Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1916-08-19
ATTORNEY WRITES upon PEONAGE;
TELLSOF court INTERPRETATIONS

for which he really should be punish
ed, but whether some man wanted
the negro's labor: and when his labor
was wanted they got him.
Well Known People of the South Con-
vieted Of Pecnage.
Among those convicted OF peonage
was John w. Pace Of Alabama, known
as the father OF peonage, friend of
Roosevelt and pardoned by Roosevelt
in 1906: Edward McCree. a member
OF the Georgia legislature and owner
of $1,000 acres Of land. He plead
guilty 10 thirteen charges. and while
he was only fined thousand dollars
On the first charge, yet it might be
noted that had McCree been given
the limit of the law, FIVE years i'm.
prisonment and $4,000 fine, his
sentence would have totaled sixty-fve
GOO. In 1905 United States
judge at Pensacola, Florida. sentenced
five officers OF the Jackson Lumber
Co, one of the largest concerns of its
kind in the country, to seven years in
the penitentiary.
The most noted peonage case, and
the enc that determined the consti-
tutionality of the laws of Alabama
that made peonage possible, was the
case of Alonzo Bailey VS.. Alabama,
Peonage Decision Of Justice Hughes.
This was the case in which JUS
tiee Hughes, now candidate for presi-
cent of the United States, wrote the
decision. The facts of this case were
briefly as follows: AlonZo Bailey was
arrested in April, 1908. for breaking
a labor contract. Habeas corpus pro-
ceedings were instituted, but the trial
court refused the writ The matter
was carried to the supreme court OF
the state OF Alabama, and the writ
was again refused; from there the
matter was taken - the supreme
court Of the United States, and the
writ was denied on an error. The
case was then tried, and Bailey was
convicted. The conviction was affirm
ed by the supreme court of Alabama,
and from there carried to the supreme
court of the United States, and was
there decided in 1911, and in favor of
Bailey, and declared the laws under
which he was convicted unconstitu- |
ticnal ... III.
Justice Hughes in his decision in !
referring to the thirteenth amendment |
to the constitution of the United |
States said, while the immediate !
concern was African, slavery the
amendment was not limited to that. |
1t was badge of universal freedom
for all persons of whatever race, !
color or estate, under the flag. i
The plain intention was to abolish I
slavery of whatever name and form
and all its badges and Incidents; to
render impossible any state of bond
age; to make labor free by prohibit
ing that control by which the per-
sonal service of one man is disposed /
Of or coerced for another's benefit
v Lich is the essence of involuntary
Eervitude."
When prosecutions we're first start
ed by federal officials in the South, /
the term "peonage" was a stranger
to the people there. They did not I
know what the term meant, they had
never heard it before, and 1t was not
until Judge Jones gave his famous
charge to the federal grand jury at
Alabama, in 1903, known
in history. as the 'peonage charge,
that the Ieople really knew what the
term "peonage" meant and awoke to
the fact that the thirteenth amend
ment Of the constitution of the Unit
ed States was being violated.
AS to laws under which peonage
exists and their application, the report
of u. S. Ass. Atty.-Gen. on Peonage
New ED p. 8, describes them as
follows: Some of them are vag-
rancy laws, some contract labor laws,
some fraudulent pretense or false
promise laws and divers others.
Some few OF these in question, such 4
Is absconding debtor laws, labor en- Il
icing and board bill laws, were not
originally passed to enslave workmen.
They 1.-THE laws are used before
uries and the local public to hold Il
he poems as law-breakers and dis
,onest persons seeking to avoid their
ust obligations, convince patriotic 4
uries that the defendants accused OF q
,eonage should not be convicted for 4
enforcing, still less for threatening to
enforce, the laws of their state" n
Attention is also called to the fact
hat the peonase decision Of Justice
hughes was not the unanimous de-
,isicn of the supreme court of the
United States, as dissenting opinion
vas handed down by Justice Holmes,
Who by the way at the time of his
was supposed TO be rath-
4 Ct Slf lob MY