Argument for the United States.

235 U. S.

The validity of a system of state law will be adjudged by its operation and effect upon rights secured by the Federal Constitution and offenses punished by Federal statutes.

213 Fed. Rep. 345, 352, reversed.

THE facts, which involve the construction of certain penal statutes of Alabama and their constitutionality under the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and also of the Peonage Laws of the United States, are stated in the opinion.

The Solicitor General for the United States:

The indictments charge an offense within the meaning of the Federal peonage act.

The peonage act of March 2, 1867, Rev. Stat., §§ 1990, 5526; Criminal Code, § 269, is a valid exercise of congressional power under the Thirteenth Amendment. Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219; Clyatt v. United States, 197 U. S. 207.

Section 6846, Code, Alabama, 1907, is unconstitutional as in conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment and with the legislation authorized by it and enacted by Congress, the Alabama decisions notwithstanding. Ex parte Davis, 95 Alabama, 9; Lee v. State, 75 Alabama, 29; Peonage Cases, 123 Fed. Rep. 671; Shepherd v. State, 110 Alabama, 104; Simmons v. State, 139 Alabama, 149; Smith v. State, 82 Alabama, 40.

No sertence of involuntary servitude ever was or ever could have been imposed by the State and therefore the State had no right in the labor of these convicts, nor could it transfer such right to anyone.

Under the Alabama statutes it is only where the fine and costs are not presently paid, or secured by confession of judgment, with proper sureties, that any sentence to hard labor can be enforced for their satisfaction. Bailey v. State, 87 Alabama, 44, but see S. C., 219 U. S. 219; Bowen v. State, 98 Alabama, 83; In re Newton, 94 Alabama, 431.

235 U. S.

Argument for Defendants in Error.

Therefore the confession of judgment on the part of the convicts operated to discharge them, and the State had no right or power to further restrain their liberty.

The indebtedness for the satisfaction of which the labor is to be performed is an indebtedness to the surety and not to the State a private debt, not a public penalty.

There is no correlation between the penalties which the State might have imposed for non-payment in the first instance and those fixed by these labor contracts.

See also Buckalew v. Tenn. Coal & Iron Co., 112 Alabama, 146; State v. Allen, 71 Alabama, 543; State v. Etowah Lumber Co., 153 Alabama, 77; State v. Stanley, 52 Arkansas, 178; Winslow v. State, 97 Alabama, 68.

Mr. William L. Martin, with whom Mr. Robert C. Brickell, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, was on the brief, for defendants in error:

There is but one point in these cases: The offense of peonage does not exist by virtue of the operation of §§ 7632, 6846 of the Alabama Code.

The offense of peonage, which was sought to be abolished by 1990, Rev. Stat., and for the commission of which punishment was prescribed by § 5526, Rev. Stat., Crimi. Code, 269, has been defined by this and other courts as a status or condition of compulsory service based upon the indebtedness of the peon to the master. The basal fact is indebtedness. Jaremillo v. Romero, 1 N. Mex. 190, 194; Peonage Cases, 123 Fed. Rep. 671, 673 (Ala.); United States v. McClellan, 127 Fed. Rep. 971; Peonage Cases, 136 Fed. Rep. 707; In re Peonage Charge, 138 Fed. Rep. 686; United States v. Cole, 153 Fed. Rep. 801; United States v. Clement, 171 Fed. Rep. 974; Clyatt v. United States, 197 U. S. 207, 215; Hodges v. United States, 203 U. S. 1, 33; Bailey v. State, 219 U. S. 219, 242.

Those provisions apply only to actions based on contracts, express or implied, and do not extend to actions

Argument for Defendants in Error.

235 U.S.

originating in tort. Ex parte Hardy, 68 Alabama, 303,

316.

The sentence of a convict to additional imprisonment for embezzlement in lieu of his restoring to the injured party the amount embezzled is not regarded as imprisonment for debt. See Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691.

The sentence and judgment violated the statute providing that no person shall be imprisoned for debt. Freeman v. United States, 217 U. S. 539, 544.

The inhibition is limited to contract liabilities, and is not applicable to fines, forfeitures, mulcts, damages for wrong and tort. Hanson v. Fowle, 1 Sawyer, 497, 506; United States v. Walsh, Deady, 281, 286; Carr v. State, 106 Alabama, 35, note.

Though the convict may pay the fine and costs due the State and thereby gain his release, such cannot be regarded as a debt. Nelson v. State, 46 Alabama, 186, 189; Caldwell v. State, 55 Alabama, 133, 135; Lee v. State, 75 Alabama, 29, 30; Smith v. State, 82 Alabama, 40, 41; Ex parte King, 102 Alabama, 182, 183; Carr v. State, 106 Alabama, 35; Brown v. State, 115 Alabama, 74, 79; United States v. Walsh, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 66, 71; Stroheim v. Deimel, 73 Fed. Rep. 430; Freeman v. United States, 217 U. S. 539, 544.

By the confession of judgment the nature of the convict's obligation is not changed so far as he is concerned; the State chooses, with his consent, to substitute for his labor and service, and imprisonment, a civil liability on the part of the surety. Smith v. State, 82 Alabama, 40; Shepherd v. State, 110 Alabama, 104, 105; Simmons v. State, 139 Alabama, 149, 150.

After confession of judgment and execution of contract a convict cannot obtain his release from his surety by the payment of a sum of money.

Under the provisions of § 6846, the defendant may be prosecuted, not for any debt he owes his surety, for none exists, but as a punishment for a violation of the contract

235 U.S.

Argument for Defendants in Error.

which has been approved by the court and in which his labor for his surety has been substituted for hard labor for the State or county. Ward v. State, 88 Alabama, 202; Smith v. State, 82 Alabama, 40; Code, § 6846; Shepherd v. State, 110 Alabama, 104.

If the contract provides for advances, it is void and its performance cannot be enforced. Smith v. State, 82 Alabama, 40; Ex parte Davis, 95 Alabama, 9, 16; Winslow v. State, 97 Alabama, 68; Elston v. State, 154 Alabama, 62. See also Salter v. State, 117 Alabama, 135, 137; Wade v. State, 94 Alabama, 109; Wynn v. State, 82 Alabama, 55, 57; McQueen v. State, 138 Alabama, 63, 67.

The State retains control of the convict. It does not lose control over him when judgment has been confessed, but still retains authority to sentence the convict to punishment. Bailey v. State, 87 Alabama, 44, 46.

In interpreting the Alabama statutes on this point, this court will follow the decisions of the highest court of that State. Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. 361, 367; Nesmith v. Sheldon, 7 How. 812, 818; Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 11 How. 297, 318; Webster v. Cooper, 14 How. 488, 504; Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black. 599; Haver v. District No. 108, 111 U. S. 701; Detroit v. Osborne, 135 U. S. 492, 498; Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 154; Hooker v. Los Angeles, 188 U. S. 314, 320; Hairston v. Danville & Western Ry., 208 U. S. 598; Siler v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 213 U. S. 175, 191; Trimble v. Seattle, 233 U. S. 218, 219.

State v. Etowah Lumber Co., 153 Alabama, 77, 78, distinguished, as in that case the convict was taken from the custody of his surety by virtue of a warrant issued for the. commission of another offense than that for which he was then serving.

A single decision of a state court which departs from the whole course of the decisions of that State will not be followed. Gibson v. Lyon, 115 U. S. 439, 446; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 387.

The statute is a humane one. If the convict does his duty according to his contract there is no reminder of his convict-state, save at the end of each month when his wage is withheld. He is practically a free man and the law delights in the liberty and the happiness of the citizen. Peonage Cases, 123 Fed. Rep. 671, 676.

The Thirteenth Amendment does not contain authority for Congress to withhold from a State the right to make its own laws for punishing those duly convicted of crime. If Congress has authority to legislate regarding a State leasing its convicts out to work, there is nothing to prevent its prescribing the kind of work to be performed, the working hours and the food and clothing furnished. See debates in Congressional Globe on adoption of Thirteenth Amendment in 1863-4, Part 2, pp. 1313-25, 1364–70, 1419-24, 1437-46, 1456-65, 1:79–90.

The Thirteenth Amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 282; Clyatt v. United States, 197 U. S. 207, 216.

The court cannot read into the Thirteenth Amendment exceptions which do not appear and refuse to give life to the one exception which does appear therein, to-wit: conviction for crime.

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court.

These cases were argued and considered together, and may be disposed of in a single opinion. They come here under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, as involving the construction of the statutes of the United States which have for their object the prohibition and punishment of peonage. Case No. 478, United States v. Reynolds, was decided upon demurrer and objections to a plea filed to the indictment. The case