PEONAGE.

INTRODUCTORY.

The Immigration Commission was already planning an investigation of alleged peonage cases in which immigrants were concerned, when, on March 2, 1908, the following resolution was passed by the House of Representatives:

That the Immigration Commission be requested to make an investigation into the treatment and conditions of work of immigrants on the cotton plantations of the Mississippi Delta, in the States of Mississippi and Arkansas, and upon the turpentine farms, lumber camps, and railway camps in the States of Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and other States, and to report them at as early a date as possible.

Many complaints of peonage and ill treatment had been made by immigrant laborers working in southern States. Reports of conditions in that section, which had appeared in magazines and newspapers, had inspired the resolution copied above, which was a combination of two resolutions introduced by two southern Congressmen. It was denied that peonage existed in the South, and no suggestion or intimation was made, during the debate in the House upon the resolution, that any condition of peonage had ever existed either in the East or in the West. As is evidenced by the Congressional Record, the phrase "and other States" was inserted so as to avoid the appearance of sectionalism. Under the act providing for its organization, the Immigration Commission possessed full power to investigate "the treatment and conditions of work of immigrants" in the United States, without restriction to any territory or to any particular class of complaints. Upon the passage of the special resolution the subject of peonage was set apart and was made the object of a separate investigation. A subcommittee was appointed, known as the peonage committee of the Immigration Commission, to follow out the wishes of the House.

The word "peonage " does not appear in the House resolution, the Commission having been requested" to make an investigation into the treatment and conditions of work of immigrants." It was evidently intended, however, that an examination should be made of complaints and cases in which peonage had been alleged, and the peonage committee has confined its work chiefly to such matters. While general observations have been made of "the treatment and conditions of work of immigrants" in the various States and Territories of the Union, the special purpose of this particular investigation has been to discover the real facts relating to peonage and involuntary servitude as prohibited by the thirteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution.

DEFINITION OF PEONAGE.

"Peonage is a status or condition of compulsory service based upon the indebtedness of the peon to the master. The basic fact is indebtedness." (Clyatt case, 197 U. S., 207.)

SCOPE AND PLAN OF INVESTIGATION.

Because of the public interest in connection with the allegations of peonage in the southern States, the Commission commenced its investigations there, and because of the resolution passed by the House the investigation was undertaken personally by a subcommittee of the Commission. This committee found and reports that instances of peonage as above described had occurred in 1906 and 1907 in some of the southern States, but these were only sporadic instances and the Commission found no general system of peonage anywhere. There had been convictions in Florida, including one case in which the defendants resided in Alabama, and the most flagrant case found was in the State of Arkansas. In the Arkansas case the immigrant was arrested as a vagrant, convicted before a justice of the peace, and sentenced to pay a fine of $10 and costs. There was added to his sentence, without authority of law, the expenses and mileage of the constable who came to the town where he was arrested, and the expenses and mileage of the constable and prisoner going from the place of arrest to the convict farm, the lessee of which paid to the county where the arrest took place 25 per cent of the fine only and the justice's costs, but held the prisoner to work out both the legal and illegal expenses at the rate of 75 cents a day. In this case the prisoners were kept in a barn, 80 men being kept in a moderate-sized building with no special arrangements for ventilation or sanitation. On Saturday nights the men were locked in the building and kept there until Monday morning. There was a good deal of sickness among the men, despite the fact that during the week days they were healthfully employed out of doors. While at work the men were guarded by "trusties" armed with shotguns. There were both white and colored men among the trusties. Members of the subcommittee were present in the United States circuit court in Little Rock when the proprietor of this particular farm was the unsuccessful defendant in the suit for damages brought by a prisoner who had been so illegally detained and in whose favor the jury gave a substantial verdict. These prisoners, held to work at illegal sums and some of whom were whipped and otherwise illtreated, illustrate what is commonly accepted as peonage. On the other hand, the following statement of facts also constitutes peonage:

A laborer secures an advance, either in money or by way of payment of transportation expenses, under an agreement to work out the amount. He leaves his employment with or, as frequently happens, without justification before the employer is fully repaid. The employer procures his arrest, either on the ground of obtaining money under false pretenses or under the labor statutes of many of the States, and then enters into a new agreement with the laborer that if he will return to his employment and work out his indebted