit,
returned them to the latter, with COM
munication in which he said he would
not undertake to review the case, since
he could not express his conclusions and
convictions upon the subject more plain
ly and directly than Secretary FOlger
had expressed them in his letter to Com
missioner Raum. He fully eoncurred in
all the Secretary had said in that COM
municatiOn, and thought that the last
sentence contained therein laid down
the rule which should govern the case.
He was positively opposed, as a point of
principle and integrity of governmental
action, to the prosecution of such cases
when they ought not to be prosecuted,
and to the exactiOn from defendant of
money to pay the fees of the Govern
ment counsel as a condition of discon-
tinuance.
Secretary FOlger, on the 25th of July,
wrote to the AttOrney-General acknOwl-
edging the receipt of this letter, and
saying that Judge PierrepOnt had been
made acquainted with the contents of
his Secretary FOlger's) letter to Com
missioner Raum. He added that, in his
Judgment, it was only necessary that the
AttOrney-GeneTal should inform the
United States Attorney at New York city
and Judge PierrepOnt, that the Depart
ment of Justice and the Treasury De-
partment concurred in the views ex-
pressed in that letter, and that it was
for counsel and the Court to say what
should be done with the case according
to the Courts rules and practice.
On the 26th of July the AttOrney-Gen-
eral advised the counsel of the Govern
ment, in New York city, of the concur
renee of che Treasury Department and
the Department Of Justice in the views
set forth in Secretary FOlger's letter to
Commissioner Ranm, and instructed
them, in accordance with the suggestion
of Secretary FOlger, that it was for them
and the Court to decide the disposition
of the case.