Commonwealth v. Pouliot

• Decision Date: 31 October 1935
• Citation: 198 N.E. 256,292 Mass. 229
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. POULIOT.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

292 Mass. 229

198 N.E. 256

COMMONWEALTH v. POULIOT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

October 31, 1935

Report from Superior Court, Hampden County; Brown, Judge.

Louis Pouliot was convicted of neglecting to provide for support and maintenance of his wife and minor children. On report.

Order in accordance with opinion.

James R. Nolen, of Holyoke, for defendant.

RUGG Chief Justice.

This complaint charges that the defendant at the city of Holyoke on June 12, 1933, and during the preceding three months did unreasonably neglect to provide for the support and maintenance of his wife and six minor children. The defendant waived right to trial by jury. The case was heard before the trial judge upon these agreed facts: The defendant has the physical ability to perform manual labor. He has been unable to find employment and has no income except as aid has been furnished him and his family through the welfare department of the city of Holyoke. The welfare department makes it a condition precedent to furnishing aid to the defendant that he report to and work for the city under the direction of the public works department, but does not contract to furnish such aid merely for work done; it refuses such aid unless other conditions are met by the defendant and in no way agrees to pay the defendant any certain amount of money or to furnish him any definite amount of goods for specified work performed. The city has not contracted and will not contract with the defendant to pay any certain amount or kind of compensation for work done or to be done by him. The public works department keeps a record of the number of hours worked by the defendant and of the number of times the defendant reports or fails to report to the city for work. At present there is no authorized rate with which to credit the number of hours worked by the defendant or any other welfare worker. The defendant refuses to work for the city unless he shall receive a definite and certain compensation for his services. The trial judge found the defendant guilty and imposed sentence, which was stayed pending report to this court at the request of the Commonwealth and the defendant. G. L (Ter. Ed.) c. 278, § 30.

The complaint in the case at bar follows in substance the words of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 273, § 1, whereby any husband or father who unreasonably neglects to provide for the support and maintenance of his wife and minor children is made liable to punishment by fine or imprisonment or both. The validity of the statute is not and could not be successfully assailed. Commonwealth v. Booth, 266 Mass. 80, 165 N.E. 29.

The defendant contends that a finding of guilty compels him to work in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That Amendment provides that ‘ Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.’ It was said in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 332, 333, 36 S.Ct 258, 259, 60 L.Ed. 672:‘ Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term ‘ involuntary servitude’ was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in...