laws authorizing imprisonment for debt remained upon our stat ute books. But these laws have been now almost universally abolished, and except in a few states, in cases of fraud, no such deprivation of personal liberty can be used as a means of collect ing a mere civil debt.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

202. The constitution of the United States, in the thirteenth amendment, forever abolishes and prohibits slavery, or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, throughout the United States and all places subject to their jurisdiction.

The constitution originally recognized the existence of slavery as a fact, though referring to it in obscure and guarded terms. Congress was authorized to forbid the further importation of slaves after the year 1808, and provision was made for the surrender of fugitive slaves. In this respect, the constitution differed from the contemporary law of England, where it had been recently declared from the bench that slavery was repugnant to the common law, that a slave brought into England by his master was by that mere fact emancipated, and that a person forcibly detained on English soil as a slave was entitled to be discharged on habeas corpus. 27 It was not considered that the federal government had any power to interfere with the institution of slavery. It was regarded as a matter wholly of domestic concern within each state. As to the status of the slave, he was regarded as a chattel and the absolute property of his master. "The power of the master," said the court in North Carolina, "must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect. We cannot allow the right of the master to be brought into discussion in the courts of justice. The slave, to remain a slave, must be made sensible that there is no appeal from his master; that his power is in no instance usurped, but is conferred by the laws of man at least, if not by the law of God."

" 28

27 Sommersett's Case, 20 How. St. Tr. 1; Broom, Const. Law, 59.

28 State v. Mann, 2 Dev. (N. C.) 263.

But the emancipation of the slaves was effected by executive proclamation, during the continuance of the civil war, and was made real by the armies of the north in their progress through the insurgent territory. Then came the thirteenth amendment, which assured its perpetual abolition throughout all the domain of the United States.

The language of the amendment is plain, and has called for but little interpretation at the hands of the courts. The only controversy has been as to the meaning of the phrase "involuntary servitude." It was probably added to guard against the establishment of any species of compulsory service, which might differ from perpetual slavery only in its restriction to a term of years. But it was then necessary to make an exception, allowing such involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime, in order not to deprive the states of the power to sentence convicts to labor in the penitentiaries. In this connection, doubt may arise as to the validity of what is known as the "convict lease system," in vogue in some of the states, by which the labor of convicts is let out to private contractors who are to employ them in or near the prison and under the superintendence of its officers. But the validity of such laws has not been successfully impugned. It is said: "The state acquires an ownership in the services of all persons convicted of crime, and duly sentenced therefor to confinement in the penitentiary, which, guarded by certain humanitarian principles, is treated and protected as a valuable property." 29 Although the thirteenth amendment would not invalidate indentures of apprenticeship as that system obtained at common law, yet an act of congress passed in 1874 made it a felony to import into the United States any person inveigled, kidnapped, or sold into involuntary service with intent to hold such person in confinement or to involuntary labor. This act was principally directed against the "padrone system," practiced chiefly in Italy, by which children were bought to serve as street musicians and beg

29 Comer v. Bankhead, 70 Ala. 493. And see Mason & Foard Co. v. Main Jellico Mountain Coal Co., 87 Ky. 467, 9 S. W. 391. But a statute authorizing a "vagrant," even though not accused or convicted of any crime, to be hired for six months to the highest bidder, contravenes the provisions of the constitutions in respect to involuntary servitude. In re Thompson, 117 Mo. 83, 22 S. W. 863.

gars, and ignorant laborers decoyed into selling their freedom and labor for a term of years. Its validity has been sustained, and it is well in accordance with the spirit and the terms of the thirteenth amendment.80 But the performance of work upon an assessment or levy payable in labor for the repair of roads and streets is not that kind of involuntary servitude intended by the constitution.1 And it is held that a statute providing that if a laborer, willfully and without just cause, fails to give the labor reasonably required of him by the terms of his contract, or in other respects shall refuse to comply with the conditions of his contract, he shall be liable to fine or imprisonment, is not repugnant to this provision of the constitution.3

32

It should be noticed that the thirteenth amendment is not restricted in its prohibitions to any race or class of people. Its terms are general. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude" shall exist. And consequently, as remarked by the supreme court, "while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the congress which proposed the thirteenth article [amendment] it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese cooly labor system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void." 88 A custom or rite prevailing among the uncivilized tribes of Indians in Alaska, whereby slaves are bought, sold, and held in servitude, against their free will, and subjected to ill treatment at the pleasure of the owner, is contrary to the thirteenth amendment, and a person so held in slavery will be released by order of the court on habeas corpus. 34

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

203. The second amendment to the federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms.

30 U. S. v. Ancarola, 1 Fed. 676.

31 In re Dassler, 35 Kan. 678, 12 Pac. 130.

32 Ex parte Williams, 32 S. C. 583, 10 S. E. 551.

33 Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, Miller, J. 34 In re Sah Quah, 31 Fed. 327.

This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be denied or infringed by congress or the other departments of the national government. The amendment is no restriction upon the power of the several states.3 35 Hence, unless restrained by their own constitutions, the state legislatures may enact laws to control and regu late all military organizations, and the drilling and parading of military bodies and associations, except those which are authorized by the militia laws or the laws of the United States.3 36 The "arms" here meant are those of a soldier. They do not include dirks, bowie knives, and such other weapons as are used in brawls, fights, and riots. The citizen has at all times the right to keep arms of modern warfare, if without danger to others, and for purposes of training and efficiency in their use, but not such weapons as are only intended to be the instruments of private feuds or vengeance.37 The right to bear arms is not infringed by a state law prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons. Such a law is a police regulation, and is justified by the fact that the practice forbidden endangers the peace of society and the safety of individuals.38

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

204. All men are invested with a natural, inherent, and inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

This principle is formally declared in the constitutions of many of the states. And moreover the framers of the Declaration of Independence announced that they "held these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This latter expression is one of a general nature, and the right thus secured is not capable of

35 U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542.

36 Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 6 Sup. Ct. 580; Com. v. Murphy (Mass.) 44 N. E. 138.

37 English v. State, 35 Tex. 473; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455; State v. Work35 W. Va. 367, 14 S. E. 9.

man,

38 State v. Wilforth, 74 Mo. 528; Haile v. State, 38 Ark. 564; Wright v. Com., 77 Pa. St. 470; State v. Speller, 86 N. C. 697.

specific definition or limitation, but is really the aggregate of many particular rights, some of which are enumerated in the constitutions, and others included in the general guaranty of "liberty." The happiness of men may consist in many things or depend on many circumstances. But in so far as it is likely to be acted upon by the operations of government, it is clear that it must comprise personal freedom, exemption from oppression or invidious discrimination, the right to follow one's individual preference in the choice of an occupa tion and the application of his energies, liberty of conscience, and the right to enjoy the domestic relations and the privileges of the family and the home. The search for happiness is the mainspring of human activity. And a guarantied constitutional right to pursue happiness can mean no less than the right to devote the mental and physical powers to the attainment of this end, without restriction or obstruction, in respect to any of the particulars just mentioned, except in so far as may be necessary to secure the equal rights of others. Thus it appears that this guaranty, though one of the most indefinite, is also one of the most comprehensive to be found in the constitutions.

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

205. By the terms of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, the states are forbidden to deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Meaning of the Phrase.

If the word "protection" were to be taken in a strict sense, it could mean no more than the right to call to one's aid the laws of the state, attended by all their machinery of justice, for the averting or redress of injuries or oppressions. It would confer no rights, bur only guaranty remedies. But it is held that the amendment must be liberally construed, according to its spirit and purpose. The supreme court, quoting the words of the amendment, says: "What is this but declaring that the law in the states shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the states, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily