tions that he was suddenly and altogether unexpectedly called upon to review the history of transactions already fourteen years old, of which he had preserved scarcely a scrap of memoranda. More than six years had elapsed since he had retired from the active practice of his profession, subsequently to which he had rarely visited his office even for matters of private concern. Add to all these embarrassments, the ruthless hand of one of the same cabinet ministers who subsequently engineered the electoral frauds in Florida and Louisiana was here visibly directing the blow that was aimed at his honor through the columns of the "Times."

Of course such a charge with what appeared to be official specifications, including a facsimile of Mr. Tilden's incometax return, which could only have come from the Department of the Interior, of which Zachariah Chandler was the official head, produced a profound sensation throughout the country. Mr. Tilden's character was of more importance to him than the presidency, and inconvenient and laborious as it was, he felt himself compelled to devote several weeks, with the aid of three or four clerks, to evoke from the scattered records of the past, evidence of the false and malicious character of these imputations. With the aid of Judge Sinnott, who had been his confidential law clerk during the period covered by the "Times," he prepared a statement which was published on the 20th of September. The "Nation" of the 28th of that month summoned up the whole case, so far as the main charge of making a false return, perjury, etc., was concerned, in the following table:

For the period subsequent to that covered by this table the "Times" had charged Mr. Tilden with allowing the income-tax assessor to assess his income at less than its value. The absurdity of this charge leaped to the eyes of every reader. In the first place, not only in New York, but in every State of the Union, property is assessed for taxation by an official assessor, and the taxpayer is never required to make a statement of the amount or value of his property except in pleading for a reduction of his assessment. In the second place, the income-tax law expressly provided that in case the taxpayer omitted to make a return of his income, it should be assessed by the assessor. It was so assessed and paid. The terms of the law had been complied with, and, as Mr. Tilden confidently affirmed, he paid more those years than would have been required had he made his own returns, which he neglected to do only

because the difference was not worth the time and trouble it would have cost him, to apportion to each year the precise amount saved during that period, in litigations covering a series of years.

Mr. Tilden's answer effectually disposed, for the time being, of these charges, which in the somewhat emphatic language of a journal of the period "can be characterized in no milder terms than a vicious lie, a base slander, and a diabolical calumny." The assault had utterly failed of its purpose so far as any effect upon the election was concerned, upon which, if it had any, it seems to have been a favorable one; but the extra toil and worry to which it subjected Mr. Tilden for several weeks during the hottest season of the year, told seriously upon his health and no doubt contributed to shorten his days, in that respect serving the purpose of his tormentors by contributing to disqualify him for the duties of the chief magistracy four years later, to which, had his health permitted, he would unquestionably have been chosen.

Unhappily for Mr. Tilden's peace, he was still too formidable a political force to be neglected. He was regarded by his party, with practical unanimity, as its inevitable candidate for the presidency in 1880. Though the assault upon his character had thus far ignominiously failed, the resources of the administration's arsenal of defamation had not yet been exhausted. It had charged Mr. Tilden with making false returns of his income. He had denied it, and the public had accepted his denial, but the administration had prosecuting attorneys and a judiciary all of its own appointment; why not institute proceedings for the money of which it was alleged the government had been defrauded? That course would at least vindicate in a measure the part which the administration had had in promulgating the original calumnies; it would keep the question of Mr. Tilden's innocence measurably open for partisan uses; it would worry and wear upon their victim, who had no health to

per

spare for litigation; it would induce some who wished to be confirmed in their fanatical hostility to the Democratic party, to believe that where there was so much smoke there must be some fire, and that by wily procrastination, of which the law officers of the federal government have almost unlimited control, the innocence of Mr. Tilden could not be established until after the suspicions thus propagated of his guilt might have accomplished their fect work. Accordingly a suit was instituted at the instigation of the Hayes government against Mr. Tilden, shortly after the election in 1876, to establish what subsequently was admitted to have been a purely imaginary liability for unpaid income tax. The commencement of this suit was duly heralded through the press. Several months elapsed before Mr. Tilden was furnished with any statement of the grounds of the government's claim. No serious attempt was ever made to bring the case to a hearing, but it was nursed along to be used as a convenient means of presenting Mr. Tilden to the country from time to time in the attitude of a culprit. These knavish tactics were pursued throughout the term of the Hayes administration. When the suit had been pending for a year or more the government was forced to admit that it was not in possession of any evidence upon which to sustain its suit, and then had the effrontery to file a bill of discovery to compel Mr. Tilden himself to furnish evidence upon which their prosecution could be sustained. To this Mr. Tilden of course demurred, regarding it as practically an admission that the government had no cause of action. Judge Blatchford, who was sometimes a judge and always a politician, decided against the demurrer.

Pending the litigation over these proceedings, President Hayes and his associate beneficiaries of the frauds by which he had been installed in the presidency were dismissed from the public service, and a new government replaced them. Meantime Mr. Tilden's health had been steadily

declining. He had ceased to be regarded as a candidate for the presidency, and there was no longer, therefore, any motive, if there had been any disposition on the part of the new administration, to persecute or defame him. The question now was how to get rid of the suit without compromising those who instituted it. That story may be best told in the language of the parties who conducted the retreat. We will commence with the following memorandum of facts prepared for the counsel by Mr. Tilden himself:

TILDEN'S MEMORANDA FOR COUNSEL.

"In compliance with your request a memorandum of certain facts involved in the income-tax case, discussed in our recent conversation, is furnished.

"1. The action against me is, so far as is known or can be ascertained, the only suit of this nature which has been instituted and prosecuted.

"The suit against Mr. Hazard was for taxes accruing during a portion of the period when the income tax existed. The amount claimed was over one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and the interest enlarged the claim to at least two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. In the settlement, the United States amended its declaration so as to embrace the whole ten years of the income tax, and to fix the judgment, including principal and interest, at one thousand dollars. Judgment was taken by consent, and the appeal was waived. Mr. Hazard told me that he settled it because it was cheaper to pay such a judgment than the cost of counsel fees.

"(See letter of Hon. Charles Bradley, Mr. Hazard's counsel, Points for Defendant, page 21.)

"The allegation on which the United States rely in the action against me is merely that the assessor did not make the assessment large enough. That naked proposition is aided by no other statement whatsoever.

"The claim as stated in the declaration applies equally in the years in which I made a return and in the years in which I omitted to make a return. No distinction is intimated whether the taxpayer makes a return or leaves the ascertainment exclusively to the assessor.