The Indianapolis journal., 1897-01-18
MECHANICS LIEN LAW.


To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal:
An article in to-day's paper on the Me
chanic's Lien Law opens a subject of
more than ordinary interest. The present
law leaves the owner without protection
against rascality unless he exercises an
amount of diStrust and watchfulness usual
only on the part of persons accustomed to
deal with the criminal classes. Under the
law an owner is not safe in making final
payment for his building until sixty days
have elapsed after its completion and the
records in the recorders office are searched
for notices of lien filed by laborers, sub
contractors and material men. These liens
are not required to be preceded by notice
TO the owner any other person, but are
usually filed and thus made operative, with
the silence of the fall of a snowflake, and
when enforced by suit the owner is COM
PEELED TO pay an eXtraamount TO compensate
the attorney of the lienholder for his serv-
ices, besides the costs of the court and
witnesses. So absolute is the security af-
forded the lien holder that the personality
OF the contractor. his reputation, and finan-
cial responsibility are rarely considered in
deciding the question whether to give him
credit to carry on job Indeed, it has
happened known tricky, dishonest contrac-
'"A mas peeH recommended TO an owner
because of a secret understanding,
to buy material or hire labor of a certain
party. LII contractor should keep TO his
own use money truStingly paid him on an
ilnpled or declared promise that il would
De applied to paying bills on the Job, there
Is no legal offense committed. AMI no re-
course Tor the owner but to pay the amount
n second time and say a few hard words
Inc immunity from punishment for such
Dreach or trust is so well known that there
mas arisen a class of contractors who will
purposely bid below cost for the sake of
the opportunity to get some of the money
INTO their own pockets, and if the owner
ueniithds an explanation he is told a mis-
take was made in the figuring and that
the amount pocketed was no more than
reasonable for the support of the contrac-
tor family. which has a right to live
IL sometimes happens that moneys so paid
nave been applied TO old debts. or to carry
the contractor into a new lob but there
Is no way for the Swindled owner to follow
IL up and make recovery. 1t may be said
the owner can protect himself by exacting
"a bond with surety. but an examination of
the court dockets shows that not one in ten
changes made In the plans after the bond
was given, it being rule of
anT ia% tia that f.tin the ubayy Law in the case
strued in favor of sureties or bondsmen
The effect of the law has been to drive
honest, responsible contractors out of
business except as to the large Jobs and
10 bring the trade into almost general dis
repute. II has also lowered the standard
Oh work III almost every particular. That
some change in the present law is needed
there is no question. but il is doubtful if
II Is possible TO lessen the amount of pro-
lection afforded ty the law, against the
opposition of the interests getting the
protection, else il would become easy for
sWlndllng owners, in collusion with ras-
cally contractors. to defraud labor and
dealers in material. as was :he case befor,
the present law was enacted. What seems
most needed IS a measure protecting the
Cwner against the rascality of irresponsible
cCl tractors. and the suggestion is mad.
that this can be accomplished by enacting
law making the contractor or subcon-
tractor, as between him and those per-
forming labor or furnishing material the
agent of the owner whose duty il is to
use all moneys received to pay off such OBJ
legations. and declaring a failure to tio 50
within reasonable time to constitute the
crime of embezZement. punishable by fine
or Imprisonment, or both. Such a law
would soon force out the dishonest because
starvation or the Jail would make ii i'm
possible for them TO long continue in busi-
ness. NJ
indianapolis, Jan. -.