The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1906-03-19
JUSTICES DISAGREE
WITH VIGOR

| The Supreme Courts long term Of
unanimity has encountered a sudden
break. This morning another decision
was handed down with Chief Justice
Frear dissenting, Wilder having writ
ten the opinion and Hartwell a brief
concurring opinion. 1t is i'm the test
case brought to settle the question of
whether the Territory may garnishee
seamen's wages, after securing judg-
ment, for taxes. The majority of the
court decided against the Territory, and
the case will be appealed to the Su-
preme court of the United states. 1t
is already subject of a test suit in the
/ United states District court so that
Judge Dolcs opinion will soon be
forthcoming
A peculiar feature of the case is said
to be that if Dole should agree theo-
retically with Frear he would have to
hold, as far as practical results are
concerned, with Wilder and Hartw5ll
/ If Dole should decide that the Terri
tory may garnshee, say the lawyers,
he would then hold that his court
could not give a decision Withholding
the tax money from the seaman, be
cause that would mean providing for
. collecting it twice.
The Supreme justices disagree over
the difference between an attachment
or garnishee before and after a judg-
ment Says the opinion of the court;
Plaintiff admits that such wages
cannot be attached or subjected to
garnishment before judgment, but con-
tends that after Judgment the statute
does not prevent attachment or gar
nishment We fail to see the distinc-
ton There is no question but that
this statute was enacted for the pro-
lection of seamen; the effect of it is
to nail the wages of a seaman to the
mast of his ship. And, if a seaman's
wages for his own benefit are protected
from attachment, what difference does
it make to him whether they are at
tached before or after judgment In
our opinion there is no such distinction
as is contended for"
Justice Wilder concludes by saying
that the contention i'm favor of garnish-
ment as opposed to the plain and or
binary meaning of the words of the
statute and Justice Hartwell closes
a brief concurring opinion by saying
that the federal statute prohibiting at
taChments does not except attachments
after Judgment" and the court has no
authority to make the exception" but
Chief Justice Frear finds that con-
struction of the statutes "in their or
binary sense" leads to the view that
there was no intention to include at
tachments after judgment Says the
chief Justice:
THE reason of the statute is found
i'm the improvident character of seameD
and the peculiar circumstances under
which they are placed and the cons -
.Quent need of their protection. TO per-
init a retention of their wages pending
a suit of uncertain duration and re-
suit would often work a great hardship
upon them, but to allow their wages
to be applied in payment of a just debt
} conclusively determined by a judg-
ment would not be a hardship in a
gal sense. The object of the statute
is to prevent suspension of wages by
} attachment or punishment pending an
action that may turn out to be I'M
founded, and not to prevent their APP
plicatiOn on execution to the payment
of just debt. In a certain sense a
payment of a seaman's just debt would
be a payment to him. 1t would be a
payment on his account"
The chief justice is just as positive
the other way as the opinion of the
court is against the r, rritory. for he
finishes by saying that from what
ever point it is viewed, the statute in
question (exempting seamen from at
tachmenD has no application to the
present case"
NJ. F. Prosser appeared for the Ter
ritory and Smith e. Lewis for the gar
. nishees, the Inter-Island Steam Navi-
cation Company.