The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-02-19

of .Justics q the Peace B. c. Yonhg.
 and 2: lssssa s .ie ian, because Of, faiisfs
 His rsiesse vas attempted on . hs-
 seas eorpns. which stiscksd the ssn- | stitutipnality of the iAbcr contract lAw.
 Judge Thonas refused his rsleass. and
 cn. en Appssi wss taken te the Supreme
 Tks Supreme Court upheld the isy.
 and inasuiuch as the issue involved the
 FsdsrAl constitutfon. the ease vas ta-
 Ken so the Supreme Court ef the uni-
 But because the case Issusd from . tabsas corpus hearing, che Federal su- Ssss Srs SSs t wssf wss srssss ss esa sst t. City Court of Montg emery, with the
 trial Of yesterday. N? defense was ssysas .a ths he ssnro Ys.
 declared guilty. And again the case will atart, this time fully equipped as to pedigree, upon It's course to be test
 Psrhaps the most important Issue at hand is the allegation that the labor contract law depriyes the person of life: liberty or property without "aue
 The labor contract lay. by its terms, saysSthat any person who with intent assS nn,o6 hs xcts sssss. s Hi0 suay fns person from tsstlfylng as to his un- sommgnicsiss sa,p nstiys: gasgSsss or n ln- by Iis own testimony that he entered Into the contract in good faith. and that he rescindsd the contract for req
 sons other than those constituting . Brssf es Desense.
 The brief of the defense sets forth: Tn the ease at bar, the proof of the execution of the contract and plain
 tiff.s failure or refusal to perform ths
 the tS1 statute Sas to make the petitioner
 ss much ss tho rixht of rsSuttal e de-
 tss stass sne as rss of sS
 dencs that is in Teaiity conclusive;
 thority. that If the Lsgislatsrs pre- if 1t takes away from defendant the of defense. the act of the Legislature
 tsR SsSass S ss Pa . q sss dGr of the UnIted States, which insures due process of law, and is therefore pncon- stitutional and void.
 gutss of ensctfng . prima facie rule of
 uniTnportant that the Legislature calls s ssea concissTa rs sfs # Is ss b baaDsfn n it's effect as if 1t was .so called. In either event. it Is, contrary to the con- stitntional Guaranty Of due process of offensive to this provision of the Con-
 .sThs Lsgislsture further denied due
 o ' sonyo sE wSs9 a rsas S an o .ss evidence than that. of the execution of contract. the failure to return the
 conaideration thersfor In case of its sevicea provided for in the said con- tract. The refusal or failure Of plan l tin Tn error to perform such service or only to a civil action. He was denied due process of law by being burdened with prima facie evidence of an Intent
 to inture or dsfraud hts empioysr slncs ce any tendency to prove crime
 A second allegation as serious as that of refusal of due procefa Of law,
 the equal protection of the laws. which the Fourteenth amendment to the Fed eral Constitution demands.
 The argument of the attorneys Tor iarstion that the labor contract law of AlabaEna denies equal protection or
 ri the said statute provides for pun l repugnant to that part of the Four l teenth Amendment If the Constitution of the United States which provides
 Ass no state rhs;s shsll dsny y,Ss to ss y geTsS o | lection of the laws' in that te applies | only to perspns who ';enfor into con-
 tract In writing for. the performances or other personal property" and who "enterk into any contract In writing for the rent of land and thereby ob- tAins any money or other personal
 "The said act is further repugnant 10 the said Amendment in that it does not bear equally upon the efnploye and employer and equally upon the tenant n without just cause and without pays ing the eInploye the amount. if any, due him. discharge him, and the fand- comply with his part of the rental con- tract and neither would be imposed with any unusual burdens, while if the employe or tenant fails to comply with made prlma facie evidence of an intent
 to inlure his employer or landlord or
 'aThe said act is further repugnant to the aaid amendment in that tt takes a partial, unjust and odious discriniina. ton in favor of the employer and land- lord, In that the e1nploye or tenant are empowered with no unusual recourse aid him in the collection of what. if any, amount 10 due him under che contract; while the employe or ten- debt "a penalty impossd on no other debtor by. the laws 6f Aiabama) if he fails to pay what he owes. "The act was, adopted solely for the benefit of the employer and landlord. The employe and tenant are singled out and imposed with burdens. impos. ed upon no other class or individuais within ds the state .o The, empiSys or rights and equal protections. Even peonage with all of its harshuess did not go So far as to suspect only the peon with che burden of the contract. The master was also subject to it's burdens
 sral in effect 1t applies only to that the commonesE laborer or the poorest tenant Of farm lands. The act contem- plates those contracts where the amount involved Is 9ISO or less. It contemplates an advancement of money or other personal property to laborers or poor tenants. It is q matter of common knowledge that, in Aiabarna. class, are negroes The administration of responsibilities under the said amended statute Is purely political and deprives the emploYe and tenant Of the Fundamental rights of liberty. the pursuits Of happiness and the bless ings of civilization. which are guRran- teed under the reign Of just and equal
 The defense Tn the case of Alonzo Bailey lays its third serious charge In declaring that the labor contract law of Alabama effects . system of peon- age. 9r involuntary. :ervitude. The sr-
 Tt is submitted to the court that the identical result is obtained under kH. aka tat vzphf oh Nva