The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1907-04-12
MAY BE KNOCKED OUT
Laborers Contract Law To BE Re-
Viewed by the Courts.
IL is Said that the Law is Productive
of Peonago and Fails to Provide
Equal Penalties.

Equal Penalties.
A case is now pending in the Uni
ted States Court at Charleston that
Is Of much interest to the farmers of
South Carolina, and the final d!sposi-
ton OF the case Is being watched
with great interest. The case Is In
reference to the labor contract law
of this State. About a month e
two negroes were sentenced to terms
or imprisonment In the Charlenton
county jail for the violation Of this
law. Their attorneys obtained q writ
or habeas corpus from Judge Draw
ley, alleging that these men were UNI
lawfully detained and deprived of
their liberties in violation OF the con-
stitution Of the United States.
The principal ground Of attack on
the law seems to be that the labor
contract law violates that provision
of the federal constitution which for
bids class legislation: thus, it is
claimed, If the violation of n contract
to BUY goods or obtain advances in
money which are to be paid for in la
Dor is to be penalized and punished
as a crime then other contracts must
be likewise penaliZed and punished.
In other words, the claim is made
that the 1obor contract law OF this
State provides punishment for the
nonpayment OF advances made under
the labor law, or the noncompliance
with the terms Of a labor contract, q,
strictly civil contract, and fails to
provide punishment for other civil
contracts when violated. 1t is said
some Of our best lawyers think the
| a ~ ,nN,rftt-I.~, ,-I Al.l - ~
tied States Court will so declare it.
When the question first came up
before Judge Brawley he postponed
a final dcision until Mr.. Lyon, the
Acknowledgement Of the State, could
be heard. Last Monday was set for
the hearing, but 1T did not come up.
1T Will be heard some time this week.
The case was brought by Messre Lo-
gan and Grace, two Charleston law
yers. They allege hat the State
law is class legislation and a form Of
poonagc, and, therefore, In conflict
with the federal constitution. "A few
days ago, on instructions from Attor-
ney General ~Bonaparte, United States
District Attorney Cochran filed a pc
tition to be permitted to intervene in
behalf of the government and Judge
Brawley granted the motion, which
makes the government q party to the
suit.
Pending a final decision OF the
case, Judge Brawley is understood to
have discharged the two Charleston
negroes from Jail until the case could
be fully heard and finally decided,
n the magistrates over the State
have held up all prosecutions for viO-
lating the labor contract law pending
Judge Brawley's decision. The Fed
| n,sn o ~ Il, Nt ~, - f~ D~0~ fI->
law somewhat as a system Of peonagc
several years ago and at first pro-
vided that any laborer violating a
written contract should be punished
criminally by fine or Imprisonment
N the case of the State against Will
liamS the supreme court Of this State
declared the law unconstitutional,
because punishment was provided
against only the laborer and not the
farmer in case Of a violation of the
cont act to perform farm labor.
The Legislature at its next session
amended the law so that either the
farmer or laborer violating a con
Imprisonment. In this shape the law
stood for some time. A few years
ago the law was again amended SO
that a verbal contract was made pun
ishable, if violated, provided such
contract was witnessed by two dis
interested witnesses.
This law has been attacked sever
al times in the state supreme court
but without success. In the case Of
the state against Chapman its consti-
tutionalty "a directly up held. Again
in the ease of the state against Eas-
terlin, wherein the law was attacked
upon the ground that while it did in
Il sense allow Imprisonment for debt,
yet the constitution did not forbid
imprisonment for debt in case of
fraud, and that the violation Of such
Il contract, after obtaining advances
against future labor, was a species of
fraud.
This law is a good one, and has
been very helpful in retaining labor
on the farms, but in some cases it
| has been abused. 1t seems to us
that some such law is absolutely es-
scntial to the successful management
Of our farms under our present labor
conditions, and should 1t be declared
unconstitutional it will cause consid-
cradle trouble to our farmers by dis
organizing their plans and in many
cases demOraliZing the labor. With
out som, such law III farmers would
be at the mercy Of those who they
may have hired to work on their
farms.