Bailey v. Alabama

The two dissenting justices reasoned that since contracts for labor were not prohibited under the Thirteenth Amendment, it was not unreasonable for the state of Alabama to enforce legal constraints if a laborer was in breach of contract. The minority opinion rationalized that a laborer was not a slave simply because the exercise of state power imposed criminal liability for wrongful conduct. They pointed out that if failure to pay a debt could not, as a consequence, impose imprisonment then compulsory work by prisoners could be considered as peonage as well. Further they felt that there was nothing improper in considering violation of a contract as criminal and, as such, failure to return an advance on wages clearly evidenced dishonest intent. Thus, the minority opinion reasoned that statutory provisions of the Alabama code were legal and valid in prosecuting the plaintiff for his "fraudulent intent." In summarizing the minority opinion, Justice Holmes explained that "if there is an excuse for breaking the contract, it would be found in external circumstances, and can be proved." It was the conclusion of the minority justices that Alabama correctly directed that money obtained by fraud should be regarded the same as murder or theft and, consequently, punished as a criminal offense. Therefore, the minority justices believed the ruling of lower courts was correct and that their adherence to Alabama's statutory provisions did not infringe on the Thirteenth Amendment.