Weekly expositor. (Brockway Centre, Mich.) 1882-1894, 1890-06-27
In MICHIGAN.
ADDITIONAL DATA CONCERNING
THE STATE BOUNTY.
A Step-Father is Charged With a
Criminal Assault.
The Record of Happenings for the
Past Week.
That 500 Bounty.

That 500 Bounty.
Mir. Wilson, clerk of the state board of
auditors has been making a careful and ex-
tensive research of records in Washington
TO straighten out the middle in the matter
OF the payment of state bounties TO soldiers
and sailors enlisting in Michigan under the
presidents calls of Oct II, 1868, and Feb.
1, 1864. There are no provost marshals
records in Michigan though the military
department has record of every soldier
who enlisted, and the time and place of
such enlistment. Moreover there are no
records in the state of the names of the
sailors (some 500 in all) who were credited
to Michigan. This latter defect Mr.. Will
son found way to remedy. The recent
famous decision of the supreme court in
Smith VS.. Alpin, in which the question of
the rights of bOunties was supposed TO have
been decided is not definite enough to set
tie the question of the duties of the state
board of auditors in the premises, although
dt puts beyond a doubt the fact that the
auditor-general is not bound to issue his
warrants for bounty payments.
An act Of the Michigan legislature, APP
proved Feb. 3, 1864, provides that bounty
of 500 shall 0e paid TO each person below
the rank of commissioned officer who
shall enlist and be mustered into the mill
sary or naval service of the United States
under any call made or issued by National
or state military authorities since June 1,
1864.
During the tendency of the bill, that is
on Feb /, the president issued "A call for
500, 900 men, which call superseded the
previous one, and quotas in Michigan were
apportioned on tho basis of 200 900 addi-
tional men. IL was TO these latter men
that the bounty of 500 was clearly intend
cd TO apply, for those enlisted under pre-
vious call were entitled TO local bounties up
60 $500 in localities where such bounties
had been offered The 200, 900 were en-
titled 30 local bounties only up to 500 and
state bounties of 800.
SuCn at least is the opinion of the SUI
FSeme court rendered by Judge Christiancy
in tho case of the People us. Hammond,
reported in Thirteenth Michigan and re-
ferrod 10 with approval in the recent de-
cision. In the Hammond case il was decid-
ed chat inasmuch as Hammond enlisted in
Ridley, st. Clair county, which township
Lacked IL men of its quota under the Oc-
tober CALL therefore Hammond was not en-
titled TO the 500 bounty. That is TO say,
the court held that the enhancement TO enlist
under the October call came from localities
and not from the state. In this opinion
Judge Campbell concurrod but Chief JUS
tice Martin dissented, holding that Ham
mond enlisted in March, 1864, on the faith
of the bounty mentioned in the act of the
preceding February.
The present Encouragement of Michi-
gan inclines TO the opinion of Justice Mar
Tin and thinks that all the 26, 900 men who
enlisted under the calls of October and
February are entitled TO bounty, or. in
other words, the state is liable for about
81, 000 900. If, however, the recent de-
cision of the court is to be followed, there
were but Z, 3J3 men who would be entitled
TO the bounty. But of these $500 were
paid from the war fund before Gov. Blair
issued his proclamation of May Ii. 1864,
stating that the fund being exhausted no
more bonnties would be paid. This would
lcave but |, 513 men still entitled to bounty
and would require but 1853, 800 TO dis
charge the debt. Assuming, however,
that tho credit of the state is at stake and
that Michigan ought to see TO it that every
man who enlisted under the two calls ought
in fairness to receive full bounty, the qucs-
ton is as TO how much each man received
from local bounties. 1t would be mani
Geatly unfair to pay 800 in addition to 5000
grated by the county or the township, be-
cause no such action was ever contemp-
lated by the state. There might, however,
be a question of equity in the case of a sol
dier who received no local bounty. Then
again the state might be bound in fairness
70 pay 500 bounty to those who enlisted
after the passage of the act of Feb. 5, 1864,
because the exact meaning of that act was
certainly open TO doubt in the public mind,
as Judge Martin implies in his dissenting
opinion adverted TO above.
From the above statement one may read
ny see that there arc a number of ques-
tions yet to be decided by the state board
of auditors before they can adiudicate the
claims under the bounty act. 1t is posi-
bic also that some further aid may have TO
tie given by the supreme court and that
the legislature will probably be called to
make an appropriation for carrying into
effect the old law. At present, however,
the board has TO get its data as to the calls
under which the soldiers enlisted and the
quotas apportioned. So much of this work
as could be done at Washington is now fin
ished