LABORERS' LIEN.
Mr. ROELKER'S bill [H. R. 69] providing for security and payment of laboring men, mechanics and employes, and giving them a lien for the amount of their claim, having previously been read the third time--
Mr. ROELKER thought the House should do something for the working man. When a man has labored hard he ought to have a means of collecting his remuneration without exhausting the proceeds of his daily toil, therefore he favored the passage of this bill.
Mr. GIBSON said the objectionable feature of the bill was that it allowed a laborer to take a lien on a man's personal or real property without giving a notice to such proprietor. In case a third party purchased such property there may be a "mechanic's lien" on the same, and the purchaser be wholly ignorant of the fact, therefore he opposed the measure.
Mr. FULLER--A man who has worked for his day's wages should not be defrauded from his actual pay. One objecion seems to be urged, is, that an innocent purchaser has no means of knowing whether there is a mechanic's lien on property purchased or not. This lien acts just the same way that a mortgage would act. If there is a mortgage on a piece of property and an innocent party purchasing does not know it, of course the mortgage stands; and the laborer's lien should hold in the same manner. If a man buys property, it is his business to see that it is clear of indebtedness. I hope this bill will pass.
Mr. SWITZER was in favor of this bill for several reasons, which he stated in a few words. It is true the bill does not provide for giving public notice by the laborer filing a lien. The labored should not be compelled to employ a lawyer in order to get the claim for work put in shape for collection. It should be sufficient to file such claim with a Justice of the Peace, without expense to the claimant. He favored the passage of the bill as it stands.
Mr. CARTER though the gentleman did not understand the operation of the bill entirely--it giving the employe a lien which shall take precedence over any other lien. He considered the law passed in 1877 fair and just to all parties; as it protects laborers so far as it is in the power of enactments to protect them. He thought this bill went furter than the House could go under the Constitution, and for that reason he was opposed to the bill.
By consent, the emergency clause was stricken from the bill.
Mr. COLE agreed with the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Carter) in regard to the constitutionality of this bill. He thought it very unwise to pass a bill so vague and indefinite, which permits one class of claims to take precedence of any other matter, and took the position that the State had no right to make a law which gives one man a preference over another. Therefore, he opposed the measure.
Mr. HUSTON was opposed to the bill for the reason that it will affect the value of stocks of manufacturing enterprises of the State. He was in favor of giving such lien, if the mechanics were required to file their claims and not incur the risk upon a purchaser of finding a mechanics lien ona piece of property when there is no record to show for it.
He wanted the bill to pass in such a way as to protect the laboring man in all his rights and privileges, and at the same time, so it will not injuriously affect the interests of those who give employment. In order to change the provisions of this bill, he moved to recommit it to the Judiciary Committee.
On motion by Mr. FULLER, this motion was laid on the table.
Mr. LINSDAY moved to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to amend by providing that the lien shall not have preference over any previously recorded lien, judgment or mortgage; provided such recorded lien, judgment or mortgage is for value received; also, provided that proper notice shall be given to protect innocent purchasers of any property submitted to any liens provided for in this bill.
The motion to recommit was agreed to.
