Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-04-24
Important Decisions
tine following notes Of cases ar;
from the West Publishing Company,

the following notes Of cases ar;
from the West Publishing Company,
BEEMND TIE SCENES.
We find a note of warning as well as
a glimpse behind the workings of an
appellate court in the case of Ingles VS.
MuMllian, lib Pacific Reporter, ass.
me criminal court of appeals of Okla
homa speaks: mo one should attempt
TO discuss case with a Judge before
whom 1t is pending, or make remarks
| In the presence Of such Judge to In
nuence him, except in open court, when
both sides have equal opportunities to
| De heard. The members of this court
/ have been greatly annoyed and en-
! barra ssed by such attempted inter
views and by receiving letters from
persons interested In cases pending be-
fore US. We do not wish to be harsh
or unrea sonable, but to attempt to con-
verse with or influence a judge with
/ reference to matter pending before
him Is an act Of gross contempt. and if
parties interested in cases before us
persist in resorting to such practices,
we may be compelled to make an ex-
ample Of some of them, and we advise
all trial judges in this state to pursue
the same course. This is necessary to
maintain the dignity of the courts and
to protect the reputation of the
judges"
NO MORE FREE PASSES.
AS a result of railroad collision In
/ Kentucky In 1871. one Motley and
wife received serious personal injuries
After the accident the couple entered
INTO a written agreement with the rail-
road company releasing the railroad
from all damages In consideration Of a
promise made that free passes would
be issued to them annually on said
rsilroad during the lives OF both or
either Of them. The railroad company
adhered strictly to this agreement for
many years. but Finally refused fur
ther to perform 1t, on the ground that
the act OF congress OF June %, 1906
which provides that no carrier shall
issue or give any Interstate free ticket,
free pass, or free transportation for
passengers. made its enforcement IL
legal. Thereupon Motley and wife
brought suit, seeking the relief that de-
PENDANT be required specifically to exc
cute the above agreement IN the fut-
ure The supreme court Of the United
States in Louisville & n. R Co. US.
Motley. 81 Supreme Court Reporter.
265. holds that, a1tho the contract was
originally valid, the subsequent act OF
congress tn enacting this Law was TO
cut up by the roots every form Of dis
elimination, favori hsn. and inequality.
except IN the cases OF certain excepted
classes. to which Motley and his wife
did not belong. The court concludes:
"As the contract in question would
have been illegal, il made after the
passage OF the comm cree act, It can not
now be enforced, even tho valid when
made. If that principle be not sound
the result would b that individuals and
corporations could, by contracts be-
tween themselves. In anticipation OF
legislation, render Of no avail the exer-
else by congress, to the full extent au-
thor!zed by the constitution, Of its
power to regulate commerce. No power
OF congress can be thus restricted"
THE RECENT PEONAGE CASE.
The United States supreme court has
recently passed upon the constitution
atty Of statue of the state of Ala
pama providing that al person who
with intent 10 defraud his employer,
enters into contract Of service, and
thereby obtains money, and then, with
out refund:ng it, refuses to work. must
be punished by e fire in double the
damage suffered by the injured party
This case reported as Bailey VS.. Ala
bama, in 81 Supreme Court Reporter
AS, has aroused considerable comment
and interest with the public. The facts
are Bailey, negro, entered into a
written contract to work for a year at
s12 a month. He received SIS upon
signing the agreement, and was to
work this out, being entitled monthly
only &10.l5 of his wages. No one was
present when he made the contract but
himself and the manager OF the en-
Plying company. There was no evil
dence indicating that he made the con-
frhct or received the money with any
intent to iHjure or defraud his en-
ployer. On the contrary. he actually
worked for upwards Of a month, then
abandoned the work without repaying
the money received. For this, under
the above statute, he was sentenced to
fine OF $50 and to Imprisonment at
hard labor, in default Of the payment.
for 1876 days. The statute upon which
the conviction was based is assai.ed as
In Violation of the 14th amendment Of
Il : CONSTITUTION Of the United States,
upon the ground that it deprived him
of his liberty without due process OF
law, and denied him the equal protec-
ton Of the laws, and also Of the 18th
amendment, and of the act Of congress
forbidding peonage and providing for
the enforcement Of that amendment, in
that the effect OF the statute IL to en-
force involuntary servitude by compel
ling personal service in liquidation OF
debt. The court holds that, altho the
statute in terms Is to punish fraud. its
fatura, and inevitable effect IL to ex-
pose to conviction for crime those who
simply fail or refuse to perform con-
tracts and, judging its purpose by Its
effect, 1t seeks in this way to provide
the means of compulsion thru which
performance OF such service may be
secured: and since a state may impose
involuntary servitude as a punishment
for crime only, 1t may not compel one
l -