Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-02-20

The lien law was discussed at a meeting Of the
builders exchange last evening. As the men,
bers Of the exchange include representatives
from the various building trades as we'll as the
material men the expressions Of opinion took
a rather wide range. The discussion started
from a report submitted by MIR. E. j. Hannah,
plumber, the chairman of the legislative
committee in regard to the amendment re-
Gently offered in the House to amend the
second section of the present lien law SO as to
make it read as follows:
That the lien hereby given shall be pre-
ferred to all judgments, mortgages and deeds
of trust liens and membranes which attach
upon the said building or ground aforesaid
subsequent to the filing OF the notice pre-
scribed in the said section of said act of July 2.
1884. and all membranes and liens (other
than those which attached thereto prior to the
filing of said notice) which by the laws Of the
District are required to be recorded, shall be
postponed to said liens unless recorded prior
to the date Of filing said notice."
OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
Mr.. Hannah made a verbal report upon this
amendment in which he stated that, in the
opinion of the committee, if it became law
an incumbrance placed upon the property after
the commencement of the building would be
prior claim to any lien. Under the present law
as soon as pick was put into the ground for
the construction of a new building then it be-
came liable for any lien for material and labor
employed, and such lien was prior to any other
claim. The committee saw no reason why the
law should be weakened and had therefore de-
cIded to report against the amendment. Mr..
Hannah spoke Of the decision of the Supreme
Court of the District, which held that the right
to ile hen did not pass beyond the second
party, and that those furnishing material to a
subcontractor could not lien the building, but
must look to the subcontractor for their pay.
UNITED AGAINST IT.
In order to bring the question up for discus
sion Mr.. Thos. W. Smith, lumber dealer,
moved that The report be received. This mo-
ton was adopted and then Mr.. Smith said that
this amendment had been referred by the House
District subcommittee to the District Commits
sioners for an opinion. A committee from the
Lumber exchange and also from the labor Or
CARNATIONS had been before the District Com
missioners and presented arguments in opposi-
ton to the amendment. He thought the ex-
change ought to appoint a committee for this
purpose. He said that in such matters the Dis
trict Commissioners welcomed expressions of
opinion from citizens, as they were able to re-
port to Congress not only their own views but
those of others.
Mr.. Hannah agreed with this view and said
that the committee ought also to appear before
the House committee. 1t was decided to
authorize the Legislative committee, composed
OF Edward J. Hannah, Thos. J. King, Henry
A. Jones, w. g. Morrison and Mr.. Shea. to pre-
sent the views of the exchange on this amend
ment both to the District Commissioners and
the House committee
In the opinion of Mr.. Smith the only cues
ton involved was whether those who had put
labor and material into a building had the
first claim upon it in order to secure their
money!. Whathar
come In.
AGAINST ANY LIEN LAW.
Mr.. Thos. j. King, builder, said that while
he always acted with the majority yet he had
his own private views In regard to lien laws.
Is far as he was personally concerned, he was
opposed to them. He was opposed to them az
business man. In business he believed that
all men should be placed ON a level as far as
credit was concerned. This was based upon
ability and reputation. As a general contractor
he was opposed to a law which gave him credit
to carry Oh business and at the same time did
not do the same thing for the grocer, the
merchant and men IN other lines of business
The wears which he had spent in building up
credit had IN his opinion been rendered useless
| by law which placed the irresponsible con-
| tractor ON the same basis with himself A
material man did not need to inquire into
| mans character when giving him credit as the
law secured him against loss. The result was
footing with the man of the highest business
| standing.
The nope was expressed by Mr.. James
| Nolan, plumber, that l.r. King would not make
| speech of this character before the Commits
sioners. Mr.. King joined in the general laugh
anu explained that he was simply expressing
| his individual opinion ard that he would act
as instructed by the exchange
ONLY THE LUMBER DEALERS PROTECTED.
Henry A. Jones, lime and cement dealer
called attention to the fact that the present
law as construed by the District Supreme Court
only afforded protection to the lumber dealers
among the material men, as the lumber dealers
sold as rule to the general contractors
while the brick men, the lime men and other
material men sold to the subcontractors and
therefore, under the decision, they could not
place lien upon building.
Continuing MIR. King said that he had pre-
dicted before the passage of the present lien
law that it would have the effect of increasing
the number OF irresponsible builders and con.
tractors. He believed that he was safe in saw
ing that this prediction had proven true The
reason for this is plain. When a man applies
for materials there is no need to ascertain il he
u responsible man. All the material man
does Is to furnis the material, and if he is not
paid than be places lien on the building.
1T WAS EXPLAINED By MR. SMITH
that the object OF a lien law was protection for
n
able TO do. Such men often employed repu-
table contractors and when the owner was un-
able to meet his obligations then the material
men were obliged to look to the contractor
and the latter either had to pay the bills out of
his own pocket or get the money ont of the
building. Before the present law. was passed
owners OF this class so encountered their prop
erty that there was no equity left for the ma
terial man or the contractor. The object of
The present law was not to protect the material
man against the contractor, who. as a rule,
met their obligations when the owner met his.
but 1t was to secure protection against the op-
erations of men who went into speculative
building beyond their means 1t was
right and just in his opinion that the
building be reserved to pay these debts and
that the loss ought not to fall on the material
man or the contractor. He then went on to saw
that under the present law honest men without
capital were enabled to engage in business be-
cause they are clothed with credit as soon as
they enter into contract to build a house. In
ais opinion one of the beneficent features of the
lien law was the encouragement given to honest
men TO begin a business career. He added
that material men did not make practice of
selling material to snides, but only to honest
men. That was the policy Of all the members
of the lumber exchange.
u. e. Esher, a stonecutter, said that the de-
feet OF the operation of the lien law arose from
the fact that material men gave credit to con-
tractors who were not worth a dollar. He
cited a case where bill for material was