The San Francisco call., 1897-01-31
Judge Morrow's Decision
in the Aragon Case
Is Reaffirmed.
Sailors May Be Arrested Any
where if They Refuse to
Do as They Agree.
Ex.Judge Ferral, Attorney Hutton
and Others Say The Decision
ReatfirmS Slavery.

The decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States in the case OF sailors of the
private ship Aragon has created great in
terest and considerable disappointment in
labor circles of San Francisco.
To state the case in plain English, free
from all legal verbiage, Justice Brown has
decided that if sailors sign a contract to
make voyage on a private ship they be-
come so far bound to the shipowners that
they are subject to arrest and mprison-
ment if they fail to comply with the con-
tract.
The Coast Seamen's Union of San Fran
cisco, aided by unions elsewhere, is max
ing diligent efforts to have the United
States statutes so amended as to exempt
seamen from liability to imprisonment fol
failure to comply with their contracts.
While the amendment is almost certain to
become law, the masses of workingmen
b ad hoped that the Supreme Court of the
United States would hold that section
1859 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States is repugnant to the spirit of Ameri-
can institutions and therefore void.
1t is substantially copy of the old Eng
lish statutes on the subject. The Supreme
Court has decided, however, that the law
is good, though Justice Harlan wrote a
vigorous dissenting opinion.
The seamen were taken into custody in
the haIbor of San Francisco on the charge
of having refused to obey the orders of the
master of the vessel Aragon, after having
entered on articles to make a voyage to
Valparaiso. They applied to the Federal
District Court Tor wrlts of habeas corpus,
and upon the refusal of their petition ap-
pealed to the Supreme Court.
Justice Browns opinion affirms that
of the District Court and the Supreme
Court refuses to interfere with the case.
On the first point the court held that the
arrest of the sailors under the circum-
stances was "a due exercise of judicial
power" and also held that no involun-
tary servitude was involved in compelling
seamen to serve ior the time alreed upon.
The term involuntary" Justice Brown
said, must attach to the inception of the
service" 1t would be as culpable that
soldiers should desert on the eve OF battle
as that seamen should decline to obey
orders issued to them at sea.
Justice Harlan dissented in a vigorous
opinion, basing his division on the
ground that the arrest was in violation of
the thirteenth amendment, in that it was
an attempt to enforce Involuntary serYi-
tude. He declared that it was an attem pt
=
compel them to serve on private vessel
contrary TO their wishes. He objected to
any appeal TO English precedents in this
case, saying that the two governments
were so entirely different as to render
such reference unavailing. In England,
he said, Parliament is the paramount
authority, and that body could wipe out
magma charta in law of ten lines, while
the power of Congress was limited by the
constitution.
Justice Harlan dwelt upon the fact that
the Aragon was private vessel and that
Robertson and his companions were taken
off it to be placed under arrest because
they had asserted their rights as
free men and refused to work. This,
he did not think, should be re-
garded in the light of a criminal Of
tense and. to his mind. fell clearly within
the prohi bition OF the thirteenth amend
ment against compelling involuntary SER
vice. There was, he said, difference be-
tween imposing conditions like these on
men like soldiers in the public service and
upon men in private employ, even though
they be sailors. He differed radically
from the court in holding that the action
of Robertson and the other sailors was
similar to that OF soldier who should de-
sert in battle, and said that the effort to
compel them by the aid of the court to
observe the terms of a contract and con-
tinue their labor was more like an overseer
standing over slave 10 compel the per-
formance of menial service.
Again, if such a law could be enforced
in international commerce, why not in in
terstate commerce? Ii men could be COM
PEELED to serve on ocean-goingsteame
why not on the river boats of the inte-
rior? Why was it more reasonable to ar
rest seaman for refusing to labor than a
house servant who made similar re-
in
the latter event would shock every one
yet the grounds for it would be as solid as
for the law under which this proceeding
occurred. He thought the law unconsti-