The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-06-04
CONTRACT LAW
AGAIN UPHELD
Supreme Court Renders
Second Opinion.
APPLES TO THE BAILEY CASE
All Arguments Of the Negroes
Counsel Dismissed.
CeayIctioa Of Bailey for Violation 81
Contract Law Alarmed and
Case win Again Go
To washington.
APPLES TO THE BAILEY CASE

For the second time within two
years, the supreme Court OF Alabama
yesterday upheld the constitutionahty
Of the so-caIled Alabama labor con-
tact law, as applied in the notorious
Aionzo Bailey case.
This time in an opinion written by
Justice ". d. benson and occupying six
typewritten pages, the court dismisses
everyone of the numerous arguments
OF counsel for the negro as advanced
In the Montgomery City Court and in
the appeal which followed to the SUI
preme Court. The conviction or
Bailey for violation of the labor con-
tract law was affirmed. and now 1t is
expected that the case will for, the
second time travel to Washington.
there to be threshed out on constitu-
tional grounds for q second time.
1t will be recalled that in the first
decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, the case was decided on
technicaIity. There the State won
out In its contention that the habeas
corpus proceedings were not the prop
er remedy to secure Bailey's freedom.
but that the case should have gone to
trial on Its merits. Nor did the court
at Washington decide the points ad-
vanced by Bailey's counsel to the ef-
feet that certain sections of the Fed
eral Constitution were violated by the
law under which the appellant was ar
rested and held.
But on the next appeal the constftu-
tfonai questions will necessarily be de-
cided. And the pronouncements in the
opinion Of Justice Denson's will be
Bfther affirmed or reversed and the
statute upheld or knocked out.
On the former appeal to the State
Supreme Court. as pointed out by Jus
tice benson. the court held that the
purpose of the statute on its face was
60 punish fraudulent practices and
not mere failures to pay a debt, and
therefore the statute Is not offensive
10 the twentieth section of the bill of
rights, which provides that no person
shall be Imprisoned for debt"
The other point decided by the Ala
bama Supreme Court was' that at Is
within the legislative competency TO
prescribe, as a rule of evidence, that
the refusal or failure of a person who
enters into contract such as is con-.
kemplated by the statute. to perform
the act or service stipulated for, or
20 pay for the prosperity obtained un-
der such contract, shah be taken as
prima facie evidence of the intent te
defraud his employer"
The substance of the decision yes
Gerday was as follows:
That the statute Is not vioiative OF
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States, provid-
ing. "nor shall any State deprive any
person Of life, liberty or property with
out due process of law"
A Matter of Testimony.
That the rule of evidence which for
bids the defendant testifying to UNI
communicated intents. does not de-
prfve him Of due process. such being
the rule OF Alabama practice.
on this point the court SAYS:
cit would seem that the right of the
- ~ M ~na1A m( AHKa
dence,is put at rest b.. the Supreme
Court OF the United Suites in Fong
Xue Tings case. where the court held
II to be within the acknowledged
power OF every Legislature TO pre-
scribe the evidence which shall be re
ceived and the effect of that evidence
in the courts Of it's own government
That there is not an attempted
substitution by the statute OF the ju-
dicial department for the legislative by
the mere use of "tust cause" In the
law. and not defining what shall con-
stitute ''just cause" such as will ex-
cuse the defendant. It was held that
the silence of the Legislature on this
point really opened a wider field in
which the defendant might make his
pleas, that the language fs purely de-
fensive matter. brought forward by the
accused and that to have said more
would have tended to restrict the
chances of the accused.
That the statute does not amount
70 class legislation. The court said
on this point:
NO such Interpretation can be evolv-
ed by any canon of construction, nor
can it be supported by reason Of or
reference to the history of the STATE
On the contrary, the statute, on its
face, is feveied against any person
who. with intent to iniure or defraud
his employer. ETC. It was added that
there IS not the remotest hint to race
color or condition in the law.
That the argument is beside the
point which attempted to point ont
that the statute does not bear equally
on employer and employee.
II was cited that the punishmAnt
provided in the law does not aim M
o breach of promise in the contract
which the negro or any person might