The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-03-29

4
wherein to live, nor land to till, nor
| serving any other, shall be bound TO
serve such person as shall require him,
at the wages heretofore accustomed to
be given" If he refused he was to be
committed to prison, and there was a
penalty for paying or receiving more
| than the wages previously given This
was to prevent wofkmen from raising
| their wages on account of the scarcity
Of and greater demand for. labor This
benevolent statute was not repealed in
England till 1868 So. it seems, pa
ternalism' is not a new thing and is
only Objectionable when il favors the
| class it formerly repressed. Repeated
statutes subsequently empowered JUS
tees of the peace to fix rates for wages
and inflicted penalties on any laborer
asking or receiving more. These statutes
were followed by a strong enactment in
1870 prohibiting any combination among
workingmen to raise wages and denounc-
ing labor unions as conspiracies. punish
able by Imprisonment. AS a we'll known
English lawyer writes, ITO speak of
contracts between master and workmen
at this time QS00) is a misnomer for
there was no assent of will on the part
OF the workman or any real power %
negotiate as to the terms of his so-callad
contract"
For the last century there has been
struggle carried on by the labor ele-
ment both in this country and in Eng
land, until they have reached their pres
ent status. l need not describe what il is
now lor how far it is from satisfying
the demands Of labor; but it is enough
merely to refer to the state OF the law
On this important subject one hundred
years ago H. indicate to the most oa1c
less observation that on this subject there
has been marked progress in the law.
Down to 1871 labor unions were illegal
in England, and treir members were often
prosecuted for and convicted of con-
spiracy The Trades Union Act of 1871
legalized such unions, but the Act was
amended and broadened as late as 1896
Nor till 1875 did it cease to be criminal
offense for a workman to break his con-
tract of employment.
The statutes in England and this
country restricting the hours of labor and
fixing an age under which children cannot
be allowed to labor in mines or factories
are all the product of the last thirty
years. Most of Them indeed have eX-
listed only during the last dozen years,
and there are a few States of the Union
that have not yet reached that stage of
justice, enlightenment, and humanity. In
England q recent statute regulates the
number of hours of employment of clerks
and others in stores C'shops, as they are
called there) and likewise, in common
with some States of the Union, the
English Act of 1899 requies that seats
shall be furnished female employees in
mercantile establishments.
The doctrine OF liability of the
master for injury to a servant caused by
negligence Of a fellow-servant, laid down
in Priestly V. Fowler, and the doctrine
of assumption of risk have been mate
rally modified by sundry recent statutes
in favor of employees, in England and in
many of our States; while legislation re-
quiring automatic car-couplers and hand
holds on cars used by interstate rail
roads shows that the laboring element
have had some recognition of their ex-
istence even by Congress, in spite of
the powerful corporation lobby that
haunts the halls of the Federal Legis-
lature. Lord Campbells Act of 1S45, CIV
ing compensation for a tort causing
death. has now, I believe, been enacted
by every State in the Union, though in
a modified form in some of them.
MARRIED WOMEN
Till the last few years our statute and
common law placed married women in the
same class with infants, idiots, lunatics,
and convicts. A married woman had
scarcely any rights; she could make no
contracts, acquire no personal property
and even her earnings belonged to her
husband. If left a widow, the husband
could, by will, give the custody of the
children to another, and during his life
she had of course no right to their
custody against him. Though England
was ruled by a female sovereign, not
till 1856 was the widow made the guar
dian of her children. Not till 1870 began
the series of acts that have emancipated
a married woman, so that now she can
make any contract with reference to her
separate property just as if she were un-
married; she can now sell it or dispose
of it by will, and her earnings are her
own. Most Of our States have in the
last few years passed similar statutes
and completely unfettered married wo-
men as has been done in England and
some few States even still retain the
barbarous provisions of the common law
by which a woman's personality was
merged into her husbands upon marriage
and her property became his. Sir Will
liam Blackstone, with delightful irony
Complacently told US that the common
law ever showered favors on woman with
a lavish hand AS she became merged
in her husbands existence, these favors
were showered on her sub modo by en-
downing her husband with the rights and
property that till marriage had been
hers.
Nay more, as late as 1910 the English
courts held that a husband had control
over the person of his wife as well as