The Oskaloosa herald. (Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa) 1885-1919, 1903-07-30
PAYING With CHECKS.
When Redeemable in Money They
Are Legal Tender.


and the secretary Of the Iowa Nine
Workers at their headquarters in this
city regarding the ruling of the attor-
ney general Of the state upon the
question of miners being paid by
check. The exact wording of the
opinion recently rendered by Mr.. Null
len is as follows:
"John p. Reese, Commissioner Iowa
Coal Operators Association; Edwin
Perry, President Iowa Miners Asso-
citation; Pleasant Valley Coal Com
pany;a and Craig & Donovan Coal Com.
pany--
Sirs:-I am in receipt of your re-
quest of the 7th instant asking my
opinion upon two propositions relat-
ing to the manner of the payment Of
miners by the coal operators, and am
Informed that there is now a dispute
between the operators and the miners
upon the propositions referred to me,
and that strike now exists because
of the dispute between the miners and
the operators. These propositions
are stated as follows: ....
ID Is the issuance of bank
check by coal company to a coal
miner for labor performed, violation
of the statute of Iowa relating to the
payment of miners?
(2) Is a coal miner compelled to
accept a check Of coal operator ten
dered in payment of the earnings due
the miner for labor performed for the
coal operator who offers the check as
payment?
These two propositions will be con-
sidered in the order stated.
First-Is the payment Of the amount
due a miner for labor performed by
him by a bank check which is made
by the coal operator and delivered TO
and accepted by the miner violation
of any provision of the statute?
1t is contended that such trans
action is in violation of section 249O
of the Code, as amended by the acts
of the Twenty-eighth General Assem-
bly,, which provides:
Where ten or more miners are EN-
ployed, such owner or ageEt shall not
sell, give, deliver or issue, directly OF
indirectly, to any person employed, In
payment for labor done, or as adj
vances for labor performed any script
check, draft order or other evidence
of Indebtedness payable or redeemable
otherwise than in money at the face
value. - ..
1t is clear that the phrase, payable
or redeemable otherwise. than in
money at the face value refers to and
qualities every character of the eyl
dence of Indebtedness previously re
: ferred to, and prohibits the payment
of the miner in any character OF
script check, draft or other evidence
of indebtedness which is not redeem
able in money at its face value.
The purpose of this statute is clear
1t was to prohibit mine operators from
paying miners by giving orders upon
company stores or other mercantile
houses which would be payable In
goods or property. 1t was never in
= tended to apply to checks drawn upon
banks, which are redeemable or pay
able in money at the face value there
of. So, upon the first proposition,
then, it is clear that there is no prohl'
bition in the statute of Iowa which
prevents a mine operator from paying
the miners in bank checks for the Ia
Dor performed by them, If the miners
are willing to receive and accept such
checks in payment. -
This brings us to the second propo-
sition, which is the real question in
volved, which is
Is a coal miner compelled to accept
a check of coal operator, rendered
in payment of earnings due the miner
for labor performed for the operator,
who offers the check as payment?
In this respect miner and an oper-
ator stand upon no different footing
than that of any other debtor or cred
itor. The question, therefore, is a
broad one as to whether any debtor
can compel a creditor to accept
check in payment of a debt which
such debtor owes to the creditor.
1t is a we'll settled and universally
recognized rule of law that when a
debtor has given his check for the
amount of his Indebtedness, the pre-
sumption arises that the check was
taken merely as conditional not abso-
lite, payment, and in case the check
is not honored upon due presentation,
the original Indebtedness for which
it was given continues to exist, and
may be recovered by the creditor
without rescrting to the debtors liza
bility on the check. This rule of law
is based upon the fact that a check
is not cash, but is an order upon an
other person to pay the cash upon due
presentation Of the check.
Under this rule it has been fre-
uuently held that the offer of check
in payment for sum acknowledged
TO be due from the debtor to the cred
itor is not a sufficient tender of the
amount owing by the debtor.
Following this principle to its log
ieal conclusion, it is clearly the right
of any creditor to refuse to accept
check in payment of the debt owing
by the debtor, because the creditor