The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1898-02-25
THE HALE NOTES DECIsIoN.

The Supreme Court in the case of the
Hale notes decides. that the town OF Fox
croft is held for all loans which Hale was
authorized to obtain by vote of the
town and did obtain, provided the
authorization was not in excess
of its own power. The decision is not,
as might be inferred from soma state
ments of it, that a town treasurer simply
because he has been elected to that office.
can bind the town for any money he may
borrow actually or ostensibly for the
town, The loans he obtains, in order to
make the town responsible, must be with
in the scope of an authorization given
him by specific vote at a town meeting.
The distinction is clearly made in the
decisions as to different notes in suit. The
town repeatedly gave Hale authority to
borrow money to pay the town debt and
hence all notes given for money obtained
for that purpose are held to be valid
claims against the town, because the
town authorized them. A note given for
a loan for school purposes is held not to
bind the town because the town never
voted to authorize the treasurer to borrow
money for that purpose. Again loan to
build a road, though authorized by the
town, was held not to bind the town be
cause at the time it was authorized the
towns debt was in excess of the constitu
tional limit and therefore the authoriza-
ton was In excess of the towns powers
and hence invalid. it may be asked, il
the power of the treasurer Is really sc
narrow, how Mr.. Hale was able to i'm
DOSE such a tremendous burden upon the
town. The answer is that the money Mr.
Bale borrowed to pay the towns debts die
not go to that purpose, or much OF lt-dIe
not, but into his own pocket. But wher
he had borrowed the money for purpose
for which he had sufficient authority thu
obligation Of the town to pay it was com
plete; what became of this money, wheth
err it went to pay the debt as it should
or WIS embezzled had no bearing upo1
the claim OF the lender upon the town
Mr.. Hale borrowed money to pay TIN
towns debts under authority of the town
and did not pay them. He then borroWe'
more money, on authority of the town
to pay the towns debts and did not pa.
them. But all of this money which wa
lent him for this purpose the town Is re
sponsible for no matter whether it eve
got the benefit of it or not. This seem
hard at first glance, but little examina
| ticn will show that 1T is just II an
other doctrine should obtain town neve
could borrow money. No man woul
lend town money if it could avoid ray
ment By showing that it's officers ha
stolen it or squandered it,or had not USE
it to the best advantage, and hence tn
town got no benefit from 1t. Eoxcroft wa
the victim of d dishonest treasurer, blu
it's own negligence furnished the oppor
tunities for the thefts, and hard as it
fate ia, it is to considerable
extent one Of its own making. l
can fairly be said, however, that all til
citizens do not share in like measure tn
blame and the responsibility. Upon tn
shoulders of the men who served tn
town as selectmen during the years OF th
treasurer populations q much large
share of the blame must fall than upo
the private citizen. They were charged
with and agreed to perform certain dutie
for the citizens. One of those duties Ger
tainly was to see that the money raise
by loan or otherwise reached the treasur,
of the town and was honestly used fo
the purposes for which it was raised
But on every citizen rests some degree c
blame, because under the town meetin
system every citizen has right to as
questions, and is fairly presumed to in
form himself in regard to his town