The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1907-09-04
ATTACKS INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
Act Repudiaing Relief Association
contracts No GOOd-;, dee II. O.
"rdy Declares unconstitutional the
Statute

| charleston, Aug. 29.-In the Cir
cunt Court of Common Pleas. in cham
oers, Judge r. O. Purdy Yesterday
filed decision and decree in the case
VI 'oseph X. Sturgess VS.. the Atlantic
coast Line Railroad, dismissing the
complaint and declaring unconstitu-
t'onal the act Of March 7. 1908. I'm
"hich the right Of relief association
TO enter into agreement and contract
Tor relief from liability was denied.
| Judge Purdy held that such an ACT
was IN violation Of the Federal and
state constitutions, which guaranteed
personal liberty and the right ia
| make contracts. The decree follows:
In the submission Of the case to
the court. the attorneys asked Judge
Puriy t. pass on TWO questions, wheth-
or the act Of the legislature allowing
recipient IF the hospital and relief
fund to recover benefits, notwith-
standing his compensation for dam
ages, is constitutional and valid. ard
secondly. whether the term disabiI~
ity In the contract means q total
inability to work or mere inability to
perform the class of labor in which
the member was engaged at the time
Of his injury
After citing numerous cases involv-
ing the points Of law on the first oues-
ton, Judge Purdy proceeds I'm the
light of these principles escape is i'm
possible from the conclusion that the
act mere under consideration is an il
iegal interference. with the freedom of
contract guaranteed by the federal
and State constitutions and therefore
null and void. y" Here is a con-
tract of highly beneficial character
and undoubted validity attempted to
be struck down by statute that can
be referred to in a single source of
authority under the police power and
which is detrimental rather than ben
eficial to the only portion of the pub
lie affected. My duty to uphold the
constitution in such a case by declar-
ing the statute void seems to be
clear and I feel no hesitation in so
projsauncing It."
In passing upon the second aucs-
ton, the court declared that the, con-
70 81
clear terms: THE regulation does
not say physical inability to work in
the line in which he was formerlyien,
gagged and the court cannot read such
a meaning into it. A party may not
be physically able to follow one line
OF work. Vet thoroughly able to fol-
low another and mora lucrative one.
Plainly no such case as this was in
tended to be provided for by the pay
| ment Of DISABLED benefits; hence,
hold that the disability referred to
means physical inability to perform
any labor
1t seems that in March, 1907, ]. r.
Sturgess, carpenter employed by
the Atlantic Coast Line, was injured.
He was 4 member of the relief asso-
citation Of the company and when Join
ing the same had bound himself by
signature to either accept the benefits
offered and provided by the associa-
| ton. in case Of death or accident, or
to sue and thus attempt to gain by
litigation. The man chose to sue and
recovered $2,70O damages. He then
entered suit against the relief DEPART
ment OF the railroad and sought to
OBTAIN the sum Of $4215O. The
plaintin's attorneys brought forward
an act OF the South Carolina legisla-
ture, dated March 7. 1905. which for
bids the making Of any contract be-
tween the relief association and the
| members which may bar litigation.
Ine judge reviewed the case at
length and showed that the relief as
soclation gave many and generous
Dement'S and gave the employe me M
ber clear and fair option and elec.
tion. That 1t was right and proper he
should be allowed to choose between
certain benefits of the association and
the doubtful ones Of litigation was
brought forward. The act, Judge
Purdy said. was contrary to the fed
eral and State constitutions in that
II interferes with the right IF ind.vid-
uals to make and enter into contracts
The suit was dismissed