*2 gan Grudberg, Haven, January, 1963, Conn. late in New Ira B. continued Jacobs, Jacobs, (Jacobs, New until mid-March. At Jacobs & the end of the Gov- granted Conn.), (Howard Jacobs, Haven, A. New ernment’s the court case a mo- Conn., brief), appellant. acquittal Haven, tion on for for on the two counts re- lating wife; later, to the on re- Glickstein, Washington, D. Howard A. quired to elect between the count Marshall, Atty. Gen., (Burke Asst. C. involuntary and the servitude count as Zampano, Atty., Harold U. Robert C. S. husband, to the the Government con- Jones, Attor- H. and Gerald W. Greene sented to dismissal of the former. Re- Washing- Justice, neys, Department of serving acquit- decision on a motion for ton, C.), appellee. D. remaining counts, tal on the six all under FRIENDLY, 1584, relating Cir Before MOORE and to Luis and the § five DIMOCK, Judges, children, cuit District judge submitted the case Judge.* jury, which rendered verdicts of guilty Subsequently judge on all. Shackney’s denied motions for an ac- Judge. FRIENDLY, Circuit quittal for a new trial and entered grand jury July, 1962, in Dis- a judgment of conviction whence this trict Court for Connecticut returned appeal is taken. We hold that the Gov- charging I. nine count indictment David did ernment not show commission of the Shackney with violations 18 U.S.C. §§ crime defined 1584. 1581(a) and 1584. The former section Taking favorably most evidence to crime, punishable fine it a makes Government, this, we summarize $5,000, imprison- of not more noting only many a few of the items years, than five ment of not more However, were contradicted. must we “any both, person or return hold gives add in fairness that an un- “any peonage” or condition of to arrest impression balanced whole, record person placing in intent of with the it omits since substantial evidence returning peon- him to a condition of or age.” Shackney, favorable to much of it de- subjects section latter The veloped cross-examination,1 on Oros’ knowing- punishment similar “Whoever obliged analyze which we would be ly willfully holds to carefully if, accepting the Government’s any or sells into condition statute, broad construction we servitude, necessary Shackney’s found it to rule on brings any term, within the United * * contentions that the evidence still did any person *.” States so held guilt jury’s finding not warrant a his first two counts indictment proved beyond have been a reasonable charged holding his of Luis Oros and may doubt and that his conviction Virginia wife, Oros, in a condition resulted from unfair conduct July peonage Middlefield, Conn., from prosecutor. 1962. March The other charged holding Shackney, seven counts who had ordained as voluntary Virginia, Luis, Poland, servitude of to the United rabbi came During daughters son, their four and their at his wife in 1941. States with charged place period Trial same same time. indictment Judge jury taught be- B’nai before Blumenfeld and a afternoon classes * Sitting by designation. explanation presence. thought writing what he Oros Perhaps single impressive Shackney hardly item the most would like to see covers urging daughter-in-law was a indicat series of letters from Oros the son and something which, on the satisfaction with conditions to come to Middlefield— Luis, urging according letters, project farm and son his married was a daughter-in-law join Oros, Shackney joined largely Jr. and which family there, telephone and a call accommodate him. Luis, talked to Jr. Haven, 20,000 lay- School near Jacob New where the three Oros’ would care taught; evenings ing hens; his wife also two that the hours of work were to week he Talmud to adult lectured on the 6:30 A.M. until the work was completed, breaks; audiences Middletown New that “be- three *3 addition, In Haven. Maytav under the name cause of the our fact that work will be Packing Corporation, handling living things Kosher which must be operated carefully president, for, which he was he cared this work must be adjacent every day, days chicken farm to his home in done week and days year Middlefield. exception”; with no place were to receive a furnished to get Shackney it hard to had found live, heat, electricity gas and for American ac- farm laborers cooking, food; and sufficient and that commodate to hens’ themselves an- salary per their combined should be $160 noying disregard Having for week-ends. year month for the first and for the $240 journal seen an advertisement in trade second, deposited half of which was to be availability workers, as to the Mexican joint security ain bank account for City he went to in late Mexico June obligations. performing their their families, and hired two Chavez’ and Olguins. evening difficulty he hailed a Since One Oros had encountered obtaining to visas, Shackney taxi take him to a taxi in theatre. The asked he by Oros, City help. was driven who had then to come to to Mexico It was City apparently a Mexico for taxi driver some on this occasion that Shack- years. ney allegedly eleven had been in the Oros made two statements much emphasized by United States as a railroad worker for the Government: Wilmington, nine months in you contract, “You have if break Delaware, again and in 1945-46 in Neva- contract, deport you you I and led, according da. Talk in the taxi to never come back to the United Oros, Shackney’s saying to needed still he States, you, your son, not not and family another for farm and your grandsons, nobody, because offering Shackney plain his own. made it I have lot of in Mexico and friends sign two-year that Oros would have to too, the United and I have during contract, he was never to which money, money money lot of Undeterred, drink to leave farm. any place.” here or Shackney Oros took his to to house meet contrast, In family; Shackney said he had a you you “If family are man work nice house like it his farm. The my years say brought farm the two like away, Oros later them to years contract, you are Shackney’s after two Shackney, who hotel. you American then leaving morning, citizen and can the next told to Oros go any you go place, you free, immigration prepare papers his go you to work in taxi-cab communicate with him. go. you California if want feel procuring papers Oros set about my you stay farm, You want progress Shackney letters to as to his but stay.” can January, 1961, were unanswered. him; Shackney phone money telegraphed developed had Oros that Oros no pay transportation Oros confirmed that he still desired to for his visas or unnecessary developments come. After save for had borrowed $80 detail, Oros, Shackney. his wife his eldest turned over latter daughter signed arranged provided Maria Elena a con- but for funds to tract, Spanish, signing to work on Shaek- insisted on the Oros twelve ney’s among each, promissory payable provided, farm. This notes for $100 things, monthly, co-signing by friend, should have a the contract their two-year August beginning 15, Rosalio, term who owned his own home. 1961; sign together day Shackney couple six another next made Oros worked, youngest allegedly explain- family notes, two additional $100 aged starting me, children, ing merely 9 and their confidence “You have According you 10:00 A.M. instead of 6:30 sign, labors at and that’s all.” began.2 Shackney There is Oros, paid bus A.M. when the others for $350 many dispute expenses whether so would have in connec- tickets and $210 long Shackney to labor so if Oros had worked dil claimed tion with the visas. claiming igently, defense tele notes had covered $500 the $1200 n expense distracting. unduly proved vision set had procuring and other visas n documents, monthly salary tickets, plane raised the and $700 parents wrongfully and Maria Elena to $180 which Oros had diverted monthly debts, and also drew checks of payment $20 and that of his *4 Sergio, Maria Teresa the and and second notes covered another $380 $600 However, tickets, the third eldest children. paid for for had to be bus $40 Shackney no spending Oros’ received cash since money Oros and a contri- for get Shackney’s expense them to endorse the cheeks bution of toward the up and days would tear two notes each trip. $100 and five (cid:127)own After four month; only they nights the cash obtained of Oros’ reached the travel the during period morning July the entire was which $10 farm in the of gave Shackney request immediately them at the of a put were to work. .and purchaser they of chickens whom had They less of life conditions found the helped.4 arduous work more and the attractive they pictured. dwell- Their had None of the Oros children went Quonset half of Shackney a four-room a was school. Oros had claimed that pilings; hut, upon walls the away, wooden set said that school too was far corrugated cardboard; and there money pay of were that the Oros’ had no for floor Shack- school, clothing, holes in the which were the school bus and ney of the Two speak told Oros cover. and that the children could not bedrooms, of English; a total Shackney rooms were countered that he family urged two beds and a cot had Oros to send children to bathroom, .seven, objected. and there was school but that Oros had Oros n facilities, request room contained kitchen permis- also testified that a large heater, a automatic hot water sion to attend the movies and few re- n television quests go as well. a radio and later set to church denied. were dwelling only occasions, wood stove. heated was Oros left farm on four The food, going along of the Shackney criticism was some one. There on all save make this does but the Government Oros’ Until the latter months complaint. farm, outgoing stay Shack- item a serious letters on the all clothing, ney gave given and posting used Oros’ were from the Oros’ Shackney, stamps; new supplied with some furnished them also n clothes, stamps postage incoming and toilet articles all letters the farm were ultimately placed post which he said would in a rural box and letters to Although paid call- the contract for. were delivered him. There the Oros’ parents jury ed for the services from could was evidence daughter, Shackney all seven and the eldest censored the Oros’ find that family just computation had left before 2. The Chavez lustrated introduced Olguins arrived; apparently Shackney totally the Oros’ dif- evidence. offered explanation had left earlier. of this incident. ferent February, January, 3. claimed that Oros 4. The chickens were sold protested paid the he that he had now then had to clean the chicken Oros’ expect original coop, notes and did not this them $1200 and Oros testified made pay had lat to have to notes he work harder than ever. There were later $600 Shaekney’s signed purchase request, and that more er at discussions as to the Shackney subject then introduced the chickens. interest, month, il- which he 10% although stoutly importance mail, deportation this. he denied fear of Shackney they had in- if Oros testified left. Here the Government linked persons July, him not to talk structed conversation in Mexico to the farm to send them that if who came and Oros broke contract he would Shackney there, away deported, if was not with incidents in which reprimanded Shackney vio- spoke deportation that he was he when for other lated these instructions. causes. A notable one occurred around September October; quoted Oros Oros Maria Elena testified Shackney’s description how a “man day they from first the they had come say lazy everything, is too and don’t do farm wished to leave it because say drunk, too, he’s sometime so was so different from house what something man; bad sometime he do represented.5 is admitted Shackney like, Mr. don’t and this time none ever communicated say very mad, Mr. take Shackney, desire and that ** * coop, him from the chicken leaving never restrained * * * back send to Mexico in half by force or either the threat force. hour.” Also Government linked the open country. farm is not in It is powerful reference to friends Shackney’s say- Middlefield, Street four- School *5 Mexican statement with ing highway of a tenths west of a mile main “all to Oros while on the farm that connecting Middletown, Meriden and neighbors, man, the the Post the Office nearby. about There is house well, say policeman, everybody he and— Shackney’s 500’ east and residence friend, police, neighbors, is a the and there are four others the latter between Office, everybody Post and is. an- When highway; and the a considerable hous- * * * say money other time he ing development enough is near that the money money everywhere.” and The Oros’ hear could from it. the sounds young son, Sergio, testified that on one driveway passes from the road Shackney occasion irritated become Shackney’s house and then back winds my family and “told ir- that I am to the Oros’ hut. At all a truck times boy. work, responsible kept If I hut, keys don’t do the was near the the ignition; going Mexico, I in the he at times it. send back to then Oros drove long periods every week, go. There were both I have to Then went to the bath- daytime evening, and right when the Oros’ crying room and I was there ** * Shaekneys were left alone while were cry then he told me not to and away teaching on their duties. Once a any more; very I that bad made feel * * * man week a on came the farm with feed cry. to think he had made us chickens, egg pickups were made gave and Then he me to his home he took weekly, helpers twice and other were candies, package me a small and he coming going. and friend, go on his told me if I would I The Government’s was and ‘Yes.’ That was it.” On- case said Shackney Oros’ did not dare avail themselves threatened that other occasions would, easy admittedly ill, they methods of if became release Oros’ fear-engender- available because A their wills were over- be further sent back. February,. borne fear which had en- a threat factor was gendered. paid Oros and testi- Maria Elena Oros *6 although A.M., servitude, him, had 1 as to what he around learning denying that had told On Oros outer of said. Cabelus, also “that limits among things, explored other that that need be in this statute go you profound respect school didn’t “because children case.” the most With go my university children to out the want New don’t illustrious at nobody Haven, church farm” and that went to believe we cannot retention nobody you prevent want employee don’t never “because of an a threat go Shackney farm,” quite asked wheth- out son’s there was what admission say this, you Congress great when, know “if er Oros didn’t in the had in mind Amendment, leave crime” and ordered him to this is a words of 13th it forbade involuntary servitude; holding order once—an whose execution a Sunday Shackney discharge postponed duty later not its court does morning although just departed saying the Oros’ with tell when it cannot supervision forbid, penal of the Davalos’ under the does it is con- what statute judice supplied had truck Cabelus who sub falls with- Officer fident that the case belongings. carry their leav- use “ab- Before in it. criminal statutes When certainty,” Philadelphia, E. Oros common Connecticut stractions lawyer, Freund, called on Indefinite Terms the Davalos’ ofUse Statutes, 437 courts who wrote March 7 L.J. 30 Yale give aptly “a that the and his has been Oros’ claimed latter must what called guilty company pointing direction which “are servitude” definition —a suggested object A one to which “an amicable settlement.” them to that attaches later, escape refer,” is week after call from Mrs. Dava- if the statute having might testimony course, as to this threat to him. Of Oros February, 1962, is some- to the date or have feared been made in mistaken as any express hard admis- such action without threat. what to reconcile 17, sion that time the twelve notes See fn. infra. co-signed by Rosalio had been surrendered
481
any
obliga-
vagueness.8
liquidation
or
debt
void
as
condemnation
otherwise,
Co.,
tion,
be, and the same
269
or
Connally
Construction
General
void;
hereby,
126,
null and
declared
391,
70 L.Ed.
385,
46 S.Ct.
U.S.
any person
persons
Jersey,
shall
or
(1926);
New
Lanzetta v.
return,
hold, arrest,
or
618,
or
cause
451,
L.Ed.
returned,
held, arrested,
or in
or
be
any
manner aid
the arrest
re-
to construe
Our endeavor
any
persons
to a
turn of
history.
begin with its
had
statute
best
peonage, shall, upon
condition of
why
puzzlement
There is an initial
punished by
conviction,
fine not
provi
two
Criminal
should contain
Code
less than
thousand nor more
one
1581,
relating
sions,
peonage,
one
§
dollars,
thousand
im-
than five
servitude,
and the other to
prisonment
nor
than one
less
could be
case that
since
§
years,
both,
more
at the
than five
could
reached under the former section
discretion
the court.”
also
under the latter.9
be reached
the first
two
In the Revised Statutes
respect
peonage
appear
title
The section with
clauses
under the
§
deriving
Rights”;
century old,
third,
Act
is a
from the
“Civil
the direct
546, prompt
1581(a),
5526 under
of March
Stat.
ancestor
§
§
granted Congress
power
title “Crimes.”
exercise
by
Amendment,
2 of the 13th
§
contrast,
1584 is a relative new-
§
effective December
“to
become
comer to
the statute book.
dates
legis-
by appropriate
enforce this article
although,
as the
62 Stat.
original form,
lation.”
In its
entitled
rep-
us,
supposedly
Reviser’s
tell
it
*7
Mexico,
452,
Territory
91,
6,
or
later
of New
c.
3
Stat.
§
any
Territory
5377,
of
other
or State
248 of the Criminal
Rev.Stat. §
§
States;
acts,
1139,
1909,
and all
and 18 U.S.
the United
Code of
35 Stat.
orders,
regula-
laws,
resolutions,
(1940 ed.),
423
was directed at
C. §
usages
Territory
brings
tions,
“Every person
of
within the
or
who
any
any
jurisdiction
States,
Mexico,
New
or
other Terri-
of
United
mulatto,
tory
States,
any negro,
whatsoever,
or State of the United
manner
king-
established,
foreign
color,
any
person
heretofore
or
from
holds,
maintained,
enforced,
country,
sea,
or
vir-
or from
or
or
dom or
of, any negro,
any attempt
sells,
disposes
of which
shall here-
or otherwise
tue
brought in,
establish,
mulatto,
person
main-
after
made to
or
of color so
directly
tain,
enforce,
slave,
or indirect-
or labor
or
or to be held to service
as
* *
involuntary
ly,
voluntary
parent
Act
serv-
was the
or
The other
any persons
peons,
1874,
251,
23,
“An act
or
18
ice
labor of
June
Stat.
Clyatt
already
discharge
8. See
Amsterdam’s
clas
of an indebtedness.
Professor
215,
Void-for-Vagueness
States,
207,
discussion,
25 S.
v. United
197 U.S.
sical
Supreme Court,
429,
(1905).
U.
Ct.
the service was to L.Ed. 615 and v. Although peon- used, liams, peonage in debt. broader the the statute was age respect, phrase, “as statute in that the Act Mr. Justice Jackson’s others; namely, applied it convic- 1874 was narrower in to invalidate shield”— any involuntary 1 1. The Sen or serv- The restriction was deliberate. confinement ice, to any Judiciary amended the who shall such serv- ate Committee or transfer by deleting any pur- original (H.R. 3581) person except bill other ice to acquiring pose occupation, words: a trade or knowingly States, wil- “And whoever shall and in the United or the Territories fully any hold thereof.”
483 making service,” or it a crime continuance 197 laws state under tions types 215-216, 430, at owing at or other S.Ct. debts for servants although employment; Court held that there was leave their to debtors can abundant very decisions evidence Florida crim nature these their proceedings inal light problem since an were excuse “for on our little shed securing custody of Gordon and Rid (cid:127)obligation enforced to serve ley, taking Georgia cases in back them Two of the state. laws eriminal debt,” work out a “as a sword” there was no evidence used the statute was which Ridley previously that Gordon helpful. In United had much more are not 133, peonage been in a condition of Reynolds, S.Ct. 235 U.S. v. States they employer were (1914), had an returned —the offense L.Ed. 162 specified they Alabama indictment. under “That convicted a laborer they debt, were in making convict for a and that had a crime left it statute n “working Georgia gone surety paid pay to Florida without fine out” a debt, United States does not show that labor further. refuse had been peonage, Gaskin, 527, 64 a condition of S.Ct. or 320 U.S. willingly unwilling work, even (1944), demurrer on a arose L.Ed. 287 ly, for charging their that defend creditor.” 197 U.S. at indictment to an debtor, 25 S.Ct. forcibly at 433 de had arrested ant . will, against and trans tained Failing to find a clear answer in these ported , under j ¿t. the him him with intent cause Supreme peonage Court cases o t , , perform , „ . of the debt. m labor satisfaction . ory of the W".eXp simply the district decision was +aCt’ 0re+ earll.f ^ involuntary servitude.” A draft n courthad erred in dismissing indict- Northwest Ordinance drawn in allege that services for failure to merit certainly by almost Thomas Jeffer after the ar in fact been rendered had provision “That, contained a Clyatt son> after Language v. United rest. year era, 1800 of the Christian there 197 U.S. slavery neither nor enlightening (1905), more L.Ed. sha11. servitude in states, of the said other- although purposes, our the decision of crimes Punishment is not. came before itself The case thfnjn wf3ereo e s a bave been charging on an that de- T . Court indictment duly personally convicted to have been « i “unlawfully i n /ii -i guilty. knowingly fendant did 12 reasonably t plain seems , TTI,„ „ , , I one Mose one Will Gordon and return what Jefferson meant to ban Ridley peonage, condition words “involuntary servitude” was the against forcibly them, the will legal enforcement of “conditional servi * * * * * * returning them tude under indentures covenants” such ** Clyatt long M. work to and as had for Samuel Virginia, existed see 1 Bancroft, History out a of the work debt claimed be due United States * * (1859 ed.); Miller, History showed that New The evidence Georgia Clyatt gone States to Florida 70-73- at least Ridley to the extent that such to brought Gordon arrested and indentures were Defining voluntarily entered into back. “as a without compulsion service, previously existing compulsory status condition of debt obligation. Although upon peon provision based the indebtedness was not master,” equating “compulsory enacted in Article VI *9 “involuntary 1787, servitude,” replaced service” of with Ordinance which years distinguishing the earlier, pro version and from “the volun of three rendering tary performance slavery vided “There shall neither of labor or be nor involuntary payment in of services in where the of debt” servitude said terri tory, compels performance punishment otherwise in “no law or the force Swayne, (1892). 1861, p. 12. The Ordinance of the War of 1787 and crimes, party slavery of territories,” whereof the shall have hibit in certain con- convicted”; agreement duly of proviso been the tained a declaration and a sub- Congress stantially to include this seems to have identical with the Northwest by proviso, Ordinance, of provisions been won addition the and such were in- any immediately following, per- gov- “[t]hat cluded in the constitutions of states escaping same, thereby. During son into the from whom erned the war between lawfully any or states, April 16, labor claimed pro- service the an Act of original fugitive states, slavery involuntary one of the such hibited or servitude lawfully reclaimed, conveyed may 376, be and Columbia, in the District of 12 Stat. person claiming or 1862, the her labor 19, and the Act of June 12 Stat. 432, as aforesaid.” respect service did the same with the territories.14 Hence it was natural that ¡' outlawing slavery and in Provisions these historic words should be used in the voluntary included were slavery 13th nor Amendment—“Neither the which constitutions of the states involuntary servitude, pun- except as a Supreme applied. Illinois The Ordinance party ishment for crime whereof the allowing owner held Court a statute duly convicted, shall have been shall exist bring into Illinois of a slave to States, place within the United agree of for a term bind him to to work subject jurisdiction.” to their The de- be years, of which he breach nothing bates show here relevant save slavery North outside returned what been would'have obvious without Territory, to be inconsistent west them—an intention to follow words holding although Ordinance, further of Northwest Ordinance. legally that an indenture entered into judicial interpretation of this first The valid could be without fraud collusion phrase Amendment that we in the 13th adoption of a Illinois virtue of Tyler Heidorn, 46 have is in found accept provision and its constitutional Term, 439, (Albany General Barb. Congress of ance 1866). The court there said: upon of that state States the admission Jay, servitude, 1 Ill. the union. Phoebe v. into term “The (Breese) substantially (1828). syn- my The Su opinion, Indiana in onymous though preme slavery, habeas had earlier issued it Court lulling maid, slightly corpus regarded may perhaps house liberate voluntarily en comprehensive, that even an indenture as embrac- more ing every thing justify of tered would not enforcement of name under the though Mat servitude, service thereunder.13 not denominated Clark, (1821). gives The slavery, ter of 1 Blackf. to one which Compromise ownership 3 Stat. Missouri control * * * pro- compulsory voluntary “An Act services entitled contemporary may account 13. Prom have been as doubt there Whatever among applicability Ohio the framers words to a debates of these appears compulsory voluntari it Constitution service condition “involuntary may ly dispelled time words servitude” entered was thought encompass incorporated Amend then into the 13th passage freely ment. This is attested into bona fide indenture entered anti-peonage adopted statute 1867— prohibition consideration. generally as a condition thought constitution, coex- for that voluntary See The sumed contract. prohibition of the Ordi- tensive with the Peonage (M. Cases, F. 673-675 nance, exception for made an an inden- Clyatt D.Ala.1903). also v. United See per- ture in a entered into “while state of supra, 197 U.S. at freedom on a a bona fect condition of at 430. fide re- consideration received to be Proclamation, quotation Emancipation ceived for service.” See 14. their Judge rebellion, delegate Ephraim from Journal of related to the states solely Swayne, spoke “persons slaves,” Cutler of 1787 The Ordinance held as 57-58 War Stat.
485 agáinst peonage his will and con- dissent characterized as of another “the compulsory holding of one sent.” individual purpose another individual for long authorita- after came the more Not compelling former, by personal serv- Miller’s Mr. tive statement Justice ice, discharge his indebtedness to the Cases, Slaughter-House 16 opinion in the latter,” disagreement and stated its with (83 36, 69, 394 21 L.Ed. Wall. U.S. majority by saying that “One who is (1873): up by superior overpowering shut force, constantly present and threaten- exception as a “The of servitude earning ing, living gives in a lawful punishment crime idea way choosing, of his own is as much in a class of servitude involuntary is of condition of meant. word ‘servitude’ servitude as if larger meaning ‘slavery,’ as forcibly held a condition of popularly in this latter is understood peonage.” 203 U.S. at at 16. S.Ct. purpose country, and the obvious Perry, The final datum Butler v. condi- was forbid all shades and 328, 332, L.Ed. slavery. was tions of African very (1916), said, where the Court in lan- well understood guage Slaughter- of the reminiscent long apprenticeship for form of opinion: House terms, practiced in as it had been “This Amendment was Islands, [13th] India on the aboli- the West adopted gov- English conditions slavery by reference to tion of existing reducing our since the foundation of ernment, slaves government, and term ‘involun- serfs attached to the condition of tary servitude’ was intended to cover plantation, purpose of to the compulsory labor might evaded, those forms if have been article only slavery which, akin to African ‘slavery’ the word had been practical operation, would tend used.”15 produce like results.” undesirable Rights Cases, 109 U.S. also Civil See L.Ed. 835 S.Ct. survey This to us indicates prime purpose Hodges who of those Important material is found 1, 16-17, “involuntary 27 outlawed servitude” in the 203 U.S. predecessors Amendment, 13th case 51 L.Ed. S.Ct. although heavily upon itself, which, relied and in statutes Amendment helpful it, Government, was to abolish all is rather more enacted to enforce having subjection practices whereby “All appellant. said that The Court slavery [slavery these terms some of the incidents understand legally directly, enforced, of en- a condition either servitude] using power compulsory an- of one to its to return the service state’s forced dictionary master, other,” defini- as had been the and referred servant system slavery in New as “the state entire under the tions of case Peonage Cases, Mexico, F. subjection person of an- to the will see one (M.D.Ala.1903), indi “the state of 673-675 of servitude other” and subjection by subjecting persons rectly, left voluntary compulsory to a pen- employer’s Harlan’s to criminal Mr. Justice The first service master.” legislation opinion speculate dissenting which re- of Mr. Justice on to 15. The single trade or call- to a the words stricted Field stated that locality might place single something more than or to a “include * * *; respect slavery in a condition to others sense in the strict opinion vassalage, servitude, serfage, rest his vil- but did not include also ground, lenage, peonage forms of and all ** compulsory He went service *11 486 however, fluence, as, example, plainly, for if on com- Rather alties.16 pletion of goes Amend the Oros’ contract The 13th farther. term deported 14th, had threatened to them ment, not addressed is unlike another; very likely, action, unless made
solely
and it would
to state
something
sought
also,
“involuntary
if
or obtained
was
grotesque
servi
read
to
withdrawing
threat,
covering
such
the maker
a situation
tude”
as
successfully prosecuted
physically
under
employee
could be
re
was
where
guards,
statutes.
by
v.
state blackmail or extortion
as in Davis
strained
(5 Cir.),
holding
But
States,
F.2d 253
12
United
639,
by
688,
means to us action
the master caus-
denied,
46
271
S.Ct.
cert.
U.S.
have,
(1926);
or to
In re
the servant
believe
also
mere of a threat of belief enough satisfy my not, mind, requirement The victim of the statute. conse- such fear must also have power. deprive quences him of will as to SERVICE, E. TRUCK L. WHITLOCK though voluntary may corporation, INC., Kansas falling imposed within Appellant, a means may in- majority’s guilt criterion v. though imposed voluntary a means COMPANY, a DRILLING Colo- REGAL falling criterion. without Appellee. corporation, rado vagueness” doctrine The “void No. 7334. compel us substitute does not Appeals Court of United States statutory an ar- of involuntariness test Tenth Circuit. have bitrary To of means. classification June will arbitrary classification an facility cases equal all of the resolve is in- statute under the arise would prospect. is much tempting deed a statute under work harder to have to questions difficult which will raise wherever borderline cases inevitable upon depends application of statute human mind.
appraisal of the state however, not, void Statutes they vagueness difficult raise because They questions are void of fact. vagueness only ar- fail where Jordan standard. definite
ticulate a 229-232, George, De I should L.Ed. 886. S.Ct. fixing thought a statute fall standard as a voluntariness class.
within that subjugation will of Where the complete render as to so servant making incapable a rational that unless notes always prime “somebody co-signed, fied afraid. Of take Kosalio had day family type”, 5. Maria Elena testified that first this and bis stories of there was on the she farm “X think I was been at most one other seems to have day prison work, because when I we this such The two other references incident. testimony cited, work hard and we never did before in Oros’ and one in one obviously Elena’s, quite Mexico.” Maria to the same incident recounted the text. Although says the Government’s brief “Many appellant times Oros told thing lawyer, house, my I los to Oros and was this contacted in friend’s sign notes, Philadelphia I., F. and this is B. I whose know when 7 vestigation farm.” led to the I scared to leave indictment. am where January February, Oros and, view, in our The first dis- coming persons farm talked with positive issue is reach lan gave mail. some of them letters guage U.S.C. of 18 “Whoever a Mr. Davalos One these was to knowingly willfully holds to involun Philadelphia. Davalos Mr. and Mrs. * * tary servitude The Govern- Saturday, March farm came to the suggests equiv- ment in effect that this is Shackney at first Oros. and asked to see knowingly alent to “Whoever and will- permit visit them either declined fully To holds to service duress.” town; later him to Oros or to drive reading, consequences test such a might agreed they hours a few see Oros cases, appellant’s put a series of brief family Oros and the He asked hence. starting man with that of a chained house, and their cau- themselves clean kept guests -under restraint to remain work were not bench that the tioned provide ranging through long, times, refresh- too and offered to all employer com- Meanwhile the Davalos’ ments. instant others where an ease to employee with Officer Cabelus municated threatens an wishes blackballing re- Police. Cabelus Connecticut State leave his service Oros, them, revealing police, industry, interviewed crime to turned with preventing employee’s Davalos re- his office. took Oros to Mrs. son attorney; quested achieving he call a much desired admission manfully P.M. around 10 After done Yale. Government answer- farm, Shackney questioned a hold- return ed that all ing cases constitute these
Notes
Notes prohibit “An Act to abolish and forever much resents “consolidation” of two Peonage System Territory part older statutes. One was a of the of New Mexico and other Parts quarter first series of enactments States,” provided: 1 of this Act dealing century of the nineteenth holding any person trade, portions “That African slave system survive, altered to service or labor under the of which in somewhat hereby form, declared and 1585- known as as 18 U.S.C. §§ Slavery America, unlawful, Hollander, and the same is here- see April prohibited (1964); statute, abolished and forever 33-35 Act of