The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-05-20
Question of Garnishment OF
WOrkingmen's Wages.
MANY CASES INVOLVED
CASE TO GO TO HIGHEST COURT
ON WRIT OF ERROR.
Interpretation of Constitution of
United States on Restriction Upon
State to Pass Laws Impairing
Obligations of Contracts-Collec-
ton Agency in the Fight.

writ Of error viii be applied for
in the supreme court of this state on
Monday in a case that is proving to
be of unusual interest to the wage
workers of the whole state as well as
TO merchants and railroad companies
and other corporations employing large
numbers Of men. The case in brief is
this:
Between May l. 1895, and April 1,
1896, William Bird, Rio Grande fire
man, bought goods on credit from
John M. Kirkman. May 10, 1896. judg-
ment was rendered against Bird by
Justice W. II. Sells for S2S5.47 and
$11-25 costs. On the strength of this
Judgment the Rio Grande Western
company was garnisheed for the
amount of Birds wages on Dec. u,
1S99 The amount Of wages due at that
time was $3.50. Bird maintained that
MS wages were exempt from execution
unCer the law.
The garnishment case was tried before
Justice Pardee and a decision rend-
cred against Bird. He appealed to the
district court and Judge Cherry re
Versed Justice Pardee. Then the Mer-
chants Protective Association which
was prosecuting the case for Kirkman
carried the case to the supreme court
or the state and Judge Cherry's decis-
ion, was affirmed. This, il was thought
by the railroad and the working men.
ended the case, but not so with the
Protective Association, which began
proceedings at once to take the case
up to the supreme court Of the United
States. and the action of Monday will
be in line with that determination.
The interesting point in the case is
that il is held that the garnishment
law of Utah IS unconstitutional be-
cause II lmpairS contracts that were
IN existence when the law was enacted.
It is on this point that the case is to
be appealed and on II the best local
lawyers are divided in opinion. The
federal constitution declares that mo
state shall pass any law impairing the
obligations of contracts" The old law
il Utah exempted one half a mans
wages, and the new law. enacted in
1899, eXempts ali Of a mans wages for
sixty days next preceding the levy of
garnishment. The plaintiff in the case
cited above claims that this new
law violates the contract made with
Bird before the new law went into eff
feet. Bird and his lawyers maintain
that his case does not come under this
head and the courts of the state hold
with them.
Many Similar Cases Involved.
If Birds were the only case involved
the matter would be simple. but there
are many others of a similar charac-
ter and this case is but a test. 1t is
said that over So 600 in the wages of
wOrkingmen are tied up awaiting the
final decision Of the courts, and this
is looked upon as a hardship by the
men as the case IS not likely to be
reached in less than a year at the very
best, and in the meantime the men viii
be ont of the use of their money, il be-
ing tied up by garnishments against
the railroad companies.
There is still another feature of this
case that creates sympathy for the
workingmen- At the beginning of the
case in the district court il was stipu-
lated between the Rio Grande and the
Protective Association that all cases
involving this question and affecting
the interests of the railroad would re-
main in status quo until a final decis-
ion was reached. This final decision the
railroad Company and the men under
stood to mean a final decision by the
state courts. The Protective association
now holds that q final decision by the
United States supreme court was
meant. It has broken the status quo
and is pushing garnishment proceed
ingS in every instance Officers of the
doSpCIdIlUu WllCl oCCu IColCLQdy Sdiu
that they purpOSed TO tie up every man
who could be tied up and push the
matter to the end. They claim that the
interests of merchants must be looked
TO as well as those of the WOrkingmen.
The WO-kingmen hold that in doing
this the Protective association IS VIC
lating the laws of the state of Utah,
and that it is working a hardship upon
a great number of poor men by tying
Up their wages by the simple appeal of
one case involving $3S.75.
Kirlman is represented in this case
by Krebs & HOppaugh. He figures in
the matter only nominally as the case
is being fought in fact by the Mer-
chants Protective association. Bird is
represented by W. II. Bramel and the
Rio Grande W. stern Railway company
by Bennett Hardness, HOwat, Suther-
land & Van Colt. OF course the rail
road is fighting Birds case for him,
and the railroad and all other big cor
porations in the state are deeply in
terested in the outcome.