The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-02-19
State Labor Contract
 LalO Again Tn Courts

case during the former appeal to the court ct Was1iingtcn. Attcrnsy Gen- efaf Bonapafte was interested gfvtnG as his opinion that the labor ccntrzct law manlfsstiy went fer toward rs- instftutine slavery. and Asksd per- mfssion to fie . bfief with the de- fense. In case the matter ia presented again to tho Fsedsral Supreme Court. s A brief. compiled by the defense up- on the occasion of It's former appear anes before the Supreme Court of the United States. presents It's case. The brief dfscioses the five instances in which the labor contract law of Ala bauaa fs alleged to violate the Federal Constitution. It says:
 The act Is unconstitutional and void In that 1t violates that part of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Consti- tuition of the United Eates which pro- vides that no State shaif make or en- force any law which shall abridgs the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
 Tt Is unconstitutional in that 1t vio- iates that provision that no State shall make or enforce any law which VIII deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
 Tt Is unconstitutionai in that 1t yio. iates the provision that nc State shall deny to any person within It's juris- diction the equal protection of it's laws.
 Tt is unconstitutionai in that it's ef- feet is to subject the plaintiff to fn- voluntary servftude not as a punish ment Of crime, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
 Tt is unconstitutional and void in that It efacts peonase, as peonage Is defined in former cases.
 The labor contract law of Alabama, as embodied in Section 4fso of the
 Any person who, with intent to in- iure or defraud his employer, enters into q contract in writing for the per- formance of any act or service. and thereby obtains money or other person. al property from such employer. and cause refunding such money. or paying for such property. refuses or fails to perform such act or service. must on conviction be punished by fine in dou- ble the damage suffered by the injured party, but not more than $500, ofis- half of said fine to go to the county and one half to the party injured; and any person who, with intent to fnture or defraud his landlord. enters into any contract in writing for the rent of land. and thereby obtains money or. other personal property from such landlord, and !, with like Intent. without just cause, and without refunding such money, or paying for such property, refuses or fails to cultivate such land. or to comply with his contract reia- tive thereto, must on conviction be punished by fine in double the dan1- age suffered by the injured party, but not more than $500. one-half of said fine to go to the county and one.haIf to the injured party. And the refusal or failure of any person. who enters into such contract. to perform such act or service or to cultivate such land, or refund such money, or pay for such property without just cause shall be pgiFna fRcie evidence of the intent to initre his employer or landlord or to defraud him. That all laws and parts of laws in conflict with the provisiopa hereof be and the same are hereby res pealsd. .r
 History Of the Case.
 The specific case on which the flaw Is to be tested is that of Aionzo Bailey, a negro, who had entered into a con- tract with the Riverside Company, c dairy, obtaining thereby SIS, for which he was to render service, repaying the SIS by instainient from his salary dur lng one year.
 He performed the service for ons month, and then. without returning ths