Rensselaer Union, Volume 8, Number 52, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 September 1876 — Another Case Looking Like Perjury. [ARTICLE]

Another Case Looking Like Perjury.

When an effort is made to impeach the testimony of a witness in any trial at law, it is a common practice to take evidence as to his reputation for veracity, and a prima facie case of false swearing in the particular Instance is always strengthened by reputation of false swearing in other instances. To the extent, therefore, that Mr. Tilden may be shown to have contradicted himself in other matters, the contradiction of his two statements in regard to hts income for the year 1862 becomes more glaring and significant. His connection with the New York election frauds of 1868 furnishes new evidence that he has not always been strictly exact in his statements, even under oath. In the political debate in the closing day’s of Congress, Mr. Kasson dealt the Democratic candidate some hard blows, and charged him with a responsibility for, or at least a knowledge of, the New York frauds on the ballot-box in behalf of Seymour in'lß6B. There is no longer smy dispute as to these frauds having Sfeen committed. They were absolutely proved by investigation, and are fully confirmed by the fact that the vote since that time has never attained the same proportions. For the rest, the frauds are now virtually admitted by the Democrats of New York. They consisted of ballot-box stuffing, repeating, bogus naturalizations, false personation of applicants for naturalization papers, etc.; it is estimated that 68,343 bogus naturalization certificates alone were issued. Samuel J. Tilden was the Chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee that year; and the following circular was issued over his name and distributed among the Chairmen of the various County Committees through the State: (Private and strictly confidential.] Rooms of the Democratic State Committee, Oct. 27,1868.— -My Dear Sir: Please at once to communicate with some reliable person in three or four principal towns and In each city of your county and request him (expenses duly arranged for this end) to telegraph to William M. Tweed,. Tammany Hall, at the minute of closing the polls—not waiting for the count—such person’s esti mate of the vote. Let the telegraph to him be as follows: This town will show a Democratic gain (or loss) over last year of (number); or this one, if sufficiently certain: This town will give a Republican (or Democratic) majority of . There is of course an important object to be attained by a simultaneous transmission at the hour of closing the polls, but no longer waiting. Opportunity ean be taken of (he usual half-hour lull in telegraphic communications over lines before actual results begin to be declared, and before the Assosiated Press absorb the telegraph with returns and interfere with individual messages; and giee onlers to icatch carefully the count. Samuel J. Tilden. Chairman. The purpose of this circular was confessedly to enable the Democratic managers in New York City to supply any majority that might be necessary to overcome the Republican majority throughout the State, and it was proved that the count was held back in the city to await the returns thus called for. It was also proved that 200 answers were received, more than double the number of all the counties in the State. It was this circular that Mr. Kasson cited to sustain his charge that Mr. Tilden was cognizant of the purpose to corrupt the ballotboxes, which was subsequently carried out without any protest from him. In reply to Mr. Kasson, Messrs. Hewitt and Cox, defenders of Mr. Tilden, admitted the frauds, but produced a letter from Mr. Tilden, written by him in 1868 and published in the New York Evening Post , in which fie denied all knowledge of the existence of such a circular previous to its exposure. So far, so good. But Messrs. Hewitt and Cox had probably forgotten that Mr. Tilden had subsequently given his testimony before the Congressional Committee which investigrtea the New York frauds. In the course of that testimony, given under oath, he swore that he was not tfie author of the circular, and that he did not know who was the author, but also said: /

A day or two before the election, I was in the Committee-room at the Metropolitan Hotel, and I then understood that a circular had been issued asking for early election-returns. It had been issued some time previously; by whom Ido not know; but I understood its purport from somebody. 1 saw on a table or shelf some circulars signed with mg name, but I did not read them, for I understood their contents. I presume they were the same circular. I never saw or read It until I read In other words, Mr. Tilden at one time denied all previous knowledge of these secret circulars, and at another time swore he had seen them in the Committee-room where he was chief, though he did not read them; that he saw his name was

signed to them, and that he “understood their contents. ” Was he not just as much responsible for their issue under these circumstances as If he had written and signed the circular himself, and was he not guilty of h falsehood, by his own subsequent admission, when lie publicly denied ail knowledge of the existence of such a circular? It will not be difficult for an unprejudiced aud intelligent person to follow out the application of this second instance of Mr. Tilden’s contradiction of himself. A man who would even passively- assist in corrupting the ballot-box would not hesitate to publicly deny his agency in the frauds, und a man who would contradict under oath a previous statement, deliberately and publicly made, would scarcely refrain from falsifying an income return. Falru* in tow, faltus in omnibus , is the way the lawyers put it; but Mr. Tilden is tnus shown to have been false in two instances, which cumulates the force of the motto-— Chicago Tribune,