Evening star., 1941-04-14
Garnishment Ban
On D. {. Employees
Upheld in Court
Appeals Ruling Exempts
$4,000 Who Work for
City Government

The 10000 employees of the Dis
trict government are exempt from
garnishment proceedings for COL
lection of debts. the United States
Court of Appeals decided today ir
reaffirming a stand taken in 1893.
The tribunal declared the recent
Supreme Court decision holding
that Federal Housing Administra-
ton employees are subject to gar
nishment did not affect the exemp-
ton of District employees.
Today's case arose when Gal
linger Hospital nurse, Mary E. But
Ter, took her fight to the appellate
tribunal, claiming she was not SUBJ
ject to garnishment proceedings.
Judgment was secured in NUM-
cipal Court by Mary E. Chewing
against Miss Butler and this was
docketed in District Court for $201
for the alleged debt and S3o.50 for
attorneys fees. Garnishment pro-
ceeding, in an effort to levy on the
nurses pay, was served on the Dis
trict government, which contended
1t was exempt.
1893 Ruling Recalled.
The District government, through
former Corporation Counsel Elwood
H. Seal, Principal Assistant Vernon
E. West and Assistant Corporation
Counsel Chester H. Gray, told the
appellate court that if the munich
pality is subject to garnishment, it
must expand its disbursing office
and its corporation counsel's Office.
Today's opinion, written by Asso-
ciate Justice Henry w. Edgerton,
recalled that this court decided in
1893 that the District was not sub
ject to garnishment and added that
"by keeping the statute of 1871 in
force for 10 years and re-enacting
1t after the courts had repeatedly
decided that it did not subject the
District to garnishment, Congress
has in effect ratified the decisions" :"
The Opinion.
The opinion of Associate Justice
Edgerton, who heard the case with
Associate Justices Justin Miller and
Wiley Rutledge, declared:
THE District of Columbia is not
a modern Federal governmental
corporation launched
into the commercial world On the
contrary, the District has a great
variety of governmental functions,
including not only those which are
commonly exercised by cities, but
others, like the maintenance of a
National Guard, the regulation of
insurance and the licensing of auto
mobiles, which are commonly exer-
cised by States. The court found
evidence of congressional intent to
authorize garnishment of the Hous-
Ing Administration in the fact that
Congress. expressly exempted 2 out
of 10 modern Federal governmental
corporations from garnishment and
did not mention the subject in con-
nection with the Housing Admin
istration and the other 81 corpora
tions. The evidence of congress
sional intent with regard to the
District of Columbia is all the other
way"
Associate Justice Edgerton's opin-
Ion pointed out that the prevailing
rule exempts municipal corporations
from garnishment unless a statute
expressly includes them on the
theory that they should not be
subjected at taxpayers expense to
litigation in which they have no
interest.
District Court also held the Dis
trict of Columbia is exempt from
garnishment proceedings for the
collection of private judgment.
Appeal Is Planned.
Attorney Cornelius H. Doherty,
representing Miss Chewing, to
whom the debt is allegedly owed,
said he will carry the case TO the