The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1911-02-01
WHO IS FIGHTING
GARN|SHMENT LAW
Birmingham's High Percent
age of Bankruptcy Cases
BLOW TO WAGE FARMERS
oberdorfer Calls Striking Attention 10
Need for Some Relief for Wage
Garner From the Pres
ent system
BLOW TO WAGE FARMERS

successfully deny.
The bankrupt court of the Birmingham
district has filed each year more cases.
with the possible exception of the south
ern district of New York, than any court
of the United States; the bankrupts are
mostly wage-earners, the mainstay of the
community, driven there in order to get
relieved from garnishments, which cut
them off from every cent they earn, and
upon which they and their families are
dependent for livelihood
But it is said they are improyident and
should pay their debts. This may be
conceded, yet the making paupers out of
them who are willing to work and do
work, impounding them with excessive
costs and attorneys fee, driving them
into bankruptcy or forcing them out of
the district, or allowing their families to
go in want, is too severe penalty for
improvdence.
Let us see whether there should be
writ of garnshment out of a justice
court against a wage-earner. Garnish-
ment before suit is an attachment pro-
cess. We do not allow man to sue an
other and levy execution before judg-
ment, except in extraordinary cases upon
making good and sufficient bond. Are
the property rights of a wage-earner in
his wage less sacred. less deserving of
consideration than any other property
rights? Again, it will be suggested that
such garnishments may be run In court
of record. This is true, but only upon the
plaintiff before judgment giving a good
and sufficient bond. AS matter of ex-
perience any kind of bond, however
worthless, is approved in justice court.
But 1t is argued that this would take
away necessary remedy to prevent the
small shopkeeper being imposed upon by
dishonest debtors. / have no doubt that
when social justice had SO far advanced
as TO demand the abolition of imprison
was made. But it is also argued that it
will react upon the poor laborer, and he
will be prevented from buying on a credit.
The same argument was made against the
adoption of usury laws, so much so that
at one time in the history of this state
these laws were abolished. But it was
found that however plausible the argu-
ment might be In theory, in practice it did
not work, and that society must protect
the weak against the strong.
Likewise when society awoke to the
fact that it owed a duty to the debtor to
protect him from exacting creditors by al
lowing exemption laws, this same argu-
ment was made. But the same reasons
that have induced society to protect the
poor debtor, not alone for the debtors
sake, but for societys sake, from being
made a pauper, by means of exemption
laws, urges that some legislation should
be enacted TO protect the poor wage
Garner from being despoiled by reckless
plaintiffs abusing the process of garnish
ment
That this evil exists no one can deny,
that 1t prays upon the weaker class-the
class most deserving of the states pro-
tection-is equally true. Social justice
and our own economic welfare demand
some remedy.
1t does not meet the question by at
tempting to impugn the motives of the
author or authors of these remedies, and
especially where the motive of those who
make the attack may be the most selfish
and sordid.
As to whether we are prepared at this
time to abolish absolutely, as to wage
earners, the process of garnishment in
justice court, may be a debatable ques-
ton, public opinion may not be as yet pre-
pared for it. But that limitations, restric-
tons and safeguards should be thrown
about it no one cap deny
But the most remarkable spectacle In
this controversy is the affrontery of those
vino would continue to exploit the poor
debtor by excessive fees, the enforce
ment of unjust debts who claim to be do
ing so in the interest of the poor debtor.
Has any labor organization, has any
fraternity made up of wage-earners, pro-
tested against this measure because it
will deprive them of their credit? Ger
tainly not. The money lender, the justice,
the constable, and others who would ex-
plot the poor do So and have the hardi-
hood to say that they are acting in the
interest of the poor defendants in these
garnishment proceedings.
They say that this movement to relieve
against the abuse of garnishment is a
trick of the corporations to make a more
complete monopoly of their commissary
system. If the commssary system is OBJ
jectionable, why correct or abolish it:
but certainly it is no argument to main
tain another greater evil
The writer believes that it is not in the
interest of the commissary that the cor
pora tions object to this garnishment sys-
tenn, but In order to protect their work.
men and prevent them from being de-
spoiled and driven out of the district as
is often the case under the abuse of garn-
ishment Many of the corporations, such
as railroad companies who object to the
abuse of garnishment, do not even main
tain commissaries. In many other states.
not even in courts of record, are salary
and wages subject to garnshment for ex-
ample the state of New York No one
has heard the complaint that in the En-
pire state the laborer is denied credit, or
that 1t is not a progressive commercial
state. Our laws recognize that it is
against public policy to subject the wages
of public employees by garnshment pro-
cess May not the public policy which
being subjected by garnishment. extend
to other employees upon whose labor So
ciety is as much dependent as upon the
employment of the public servant? In its
last analysis, the entire structure of
ciety depends upon the wage-earner and
his means of subsistence.
A. LEO OBERDORFER.