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

III the sum or mot less than fifty dol
lars nor more than one hundred dol
! lars, in the discretion Of the Court,
provided the verbal contract herein
| referred to shall be witnessed by at
least two distintcrcsted witnesses,
provided that such contract shall be
valid only between the original par
ties thereto, and any attempted trans
fer or otherwise Of any rights there
under shall be null and void.' Ap-
proved 25th day of February, A. D.
1904.
These men had been prosecuted in
December, 1906, for violating the same
contract, and had served sentence
upon the chain gang for that offensc.
Act No. 242 Of the General Assembly
Of South Carolina, approved on tho
same day with the Act above men,
toned, provides that conviction for
the violation of the contract mention
ed in Section 357 "shall not operate
as release or discharge Of such per-
son from the performance of
any part of said contract,
which is to be performed subsequent
to the date of the breach of which
such conviction was had.' The con-
tract alleged to have been violated
was not produced at the hearing, nor
was there any definite testimony as
to the amount due by the laborers,
Clement S books of account, asked
for by attorney for petitioners, not
being produced. No testimony what
ever was offered as to the circum-
stances attending the alleged breach,
the only witnesses examined being
Clement, magistrate, and one Sea-
brook, his const able, and the only al
legged criminal act, testified to was,
in Clements words, "they failed to
do the work. Z" Two afiidavits Of one
Jacques, that he had witnessed con-
tracts between Clement and the de-
| PENDANTS. which contracts were not
offered in evidence, is about all
That the record diseloscs which has
any bearing upon the ease. 1t thus
appears that the crime for which
these men were sent TO the chain gang
is the failure TO work for Clement
under contracts by which he had
made certain advances to them, and
they had agreed to work until the
whole amount was pald.
The Thirteenth Amendment Of the
Constitution of the United States, de-
clarcd ratified December 18, 1865, is
as follows: "Section I. Neither sla-
very nor involuntary servitudc, ex-
cept as punishment for crime, where
Of the parties have been duly convict
ed, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
"Scction 2. Congress shall have
power to enforce this article by ap-
propriate legislation.'
The Act Of Congress of March 2,
1867, declares that the "holding
"f any person to service or
labor under the system known as
pconage is hereby declared to be IN
lawful, and the same is hereby aboI-
ishcd and forever prohibited. ETC.,
ETC.; and all Acts, laws etc, Of any
Territory or State Of the United Sta
tcs which have heretofore establish
ed, maintained or enforced, or by vir-
tue of which any attempt shall here
after 'bc made to establish. maintain
or enforce, directly or indirectly, the
walnut I,n NJ
labor Of any person as poems. in IL
"1ndation Of any debt or obligation or
otherwise, be and thc same are here
Wy declared mil and void. cic.'
TN" Supreme Court i'm Clyatl VS.
She United States defines pcona"c
'as a Status or condition Of rompul-
:"ry service based upon The indebted
'rSS OF the pron lo the master: the
basal fact is fNdcbicdncSs.
That which is contemplated by the
statute is compulsory service to So
cure the payment Of n debt.
We entertain no doubt Of the validity
IT this legislation or its applicable
ity to the ease Of any person holding
another in state Of pconage, and
This whether there be municipal ordi-
nance or State law sanciioning such
holdang.'
The first question to be considered
s whether thc Act or 1904, Section
357, Of thr Criminal Code Of South
Carolina, is intended to secure CON-
DulSOry service in no>-,,nnt or q 1o1>t