The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-10-17
SUPREME COURT AND LABOR CON
TRACTS

s sIt i in every way satisfactory thai the SUI
s1fRule Court Of the United States should AT
E1encth have prt scented 10 il Tor decision the ques
lion Of the validity of the labor contract laws
which have been passed by number OF Southern
States. In each Instance he law Is practically the
inc the provision being that III contracts OF
ESefvice entered into by laborer with intent 10
k16efraud. and where money is advanced aud the
kGonfract broken without good cause. the laborer
lBhall be guilty of misdemeanor punishable by
S1ane or imprisonment and that failure 10 per
s&orm the service or refund the money shall be
Sprsaaa faeie evidence of the fraudulent intent.
@l The objection 10 this law, which, if not made
Sthe means OF OPPRESSION would be of great value
a9O every State where the matter of farm labor
xof impor ancc, = that It's enforcement carries
Iifh it species OF imprisonment for debt \
pntract of service is civil and not criminal in lis
ntlre, and il is open doubt whether not by
ntute ii competent for State to even Indirect
declare the violation of civil contract Grim,
~ act BY the adroit wording Of the acts III
1estion, il is sought TO render the quitting Of a
enfract for labor species of the crime of OH
ining money under false preten>es Rnt the
~ evidence depended upon 10 establish this in
1T il the mere breaking Of an agreement es.
ntially civil in its nature
iii some Southern States the act has been de.
red unconstitutional BY the State courts In
1ahaIna however he highest State tribunal has
held its legality and it is from that decision
3GAf fhe plaintiff IN the case before the Supreme
6urt has obtained writ of error. Bailey the
.exro in question, violated his contract was
1and guilty, and fined an amount equivalent.
Id non-pavment, to SO days at hard labor. 1t
Uuid appear, therefore, that the ease comes
9%9uarelv before the highest tribunal upon the
ear question of its conformity with repug
n1ce to the Federal Constitution. Its decision
favor Of the law would 60 far toward relieving
Eene South of growing trouble with farm labor
sHh6 declaration Of its unconstitutionally would
sNe3tle an unsettled attempt to deal with demon
<%1i1ed condition and would give spur 10 other
0nors in different way to render more certain
1ke conditions upon the farms.
NJ SN Nhilc glad that such question is at length up
S1cr final decision, it is to be deplored that the
SAaforney General. on this sort Of foundation. is
Eealn deelaiming about ''peonage 'Peonagea
~ itself crime-the holding OF another in In
SSpluntary servitude for debt. Against an In
10lFidnal substantiated charge of peonage in.
6xolres punishment and imprisonment by he Gov
ernInent But it is different matter, where the
@1rryitude ! enforced by the State and under the
|dorm Of law. In such case, the peonage--if
|3eonage II be-is entirely technical. II ~ void
~ criminal intent. In the larger view, such pro-
SSedure, though it be unconstitutional. Is utterly
s11eking III the intent which must characterize
snnosf acs Of criminal nature. To talk about
Epronage" ia close case Of this sort involving
Selicate constitutional construction Is mere APP
cal to prejudice unworthy of an officer in so high
= opposition that Of Attorney General Of The ma
Non.