The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-03-06
MECHANICS LIEN BILL.
THE DEMOCRATS EXPOSED SOME
OF IT'S IscoNGRUTTEs
That Was the Real Reason Why the
Republicans Wanted it Recon-
mitted to Special Committee

A little furry was occasioned in the
Council yesterday by the three bills
relating to mechanics liens. The one
in particular, which was advocated by
Mr.. Booth (of Salt Lake. and Mr.. Tay-
Tor, House bill No. %. introduced by
Mr. varian, was fully discussed and
then sent to a special committee con-
sisting of Messrs. Taylor, Booth (Of
Provo and Hart, for the purpose of
knocking off some of the rough corners
which had been exposed, and which
had purposely been left in the bill to
conceal obnoxious features.
In speaking of this bill, Mr. Williams
said there were some sections in it he
could favor, but taken as a whole he
felt impelled to oppose it. 1t was an
unreliSned charge ne made when he
said that walking delegates, who must
make a show of earning their money,
backed by mythical workingmen, had
secured as advocates of this measure,
men who looked toward the vast array
of workingmen supposed to be inter-
ested.
Mr. Booth (of Salt Lake. classified
laboring men, separating those who
worked with their own tools from
those who worked with tools belong
ing to another. He desired to give
priority to the claims of the laborer
who worked ten hours a day, over the
man who worked fourteen to sixteen
hours q day. He claimed that any lien
law would be unjust to some persons,
but while a hardship would be worked
to one, great many others would
derive benefit Under this measure,
claimed the Salt Lake statesman, a la
borer or mechanic would have to as
certain whether the contract price is
equal to the real value Of the house or
not, the right of acquiring which
knowledge the laboring man seems to
be clamoring for.
Mr.. Adams was willing to favor any
lien law whereby all labor performed
on any building contributed a lien as
soon as the work was done. 1t would
work a. hardship when a laboring man
has to file a. lien upon a building be-
fore it is through because he had no
faith in the contractor, who would
then kick him out. Provision for all
payments in cash would not work, and
would not be just. The present law
| amended would be much better than
the proposed law.
The prevailing opinion seemed to be
that an uncertainty would follow the
enactment of this measure, full as it
| is of incongruities. It's adoption would
cause endless litigation, and would not
| only work harm in every town, but
would in a measure stop building. 1t
would close out small contractors and
would mass the work into the hands
of the larger ones all the work to be
done.
Concealed in the bill was a suitable
provision for attorneys, in which a fee
of so is allowed such needy profess
SIGNALS as might be on the lookout for
jobs.
In fact, Objectionable features were
shown to be so plentiful that in self
defense Mr.. Taylor moved to recommit
the bill to a special committee to plas-
ter it over with grease in hopes that it
might slide through.
Under pretense Of helping the poor
man, as charged by Mr.. Williams, Mr.
Seaman, Mr.. Hart and Mr. Adams
the bill had been so craftily drawn as
to add still further to the burdens that
have already been placed upon the
poorer classes. Their advocates ack-
nowledged one Of two things in this
recommitment:
The bill was knowingly drawn tc
cover greater expressions than now
exist, or
The Trainer and advocates who
passed it through the committees ex-