People's party paper. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1891-1898, 1897-03-12
THE RIGHT TO QUIT WORK.
Judge Harlan Declares His Associates Are
Behind the Spirit of tho Age.

Are the federal courts of the United
States to compel men to work when
they do not want to?
This, in substance, is the question
raised by Supreme Justice Harlan in
dissenting opinion. He used vigorous
language the other day in assailing the
views of his fellow justices and accused
the court OF making rulings contrary to
the spirit of the age and OF seeking
presidents in British law rather than
that of American.
In connection with Justice Harlan's
conflict of opinion with the majority OF
recent comments are calculated to
arouse widespread interest.
The case decided involved the right
of sailors to desert merchant vessels
upon which they are employed. The
courts opinion, written by Justice
Brown, holds that sailor may be
compelled to serve for the time agreed
upon with the master of the vessel, and
that a refusal to obey orders issued
while at sea is just as culpable as the
desertion of soldier on the eve of
battle.
Justice Harlan contends that any at
tempt to compel sailor to serve on
private vessel contrary to his wishes is
violation of the thirteenth amend
ment to the constitution prohibiting
involuntary servitude,
Robert Robertson and four other sea
men were taken into custody at San
Francisco on the charge OF having re-
fused to obey the orders-of the master
of the vessel Aragon after having en-
tered into articles to make a voyage to
Valparaiso. They applied to the fed
eral district court for writs of habeas
corpus, and upon the refusal of their
petition appealed to the supreme court
The court refused to interfere in the
case. 1t held that the arrest of the
sailors was due exercise of judicial
power, and that no involuntary servi-
tude was involved in compelling sea
men to serve for the time agreed upon.
They had no more right to desert
ship than a soldier has to quit his regi-
ment just before fight.
Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion
dwelt upon the fact that the Aragon
was private vessel, and that Robert
son and his companions we're taken off
it to be placed under arrest because
they had asserted their rights as free
men and refused to work. He said
that the effort to compel them by the
aid of the government to continue
their labor was more like an overseer
standing over slave to compel the
performance of mental service.
The justice raises the point that if
such law could be enforced in inter-
national commerce it could also be en-
forced in interest ate commerce. If men
could be compelled to serve on ocean
going steamers, why not on the river
boats OF the INTERIOR Why was it
more reasonable to arrest seaman for
refusing to labor than house servant
who made similar refusal? Would
not such law apply to laborers in
every branch of industry?
The refusaLof the seamen to work on
the Aragon, in Justice Harlan's opin-
ion, should not be regarded in the
light of a criminal offense, and their
arrest, to his mind, fell clearly within
the prohibition of the thirteenth
amendment against compelling invol-
untary servitude.
There was, he contended. a differ
ence between imposing conditions like
these on men, like soldiers, in the pub
lie service, and upon men in private
employ, even though they be sailors.
Justice Harlan declared that it was
an attempt to interfere with the right
of freemen to compel them to serve on
private vessel contrary to their wish
es. He objected to any appeal to
English precedents in the case, saying
that the two governments were SO en-
tirely different as to render such refer
ence unavailing. In England, he said
parliament is the paramount authority
and could wipe out magma charta in
a law of ten lines, while the power of
congress was limited by the constltu-
ton of the United tates.-Labor
Leader.