St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-11-26

w Idt Is tilS UtucTCuCc DctWCCu oAio
and the sale Of property under mort
gage? The proviso allows the person IN
whom the title was vested at the time OF
sale to redeem within one year, and ii
there is a mortgage is not the title
vested in the mortgage? By buying the
lien he is in the same position as the
second mortgage is in with regard to the
first. Under the lien law of 1887 labor
could not be absorbed by land. that is
all.
Section 9 was not objected to.
Sec. 10. No incumbranee upon land
before or after the making of contract,
or performing labor, or furnishing ma
terial, under the provisions of this act,
shall operate upon the building erected
or material furnished until the lien in
favor of the person performing the labor
OF furnishing the material shall have
been satisfied.
This section is objected to because it
assumes to give mechanic lien over
prior membranes This section was
copied verbatim from the lien law Of
the District Of Columbia, a law made
by congress and sustained by the
district court, and, strange to say, is the
only section of the lien law of 1887 that
was made by lawyer and tried i'll
court, yet the supreme court of Mime
sofa disagreeS with congress and the
court of the District of Columbia:
"When doctors disagree then who shall
decide?"
Sec. II. 1t shall be the duty of the
court where any doubt arises as to the
construction of this act, to cOnStrue it SO
as to give to the person performing any
labor the full amount of his claim over
and above all costs and reasonable at
tOrney'S fee, to be determined by the
court.
None of the papers give the reason
why section II should be considered un-
constitutional; whether Justice Mitch
ell did or not cannot be told from the
information contained in any papers,
but the syllabus published did declare
it unconstitutional. But why? Laws
frequently state that they shall be con-
strued literally, and sometimes liber-
ally, out of which a very mine of fog
arises for the benefit of the lawyers. The
object of inserting this clause was to
state the intention of the law in no UNI
certain manner, so as to avoid the UNI
necessary wrangling, out OF which the
lawyers make money, and leave the
mind Of the judge tree as to the inteD-
ton of the act. This clause is not with
OIO NOG iOuS SiliCC OoW q
commentary Oh the German law, which
stated that it was mandatory that every
law passed in Germany should be pre-
fixed by clause stating the intention
and meaning of the law and object of
the legislative body. The comment was
by lawyer and recommended to this
country, and no greater recommends
ton can be given this requirement than
the fact that there is not one lawyer i'll
Germany where there are ten in this
country. for absence of legal fog means
absence of lawyers.
The law has not been failure. Dur
ing it's brief existence it has shown its
usefulness to those who work by the
day. Hundreds of wage-workerS can
testify that the owners have been care
full to see that the men were paid before
the contractor could get his money.
Those building large blocks have looked
for responsible contractors and placed
them under bonds to pay the laborers.
whereas before their bond only called
for the completion OF the building. Day
laborers say that they lad less trouble
to get their pay than ever before.
But the real hostility of the law
is betrayed through the editorial of
UiIC SOdls NhiCh hS ASN aioO
proved blight on the real estate mar
-ket." If it had this effect simply be-
cause the laborer was found worthy of
his hire, then the act is indicated, and
the doctrine that vested rights are SUI
perlor to human sympathy and justice
shown to be the inception of the law as
laid down in the courts.
Blackstone says: Law is the per-
lection of reason"
This firmly believe, and no enact
ment that is not at least leavened by
the perfection of reason should be al
lowed to remain on the statute book,
but if all acts that are not the perfec-
ton of reason are pronounced uncOn-
stituUional, certainly the law of 1870
will soon be wiped from the statute
book, and not only that, but it will take
but small book to contain the perfec-
ton of reason contained in our present
court decisions. The lawyers will say
that there was but a small quantity of
1.-THE perfection of reason in the de-
cision that declared that. although
person might pay his tax and have a
receipt, yet through the neglect of an
officer to give credit on the book, tax
equivalent in equity or by "the perfec-
ton of reason" paid for the estate, and
that small sum not paid to the owner,
could seize the homestead. Even that
is now sacred, and dispossesses the
owner. Is there any perfection
of reasons that allows the land
to absorb the labor of the poor without
even giving them any equivalent? And
yet not allowing the poor man to get
his bare labor from the land to which it
has been added? For this is all that
section does. 1t says no incumbrance
placed on land before or after the cree
ton of building shall apply on the
building erected. Let us analyze this.
If mortgage is placed on land before
a building is ere ted, does the erection
of building decrease the value of the
land, and if the building is taken off,
does the mortgage have less security
than before? No; but the perfection
of reason" says that the land shall alb
sorb the house, but not the house the
land. Is there any equity in this? AS
long as labor and material are added to
wealth in land that has been formed by
nature and which does not contain
and labor get its share? But this de-
cision will have the effect to
show that honest labor is help
less in the hands of capital, for
until sentiment reverses this decision
the Door are at the mercy of the rich.
Their decision says that the dishonest
contractor may, by COLLISION with the
land owner, rob the laborer. but fails to
see that by return to the old law that
the contractor, by collision with the
real estate owner, may, with perfect
safety, rob the poor man that has but
days wages between him and want.
The people give me great deal more
honor than | deserve when they give
me the credit of controlling all the legis-
lation of the last session. This law was
shown to many lawyers outside of st.
Paul, who did not claim it to be uncon-
stitutional, and if it was considered UNI
constitutional, why did the judiciary of
the hnusa LET IL hacoma q laU2 Ehn