conditions as are contained therein, or as are enacted by the State, applicable to all persons in like conditions. The employer can not insist that the employee remain against his will, nor can the employee insist on retaining employment with an unwilling employer. In the absence of contract or legal requirement to the contrary, contracts may be terminated by either party "for any reason or no reason," and laws singling out one reason for which discharge will not be permitted are discriminatory and an interference with the rights of the parties (Adair v. United States (1908), 208 U. S. 161, 28 Sup. Ct. 277). The foregoing decision related to a Federal statute; the Supreme Court also passed upon a Kansas law of similar content, reversing the State supreme court, which had upheld the State law as constitutional (Coppage v. Kansas (1915), 236 U. S. 1, 35 Sup. Ct. 240). With the exception of this decision and those of the United States courts holding the California and Nevada statutes invalid, the decisions as to unconstitutionality of State laws have been rendered by the courts of the States. persons * * who ** * * In Wisconsin, a statute which provides that "any two or more are employers of labor who shall coerce or compel agreements as to membership in labor organizations" as a condition of securing employment or continuing therein was in existence at the time of the declaration of unconstitutionality of the act of 1899. So far as is known its validity has not been challenged, and it continues to appear in the current compilations of the laws of the State. No decision under this provision (sec. 4466b) is at hand, and it is possible that the element of combination or conspiracy apparently contemplated by the section will be regarded as a proper subject for legislation. In New York, however (Con. L., ch. 40, sec. 531), there is a reproduction of a law, apparently an enactment of the legislature of 1909, which embodies the identical principles of section 171a of the Political Code declared by the court of appeals of the State to be unconstitutional in 1906 (People v. Marcus, 185 N. Y. 257, 77 N. E. 1073). No decision construing this later law is at hand. A converse idea is represented by a provision found in the law of Utah (C. L., sec. 8329), which makes it unlawful for any person to induce another by threats or coercion to join any organization. The validity of the laws forbidding discharge, etc., on account of membership is necessarily subject to question in view of the uniform finding of unconstitutionality where the question has been taken to the courts. The jurisdictions having laws of this class which have not been thus tested, are: Connecticut.-G. S., sec. 6359. Idaho.-C. S., sec. 2321. Indiana.-A. S., sec. 2683. Louisiana.-Acts of 1914, No. 294. Massachusetts.-G. L., ch. 149, sec. 20. Mississippi.-Acts of 1908, ch. 93 (telegraphers only). New Hampshire.-Acts of 1913, ch. 208. New Jersey.-C. S., p. 3051, secs. 129, 130. New York.-Con. L., ch. 40, sec. 531. Oregon.--Laws, sec. 2181. Porto Rico-Acts of 1917, No. 42. TIME TO VOTE TO BE ALLOWED EMPLOYEES In line with election-day holidays such as are in force in several of the States, are laws guaranteeing the exercise of civil rights of employees. The majority of these laws provide that the employer must, upon prior notification, permit employees to leave the establishment, some time between the opening and closing of the polls, for the purpose of voting and that the employee shall not be subject to any penalty because of the exercise of the privilege. An Illinois statute (R. S. of 1917, ch. 46, sec. 312), including a provision that the employee should not be subject to any penalty or deduction of wages, was declared unconstitutional in so far as this provision is concerned in the case of People v. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul R. Co. (1923), 138 N. E. 155. The court held that it was an unlawful attempt to regulate private contracts, that it was not a proper exercise of the police power, and that it was taking property without the due process of law. The provision for absence was declared valid. The following States have laws on this subject: Alaska.-Acts of 1915, ch. 25, sec. 40. Arizona.-R. S., sec. 2969. Arkansas.-Digest, sec. 3818. California.-Pol. Code, sec. 1212. Colorado.-C. L., sec. 7807. Illinois.-R. S., ch. 46, secs. 312, 458. (Provision that the employee shall not be subject to penalty or deduction of wages is unconstitutional.) Indiana.-A. S., sec. 6926. Iowa.-Code, sec. 1123. Kansas.-G. S., sec. 4219. Kentucky.-Const., sec. 148. Maryland.-A. C., art. 33, sec. 91. Massachusetts.-G. L., ch. 149, sec. 178. Minnesota.-G. S. secs. 472, 622. Missouri.-R. S., sec. 5026. Nebraska.-C. S., sec. 2147. Nevada.-R. L., 1919, p. 2772. New Mexico.-A. S., secs. 2015, 2016. New York. Acts of 1922, ch. 588, sec. 200. Ohio.-G. C., sec. 12950. Oklahoma.-R. L., sec. 3137. South Dakota.-R. C., sec. 7274. Utah.-C. L., sec. 2352. West Virginia.-Code Supp., sec. 74. Wyoming.-Acts of 1911, ch. 23, sec. 21. ABSENT VOTERS A form of legislation that seems to have originated in a desire to permit railroad employees to exercise their franchise right at some point most convenient for them, whether in their home precinct or not, has received such an extension as to be of practically general application. These "absent voters" laws, as they are commonly called, have received attention as labor legislation; and although the labor aspect has in a sense been swallowed up in the more general provisions, yet railroad and similar employees may still enjoy the benefits. A majority of the States have extended legislation to such a point that practically all absent voters or electors may vote by mail and in many instances may even register by mail. States permitting voting outside their boundaries are: Alabama.-Code, secs. 405-412, 677–684. Delaware. Acts of 1923, ch. 103.. Georgia.-Acts of 1924, p. 186. Idaho.-C. S., secs. 609-618 (am. 1923, ch. 57). Illinois.-R. S., ch. 46, secs. 555-565 (am. 1921, p. 351). Iowa. Supp. 1915, secs. 1137b-11370 (am. 1917, ch. 419). Kentucky.-Acts of 1918, ch. 37, secs. 6-15. Maine.-R. S., ch. 7, secs. 133-147 (added 1921, ch. 38). Michigan. Acts of 1917, No. 203, ch. XII. Minnesota. Acts of 1917, ch. 68 (am. 1923, ch. 108). Mississippi.-Acts of 1920, ch. 155 (am. 1922, ch. 256). Montana.-R. C., secs. 715–735. Nebraska.-C. S., secs. 2002-2017. Nevada.-Acts of 1921, ch. 90 (am. 1923, ch. 117). New Jersey.-Acts of 1920, ch. 349. New York.-Acts of 1920, ch. 875. North Carolina.-Con. S., secs. 5960-5968. North Dakota.-Acts of 1913, ch. 155 (am. Extra Session 1919, ch. 32; 1923, ch. 202). Ohio.-Acts of 1917, p. 52. Oregon.-Laws, secs. 4080-4094 (am. 1923, ch. 53). Pennsylvania.-Acts of 1923, No. 201. (Primary elections only.) Texas.-R. Civ. S., sec. 2939 (am. 1923, ch. 149). Vermont.-Acts of 1919, ch. 7 (am. 1921, ch. 4). Virginia. Code, secs. 202-220 (am. 1922, ch. 505, 1924, chs. 420, 425). Wisconsin.-Statutes, secs. 11.54, 11.68. Wyoming.-Acts of 1923, ch. 101. Michigan, Missouri, and Oregon specifically indicate that their laws were enacted with a view to employees of railroad companies and similar employees, although the laws in all the States mentioned in the preceding paragraph cover employees as well as others. A smaller group of States permit absentee voting, but limit it to voting within the State itself; in these States the laws are more of the nature of labor legislation than in those which extend the law to other jurisdictions. Of this class are: Arkansas.-Digest, secs. 3810-3817. New Mexico.-Acts of 1917, ch. 89, sec. 14. In this connection mention may be made of a law of Hawaii (acts of 1923, No. 263) that permits employees on steamboats to vote the day before election if they are compelled to leave their voting place on that day. A new phase of the "absent voters" law, that has developed very recently, is the provision for physically disabled voters to vote by mail in the same manner and under the same regulations as the absent voter. States whose laws contain this provision are Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, and Nevada. The following States and Territories have no laws covering absentee voting: Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Practically all States have legislation to enable soldiers and sailors to vote when absent from their legal residence. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES AS MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD In several jurisdictions all persons are prohibited from willfully obstructing members of the National Guard in respect to their trade or business or depriving them of employment because of such membership; and in some jurisdictions also all labor and other organizations, clubs, and societies are prohibited from discriminating against persons because of such membership: Arizona.-R. S., secs. 4020, p. 1349. California.-P. C., sec. 421. Illinois.-R. S., ch. 129, sec. 217. Kansas.-G. S., sec. 6199. Maine. Acts of 1917, ch. 259, sec. 130. Massachusetts.-G. L., ch. 33 (am. 1924, ch. 465), sec. 70. Michigan.-C. L., secs. 971, 972. Mississippi.-Acts of 1916, ch. 245, sec. 76. New Mexico.-Acts of 1921, ch. 128, secs. 1, 2. New York.-C. L., ch. 40, secs. 1480, 1481. Ohio.-G. C., sec. 5265 (am. 1917, p. 382). Oklahoma.-Acts of 1913, ch. 164, sec. 41. South Carolina.-Acts of 1922, No. 501, secs. 47, 48. Washington.-C. and S., secs. 7234-7236 (am. 1917, ch. 107). CONVICT LABOR The United States and every political division thereof have by legislative action adopted regulations and directions as to the employment of convicts during the term of their detention. The question of such employment and its nature has been the subject of extended controversy from an economic standpoint, but there has been little legal discussion. The State is within its powers in appropriating funds for the establishment of manufacturing industries for the employment of convicts, and the constituted agencies may exercise a proper discretion in determining the employments to be provided for. (Pollock v. Mabey (Utah), 226 Pac. 186.) But where the contracting of the labor of convicts is forbidden, it was held not to be permissible to allow a manufacturing company to install machinery in a State prison for the use of the State as a factory, the products to be for State institutions, and the excess to be sold to the company, or to others only on its permission. This was said to be a contracting of the labor of the convicts, and void. (Price v. Mabey (Utah), 218 Pac. 724.) Laws have been enacted in a number of States to prevent or minify competition between the products of prison labor with those of free labor. These require either that prison-made goods be so marked before being offered for sale, or that dealers in convict-made goods procure and conspicuously post a license therefor, or both requirements may exist. Where goods so made enter interstate commerce, such requirements are a limitation in a field belonging exclusively to Congress, and are void. (People v. Hawkins, 157 N. Y. 1, 51 N. E. 257; Arnold v. Yanders, 56 Ohio St. 417, 47 N. E. 50; In re Opinion of Justices, 211 Mass. 605, 98 N. E. 334.) Furthermore, the requirement as to dealers' licenses is one based on the origin of the goods and not on their nature or quality, and is not a proper classification. (People v. Raynes, 198 N. Y. 539, 622, 92 N. E. 1097.) Six systems of employment are generally recognized, as follows: The lease system.-Under this system the contractors assume practically the entire control of the convicts, including their maintenance and discipline, subjeet, however, to the regulations fixed by statute. In general, the prisoners are removed from the prisons and are employed in outdoor labor, such as mining, agriculture, railroad construction, etc., though manufacturing is sometimes carried on. The nature and duration of the employment are, within the restrictions of the law, fixed by the lease. The contract system. The employment under this system is usually within the prison shops or yards, discipline and control remaining in the hands of the officers, only the labor of the convicts being let to and directed by the contractors for manufacturing purposes. The State usually furnishes shop room, and sometimes also provides power and machinery. The piece-price system.-Not only the discipline of the convicts, but the direction of their labor as well, is retained by the State under this system, the contractors furnishing the material to be made up and receiving the finished product, an agreed price per piece being paid for the labor bestowed. The public-account system.-There is no intervention of outside parties under this system, the employment of the convicts being in all respects directed by the State, and the products of their labor being sold for its benefit. The State-use system. This system is similar to the above, except that such articles are produced as will be of service to the State in supplying and maintaining its various institutions, and are appropriated to such use instead of being put on the general market. The public-works-and-ways system.-Under this system convicts are employed in the construction and repair of public buildings, streets, highways, and other public works. In the following pages the system in use and the kinds of work provided for are given, together with a summary of such regulations as affect the industrial aspects of the employment of convicts. The term "county convicts" is used with reference to those sentenced to terms in a county jail or workhouse, and "State convicts" to those serving terms in a State institution, or placed by the State in the care of the counties for detention.' The separate employment of females is generally provided for, and particularly as regards labor on highways, etc. ALABAMA Systems of employment.-State use; public account; public works and ways; leasing (unlawful for State convicts after March 31, 1927). Kinds of work. In coal mines of the State or of lessees; on public roads and bridges; in quarries, gravel pits, and plants for production of road material; and on convict farms. No woman may be employed on public roads, but may prepare meals for convict crews. Sources: Code of 1923, sections 1337, 1359-1374, 3589, 3592, 3611, 3624-3627, 3637, 3648, 3650, 3662, 3675-3690, 3704-3710; Acts of 1923, No. 595. For a fuller presentation of the laws see Bul. No. 372 of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. |