The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1871-04-03
DAILY PRESS,
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1871
Communication Case.

The action of Thompson vs.. the town OF
lttston las been extensively alluded TO in
Tue newspapers, in this State and in Boston,
ana always misapprehended, and as this mis-
apprehension may lead to unnecessary. If not
groundless litigation, it seemed best To make
true statement Of the case.
AT town meeting held in Pittston J,,v
20, 1868, under an article in the warran, 10
that effect, the town voted to pay bounty of
$500 to each man drafted, who should be ac-
cepted, and either 60 himself, send substi-
tute or pay $500 Communication. Thompson
was drafted, examined and accepted, and
thereupon, Oh the 9th day of August, 1858,
paid his $500 to the collector of Internal Rev
enue, and was then discharged. The whole
matter rested here till 1859, when the Legis.
lature passed an act, one section of which is
as follows:
"The past acts and aoipgs, regular in form.
OF cities, towns and plantations in Offering,
paying, agreeing to pay, and in raising and
providing means to Day communications to draf.-
ed men, and all notes and town orders given
Dy the municipal officers of any CITY. town or
plantation in pursuance of previous vote at a
meeting regularly called and held for the ben
efit Of drafted men, are hereby made valld.''
Thompson claimed that he was then enti-
tied to his money from the town and demand
ed it. 1t was refused and he brought his
suit. When the records of the town meeting
were examined, it was found that the return
OF the officers on the warrant was defective In
some particulars, and he came into court and
amended 1t according to the facts. The rec
ord OF the moderator at that meeting, and of
the TOWN clprE foSo ffha roc,,lo, i, .lo. l. L.
ing absent), did not show that they were
sworn. By the law of this State, as decided
repeatedly by the Coult, parol evidence may
Ie introduced to prove that these officers
were duly sworn. This course was pursued
in this action, and the question of sworn or
not sworn, was submitted to the jury. and no
other question. Judge Cutting ruled that the
piaintlh's case was within the statute of 1869
In all other respects. The jury found that
the moderator and clerk were duly sworn.
The town contended that the statute did not
cover this case, and If 1t did, it was unconsti-
tutional and filed their exceptions to the rul-
ing OF the court on these points, and the case
goes to the law court.
1t may not be improper to add that there
would seem to be no reason why an act OF the
Legislature legalizing the vote for the pay
ment OF communication, should not be Just as
legal and constitutional as for sending sub
stitute, as the United States, by the following
act, passed March Sd, 1858, had agreed to ac-
cept $500, instead of the drafted man or SUBJ
stltute, for the reason, obviously, that they
could, at that time, procure men for that sum
or less, and that they needed money as well
as men.
SEC. 1S, chap. Is. "Any person drafted
and notified to appear as aforesaid, may, on
or before the day fixed for his appearance
furnish an acceptable substitute to take his
place In the draft; or he may pay to such per-
son as tie Secretary of War may authorize to
receive it, such sum, not exceeding $500, as
these the Secretary T may determine, for the prOcu-
and thereupon such person, so furnishing a
substitute, or paying the money, shall be dis
charged from further liability nnder the
draft"
j. BAKER, of Counsel for Thompson.
Augusta, March 27. 1871.