Morning journal and courier., 1883-04-02
THE EACTORTZING LAWS.

Among the brilliant things which the pres- ent legislature has not done is to amend the factorizing laws. This omission is due in to which the friends of amendment seem to have given their support. It is strange that anybody should have seriously expected such a bill to pass. Exemptions of gross unequal ity would have been the obvious result of Mr. Sargent's proposal to put the wages of forty days beyond the reach of attachment Under an exemption of forty days pay the officer of company who receives a salary of five thousand dollars year would have had about five hundred and fifty dollars safe from his creditors, while the man who earns dol lar day would have had just forty dollars secured to him-that is, one would have had more than ten times as much exempt as the other. This bill favored salaried men rather than workingmen in other words it gave the most protection to those who need it least
 It is very much to be regretted that the manufacturers and their employees did not give their support to 8 more practical meas ure, for some change in the present law is sorely needed. The factory operatives of this State are almost without the protection of any exemption. Under the present stat utes farmer may have property worth from four to five hundred dollars exempt, profess sional men have their libraries free from at- tachment, physician not only his library but his horse, carriage and instruments, a mechanic working at his trade with his own tools these tools to an unlimited amount In the last case named whole printing office has been held exempt. In striking contrast to all this, factory operative has at most an exemption of twenty-five dollars, and in case of attachment for certain kinds of debts (which, by the way, are those he is most likely to contract) only ten dollars
 Exemptions are very important part of the statutes. They are among the very latest and best results of the humanity of modern jurisprudence. Their object is to prevent the creditor from depriving the debtor and his family of the means of exist ence. In most States facteriz- ing is not permitted at all. But singularly enough in Connecticut the only property of the poorest class, and that which needs protection most, is made an sx. ception to the rule that the necessities of life shall be exempt. If anything in this world is a necessity we should say it was the wages of 8 workingman. As it is, his wages are the especial prey of race of sharpers that has recently appeared in this community known as collectors" These men % around and drum up claims for collection. FTJ1-. sEL
 justice who are willing to make their fees contingent upon results" and all together work the factorizing process for all it is worth. Of course these harpies inaict great deal of suffering on the poor and un fortunate. The real creditors are probably ir many instances not responsible for what ii done. These claims are solicited upon the assurance that the owners of them shall bt subjected to no expense. and they probably do not inquire into the means pursued fo, collection --5
 It is difficult to see why the legislaturs suffers this outrage to continaes All that the Judiciary committee found 1t in their hearts to do was to report 8 bill exemptine the wages of minors from attachment. We should think that men with families needed such an exemption quite as much as minors. MT. Downs of Derby offered an amendment ex- empting wages to the amount of fifty dollars. This would have covered the case, as if would have practically put an end to factor izing the pay of worhngmen. If some such measure as this instead of Mr. sargent's mon strosity had been backed by the manufac- turers and their men it might have had some hopes of becoming law. Perhaps it will do to try such an experiment next year.