The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1900-12-29

intermediate port or landing, OR even
in storm at sea, provided only he can
find means of escaping to another YES
sci. If the latter, then an individual
may, for a valuable consideration, con-
tract for the surrender of his personal
liberty for a definite time and for a re-
cognized purpose, and subordinate his
going and coming to the will Of another
during the continuance of the con-
tractnot that all such contracts would
be lawful, but that a servitude which
was knowingly and willingly entered
into could not be termed Involuntary.
Thus, if one should agree, for yearly
wage, to serve another in particular
capacity during his life, and never to
leave his estate without his consent,
the contract might not be enforceable
for a want of legal remedy, or
might be void upon grounds of public
policy, but the servitude could not be
properly termed Involuntary. Such
agreements for a limited personal SER
vitude at one time were very common
in England, and by the statute Of June
II, 1928, a Goe. ~, CHI. 3, sec. 81, is was
enacted that if any servant in husban-
dry, or any artificer, calico printer,
handscraftsman, miner, collier, keel
man, pitman, glassman, potter, labor
err or other person, should contract to
serve another for a definite time, and
should desert such service during the
term of the contract, he was made
liable to a criminal punishment. The
breach of a contract TO personal SER
vice has not however, been recognized
in this country as involving liability
to criminal punishment, except in the
cases of soldiers, sailors and possibly
some others, nor would public opinion
tolerate statute to that effect
The only dissent from this construc-
ton comes from Justice Harlan, who,
in his dissenting opinion, sends out to
the country a warning against the aw-
full consequences logically following
from the decision, in the following
words:
I'm considering this case it is our
duty to look at the consequences of any
decision that may be rendered. We
cannot avoid this duty by saying that
it will be time enough to consider sup
posed cases when they arise. When
such supposed cases do arise, those
who seek judicial support for extraord-
mary remedies that encroach upon the
liberties of freemen, will of course re-
fer to the principles announced in pre-
vious adjudications, and demand their
application to the particular case in
hand.
1T is therefore, entirely, appropri-
ate to inquire as to the necessary re-
suits of the sanction given by this
court to the statute there in question.
In congress-, under it's power to regu-
late commerce with foreign nations and
among the several states, can authorize
the arrest of seaman who engaged to
serve upon a private vessel, and COM
pei him by force to return to the vessel
and remain during the term for which
he engaged, a similar rule may be pre-
scribed as to employees upon railroads
and steamboats, engaged in commerce
among the states. Even if it were con-
ceded-a concession to be made only
for arguments sake-that it could be
made a criminal offense, punishable by
fine or imprisonment, or both, for such
employees to quit their employment be-
fore the expiration of the term for
which they agreed to serve, It would
not follow that they could be compelled
against their will and in advance of
trial and conviction, to continue in
such service. But the decision today
logically leads to the conclusion that
such power exists in congress.
Again, as the legislatures of
the states have all legislative
power not prohibited to them,
while congress can only exercise GER
tain enumerated powers for accomplish
ing specified objects, why may not the
states under the principles this day an
nounced, compel all employees of rail-
roads engaged in domestic commerce,
and all domestic servants and all en-
ployers in private establishments,
within their respective limits, to re-
main with their employers during the
terms for which they were severally
engaged, under the penalty of being ar
| rested by some sheriff or constable,
and forcibly returned to the service Of
their employers? The mere statement
Of these matters is sufficient to indicate
the scope of the decision this day rend-
ered.''
We believe that the reason why many
well-meaning, honest and conscientious
! men and women favor some form of
| compulsory arbitration arises from the
fact that their attention has been call
ed to the refusal to arbitrate, on the
part of large corporations or employers
| of labor. It is felt that the rest of the
public are made innocent sufferers and
victims, and that there ought to be
| some way to give to the public the
facts. in order that it might know who
is actually to blame. Whenever they
are asked, do you want to send man
or a woman to Jail for quitting work?''
they Immediately answer, "No, no."
What they seem to desire is that these
corporations or employers who refuse
to arbitrate, SHALL in some way, be
compelled to. do so. This is manifestly
| impossible. Laws that are ''iug-hand-