Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1871-03-29
\ 0mm Htati0n Case.

The action of Thompson vs.. the town e
Pittston has been extensively alluded to in
the newspapers, in the State and in Boston,
and always misapprehended, and as this mis-
apprehension may lead to unnecessary, if not
groundless litigation, it seemed best to make
a true statement of the case
At a town meeting held in Pittston, July 20,
1868, under an article in the warrant to that
effect, the town voted to pay bounty of
$500 to each man drafted, who should be
accepted, and either go himself send sub
stitute or pay $500 Communication. Thompson
WAS drafted, examined and accepted, and
thereupon, on the 9th day of August, 1868,
paid his $500 to the collector of Internal
Revenue, and was then discharged. The
whole matter rested here till 1869, when the
Legislature passed an act, one section of
which is as follows:
'"The past acts and doings, regular in form,
of cities, towns and plantations in offering,
paying, agreeing to pay, and in raising
and providing means to pay combinations
to drafted mel, and all notes and town orders
given by the municipal officers of any city,
town or plantation in pursuance of previous
vote at a meeting regularly called and held
flor the benefit of drafted men, are hereby
made valid"
Thompson claimed that he was then entitled
to his money from the town and demanded it.
1t was refused and he brought his suit. When
the records of the town meeting were ex
amined, it was found that the return of the
officers on the warrant was defective in some
particulars, and he came into court and
amended it according to the facts The rec
ord of the election Of the moderator at that
meeting, and of the town clerk pro tenn. (the
regular clerk being ABSENT, did not show
that they were sworn. BY the law of this
State, as decided repeatedly by the Court,
parol evidence may be 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 sub
mitted to the jury, and no other question.
Judge Cutting ruled that the plaintiffs case
was within the statute of 1869 in all other re-
spects. The jury found that the moderator
and clerk were duly sworn. The town con-
tended that the statute did not cover this
Caccs anu IL ~ uioS ~ 10 NASoh1eAS~'A~A'NA s''AN
fled their exceptions to the ruling 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
payment of communication, should not be just
as legal and constitutional as for sending a
substitute, as the United States, by the fol-
lowing act, passed March Sd, 1868, had agreed
to accept $500, instead of the drafted man or
substitute, 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. Is, chap. 70. "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
person as the Secretary of War may author
ice to receive it, such sum, not exceeding
$500, as the Secretary may determine Jor
the proeuration of such substitute;
and thereupon such person, so furnishing
substitute, or paying the money, shall be dis-