The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1878-01-30

10 the Editors Of tke Clarion
AS your paper has perhaps the largest
circulation of any paper in Mississippi, i
have concluded TO make a few suggesti0ns
through its columns to the farmers OF Misc
sissIppi and our Legislature now Go session.
think there Is great need Of legislation on
the subject OF labor and labor contracts, the
want OF which has been an Incubus ON our
farming interests, and has impeded our
progress in rebuilding our waste places.
more than all other causes pertaining 90 nn-
ricuiture. The honest, conscientious FARE
mer Is at the mercy of every unpriuoinlod
labOrer and farmer who chose 30 lniure ana
deiraud him. AS an illustration, Mr.. A.. q
planter of Mississippi, IS IN want Of labor Co
work his farm, and not being able 20 pro-
cure II at home, he goes over TO Alabama
or Georgia and, at heavy expense and loss
OF time, obtains hands, pays their fare, and
gets home with them, settles them on bio
place, furnishes horses, provisions perhaps
for weeks or months. His neighb0r, Mr.. b.
goes to work, cladestinely, and gets an OF
Mr.. AS hands on his place,an Mr.. A, has no
redress on Mr.. b. at all. Mr.. B has renUed nlE
the benefit Of Mr.. AS. money and time
spent In securing his hands. And % Mr. a.
demonstrates and complains, he Mr. Be-
merely laughs it of as a shrewd trick and
good joke, and Mr.. A. has 20 pocket tlG
loss, and hear the disappointment che best
he can. lie has no redress on Mr.. B. or
the laborers. This Us no fancy sketch. for
appear TO me that such acts should be pune
ished by fine and imprisonment, for lt is
certainly moral, II not a legal theft.
In other cases, share labOrers or crop
peTs, frequently refuse to gather their
crops after they are made. When they
find they have used and consumed their
part, have left crops. and gone and worked
for other parties in violation Of their cone
tracts, and 20 the damage and loss of tb8
land holder. But he has no redress, as fhn
laborer is in such cases generally law
proof. Now ought not this party, who has
employed this labOrer, and caused him tu
leave his own crop, 70 be liable for dam-
ages, as he in this act has damaged hi1
neighbOr, and become an accomplish lu The
crimeY Justice ambiguity would certainly
so decide, and any person employing Ia
Dor previously employed should be liable
for damages, and prosecuted as in other
cases Of trespass aud misdemeanor.
l have only spoken OF the employer
as an offender and criminal. i win
should be held accountable and nmenable
to the law. When he with inn puuitV violates
his contract and subjects his employer to
loss and isappOintmentcer certainly be should.
It is most generally the case that che cm-
plOyer is solvent and the emplOye can force
him to a compliance with hia contract. and
In justice and fairness the law ought tO come
pei the employe 10 like compliance with
his contract, and be should De dealt with In
Mississippi as he would be GA some OF tha
Northern States or 10 Europe, arrested ana
imprisoned If he failed or refused 20 comply
with his contract. it is impossible for any
country to prosper without d well directed
the EN- plOyeT and the emplOye, the latter
has all the protection Ia Mississippi that De
could ask for, the former has none.
ARcoLA.