Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1904-03-05
TO TEST
WAGE
QUESTION
S uit Brought TO Deter mine
Whether the Wages Of a
State Employee Can
Be Attached

Suit to test the question, whethe
the secretary Of state can be garni
sheed. The supreme court has Sc
March the 10th, to hear the case o
r. G. Keene appellant VS.. 2. T
Smith defendant and F. /. Dunbar al
secretary Of state, garnishee. z. 7
Smith the defendant in this case /:
an employee Of the state as guard
at the state penitentiary and the ap
pellant attached his wages upon a
judgment in the justice court by
garansheeing his wages in the hands
of the secretary of state. The
secretary believing that he was not
liable under the law TO garnishee.
appealed the case TO the circuit
court, where Judge Burnett held
that the secretary was not amenable
20 garnishment, and Keene appeals
to the supreme court.
At the legislative session of 1903
the law exempting state officers from
garnishment was repealed.
This case is Of considerable interest
TO q great number Of Salem merchants
who have contributed TO the expense
of appeal in order that the matter
might be passed on by the supreme
court and are anxiously awaiting the
outcome Of the case. The merchants
think that there is no reason why a
person working for the state or to
whom the state owes money should
not pay their debts the same as
other citizens. II the secretary of
state, who is the public auditor Of
the state and who draws all the
money out OF the state treasury that
goes to pay all claims against the
state cannot be garlnsheed, II seems
that there is no way whereby the pay
Of an employe of the state or other
person who the state owes can be at
tached or reached by process Of law
to compel such person to pay his
honest debts.
Mr. Dunbar claims in his brief
that is against public policy to garni
shee him as a public officer. ani his
defense is founded on these lines.
Keene claims that since the repeal
of the law that exempted public Of
acers from garnishment that there
Is no other impediment in his way
10 reach the pay OF the defendant.
whatever legal question there may be
he supreme court In its decision will
afectually settle. But there is no
'eason why the employees OF the state
should not be compelled 10 pay their {
lebts, and especially should the state
II Oregon not stand et their back !
md encourage them In dishonesty. /
merchants have been trying for some !
ime TO get the matter in shape so J
hat they could collect their bills
rom state employees and secure the I
epeal OF the law which expressly ,
Exempt public officers from gar. {
lishment, but when the matter came {
,efore Judge Burnett in the circuit v
ourt he held that the simple repeal r
4 the law exempting public officers l
vas no. sufficient 20 make them so q
liable, II the decision of the supreme Y
curt is adverse 10 their claims. an {
nort will be made az the next leg. 4
stature to draft a bin that will suit Z
he technicalities OF the law. +
Courts OF other states have held ON d
imilar statutes that public officers a
re liable TO garnishment and that n
hey cannot be relieved from liability e
n account OF public policy, unless
heir liability would interfere with h
arnishment only renders the public O.
ervice. A Montana case holds that ii
only renders the public a
hcer a stake holder that Il rs mo- N
lore inconvenlent TO pay II 10 one A
erson than 10 another. and that II Is n
OF against public policy The an. n
allant sets up in his belief that II T
lhlie officer cannot be garnisheed r,
nder the present law that Il woull Ia
I've a Judgment debtor 70 whom the n
ate owes money a privelige from 81
Is eredilars enjoyed by no other A,
ass OF persons Frank Holmes is
torney for the appellant, and the m
'cretary Of state Is represented by Ian
Al Cravsf,ra 81, At.....- -