Progressive-era laws: Seldom challenged, seldom overturned Johnson, Lytle & Co. v. Spartan Mills – South Carolina, 1904 (47 S.E. 695); State v. J.J. Newman Lumber Co. – Mississippi, 1912 (59 So. 923); State v. Legendre – Louisiana, 1915 (70 So. 70)
| “Here arose an opportunity for apprehension, in enabling an unscrupulous employer to take advantage of the necessities of the laborer, and demand extortionate prices for the merchandise. The stat seeks to remove this inequality between the employer and employee by making such checks, etc., negotiable and redeemable in case under specified conditions and at stated times.” - Justice Ira Jones, in Spartan Mills “[W]hen we consider the present manner of laboring, the use of machinery, the appliances, requiring intelligence and skill, and the general present day manner of life, which tends to nervousness, it seems to us quite reasonable, and in no way improper, to pass such law so limiting a day’s labor. … We … remark the notable fact that it is rare for the seller of labor to appeal to the courts for the preservation of his inalienable right to labor. This inestimable privilege is generally the object of the buyer’s disinterested solicitude.” – Justice __ Reed, in Newman Lumber “A fireman employed at a stationary boiler … is not a ward of the state. He does not need the protecting arm of the Legislature, nor its interference with his freedom of contract or independence of judgment.” – Justice Charles O’Niell, in Legendre |
EMPIRE OF LAWS - The Legal History of the 50 American States > 6. DEEP SOUTH LEGAL HISTORY > 6.5 Deep South (1877-1920): Bourbons, Straight-Outs, Jim Crow and Southern Progressivism > 6.5.1 Deep South (1877-1920): The Rise of the "Straight-Outs" and Jim Crow > 6.5.2 Deep South (1877-1920): Transportation Segregation > 6.5.3 Deep South (1877-1920): Peonage and Residential Segregation >