Summary

Robert H. Jackson Pollock v. Williams — Opinion of the Court

We are given no constitutional reason for saying that a state may not punish the fraudulent procurement of an advance of wages as well as the giving of a check drawn on a bank account in which there are no funds, or any other course of conduct which the common law has long recognized, as the procuring of money or property by fraud or deceit. There is of course no constitutional reason why Florida should not punish fraud in labor contracts differently from fraud in other classes of contracts. Legislation need not seek to correct every abuse by a single enactment.
Source: Wikisource

Robert H. Jackson Pollock v. Williams — Opinion of the Court

The undoubted aim of the Thirteenth Amendment as implemented by the Antipeonage Act was not merely to end slavery but to maintain a system of completely free and voluntary labor throughout the United States. Forced labor in some special circumstances may be consistent with the general basic system of free labor. For example, forced labor has been sustained as a means of punishing crime, [27] and there are duties such as work on highways [28] which society may compel. But in general the defense against oppressive hours, pay, working conditions, or treatment is the right to change employers.
Source: Wikisource

Robert H. Jackson Pollock v. Williams — Opinion of the Court

Especially in view of the undenied assertions in Pollock's petition we cannot doubt that the presumption provision had a coercive effect in producing the plea of guilty. The statute laid its undivided weight upon him. The legislature had not even included a separability clause. [22] Of course the function of the prima facie evidence section is to make it possible to convict where proof of guilt is lacking. No one questions that we clearly have held that such a presumption is prohibited by the Constitution and the federal statute.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature