The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1870-01-01
[For the Pacific Commercial Advertiser
Master and Servant Law.

lFor The racine commercial AdVertlserJ
Master and Servant Law.
MR. EDITOR In your last paper, 1 stated the
Object of ALL law to be, to right the wrongs of the
injured and mete out justice to the injurer and
that upon this principle, which knows no class or
profession, the law under consideration was founded,
adjusting it to certain relations of life, which always
have existed, and which must always continue to
exist. The maritime laws of commercial nations
and military laws are analogous in requiring and
enforcing specific fulfllment of contracts, voluntarily
made. The vindication of the justice of one of
these laws is the vindication of all, as far as this
particular provision is concerned. When the labOrer
on the land or the sailor on the sea in the harbor,
without any abuse or sufficient reason, refuses to
fulfill his voluntarily-assumed obligations, he inAicts
an injury upon the property of the other party to
his contract just as disastrous to his interests as if
he had stolen or robbed or defrauded him of an
equal amount without i~nflcting any bodily injury,
and if there is wrong in the one case there ID in the
other. If the law protects in the one case it should
in the other. The covenant breaker, by refusingtO
fulfill his honest obligation is guilty of dishonesty,
none the less so because it may be more public than
a covert fraud. His manhood is sacred it is true,
but he has Invested himself of it. If the crew of a
large or small ship in our harbor, without cause,
I contrary 10 their pleuBc, ueStIL INC property hHhCL
has been entrusted to their care on the faith of that
pledge, is the law wrong which steps in and says,
No, you must fulfill your contract, you have no
abuse, no breach of contract to complain of to
justify your desertion of the ship entrusted to you
on the faith of the promise you chose to make does
not the sense of justice in all men cry out that the
law which exacts the fulfllment of the promise is
right, is just and should be enforced ? 1t seems as
! rlain 20 mo aa ooo;b tbot tho Iar ruhiab nrctoofo
the rights of the good OF all classes and every condi-
ton, from the willful aggressions of evil disposed
dishonest men. whoever they may be, is founded
upon the principle of eternal justice, and is equally
binding upon the land and sea.
In the discussion of this subject I have confined
myself to the justice of the law. but the fact that in
nearly every contract for service an advance is de-
manded, which the necessity of the employer COM
pels him to pay, then the refusal of the employee to
fulfill his contract uiihout cause aggravates the
wrong done by him. I think I have shown that no
Lonest man, without good cause, will r~epudiate his
contract for service to the INJURY of his employer.
If he will do so, he lays aside the highest attribute
of his manhood and if he is persistently dishonest,
the law, which enforces the ful6llment of the obliga-
tons which he has chosen to assume, is not only
Just, but necessary to the good of the community
and when we add that money has been advanced on
the faith of these obligations, it makes the dishonest
defaulter more and worse than a swindler.
Inote, in your remarks On my last article, you give
me credit for ability in making 81 the worse appear
the better cause You say 50 the ~sophstry is I'D
mirable.'' $40 the attentive reader it must seem
like the argument of the arch-tempter to quiet the
upbrGidings of q troubled conscience" Is it not
possible that there is no sophistry |; may it not be
the statement of a plain principle of right, and a
inst law based upon it? In the f~alibility of all
human Judgment, may I not be right after all, and
those who differ from me wrong Good men and
wise men have thought, and now think as L do. Is
it quite certain that truth is not on our sde2 1t
requires very little ability to make q plain unvar-
nished statement of truth, and if my statements
read so well, it is additional evidence of their truth.
Truth always commends itself to the consciences of
men, even if they will not obey its voice. And be-
leving fully the truth and justice of the principles
stated, | should have a 6 troubled conscience - if
did not approve and defend them as well as / could.
Two violations of this law in the terms of service
are mentioned. Surely the violation of q law can
prove nothing of its character. And certainly if it
proved q law to be bad, then it would prove all laws
to be bad, for all are more or less violated but is it
not the duty of those who knOv of its violation to
invoke its functions upon the ~violator1 IF the vio-
lators are known why not tell their names, if moth
ing more, if they are really guiltyf Thousands of
contracts have been made, within the nineteen years
during which this has been the law of the land, and
the great majority of them have been carried out in
good faith. Doubtless they would have been so had
there been no law, under the consciousness of right
implanted in all men. So, too, the great body OF
men, under the same consciousness, would not steal,
were there no law but, In both, and all similar
cases, the knowledge of the existence Of laws, that
will mete out justice to violators for dishonesty, no
doubt restraints many more who would otherwise be
aggressors. Their restraining power makes some
honest outwardly, who are not governed by princi-
pies As L said in my former article, hardship and
sometimes injustice occur under the most righteous
Of laws, and in spite of them. They cannot provide
for every conceivable case, but they are essential to
adjust the relations of society and the protection of
social and personal rights. The absence Of them is
anarchy to the body polite If they are imperfect,
as all laws must be more or less, and their working
demonstrates their imperfections, amend them for
the better, If it can be done, but do not sweep away
good laws, though detective they may be, until as
good or better can be substituted.
Respectfully yours, J.
latter reading this communication, we are re-
minded of an anecdote which we once heard, the
purport of which was that two men, whom we viii
style A. and o. of good standing, and both
thought well of in the community in which they re-
sided, differed, very materially. on q question Of
public interest. AT last, after a warm discussion,
A. said, there is but little use for us to talk about
this matter, for I have detected the cause Of your in
ability to see this question as I see it. OF course
j was curious to know what it was. A.
quietly took a pencil from his pocket, and, making q
mark in the palm of his hand, asked = if he
could see it. Of course 1 can, was the reply. A.
then took a coin from his pocket. and placing it over
the mark. again asked j if he could see it.
No, I cannot. Well, the cause Of our difference Of
opinion and your inability to see the mark are one
and the same. Do You see it, J--1