The Norfolk weekly news-journal., 1904-10-07
THE GARN|SHMENT LAW.
REPRESENTATIVE LOOMS GIVES
REASONS FOR VETO.
MlcKEYs COURSE is UPHELD


did Statement Of Fact, Defending
His Own Position and incidentally
That Of the Governor.
A letter from Geo. w. Loomis to
the Fremont Herald, u democrat to u
democratic newspaper, Is in defense
of Governor Mickey's veto of the ex-
emption law passed by the last legs.
lature. II is convincing and must ap.
peal to the reason of every reader
Judge Looms was the opposition lead.
cr in the house and hence cannot be
cuse for the action of republican
governor. He simply makes candid
statement of fact, defending his own
position and incidentally that of the
governor Following is the letter:
| notice in Fridays Herald, that Mr.
j. b, Cunningham of Omaha, delivered
an hours talk to a number of Fremont
merchants on Thursday evening last
upon the necessity for an amendment
of our exemption laws so as to permit
of wages due to laboring men, as pro-
vided by Senate File 81, which was
pending before the legislature at its
last session; also that he ccnsurcd me
for having opposed the bill and was
bitter against Governor Mickey for
having vetoed 1t.
This man Cunningham seems to be
sort of walking delegate, and he
may in time become as notorious as
Sam Parks. He apparently thinks that
he has a grievance, and he Is going
to air it whenever and wherever he
can get an audience. | regret that |
did not have the pleasure of hearing
him. He doubtless has his piece well
as a professional book agent or light.
ming rod man.
The bill over which he so deeply
mourns and will not be comforted, was
Senate File 81. At least twelve speci-
nc amendments were tackled to it in
the senate and more than one-half the
original bill stricken out by that body
until it resembled in appearance the
skeleton of dead horse with only
two or three ribs in place. AS 1t
finally passed the senate its own
friends would not have recognized it,
had they not kept track of it on it's
tortuous way through.
If any business man of this city will
come to my Office | will take pleasure
in showing him the law as it now is,
together with the bill as introduced in
the senate, and with senate amend
ments thereto, and if, after studying
the same diligently for two days, he
can tell me what the law would now
be had the governor signed that bill,
| will buy him a new hat This offer
is open to all with no entrance fee.
My attention as early called to this
bill. | was solicited to favor it, as [
doubt not every other member Of the
legislature was, for the gentlemen
pushing it were no more backward in
making known their wants than were
the street railway men, and insurance
lobby, in regard to the revenue law.
| was not asked by any laboring man,
or laboring mems organization, or any
representative of either to oppose the
bill, and if the laboring men were
represented in opposition to 1t, | do
not know of the fact | gave the bill
very careful consideration, and acted
on it solely on my own judgment, and
my sense of right and justice. did
speak against the bill, not with tears
in my eyes, however, as Mr.. Coming
ham says, but briefly and earnestly
and gave my reasons for opposing it,
To go into its merits, or rather de-
merits, here, would make this article
too long. The particular provision
which, according to Mr.. Cunningham,
was so pregnant with virtue as to
make it an objectionable sin to oppose
it, was that which made (after the
senates amendments) 20 per cent of
all wages due in excess of $500, sub
ject to garnishment in the hands of
the employer. In fact that was about
all there was left to the bill. Let us
look at it for moment. In nine
cases out of ten, not over $4,000 are
due the laborer at the time garnish-
ment proceedings are commenced.
OF that amount only $500 would have
been subject to garnishment under the
provisions of that bill. That would
not be half enough to pay costs, and
yet the employer would be subject to
the same annoyance as though the
amount were several hundred dollars,
the whole sum due would be tied up
pending the litigation, the wife and
children of the laboring man might
suffer for the necessaries of life, and
the creditor would get nothing in the
end. Would it pay? Suppose the
amount due the laborer be $500, in
stead Of $4,000. In that case 20 per
cent of the excess over $500, in all
$1,000, would be subject to garnish-
ment. That would Just about pay the
fee of the justice and the hard bill col
lector and again the creditor would