Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1907-05-28

were never produced in the court and
that Clement and his constable, Sea-
brook, were the only witnesses for the
prosecution.
In the course Of his decision, Judge
Rrawley states that the case is
brought by d young member of the
bar, belonging to a race which has
suffered three centuries of injustice
and oppression, whose heart has been
touched by the cry of the lowly and
who, apparently at his own cost and
from sheer love of liberty and hatred
Of wrong, makes the appeal for liberty,
to which they are entitled under every
sanction of the constitution and laws
of this country. II were better that
the granite walls which support this
court of justice be crrmbled into dust
than it's doors be closed to such an
appeal"
The court proceeds to say that there
Is another argument which appeals to
state pride and racial instincts, that
the legislation Is q part of the local
administration in matters Of great
convenience to the industrial life OF
the state and the claim of the su-
preme power of the state Is also made.
Judge Brawley says that he shares
much of this feeling and however much
others may proclaim their devotion to
these principles, his body bears marks
which attest his sympathy in the
cause.
Judge Brawley proceeds to say that
the lot of the agricultural labOrer Is
brother of the OK, in his unceasing
toll, scant remuneration and dreary
isolation, "but the remedy Is not found
in the statutes which chain. him to the
soil and force him to labor whether
he will or not. Human nature revolts
at 1t and he will escape 1t If he can.
It is by improving his condition and
not by still degrading it that the rem
edy may be found"
United States District Attorney
Cochran represented the government
in the Intervention proceedings which
were filed in the case and the const-
tutionality Of the act was defended
by Attorney General Lyon and Attor-
neys William Henry Parker and W.
st. Julian Jervey.
The South Carolina Law.
Section 357. Any laborer working
on shares of crops, or for wages In
money or other valuable consideration,
under a verbal or written contract to
labor on farm lands, who shall receive
advances. either in money or supplies,
and thereafter wilfully and without
just cause fail to perform the reason
able services required of him by the
terms of the said contract shall be
liable to prosecution for a. misdemean-
or: Provided. That prosecution shall be
commenced within thirty days after
the alleged violation, and on conviction
shall be punished by Imprisonment OF
thirty days, or to be fined in the sum
Of not less than $50 nor more than 500
in the discretion Of the court Pro-
vided. The verbal contract herein re-
ferred to shall be witnessed by at
least two disinterested witnesses. Pro-
vided, That such contracts shall be
valid only between the original parties
thereto and any attempt to transfer
or assignment Of any rights thereun-
der shall be null and void.
Approved the 25th day Of February,
A. D., 1904"
On being asked about Judge Braw-
ley's decision, District Attorney Coch-
ran said:
81 do not think that Judge Brawley's
decision will interfere with the labor
of South Carolina to any great extent.
His decision merely means that the
South Carolina law to prosecute GRIM
ina!ly a person or persons who break
their labor contract Is unconstitution-
al, but If there Is any other legal rem
edy to force the contracts, Judge
Brawley's decision will not affect that.
His decision merely pertains to the
criminal side"