Not-so-good old days

One hundred years ago, people might face a judge for offenses that are not illegal in today's world. Being drunk in public, for example, is no longer against the law in and of itself, as long as the inebriant doesn't drive, use loud and/or abusive language, refrains from imbibing where passersby might see, or get into a fight. The simple act of getting sloshed is not against the law, but in 1913, it alone was enough, as the following Norway Municipal Court record showed. Norway Advertiser, March 28, 1913:

Norway Municipal Court

WM. F. Jones, JUDGE

John Doe was brought before Judge Jones, January 24th, on complaint of Joseph Rowe of Gilead, on account of vagrancy. It was thought that he was a deaf mute, although there was some suspicion that he might be faking. He was give thirty days in jail and is being watched.

January 27th, Charles Stover of Gilead was before Judge Jones charged with intoxication, to which he pleaded "guilty." His fine was remitted and he was ordered to pay the costs of Court, amounting to $15.94, but being unable to pay was committed to jail.

or this one, from a few weeks earlier. Norway Advertiser, January 31, 1913:

Norway Municipal Court

WM. F. Jones, JUDGE

James B. Poland, Oxford, was before the court, March 21st, for assault with intent to kill, to which charge he pleaded not guilty, but probable cause being found by the court he was held in $500 for the Grand Jury. Failing to recognize he was committed. He also furnished $100 bonds to keep the peace for one year.

John Maki, Paris, was before the court, Friday, for intoxication, to which he pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty and sentenced to ten days in jail. He was committed. Saturday, March 22, Albert Day, Oxford, was before the court for intoxication. He pleaded guilty and was discharged on payment of costs of $8.07.

On March 24th, Adelbert Yeaton, Oxford, appeared before the court, charged with burning buildings to defraud the insurance companies. He pleaded guilty and was held for the Grand Jury for $1,000. Failing to recognize he was committed.

But notice, sandwiched in between the drunks were the alleged arsonist and an assault with attempt to kill. Those are still illegal today. But the case of the alleged vagrant is intriguing. Today, a great deal of effort would (or legally should) be put forth to authoritatively determine a means of communicating with the man. Also, if he couldn't communicate, how did the court determine that he was a vagrant — that it, without any resources. Yet, he was jailed apparently for no reason other than not seeming to have money or means of earning a living.

Oddly, neither the Norway Advertiser nor the Oxford Democrat paper carried any mention of a scandal involving an Olympic "great" who was stripped of his medals. It was shown that Jim Thorpe, a Native American, had briefly played professional football before sweeping Olympics track and field event. As a result his medals were voided.

Also not mentioned in either paper was a national news item that still causes consternation to this day, especially at this time of year. Yet, on March 1, 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed without much comment, giving the federal government the legal basis on which to charge a tax on personal income.

As is our custom, we try to exactly reproduce the grammar, spelling, punctuation and style of the original. Commas might appear where least expected and remain absent where we’d expect them if the item was written nowadays. On the other hand, consistency was not considered of utmost importance, so variations of a spelling might appear within one story. In addition, some words were abbreviated differently than today. Where brief explanations of terms are considered necessary, they are presented in brackets [] within the quote. Otherwise, explanations appear at the beginning or at the conclusion, without quotes. Parenthesis () used in a quoted passage appeared in the original.