The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1907-05-28


buys, and is allowed to run in debt
beyond the amount Of his wages in
order to prevent him leaving his mas
ter. = - One of the most objec-
tionable features Of the system is that
the master is not obliged to maintain
the peon in sickness or old age. When
he becomes too old to work any Ion
ger, like an old horse who is turned
out to die, he can be cast adrift to
provide for himself These are the
leading features of peonage, and in
spite of the new name it bears the
impartial reader will not be able to
make anything else out Of it than
slavery"
Counsel for the state attempts to
distinguish this Act from the Alaba-
ma statute, which the Supreme Court
of that State, in Toney VS. State, 67
l.. r. A., 286, declared mconstitu-
tional. That Act made it penal
offence for a person who had con-
tracted in writing to labor for or ser
We another for any given time, after
wards without the consent of the 9th
er party and without sufficient ex-
cuse to be adjudgcd by the Court, to
leave such other party or abandon
such contract or leave or abandon
the leased premises or land, and to
take employment of a similar nature
from another person, and they at
tempt to draw distinction between
the words, without sufficient eX-
cuse to be adjudged by the Court" "
and our statute, which declares it a
misdemeanor "wilfully and without
just cause to fail to perform the SER
vices,' etc. We cannot perceive any
essential distinction between the
words, without sufficient excuse and
the words e without just cause" It
is also claimed by counsel that the
J statute Of South Carolina is sub
stantially identical with Section d.
730 Of the Code of Alabama, with
Judge Jones in his opinion on the
peonage cases, 1913 Fed, 600, held to
be constitutional. That Section is as
follows "Any person entering into a
written contract for the performance
of any acts or service with intent to
injure or defraud his employer and
thereby obtains money or personal
property from such employer and with
like intent and without just cause,
and without refunding the money or
paying for such property, refuses to
perform such act or service, must on
conviction be punished as if lie had
stolen it, This Alabama statute it
will be seen. is of general nature. 1t
applies to all persons who enter into
contracts with intent to injure or de-
fraud, and declares that persons who
obtain money with such intent shall
be punished as if they had stolen it..
The essence Of this statute is the OBJ
tanning money with fraudulent in
tent, which in many Of the states IS
declared a criminal offence. The cs-
sencc of the South Carolina statute
is the coercing of personal service in
liquidation of debt, and the cases
cited by counsel arising in the state
Of Georgia, where statute some
what similar to that of Alabama was
under review, illustrate the dlstinc-
ton. In Lamar VS. the state, AZ $. f..
(Georgia,) the Court says: "f the
Act prescribes a punishment for a
simple failure of contractual duty 1t
is beyond the power Of the General
Assembly, but if its purpose is to
punish for fraudulent and deceitful
practices it is valid, even though the
fraud or deceit may arise from the
failure to comply with the contractu-
al engagement. The right of the law
making power to declare fraudulent
practices crime does not seem to
have been ever seriously question: cd.
It is reasonably clear that III enact
ing the statute now under considera-
tion the Legislative purpose was not
to punish one simply for failure to
pay a debt, but was to punish the act
of securing the money or property OF
@,another with fraudulent intent not to
hsperform the service, the promise to
Sdo which was the consideration for
ssnch money or propcrty.' Other eases
wfTom the same state are to the same
;Mffcct. Banks VS. State, 50 S. E. "a,
ssNA8fherc Lumpllin, Justice, says: con
face Of it the purpose of the Act
Ez;HsEto punish fraudulent practices, not
slthe failure to pay debt. Thus con-
N Nsidcrcd it was constitutional, other