[ Previous Page ] -- [ View PDF ] -- [ View in MS Word ] -- [ Next Page ]

                             1982
Mr. CULLOM. It does not refer to it in so many words, but the purpose of 
this amendment,  while its phraseology may not exactly state it, is to prevent 
a criminal prosecution against a violator of a contract after he is brought into 
Honolulu from Japan, if you please, under a contract, and then violates it. We 
do not want him sent to jail.
Mr. HALE.   It goes much further than that.
Mr. CULLOM.   We do not want him prosecuted.
Mr. HOAR. The Senator was going to have the amendment read at the 
desk or read it himself, as he prefers.
Mr. CULLOM. I will read it myself. It is proposed to add to section 10:
Provided, That no contract for labor or personal service shall be enforced 
either by injunction or other legal process.
Mr. HALE.   Why do you not say contract for foreign labor?
Mr. CULLOM. It means about the same thing, because they are all pretty 
much foreign who are laborers there.
Mr. PERKINS. I wish to ask the Senator from Illinois a question. While in the 
islands investigating the question of labor, did the commission hear any 
testimony as to the abuse of contract laborers, the manner in which labor was 
performed, and the penalties imposed for violations of their contracts? I should 
also like to inquire if they ascertained whether there were any large con-tracts 
for the construction of canals or railroads or aqueducts on the islands. We made 
every effort in the last session to extend to the islands our laws relating to 
contract labor and immigration, and it failed by reason of an objection upon 
this floor near the closing hours of the session. It is a notorious fact that since 
Congress adjourned many thousands of laborers have been brought into the 
islands of the Hawaiian group under contract for labor. I certainly think this 
amendment should be so framed that there can be no ambiguity whatever in 
its language and so that it will not require a judicial body to construe its 
meaning.
Both of the Senators on this floor who are members of the commission are 
thoroughly conversant with these great abuses, and I trust they will so formulate 
the amendment that there can be no question or doubt about it.
Mr. HOAR. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois this phrase, which I think 
will accomplish all Senators desire and which goes as far as we ought to go:
Provided, That there shall be no remedy for the specific performance of any 
contract for labor, and that the failure to comply with the same shall net be 
punished criminally.
Those are the things you want to do, leaving an ordinary action for damages 
for breach of contract.
Mr. HALE. Would the Senator make that apply to general contracts for 
labor?
Mr. HOAR.   I think so.
Mr. HALE.   Not only foreign labor, bat ordinary contracts?
Mr. HOAR. We lived in Massachusetts without any remedy to compel the 
specific performance of ordinary labor contracts down to within a very few 
years, and I suppose they did in most of the other States.
Mr. HALE. A contract for labor sometimes involves a large transaction, 
like the building of structures.
Mr. HOAR.   That is not a contract for labor.
Mr. HALE.   It may be.
Mr. HOAR.   Say" personal service."
Mr. HALE. I do not understand that the committee intends to go into that 
large domain of regulating contracts and controversies about labor outside of 
foreign contract labor.
Mr. CULLOM.   That is all.
      Mr. HALE. Why not, then, limit this by terms so that it shall only apply to 
the subject the committee intend to take up, and not take up that larger domain 
the Senator from Massachusetts suggests, which we have not had up? Let it 
apply only to contracts for labor.
Mr. HOAR. I have an impression that we have passed, certainly through 
the Senate, and I think through both Houses, a general domestic statute 
containing that provision so far as the United States courts go. I do not 
believe, in other words, that it is expedient that labor contracts shall be enforced 
by specific performance. Any other contract where specific performance is en-
forced is discharged by the payment of a sum of money, by the making of a 
deed of conveyance, or something of that kind, but holding a man to labor or 
service by law is repugnant to the genius of our institutions, whether it be 
holding him to the labor or service of a slave or any other form. In the 
description of slavery in our Constitution by a euphemism they avoided the 
term " slave" or " slaveholding" or "slaveholder," and the Constitution speaks 
of it as a person held to labor or service.
Now, when the immigrant comes over from a foreign country and gets to 
Hawaii, he is to a certain extent rather helpless if he has made an improvident 
contract. It is taking the body for the supreme court to say to a man, "You go 
and work for A B on his farm and stay there six months." It seems to me that 
wherever we


have the legislative power we should say that the right of a man to himself shall 
not be interfered with by law in consequence of any alleged or any actual 
contract. You may come upon him for damages, if you can, but you shall not 
take him by the ear and lead him out to a day's work under the order of any 
court.
I will take the responsibility of moving the amendment I pro-pose, and let the 
Senate do with it as it pleases. I move to insert:
Provided, That no proceeding shall be maintained for the specific perform-
ance of any contract for labor or service, and there shall be no criminal pro-
ceeding for the breach thereof.
Mr. SPOONER. I hope the Senator from Illinois will accept that 
amendment.
Mr. CULLOM. I think I will accept it, so far as I am concerned.
Several SENATORS.   Say " personal labor."
Mr. HOAR. Insert the word "personal," so as to read "personal labor." I 
intended to put that in.
Mr. CULLOM.   Question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment proposed by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. NELSON].
Mr. NELSON. My amendment is to insert the following words--
Mr. SPOONER.   On what page?
Mr. NELSON. On page 8. I think, however, that the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Massachusetts will cover it, and if that is adopted mine will be 
unnecessary.
Mr. CULLOM.   Withdraw it.
Mr. NELSON. I withdraw the amendment if the other amendment is to be 
adopted. I withdraw it for the time being at least.
Mr. CULLOM. The amendment of the Senator from Minnesota is withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. HOAR. The Senator from Illinois has accepted my amendment to his 
amendment.
Mr. CULLOM. I accept the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] as modified by the amendment of the 
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR].
Mr. HALE. Let that as finally modified and offered by the Senator from 
Massachusetts be read, stating where it comes in.
The SECRETARY. It is proposed at the end of section 10 to insert
Provided, That no proceeding shall be maintained for the specific performance 
of any contract for personal labor or service, and there shall be no criminal 
proceeding for the breach thereof.
Mr. HALE. Certainly that goes very far. It goes a great way beyond what the 
committee contemplated. It does not in any way confine itself to the evil which the 
committee sought to remedy, the continuance of contract labor and the 
enforcement of those contracts. That, I take it, was the only subject with 
which the committee intended to deal.
Mr. CULLOM. It was the only subject it seemed to be necessary to deal with in 
connection with labor, so far as we heard over there. Hence it was that we desired 
to break up the importation of laborers and contracts with laborers.
Mr. HALE.   That, of course, is foreign imported labor.
Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection to the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. HALE. Now, the Senator from Illinois accepts this amendment to the 
amendment, and I think the Senate ought to under-stand that it is incorporating 
a very far-reaching, a very wide provision, touching not only labor imported 
by contract, which we have forbidden here and mean to forbid in Hawaii 
hereafter, but contracts touching any kind of business that involves personal labor. 
It declares that no proceeding shall be instituted to en-force it. I think that is 
the language. What is the language?
Mr. HOAR. I beg pardon. I suggested to the Senator's ear, " No." I said it 
not with reference to his statement, but his language was "any kind of business 
that involves personal labor."
Mr. HALE. That has been accepted. "Personal" has been incorporated.
Mr. HOAR. "Anything that involves personal labor "is not the language.
Mr. HALE.   Let us have it exact.
Mr. HOAR.   "Any contract for personal labor."
Mr. HALE. Any contract that involves personal labor, and no proceeding--
Mr. HOAR. The words "involving personal labor" are not there.
Mr. HALE. Well, for the enforcement of any contract for personal labor. It 
would apply to any large contract.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield to me?

Return to Top