The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1881-05-25
THE WISCASSET BONDS.
An Important Suit Referred to the Law
Court.

The suit of Aretas Shurtleff VS.. inhabitants
of Wiscasset just before the Superior Court is
an action to recover the amount of certain
coupons annexed to bonds issued by the town
of Wiscasset in aid of the Knox and Lincoln
Railroad.
The testimony disclosed that the town in
the years 1869, 1870 and 1871 voted to take
stock and issue certain bonds in aid of the
railroad. In pursuance of these votes the
town issued bonds in three series, the first
amounting to $4,000, the second $31, 800 and
the third to $43, 800, and aggregating $780,
800, exclusive of $4,000 issued for subscrip-
ton to stock The counsel for the plaintiffs
put in certain special acts of the legislature
ratifying these votes and testimony tending to
show compliance with the provisions of the
votes and acts. He also produced the coupons
and bonds declared On and rested his case.
The counsel for defendants in opening said
that in behalf of the defendant town he de-
sired to express the deep regret with which
they were compelled to come into court and
make this defense; that if this was the only
case the town could pay it but that other
creditors stood in the same place and that the
puIuSi WIS Srtdlef Llldl lut tOWu CCuiu UGdI
that the debt of the town equaled SIS per cent
of its valuation. The road was started in 1S49
and it was represented that the cost would not
exceed one million til ee hundred and sixty
five thousand dollars when in fact the cost of
the line has approached three million; that
when the first vote was passed it was believed
that it was enough with other aid to build the
road, that when the first issue was expended
the road had not all been graded and the
second vote was passed and then the third
loan was necessary to get the road started.
Then the hard times came on, the valuatson of
the town went down rapidly, mon moved
their personal property out of the town and to-
day the state valuation shows the Town to be
insolvent. He said the defense to the first
issue was that it was without authority and
that the conditions OF the vote of the town
and the enabling act had not been complied
with; that as to the second and third issue the
vote was not only without statute authority
but was in violation of express statute law
and that it was not competent for the legisla-
ture to ratify vote which had in law no ex-
istence. Counsel for defense claim that in
asmuch as the objection went to the want of
authority to vote to issue the loan at all, and
net merely to the execution Of All authority
already existing the public, under the deci-
sons of the courts, had notice of the defect
and could not claim any rights as bona fde
holders; that all are presumed to know the
law. They further claim that the act relied
upon by the plaintiff was in direct contra VEN
ton of the constitution of the State which
provides for equal taxation; that under the act
some towns issued bonds equal in amount to
20 per cent. Of their valuation while others
only were taxed for 10 per cent and others not
taxed at all, and that still the railroad was
held to be public road and the property of
private individuals would be taken for public
Use. The counsel further claim that the only
execution which would issue upon any judg
ment in this case would under one statute run
against private property if no property OF the
town sufficient TO satisfy the judgment could
be found. The town is insolvent and the pro-
perry of u private individual would be taken
for public purpose without just compensation
and without due process of law both of which
acts were forbidden by the constitution of The
United States. Counsel said that the town
would test these questions before the Supreme
Court since all attempts to arrange these suits
had failed. Ii not in this suit they would ic "a
suit for property taken to satisfy the execution.
Various acts of the legislature aud other testi-
mony were then offered in support of these
positions.
After the testimony was out Judge Borney
remarked that the questions raised were pure
ly questions Of law and that the case might as
ha ta1 hot
be pro lorna in favor of the plaintiff for the
purpose of giving progress to the case. There
upon the counsel agreed that the case should
be reported to the Law Court for such deter
mination as the legal rights of s!,e parties may
require.
Webb & Haskell appeared for the plaintiff
aud Henry Ingalls, and Strout & Holmes for
the deienGanis.