The New York herald., 1874-10-30
ASSIGNMENT OF SALARIES,

A question OF great importance In reference to
its effect upon the public service. and also upon
public employees, has recently been decided in the
Court OF Appeals, that Is whether . public officer
ASSIGN by way Of an anticipation OF the salary
to become due to him. The practice Of making
such assignments Notwithstanding law OF Con.
gress forbiddlng It as to United States officials has
been very prevalent large number of brokers
being engaged IN that business some
OF them to the extent OF 100000 year. The as
slgnor made writing that he would collect the
salary when que and pay 1t over to the assignee.
When he failed to do So suit would pe brought in
the Marine or one of the District Courts, and the
defendant would be arrested ior irauduient con.
version OF the money. Jonn e. B iss, one OF the
brokers engaged In this business brought two
suits in the FIRST District Court, before Judge
Quinn, one against Charles X. Lawrence and tue
0tner against George II. Gardner, employed in the
the defendants on the ground that such
assignments were against public policy.
Then 10. me brokers GERS. brought their suits
given IN their favor. There were SO many OF these
suits that in some OF the courts separate day
was given lor tneir trial. Tue broker Bliss ap-
pealed from Judge Quinn's decision, which being
afrmed IN the Common Pleas, appeal was taken
to the Court OF Appeals. Meantime suits contln-
ued 10 be brought In the district courts. where
decisions were favorable 10 the brokers, Iudg-
ments being In many cases by delault. The court
OF last resort has now put an end TO this business
by affirming the Judgment below. Judge Johnson,
delivering the opinion, says the particular cases
presented were assignments OF o months salary
IN advance. But II those could be sustained IN
law, then such assignments might cover
the whole period OF possible service. AS
these were SOLD at discount OF ten per cent tney
did not present quite so glaring n instance and
example ol the consequences nkely TO follow the
establishment OF the vandity OF sucn transfers
but they Illustrated one at least OF the grounds on
which tie alleged rule OF puonc policy rested, by
waich sucn Transfers were forbidden. Tne public
service was protected by protecting those en-.
gagged In performing puoic duties. And this not
upon the ground OF their private interest. but
upon that OF interest oil securing the efciency
OF the pubic service Dy seeing to II nat the funds
provided for Its maintenance should be received
by those VINO were to perform the
work at sucn periods as the law
has appoiDte Tor their payment Inc
contrary rule would permit the public service to
be undermined by the assignment 10 strangers OF
all the funds appropriated To Salaries Ii was true
that In respect TO onicers removable at will this
evil couId IN some measure De limited by their re-
moval when they were found assigning their
salaries but this would he only partial remedy.
ior there would stu De no nsans o preventing the
continual recurrence oil the same dirlculty, Judge
Johnson, alter citing English cases saws the sub
stance of II all was the necessity OF maintain.
ing the efilciency o the pnolic service by seeing
to 1t that the public salaries really 20 TO those no
perform the public service.
I. :. Lsuiing and AOsos Ely tox respondents.