The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1866-06-23
Apprenticeship, las Rights and
Ats MBuffeS-.NH.

apprentice and the master. We now pro-
coed TO give al outline Of the general law on
the subject.
Tie common law Of England does not re-
cognise the power Of an infant, or person
under twenty-one years Of age, to enter into
contract for any other purpose than his
own benefit and advantage But in appren-
ticeship, as we explained in our previous
paper, the benefit is mutual; the apprentice
learns trade, and the person who teaches
him has the advantage Of bis services during
a certain time. AS the master has no
remedy at common law against the infant
for breach Of his part Of the contract, il is
Gust )mary for some relation or friend Of the
apprentice 10 join in the agreement, and to
undertake on his behalf that the contract
shall be faithfully performed. This rule,
however, does not apply in the case Of ap-
prenticeS bound to t.eemen OF the City Of
LoDdon; for long custom is held to have
ests blshed there, that any person unmar-
red and above the age Of fourteen who may
biad himself apprentice, shall be answerable
u the master for the performance Of the
contract in all respects, as if lie we're Of full
age when the agreement was made.
No agreement Of apprenticeship Is valid
unless the apprentice has expressly signified
his consent 10 the contract. 1t has
been decided at law that in the case Of a
father who had bound his son, the parent
and the master only signing the indentures,
the latter were void.
The formal execution of iDdentures is es-
sential to the Validity of an apprenticeship
agreement. No verbal understanding or
simple agreement in writing is sufficient
Aud where any sum Of money is paid by the
one party as a condition Of the contract, that
sum must be correctly Specified in the in
dentures, or they are Invalid.
The master who takes an apprentice, al
though bound TO fit him for practising his
art or trade, is not compelled TO teach HIM
in his own person; be may hand him over
for instruction to other persons in his EN-
ploy, and even TO other apprentices al that
he is engaged to do is 20 give the apprentice
fair means Of becoming proficient in the
business. And where the apprentice Is
placed under the instruction Of foreman or
other proper person, lie is bound to defer to
the authority OF that person, as if he were
the master himself.
The law does not recognize that the ap-
prentice is in the position of a servant to
the master, ID 10 anything more than pro-
perly comes within the range of the trade
or occupation specified in tire indentures
Here is frequent source Of complaint and
misunderstanding asnecially on the part Of
apprentices e. "a sed p employers in small
way Of business. They find, in many cases,
a multiplicity 81 81 ylces put upon them,
and feel aggrieveI when those services *
tend beyond the proper scope Of the trade.
But much OF tho disagreement that arises on
this point, and which often proceeds to q
very unpleasant length, would be avoided, if
only there ex sied right feeling between
the apprentice and the master, aud sense
of how much mutual consideration would
promote their mutual interest and comfort
On the part Of tue apprentice, although he
is not bound to do anything not included in
The business itself, yet it would display a
disobliging and even churlish spirit to refuse
any reasonab' service or assistance of which
the master might stand in need On the
other hand, the master has no right to lex
upon his apprentice as person placed at
his disposal for any and every kind Of work
to exact from him unreasonable services,
and make han general drudge.
In the event Of serious disagreement be-
tween master and apprentice, either party
has the rght-datlng as far back as an IN
repealed enactment Of the 9th Elizabeth,
cap. ito apply to the magistrates in SEES
sious, WHO may, on proper cause shown,
punish or even discharge the apprentice;
while, on the other hand, they may tine the
master for his faults, or lberate the appcen-
tice from the remainder Of his service. In
the case Of parish apprentices, two justices
are empowered with equal authority by the
Act 20, George Ii. In London either party
may summon the other before the Chamber
lain Of the City. who has the same pow ers
az the magistrates in other cases. A free
man Of London may turn nwat an appren-
tice for "gaming" By the Scotch law, a
master may dismiss an apprentice who is
"incorrigble."
The master is bound to provide his in
door apprentice VITA food, clothing, and
necessary attendance in sickness. In the
case Of his refusing CT negecting to do SO,
be is declared guilty OF misdemeanor, and
may be punished by Imprisonment. And
where tue master has covenanted to pay his
outdoor apprentice a weekly wage, he is
not released from that payment by the in
capacity of ne apprentice to serve him,
through ACCIDENT or ill-health. Nor can the
master stop the wages Of his apprentice fol
accidental damage to his property, unless
he is allowed 70 dc so by express coyen ant
in the indenture.
A master is liable to imprisonment for
assaulting his apprentice in q manner cal
culated to infiict permanent injury; but he
is allowed by law TO iDfict moderate chas-
tisement on the apprentice for decided mis-
behavior.
Any apprentice whose premium does not
exceed El0, if he should run away from his
master, may be compelled to serve proper
tionste time beyond the proper expiry of the
agreement, or to make satisfaction for the
loss sustained by his absence. A refusal 70
do either renders him liable to three months
imprisoument. In the case Of his entering
the service Of another person during the time
he NAV have absented h'nself, the master
q entitled to all his earnings; and, il he
should have been enhced away, may bring
an action for damages against the person
who misled him.
An apprentice who Is bound tOstwo or
,,,ore masters. on the death Of one OF them,