The news & observer., 1905-12-13
JUDGE PURNEI4L JUMPS on
STATE LAWS.

Thomas r. Purnell to the grand jury
of the Federal court on Monday in
which he took occasion to declare the
landlord and tenant act of the legisla-
tture of North Carolina invalid as being
vlolative of theConstitutiOn and stat
utes of the United States prohibitive of
"peonage' was merely the statement by
an inferior court as fact of question
of law not yet passed upon by COM
petent authority Indeed the questions
involved, in the light of the decisions
of the courts, are so close and the dis
tinctions which may be drawn between
the rights of law making bodies and
the acts prohibited by the Federal
constitution and statutes are so fine
that the expressed opinion Of a Grim
inal court judge to the grand jury is
of the baldest inconsequence.
The peonage laws, considered also
in the light of the constitutional in
hibitions against the practice, might
be plainly outlined to mean that it Is
unlawful for any person to hold in
involuntary serYitude any other person
through threats following upon any
| agreement for such involuntary ser
vice; and unlawful. also. to hold a
man to service. by law or otherwise.
for the liquidation of any debt The
| chief incident of peonage has been
generally understood to be the hold
/ ing of a person to service contingent
upon the payment of a debt. In the
words of the statute the Offense OF
peonage is to hold, arrest or return
or to cause or aid in the arrest or
| return of any erson to a condition or
peonage" And the statute defines
peonage as "a condition of involuntary
servitude by which the servitor is re-
strained of his liberty and compelled
| to labor i'm liquidation of some debt
or obligation" 1t is on these statutes
and the constitutional provisions pro
hibiting Imprisonment for debt that
Judge Purnell relies in stating that the
landlord and tenant act Of North Care
| lima constitutes peonage.
The only provisions Of that act,
Chapter 297, Laws of 1905, which have
suggestion of peonage about them
are as follows:
| Section l. That any tenant OF
! cropper who Drocures advances from
| his landlord to enable him to make
| a crop. on the land rented by him,
| and then wilfully abandons the same
without good cause and before paying
| for such advances shall be guilty Of
| a misdemeanor. ..
"Setcion. s. The punishment for
any violation of any of the provisions
of this act shall not exceed a fine OF
| fifty dollars or Imprisonment for more
| than thirty days.
| 1t will be at once observed that the
! landlord or tenant act does not oper-
| ate except by indirection to keep any
one in involuntary servitude or to re-
| turn any person to a condition OF labor
which he has left or to enforce any
contract. 1t simply declares that the
| violation of a certain contract made
under certain necessary conditions Of
| trust shall be misdemeanor. There
is no attempt to aid the landlord in
enforcing either labor or servitude
and no attempt made TO compef the
tenant to pay the debt contracted in
the way of advances. There is also
lacking the incident of the void agree
ment to enter into con-
dition of peonage and no recogni-
.ion of the rights of the landlord
as such. What the statute aims to do
is to declare. within the police powers
of the legislature, that the violation OF
certain contracts is so harmful to the
OH
cred as to constitute a crime against
the State. man arrested and impris-
oned under the provisions of the act
would be. in the contemplation OF
those who passed the statute. under
going punishment and not paying a
debt
On the other hand, there is un-
doubtedly room for much question as
to whether. since the basis of the Of
fense created by the statute is in
a sense the non-payment of debt
the constitutional provisions prohib-
iting Imprisonment for a debt do not
apply. To this effect and on a some-
what similar Alabama statute there
seems in 9 fact to, be q decision from
one of the lower Federal Courts.
However that question may be re-
solved, the validity or invalidity OF the
North Carolina statute resolves Itself
logically into a question, not of peon-
age, but of whether or not it lies with
in the power of the legislature to de-
clare the violation of a certain class
of contracts a crime within the ex-
ercise of its police powers. 1t must
not be forgotten in the consideration
of this question that under the land
lord and tenant act it is the State and
not an individual that holds the pris-
oner whose term of sentence for the
offense is limited in no wise upon the
amount of the debt due.
Further in his charge Judge Purnell
stated that any imprisonment for debt
was peonage whether by way of court
costs or otherwise In this view he
could be confounded by innumerable
decisions to the effect that costs are