Bailey v. Alabama - Significance, Minority Opinion, Impact, Involuntary Servitude
State of Alabama
Alabama's peonage law was unconstitutional because the Thirteenth Amendment provided protection against involuntary servitude. To compel servitude in liquidation of a debt restricted personal rights; involuntary servitude applied in situations other than slavery.
Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff
Edward S. Watts, Fred S. Ball, Daniel W. Troy
Chief Defense Lawyers
Alexander M. Garber, Thomas W. Martin
Justices for the Court
William Rufus Day, John Marshall Harlan I, Charles Evans Hughes (writing for the Court), Joseph McKenna, William Henry Moody, Edward Douglass White
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horace Harmon Lurton (Willis Van Devanter not yet appointed)
Date of Decision
3 January 1911
Alabama's conviction and sentencing of the plaintiff to hard labor for refusal to perform service and refund advanced money was criminal and incompatible with the Thirteenth Amendment.
- Henderson v. New York, 92 U.S. 547 (1875).
- Clyatt v. United States, 197 U.S. 207 (1905).
- Ex parte Riley, 94 Ala. 82, 10 So. 528 (1907).
- Keller v. United States, 213 U.S. 138 (1909).
Toledo Law Review, Volume 20, summer 1989.
- Carrier, Michael A. "Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Self." Michigan Law Review, May 1995, p. 1894.
- Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York, Oxford University Press, 1992.
- Pope, James Gray. "Labor's Constitution of Freedom." Yale Law Journal, January 1997, p. 941.
- Buchanan v. Warley - Significance, Further Readings
- Anne Bradley Trial: 1907 - A Woman Ahead Of The Times, Brown And Bradley Arrested For Adultery, The Final Showdown
- Bailey v. Alabama - Significance
- Bailey v. Alabama - Minority Opinion
- Bailey v. Alabama - Impact
- Bailey v. Alabama - Involuntary Servitude
- Other Free Encyclopedias