under the name of fraud but merely upon evidence of failure to work out their debts. The act of Congress deprives of effect all legislative measures of any State through which directly or indirectly the prohibited thing, to wit, compulsory service to secure the payment of a debt, may be established or maintained; and we conclude that Sec. 4730, as amended, of the Code of Alabama, in so far as it makes the refusal or failure to perform the act or service, without refunding the money or paying for the property received, prima facie evidence of the commission of the crime which the section defines, is in conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment and the legislation authorised by that Amendment, and is therefore invalid.

It may be unfortunate and regrettable that the State of Alabama could not continue this particular method of dealing with a situation which its legislature long deemed serious. On the other hand, it may be better, in the long run, for the people of that State and all the States, that even an apparent need was not permitted to warp or weaken a fundamental which may some day be acclaimed as of imperishable value. With the expediency of the enforcement or the abrogation of the legislation, the Supreme Court and Justice Hughes of course had no concern. Sworn to defend the Constitution and apply the law, they had only to answer the question whether the amendment in its actual workings brought about results which the Constitution and statutes were de

signed to prevent. Was Justice Hughes right or wrong in his analysis of actual workings? If right, then the appeal for withdrawal of the barriers to this Alabama legislation must be made at least to the Congress which, after all the years, still keeps in force the old "peonage statute" of 1867. The President and Congress, not the Supreme Court, have continued on the statute books the 1867 enactment under which the Alabama statute was held unconstitutional, by Chief Justice White of Louisiana, as well as Justice Hughes of New York.

CHAPTER XVI

AMERICA AND THE IMMIGRANT OF TO-DAY AND YESTERDAY

NOTABLY as Governor of New York, Mr. Hughes had taken a deep and active interest in proposals for bettering, within acceptable lines, the conditions under which newcomers to American shores make their start in the industrial and social life of their adopted land. A Commission of notable experts and humanitarians was created, upon his recommendation, in 1908; this body reported a comprehensive series of constructive measures in 1910, which he in turn commended to the favourable consideration of the Legislature; and in consequence, New York was first in putting in effect many of those measures for State co-operation in the "Americanisation" and better distribution of immigrants, which have subsequently been endorsed by most of those who have given the subject careful study. Said Governor Hughes at that time:

Our laws should be adapted to meet the exigency which arises from the introduction of so many into our population who are unfamiliar with our usages and laws and are the ready vic

tims of manifold impositions. We cannot afford to regard with cynical indifference the condition and opportunities of those who have recently come to us from foreign lands, and we should be solicitous to make such improvement in our laws and administration as will reach the special abuses which have been found to exist. It should be considered to what extent they may be reached through existing governmental agencies and how far it may be necessary to improve these agencies to ensure practical correction. It is desirable that there should be legislation imposing more effective restrictions upon the business of private individuals who receive deposits of money in small sums. The condition of labour camps in connection with public works should also receive proper attention. The importance of suitable vital statistics and of public records of aliens remaining in our State should be recognised, and it should also be considered whether it is not feasible to adopt some means to promote their better distribution.

As early as October 19, 1907, in an address at the dedication of a statue erected in memory of a distinguished citizen of foreign extraction,

'In Engel vs. O'Malley (219 U. S. Reports, page 128), the Court upheld the constitutionality, under the “police power,' of the banking legislation enacted in pursuance of this recommendation by Governor Hughes. The statute was upheld largely on the ground that it placed needed safeguards around the relations between "private bankers," who accepted sums largely for transmission abroad,, and "newly arrived immigrants," as yet unaccustomed to the business practices of a strange, new country.