Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-10-30
REPLY OF JUDGE JACOBS.
EpIToR Posr- INTELLIdRNcER

EpIroR Posr- INTELLIdRNcER
Noticed in the Sunday issue of your
valuable paper a communication signed
by Judge Burke, G.. Morris Halter. ESQ.,,
Nj. X. Maddocks and other responsible
citizens of this city and county, in which
certain questions were propounded to
the candidates of the various parties ON
the Legislative ticket.
As for myself, have no opinions on
any questions affecting the rights of
individuals or the interests of the pub
lilo that [ am not willing 10 publish. |
recognize the right of the voters TO know
what my views are on all questions af-
footing their interests or rights.
FiTst-I am in favor of an attach
msnt law that will repress fraud. and,
while II gives reasonable protection TO
honest creditors. one that cannot be
used for purposes OF oppression and
coercion.
Secoud-I am now, and always have
been, opposed to the present attach
ment law, simply because 10 gives
dangerous power to an unscrupulsus
creditor. So far as my observation ex
tends, ! nust say for the creditor class
that few aud rare are the instances in
which power has been abused. Bat l
see no adequate reason for clothing un-
just aud avaricious men with snch a
dangerous power for oppression aud in
justice, because jest and merciful
man would not use IL. Under this Law
malicious creditor, with demand
against me of 800 which | disputed.
by giving bond of 500. could send
the Sheriff To nay house and take into
his possession every article of furniture
therein not exempted by law. Now,
law that eompels a sheriff, under the
ruthless demands of a malicious credit
or, by. simply giving a bend of 800,
and without the allegation of any Gauss
whatever, TO invade my home aud take
into hts posst ssion and remove there
from articles of household furniture
such as | have, supposed GU disputed
demand. II a gross Insult 10 the liberty
OF citizen. | might be able TO give
bonds pending the litigation, others
might rot. Then this property would
not only be removed but sold. and the
only redress would be a suit ON the
bosd--a poor satisfaction and an I'M
certain ard expensive one.
Thfrd-Therefore / am opposed TO
giving any man such dangerous pow
er of invasion unless there II an affida-
VIZ Of caase showing fraud ia the IN
ception of the Indebtedness. or an
actsal or intended disposition of prop
erty, with the intent TO defrand, hinder
or delay creditors. or an intent TO re
move property from tho jurisdiction
with such intent, etc. In other words,
with = few notifications. am in favor
of the old law. with the protection 10
individual rights Of both affidavit and
bond.
fonFth-wheneve il can be shown
by affidavit or ether satisfactory proof
that an attachment is wrongful or op-
pressivs, woald give the right TO dis
solve it speedily on molten and mass
the wrnnc-icer responsible on his bond
Fifth-I am. therefore, in favor Of the
REPEAL Of the present law, and the sub
stIsation of the old one with snch modi.
icAiions rs shall prevent fraud, secars
she rights of hocess creditors. as well as
afford protection to tie rights and hber.
ties Of the citizen. Respectfully,
o. JACOBS.