Wilmington daily commercial., 1873-02-13
THE ATTACHMENT LAW.

HOW REPEAL WAS DEFEATED N THE STATE
SENATE WAGES TO De STILL SUBJECT TO
INSTANT SEIZURE = PETITIONS FOR REPEAL
AND REAIONsTHANCEs AGAINST.
Special Correspondence Of he Coplmerc ial
DOVER, Feb. IL.
The bill to repeal the attachment of wages,
was defeated in the Senate, yesterday, eight Dem
Gratis to one Republican, as you already know
In favor OF repeal, petitions signed by long
lists of worldngmen, several large employing
firms, aud a number Of other citizens, had boon
sent in, and presented by senator riddle. These
petitions were Sc feet ioug, and contained some
1900 names. They were entitled to respect, and
received very little.
These 1900 petitioners asked for the repeal Of
such parts of what is known al the Attachment
Law would release wages from seizure.
Opposed to this request there were filed eix
remonstrances. The drst is headed in manu-
script, and rectes that tho repeal of tho Attach
ment Law is sought by evll-dlspOsod persons"
u aud that they can show both public and
private reasons against repeal, but they regard
1t unnecessary tO name more than one-which
IS that the repeal Of wages attachment would
deprive II large number OF good citizens of
any "a protection, and hdpe them no remedy 10
gOLtect Iy i1lo what honestly belongs to them"
They add that this class OF citizens pay BOT, ,0OO.
state tax, but do not allege that all who joined
10 contribute that amount join in this petition,
Or agree with it's statements.
Tins remonstrance is signed by ffty-two
names, good part of which are those OF respec-
table business mon in Wilmington. Among
them are Bernard Row, Joseph Bow, I. Y. De
NOrmdndie Henry Grebe, Capelle Bro, IL.
BuxbAum. John Il. Moore, Geo. W. Bright, VIM.
t. Brick, Quinn " Bonner, Cyrus storm, George
Mccall, l.. q. Springer, Charles E. Dubel, AID
James Crippen, and others,
Besides this remonstrance, there are on file,
i've others, with printed headings, the purport
being the same that above stated (the pet-
TONERS for repeal being also regarded by these
aa a -fuiu1ad VI bnt tlBy have
also added to them second clause OF an enter
aining character, as follows "On the other
uand, who are they that want the law repealed
We will simply say that they are those who want
tho Whipping Post abolished, also while every
body knows that neither the Attachment Law
nor the Whipping Post has any terrors for honest
people"
About seventy-fve names, in all, are appended
to-. the printed remonstrances. Most OF them
appear to be persons little known, and in regard
TO thirty Esquire Il. B. Frazer considers it worth
his while to add his certificate at tho foot OF their
remonstrance, that they ARE all hrst-class work
| men, and express desire that the attachment
law may remain" This endorsement is kind and
of course disinterested.
Now these are the petitions for repeal, and the
| remonstrances against it--thirteen hundred ln-
dustrious aborers, and several great employing
| firms on one hand and seventy-hve persons OF
l various weights on the other. There were, how
ever, on file, to-day, with the Senate Clerk, ODE
| e. .. Shakespeare, gentlemanly and oDhBlhs
I,ld
| Wilmington to Senator Lesley, in opposition to
/ repeal These were most efective-they killed
/ the bill. Why they were all sent to one Senator,
| don't know, but presume somebody uoes
interested inquirers might ascertain whether the
| sauires and constables did not diligently CANVASS
i for them, and arrange with DR.. Lesley to handle
| them al weapons to slaughter the BILL
| In whatever way they were had, these letters
| we're 80 used yesterday. DIR. Lesley produced
| them ST. led their purport, and gave the names
| of the writers. Among them are NUMBER OF
| well-known and respectable business men of VIII
| mington and all agree in urging that tine az
| tachlnent system should remain.
These letters, though thus publicly used drl-
| ring the public sessions OF the senate, Tor the
| public purpose of affecting legislation, and
| though placed on file in the Clerks charge, IKE
| other petitions and remonstrances, Dr. Lesley
has concluded to regard az his private property,
| and he refused, to-day, to permit a correspond
| ent TO look oyer them, unless the latter would
| aeree to use the names of the writer's, and the
| pnrport of their representations, IN such manner
| as he (Dr. Lesley,) dictated. Such interference
is totally out OF place, and unwarranted by law
| or usage under the circumstances, but as Or.
| Lesley insisted that the letters were privately
| addressed to him, and seemed to regard It
| as imprudent to permit their examma-
ton, except under his oversight, the correspond
| ent concluded that the DR.. doubtless knew best
whether they would bear the light or not some
| of the writer's / am quite sure, would not hesl-
tate 20 repeat the views they express IN their
letters. at any time while others evidently ad-
dressed themselves only to the private ear OF
their rcorrespondent, and have Just cause 10 dread
4 the exposure Of their representations. Aeoept-