Rensselaer Union, Volume 9, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 October 1876 — The Income-Tax Swindler’s Defense. [ARTICLE]

The Income-Tax Swindler’s Defense.

It will be universally admitted that when a charge is brought against a public man who has ail the material at his own command that either confirms or refutes it, the failure to produce that material upon proper provocation is a strong confirmation of his guilt. This is precisely the position occupied by Mr. Tilden, now that his so-called “ defense” has been made public. The gravamen of the charge against him is that, during a term of ten years, he withheld a part of the tax due the Government upon his income, and that during two of those years he. swore falsely to the returns he made. The Government books show the income tax which Mr. Tilden actually paid. Now comes a Mr. Sinnott, who claims to have been the confidential clerk of Mr. Tilden during all these years, and to know precisely what moneys Mr. Tilden received, what services he rendered, what his earnings were, and what expenses and losses he sustained. It was within the power of Mr. Sinnott, then, to have made a complete exhibit of Mr. Tilden’s receipts and earnings during those ten years, and such an exhibit would have shown whether Mr. Tilden had mad full and truthful returns or swindled the Government in the same manner as the whisky-thieves who are now in jail. But Mr. oinnott, though pretending to make an authoritative and final vindication of his former employer, did nothing of this kind. If Mr. Sinnott has overestimated his own knowledge of Tilden’s affairs, then it must still be admitted that Tilden himself has it within his power to make such an exhibit. To deny this successfully, it will be necessary for him to show that all his books and accounts have bes| or da^oye^L.,»nd that A -fnecailroads 7TKKm. with tj3«ji||.hKhad dealings have similarly This is probably not the case. Mr. Tilden, then, ‘stilMeclines to make an exhibit which he true or false. tASLJB woulCZErclearly to his advantage to make this exhibit if it rWOald 01TVUMIC' chTCHRS* false, the ilferenciitfrjnihK refusafjo make it is n*oessari|B t)iaFTOv are top. ff

VW haVeßeal thf whole of MZTSin'notvs sWtenftht, and - find gentleman claims such intimate knowlwere not rendered in # 1862, and certain (what moneys were received in that year. great value. But in attacking certain alduring the year, the weak ppint of Mr. B’ where there were actual receipts. . Tilden must test ufIOUC Icudspr When it was shqwn ftrit Mr. id sworn to an income of only nd subseqtiently fate': red in that year $20,000 from a ent, the answer was that he ■ turn his hut his * r qhrn4 he year. Then wpeP Tilden’s professional for brought him large amountOfF both in such manner as to avail himself of ■tha—“ titeow whena«er-dteyre-was not paid till afterward. I will undertake to prove them up with all has tq.be done not only without amraid fesfe® Tilden was paid more than the amount stated by it ($25,000) for services rendered in 1862; that of the $20,000 which Mr. Tilden swears was paid by the Terre Haute Railroad Company, at least SIO,OOO was earned in 1862; that the $20,000 paid by the Chicago & Northwestern, and the $20,000 Chicago & Alton bonds (worth par) received by Mr. Tilden subsequently to the year 1862 were for services rendered in that year; further, that Mr. Tilden received $25,000 from the Union Pacific Company in that year, though it is not yet definitely known how much of it was earned in that year. How enormously the case would be simplified if Mr. Tilden could be induced to make a voluntary exhibit of his “ earnings” and his “receipts” of that year, and state whether he made up his income on the. basis of “earnings” or the basis of “receipts”! But this, we apprehend, is just what he will not do. The fact is that the case against Mr. Tilden has been made worse by the pettifogging of Mr. Sinnott, who evidently knows too much and tells too little. So long as Mr. Tilden declines to make public his accounts for the years between 1862 and 1872, showing his charges for services rendered and the moneys actually received in the different years, the evidence at hand warrants denouncing him as a perjurer and a tax thief. This is a more serious matter than the Democrats seem to think. They treat it merely as a campaign weapon, which will be laid aside when the election is over. They are mistaken. We give them warning now, that, even if they succeed in electing Mr. Tilden President, this conviction of him as a common swindler and perjurer will follow him and them until he adopts the only method which can show him guiltless, viz.: An exhibit of all his earnings for those years when the income tax was collected, which cannot be successfully disputed, and which will show that his earnings were not monstrously in excess of the amounts on which he paid the tax. We give them warning now that the Democratic party will suffer more after eiecthm, if they z elcvat4 to the Chief Magistracy of ibe Nation W man whd canTfe prowl to'be a jWjurff andcheat, than it

i | i ■■ilia ihi ii suffers in the heat of a campaigner tempting sqfifr a m|yft, -)<<■ uffßsimßa disgrace, «w laWthe mMs ■M^|lK <ls h ( >w Hint itHbs pMb of spoilsre|BiateKit party bedicating the fair, fame of the American Republic. With alFthlh before them, tlie Democratic managers will do well to compel Mr. Tilden to make the exhibit which it is in his power to make, and abide by tlie issue. If such an exhibit shall clear him, tlie reaction will give him many votes that he will otherwise lose; if lit convict him, it will afford the Democratic party an opportunity for presenting a candidate whose personal honesty at least cannot be assailed.— Chicago Tribune.