The record-union., 1897-01-26
At Least That Portion Which Authorizes
the Arrest Of Sailors
Who Refuse to Observe Contracts to
Serve on Board Vessels.


Refusing to Discharge Them From
the Custody of United States
rlarshaI Barry Baldwin.
! WASHINGTON, Jan. 25.-That part
of the shipping laws of the United
States which authorizes the arrest OF
sailors who refuse to observe the terms
of their contracts to serve ON board
vessels was to-day declared by the Su-
preme Court to be constitutional, and
within the jurisdiction of State courts
to enforce.
The case at bar came up from the
| Northern District of California upon the
appeal of Robert Robertson, p H.
! Oben, J. H. Bradley and Norris Ham
SON from the judgment of the United
States Court for that district, refusing
| to discharge them from the custody of
Barry Baldwin, United States Marshal
on their petition for writ of habeas
| corpus.
| These men signed articles at San
! Francisco to ship on the American
| barkentine Arago for a voyage to
Knappton, Washington, thence to VAL
paraiso Chile, and to such other for
eign ports as the master might decide,
and return to a port of discharge in
the United States At Astoria, Or, the
men deserted the vessel, and being ar
rested on warrant issued by a Jus
tfce of the Peace, Were held in irons
sixteen days and returned to San
Francisco. On the way there they re-
fused to work, and on arrival We're
he : in custody by a United States
Cor issiOner for trial upon the charge
of slatiOn Of Sections 1893 and 4o9o
of the Revised Statutes. They sued
for their discharge on a writ of habeaS
corpus, on the ground that their de
tention was in violation of the Thir-
teerth Amendment to the Constitu-
LION, which forbids involuntary servi-
tude except for crime of which the sub
ject has been duly convicted.
Judge Morrow dismissed their petit
] ton, and rernanded them to the custody
of Barry Baldwin Marshal of that dis
trict
Justice Brown delivered the opinion
of the count, from which Justice Harlan
dissented
Disposing first of the question of ju-
riSdiction, Justice Brown said the
statute giving Justices of the Peace ju-
risdidtion over complaints against sea-
men for violation of their contracts was
Within the judicial power" of the
United States, and that Congress could
authorize State courts to issue warrants
such as the ONE upon which the petit
a 9l1 a1 in md
turned to their vessel
The next question was what conSti-
| tuted involuntary servitude," which
was prohibited by the Thirteenth
Amendment to the Constitution. In
the opinion of the court it attached to
servitude which was involuntary at the
beginning Of the contract. 1t was true
that there might be no remedy if the
| contracting party escaped from the
control of the person with whom he had
| contracted, and that the contract might
! be declared null and void as not in ac-
cord With public policy, but these con-
sideratlonS could not make the service
contracted for involuntary servitude.
IF the terms were to be construed by
the party affected" said the court,
and the contract terminated at his
election, man ought not be able to
contract for personal service and to
surrender his personal liberty, even
FOR brief period under certain condi-
tlollS specified i'm the contract By
such a condition a soldier might desert
his command on the eve of battle, and
however satisfactory that might be to
him, 1T could hardly be considered as
tending to the good discipline or effect
iveness of the army"
Practice and precedents extending
back into the periods of antiquity, said
Justice Brown, concurred in holding
seamen to the terms of their contracts.
Navigation could not be carried on with
OUT the enforcement of such contracts,
and the authority for the law in ques-
ton was found in the Constitution with
power to regulate foreign and interstate
commerce. The laws of all maritime ma
tions from the earliest ages to the pres
ent period contained similar provisions,
and in view OF all the conditions in
volved in the case the opinion concluded
that the court found arrest and inn
prisonment of the petitioners was not
involuntary servitude forbidden by the
thirteenth amendment to the Consttu-
ton, ana the Judgment of the court for
the Northern District of California was
affirmed.
In his dissent Justice Harlan laid
much stress upon the Importance of the
consequences involved in the decision
of the court. He denied the relevancy of
the reference to the laws of 400 years
ago, or even To the Council of Massa-
chusetts 700 years ago. relating to sea-
men. The law in question, he said, had
been passed in 1877. and had been per-
mitted to remain upon the statute books,
in his opinion, for want of consideration
largely. He asked what difference there
was in essence between the overseer
standing over man with lash in hand
and compelling him to labor against his
will. and the United States Government
through its Marshal. compelling a man
TO work under a contract which he no
longer wished to observe
Discussing the possibilities of legisla-
tion under the principle of the decision
of the court, Justice Harlan called at
tention to the vastly wider field that was
open to State Legislatures, which were
restricted only by what was specifically
prohibited to them, compared with Con-
gress, which acted only under delegated
powers. What a sensation, he asked
would result from the passage by