Commonwealth v. Perry
| Decision Date | 02 December 1891 |
| Citation | 155 Mass. 117,28 N.E. 1126 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. PERRY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
A.E. Pillsbury, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
A.J Bartholomew, for defendant.
This is an indictment under the statute of 1891, c. 125, the first section of which is as follows: "No employer shall impose a fine upon or withhold the wages, or any part of the wages, of an employe engaged at weaving, for imperfections that may arise during the process of weaving." Section 2 provides a punishment for a violation of the provisions of the statute by the imposition of a fine of not exceeding $100 for the first offense, and not exceeding $300 for the second or any subsequent offense. The act recognizes the fact that imperfections may arise in weaving cloth, and it is evident that a common cause of such imperfections may be the negligence or want of skill of the weaver. When an employer has contracted with his employe for the exercise of skill and care in tending looms, it forbids the withholding of any part of the contract price for non-performance of the contract and seeks to compel the payment of the same price for work which in quality falls far short of the requirements of the contract as for that which is properly done. It does not purport to preclude the employer from bringing a suit for damages against the employe for a breach of the contract, but he must pay in the first instance the wages to which the employe would have been entitled if he had done such work as the contract called for. It is obvious that a suit for damages against an employe for failure to do good work would be in most cases of no practical value to the employer, and a theoretical remedy of this sort does not justify a requirement that a party to such a contract shall pay the consideration for performance of it when it has not been performed. The defendant contends that the statute is unconstitutional, and it becomes necessary to consider the question thus presented.
The employer is forbidden either to impose a fine or to withhold the wages or any part of them. If the act went no further than to forbid the imposition of a fine by an employer for imperfect work, it might be sustained as within the legislative power conferred by the constitution of this commonwealth, in chapter 1 § 1, art. 4, which authorizes the general court "to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes, and ordinances, directions and instructions, either with penalties or without, so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to this constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of this commonwealth, and for the government and ordering thereof and of the subjects of the same." It might well be held that if the legislature should determine it to be for the best interest of the people that a certain class of employes should not be permitted to subject themselves to an arbitrary imposition of a fine or penalty by their employer, it might pass a law to that effect. But when the attempt is to compel payment under a contract of the price for good work where only inferior work is done, a different question is presented. There are certain fundamental rights of every citizen which are recognized in the organic law of all our free American states. A statute which violates any of these rights is unconstitutional and void, even though the enactment of it is not expressly forbidden. Article 1 of the declaration of rights of the constitution of Massachusetts enumerates, among the natural, inalienable rights of men, the right "of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property." Article 1, § 10, of the constitution of the United States provides, among other things, that no state shall pass "any law impairing the obligation of contracts." The right to acquire, possess, and protect property includes the right to make reasonable contracts, which shall be under the protection of the law. The manufacture of cloth is an important industry, essential to the welfare of the community. There is no reason why men should not be permitted to engage in it. Indeed, the statute before us recognizes it as a legitimate business into which any body may freely enter. The right to employ weavers, and to make proper contracts with them, is therefore protected by our constitution; and a statute which forbids the making of such contracts, or attempts to nullify them or impair the obligation of them, violates fundamental principles of right which are expressly recognized in our constitution. If the statute is held to permit a manufacturer to hire weavers and agree to pay them a certain price per yard for weaving cloth with proper skill and care, it renders the contract of no effect when it requires him, under a penalty, to pay the contract price if the employe does his work negligently, and fails to perform his contract. For it is an essential element of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial