Pollock v. Williams

OCTOBER TERM, 1943.

1943年10月开庭期。

be added on rehearing, we do not know. The Court en- deavors to protect the right of parties to fair hearings, but it will not presume that their rights have been substan-

在再审中是否会增加，我们不得而知。法院努力保护当事人获得公正听证的权利，但不会推定，当当事人未在下级法院把握机会证明其申诉时，其权利已被实质性地剥夺。

tially denied when they do not embrace the opportunity to prove their grievance in the court below.

当当事人未在下级法院把握机会证明其申诉时，其权利已被实质性地剥夺。

It is clear that the Commission on the facts found had power to include in the authorization provision for service greater than the carrier had asked. Section 208 (a) of the Act provides that in any certificate issued under either

显然，委员会根据所认定的事实，有权在授权中规定比承运人申请更多的服务。该法第208条(a)款规定，在根据第206条或第207条签发的任何证书中，

§ 206 or § 207 "there shall, at the time of issuance and from time to time thereafter, be attached to the exercise of the privileges granted by the certificate such reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations as the public conven- ience and necessity may from time to time require, in- cluding terms, conditions, and limitations as to the ex- tension of the route or routes of the carrier." 49 U. S. C. § 308 (a).

§ 206或§ 207“在签发时以及此后不时，应在行使证书所授予的特权时附加公众便利和需要可能不时要求的合理条款、条件和限制，包括关于承运人航线或各航线的延伸的条款、条件和限制。”49 U. S. C. § 308 (a)。

Judgment affirmed.

维持原判。

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS, SHERIFF.

波洛克诉威廉姆斯，治安官。

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS.

波洛克诉威廉姆斯。

Mr. Raymer F. Maguire, with whom Messrs. W. H. Poe and Thomas T. Purdom were on the brief, for appellant.

雷默·F·马奎尔先生代表上诉人，W. H. 波和托马斯·T·珀多姆先生同在其简报上署名。

Mr. John C. Wynn, Assistant Attorney General of Flor- ida, with whom Messrs. J. Tom Watson, Attorney Gen- eral, and Woodrow M. Melvin, Assistant Attorney Gen-

佛罗里达州助理总检察长约翰·C·温先生代表被上诉人，总检察长J·汤姆·沃森和助理总检察长伍德罗·M·梅尔文

eral, were on the brief, for appellee.

先生同在其简报上署名。

Appellant Pollock questions the validity of a statute of the State of Florida making it a misdemeanor to induce advances with intent to defraud by a promise to perform labor and further making failure to perform labor for which money has been obtained prima facie evidence of intent to defraud.' It conflicts, he says, with the Thir- teenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and with the antipeonage statute enacted by Congress thereunder.

上诉人波洛克质疑佛罗里达州一项法律的有效性，该法规定，以提供劳动的承诺诱使他人预付财物并具有欺诈意图的，构成轻罪，并进一步规定，未能履行取得金钱所针对的劳动，应作为欺诈意图的表面证据。¹ 他说，该法与联邦宪法第十三修正案及国会据此制定的反苦役法相冲突。

Claims also are made under the due process and equal

还提出了依据正当程序和平等

1 The Florida statute under which Pollock is held was enacted as Chapter 7917 of the Acts of 1919. It was re-enacted as §§ 817.09 and 817.10, Statutes of 1941, in the revision and compilation of the general

1 Pollock 被依据的佛罗里达州法规是作为 1919 年法案第 7917 章颁布的。该法规在一般法规的修订和汇编中，被重新颁布为 1941 年法规第 817.09 条和第 817.10 条。

statute laws of the State. It reads: "817.09 Obtaining property by fraudulent promise to perform labor or service.-Any person in this state who shall, with intent to injure and defraud, under and by reason of a contract or promise to perform labor or service, procure or obtain money or other thing of value as a credit, or as advances, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon con- viction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding six months.

该法规定： “817.09 以提供劳动或服务的欺诈性承诺取得财物。——本州任何人，以损害和欺诈意图，依据提供劳动或服务的合同或承诺，作为赊账或预付款取得或获得金钱或其他有价物的，构成轻罪，定罪后应处以不超过500美元的罚金，或不超过6个月的监禁。”

"817.10 Same; prima facie evidence of fraudulent intent.-In all prosecutions for a violation of § 817.09 the failure or refusal, without

“817.10 同上；欺诈意图的表面证据。——在所有违反第817.09条的起诉中，无

OCTOBER TERM, 1943.

1943年10月开庭期。

protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment which

保护条款提出的主张，我们

we find it unnecessary to consider.

认为没有必要考虑。

Pollock was arrested January 5, 1943, on a warrant is- sued three days before which charged that on the 17th of October, 1942, he did "with intent to injure and defraud under and by reason of a contract and promise to perform labor and service, procure and obtain money, to-wit: the

波洛克于1943年1月5日根据三天前签发的逮捕令被捕，该逮捕令指控他于1942年10月17日“以损害和欺诈意图，依据提供劳动和服务的合同和承诺，从J. V. 奥阿尔博拉，一家公司，取得和获得金钱，即：

sum of $5.00, as advances from one J. V. O'Albora, a cor- poration, contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State

5.00美元，作为预付款，违反为此类案件制定和规定的法律，并违背佛罗里达州的治安和尊严。”

of Florida." He was taken before the county judge on the same day, entered a plea of guilty, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and in default to serve sixty days in the county jail. He was immediately committed.

他于同日被带至县法官面前，作出认罪答辩，被判处支付100美元罚金，如不支付则须在县监狱服刑60天。他随即被收监。

On January 11, 1943, a writ of habeas corpus was issued by the judge of the circuit court, directed to the jail keeper, who is appellee here. Petition for the writ challenged the

1943年1月11日，巡回法院法官签发人身保护令状，致监狱看守，即本案被上诉人。该令状申请质疑

constitutionality of the statutes under which Pollock was confined and set forth that "at the trial aforesaid, he was not told that he was entitled to counsel, and that counsel would be provided for him if he wished, and he did not know that he had such right. Petitioner was without

据以关押波洛克的法律的合宪性，并陈述称“在上述审判中，他未被告知有权获得律师，也未被告知如愿即可为其提供律师，他并不知道自己享有此种权利。申请人没有

funds and unable to employ counsel. He further avers that he did not understand the nature of the charge against him, but understood that if he owed any money to his prior employer and had quit his employment without paying the same, he was guilty, which facts he admitted." The Sheriff's return makes no denial of these allegations, but merely sets forth that he holds the prisoner by virtue of the commitment "based upon the judgment and conviction as set forth in the petition." The Supreme Court of Florida has said that "undenied allegations of the petition are taken as true." 2

资金且无法聘请律师。他还进一步声称，他不理解针对他的指控的性质，但明白如果他欠前雇主任何钱并且在未支付该款项的情况下辞去工作，他就有罪，而这些事实他均已承认。” 治安官的回复对这些指控未作任何否认，仅载明他依据“基于请愿书中所载判决和定罪”的拘押令拘押该囚犯。 佛罗里达州最高法院曾表示，“请愿书中未获否认的指控应被视为真实。”2

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS.

波洛克诉威廉姆斯。

The Circuit Court held the statutes under which the case was prosecuted to be unconstitutional and discharged the prisoner. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed.' It read our decisions in Bailey v. Alabama 4 and Taylor v.

巡回法院裁定，据以起诉本案的法规违宪，并释放了囚犯。 佛罗里达州最高法院推翻该裁定。' 该法院解读了我们在Bailey v. Alabama 4 和Taylor v. 案中的判决。

Georgia' to hold that similar laws are not in conflict with the Constitution in so far as they denounce the crime, but only in declaring the prima facie evidence rule. It stated that its first impression was that the entire Florida act would fall, as did that of Georgia, but on reflection it con-

佐治亚州⁵案中的判决，认为类似法律在其谴责犯罪方面并不与宪法冲突，而仅在规定表面证据规则方面冲突。它称其最初印象是佛罗里达州整部法律将如佐治亚州法律一样失效，但经考虑后认

cluded that our decisions were called forth by operation of the presumption, and did not condemn the substantive part of the statute where the presumption was not brought

为，我们的判决是因推定的运作而作出的，并未谴责法律中推定未

into play. As the prisoner had pleaded guilty, the Florida court thought the presumption had played no part in this case, and therefore remanded the prisoner to custody. An appeal to this Court was taken and probable jurisdiction noted.'

被适用的实体部分。由于囚犯已认罪，佛罗里达州法院认为推定在本案中未起作用，因此将囚犯还押。向本法院提出上诉，并已记录可能管辖权。⁶

Florida advances no argument that the presumption sec- tion of this statute is constitutional, nor could it plausibly do so in view of our decisions. It contends, however, (1) that we can give no consideration to the presumption sec- tion because it was not in fact brought into play in the case, by reason of the plea of guilty; (2) that so severed the sec- tion denouncing the crime is constitutional.

佛罗里达州未提出该法推定条款合宪的论点，鉴于我们的判决，它也无法合理地这样做。然而，它主张：(1) 由于认罪答辩，推定条款事实上未在本案中适用，因此我们不能考虑该条款；(2) 如此分割后，谴责犯罪的条款是合宪的。

I.

一。

These issues emerge from an historical background against which the Florida legislation in question must be appraised.

这些问题产生于一个历史背景，必须据此评估所涉佛罗里达州立法。

The Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitu- tion, made in 1865, declares that involuntary servitude

1865年制定的联邦宪法第十三修正案宣布，非自愿奴役

shall not exist within the United States and gives Congress power to enforce the article by appropriate legislation.

不得在美国境内存在，并赋予国会以适当立法执行该条文的权力。

Congress on March 2, 1867, enacted that all laws or usages of any state "by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, di- rectly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt

国会于1867年3月2日规定，任何州的全部法律或惯例，“据此今后任何试图直接或间接确立、维持或强制执行任何人作为苦役，以清偿任何债务

or obligation, or otherwise," are null and void, and de- nounced it as a crime to hold, arrest, or return a person to

或义务或其他方式的自愿或非自愿服务或劳动的行为，”均无效，并宣布将他人置于、逮捕或送回

the condition of peonage.' Congress thus raised both a shield and a sword against forced labor because of debt.

苦役状态为犯罪。⁸ 国会因此针对因债务而强迫劳动既举起了盾牌，也举起了剑。

Clyatt v. United States was a case from Florida in which the Federal Act was used as a sword and an employer

克莱亚特诉美国案是一起来自佛罗里达州的案件，其中联邦法被用作剑，一名雇主

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS.

波洛克诉威廉姆斯。

convicted under it. This Court sustained it as constitu- tional and said of peonage: "It may be defined as a status or condition of compulsory service, based upon the in- debtedness of the peon to the master. The basal fact is indebtedness. . . . Peonage is sometimes classified as voluntary or involuntary, but this implies simply a dif- ference in the mode of origin, but none in the character of the servitude. The one exists where the debtor volun- tarily contracts to enter the service of his creditor. The other is forced upon the debtor by some provision of law. . . A clear distinction exists between peonage and the voluntary performance of labor or rendering of services in payment of a debt. In the latter case the debtor, though

据此被定罪。本院维持其合宪性，并就劳役偿债制指出：“它可以被界定为一种强制服务的身份或状态，其基础是劳役者欠主人的债务。基本事实是债务。……劳役偿债制有时被归类为自愿或非自愿，但这仅意味着起源方式上的差异，而非奴役性质上的任何差异。前者存在于债务人自愿订约进入其债权人服务的情形。后者则是通过法律的某种规定强加于债务人的。……劳役偿债制与自愿履行劳动或提供服务以清偿债务之间存在明确区别。在后一种情形中，债务人虽然

contracting to pay his indebtedness by labor or service, and subject like any other contractor to an action for dam- ages for breach of that contract, can elect at any time to break it, and no law or force compels performance or a continuance of the service." I

订约以劳动或服务清偿其债务，并像任何其他订约人一样因违反该合同而面临损害赔偿之诉，但可以随时选择违约，且没有任何法律或强制力强迫其履行或继续服务。”I

Then came the twice-considered case of Bailey v. Ala- bama, 10 in which the Act and the Constitution were raised as a shield against conviction of a laborer under an Ala- bama act substantially the same as the one before us now.

随后是经过两次审理的Bailey v. Alabama案，10在该案中，《法案》和《宪法》被援引为盾牌，以对抗依据一项与现在摆在我们面前的阿拉巴马州法实质相同的阿拉巴马州法对一名劳工的定罪。

Bailey, a Negro, had obtained $15 from a corporation on a written agreement to work for a year at $12 per month, $10.75 to be paid him and $1.25 per month to apply on his debt. In about a month he quit. He was convicted, fined $30, or in default sentenced to hard labor for 20 days in lieu of the fine and 116 days on account of costs. The Court considered that the portion of the state law defining the crime would require proof of intent to defraud, and so

Bailey是一名黑人，他根据一份书面协议从一家公司获得15美元，约定以每月12美元的报酬工作一年，其中10.75美元支付给他，每月1.25美元用于偿还其债务。大约一个月后他停工。他被定罪，罚款30美元，若无力缴纳则替代罚款处20天苦役，并因诉讼费用处116天。法院认为，州法律中界定该罪行的部分将要求证明欺诈意图，因此

did not strike down that part; nor was it expressly sus- tained, nor was it necessarily reached, for the prima facie evidence provision had been used to obtain a conviction.

并未推翻该部分；该部分也未被明确维持，也并非必然触及，因为表面证据规定已被用于获得定罪。

OCTOBER TERM, 1943.

1943年10月开庭期。

This Court held the presumption, in such a context, to be unconstitutional.

本院认为，在此类语境下，该推定违宪。

Reynolds and Broughton were indicted under it. The Alabama Code authorized one under some circumstances

Reynolds和Broughton依据该法被起诉。 阿拉巴马州法典授权某人在某些情况下

to become surety for a convict, pay his fine, and be reim- bursed by labor. Reynolds and Broughton each got him-

为一名罪犯作担保、缴纳其罚款，并通过劳动获得补偿。Reynolds和Broughton各自找了一名罪犯

self a convict to work out fines and costs as a farm hand at $6.00 per month. After a time each convict refused to labor further and, under the statute, each was convicted for the refusal. This Court said, "Thus, under pain of recurring prosecutions, the convict may be kept at labor, to satisfy the demands of his employer." It held the Ala- bama statute unconstitutional and employers under it subject to prosecution.

作为农场帮工以每月6.00美元的报酬劳动抵偿罚款和费用。一段时间后，每名罪犯均拒绝继续劳动，且根据该法规，每人均因拒绝而被定罪。本院表示：“因此，在反复被起诉的痛苦之下，罪犯可能被保持在劳动状态，以满足其雇主的 demands。”本院认定阿拉巴马州法规违宪，且依据该法规的雇主可被起诉。

In Taylor v. Georgia 12 the Federal Act was again ap- plied as a shield, against conviction by resort to the pre- sumption, of a Negro laborer, under a Georgia statute in effect like the one before us now. We made no effort to separate valid from invalid elements in the statute, al- though the substantive and procedural provisions were, as here, in separate, and separately numbered, sections. We said, "We think that the sections of the Georgia Code upon which this conviction rests are repugnant to the Thirteenth Amendment and to the Act of 1867, and that the conviction must therefore be reversed." Only re- cently in a case from Northern Florida a creditor-employer was indicted under the Federal Act for arresting a debtor to peonage, and we sustained the indictment. United States v. Gaskin. 3

在Taylor v. Georgia案12中，《联邦法案》再次被用作盾牌，以对抗通过推定对一名黑人劳工依据一项与现在摆在我们面前的法规效力相似的佐治亚州法规所作的定罪。我们并未努力区分该法规中的有效要素与无效要素，尽管实体性规定与程序性规定如同本案一样，分别载于独立且分别编号的条款中。我们表示：“我们认为，本次定罪所依据的《佐治亚州法典》各条款与《第十三修正案》及1867年《法案》相抵触，因此该定罪必须被撤销。”就在最近，在来自北佛罗里达的一起案件中，一名债权人兼雇主依据《联邦法案》因逮捕一名债务人以实施劳役偿债而被起诉，我们维持了该起诉。United States v. Gaskin。3

These cases decided by this Court under the Act of 1867 came either from Florida or one of the adjoining states.

本院依据1867年《法案》裁决的这些案件，或来自佛罗里达，或来自一个毗邻州。

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS.

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS。

And these were but a part of the stir caused by the Federal Antipeonage Act and its enforcement in this same region. 14

而这些只是《联邦反劳役偿债法》及其在同一地区执行所引起的骚动的一部分。14

This is not to intimate that this section, more than others, was sympathetic with peonage, for this evil has never had general approval anywhere, and its sporadic appearances have been neither sectional nor racial. It is mentioned, however, to indicate that the Legislature of Florida acted with almost certain knowledge in designing its successive

这并非暗示该条款比其他条款更同情劳役偿债制，因为这一恶行在任何地方从未获得普遍认可，其零星出现既非地区性的，也非种族性的。然而，提及这一点是为了表明，佛罗里达州立法机关在设计其历次

"labor fraud" acts in relation to our series of peonage deci- sions. The present Act is the latest of a lineage, in which its antecedents were obviously associated with the practice of peonage. This history throws some light on whether the present state act is one "by virtue of which any at- tempt shall hereafter be made" to "enforce involuntary servitude," in which event the Federal Act declares it void.

“劳动欺诈”法时，几乎确定知晓本院一系列劳役偿债判决。现行《法案》是一脉相承的最新产物，其前身显然与劳役偿债制的做法相关联。这段历史在一定程度上说明了现行州法是否属于“今后将据以作出任何尝试”以“实施非自愿奴役”的法律，若属此类，《联邦法案》即宣告其无效。

In 1891, the Legislature created an offense of two ele- ments: obtaining money or property upon a false promise

1891年，立法机关创设了一项包含两个要素的罪行：以虚假承诺获取金钱或财产

to perform service, and abandonment of service without just cause and without restitution of what had been ob-

以提供服务，以及无正当理由且未归还所获财物而放弃服务。'

tained.' In 1905, this Court decided Clyatt v. United States, indicating that any person, including public officers,

1905年，本院裁决Clyatt v. United States案，指出任何人，包括公职人员，

14 See Peonage Cases, 123 F. 671; United States v. Eberhart, 127 F.

14 见Peonage Cases, 123 F. 671; United States v. Eberhart, 127 F.

252; United States v. McClellan, 127 F. 971; In re Peonage Charge,

252; United States v. McClellan, 127 F. 971; In re Peonage Charge,

16 "Any person in the State of Florida, who by false promises and with the intent to injure or defraud, obtains from another, any money or personal property, or any person who has entered into a writ- ten contract, with, at the time, the intent to defraud, to do or to perform any act or service, and in consideration thereof, obtains from the hirer, money or other personal property, and who abandons the service of said hirer without just cause, without first re-paying such money or paying for such personal property, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not less than five nor more than five hundred dollars, or by im-

16 “佛罗里达州任何人，通过虚假承诺并意图伤害或欺诈，从他人处获得任何金钱或个人财产，或任何人已订立书面合同，在订立时即意图欺诈，以从事或履行任何行为或服务，并作为对价从雇用人处获得金钱或其他个人财产，且无正当理由放弃该雇用人的服务，而未首先偿还该金钱或支付该个人财产，应被视为犯有轻罪，经定罪后，应处以不少于5美元且不超过500美元的罚款，或处

12 OCTOBER TERM, 1943.

12 1943年10月开庭期。

even if acting under state law, might be guilty of violating the Federal Act. In 1907, the Florida Legislature enacted a new statute, nearly identical in terms with that of Ala- bama." 6 In 1911, in Bailey v. Alabama, this Court held such an act unconstitutional. In 1913, the Florida Legis- lature repealed the 1907 act, but re-enacted in substance the section denouncing the crime, omitting the presump- tion of intent from the failure to perform the service or make restitution. 7 In 1919, the Florida Supreme Court

即使依据州法行事，也可能犯有违反《联邦法案》之罪。1907年，佛罗里达州立法机关颁布了一项新法规，其条款与阿拉巴马州法规几乎相同。”6 1911年，在Bailey v. Alabama案中，本院认定此类法案违宪。1913年，佛罗里达州立法机关废除了1907年法案，但实质上重新颁布了规定该罪行的条款，删除了从未能履行服务或作出归还中推定意图的规定。7 1919年，佛罗里达州最高法院

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS.

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS。

held this act, standing alone, void under the authority of Bailey v. Alabama. 8 Whereupon, at the session of 1919, the present statute was enacted, including the prima facie evidence provisions, notwithstanding these decisions by the Supreme Court of Florida and by this Court. The Supreme Court of Florida later upheld a conviction under this statute on a plea of guilty, but declined to pass on the presumption section, because, as in the present case, the plea of guilty was thought to make its consideration unnecessary. 9 The statute was re-enacted without sub- stantial change in 1941. Again in 1943 it was re-enacted

认定该法案单独依据Bailey v. Alabama案8的权威即属无效。于是，在1919年会期，现行法规被颁布，其中包括表面证据规定，尽管佛罗里达州最高法院和本院已有这些判决。佛罗里达州最高法院后来维持了依据该法规在认罪答辩下作出的定罪，但拒绝就推定条款作出裁定，因为如同本案一样，认罪答辩被认为使其审议成为不必要。9 该法规于1941年在无实质变化的情况下被重新颁布。1943年它再次被重新颁布

despite the fact that the year before we held a very similar Georgia statute unconstitutional in its entirety. 0

尽管前一年我们认定一项非常相似的佐治亚州法规整体违宪。0

The State contends that we must exclude the prima facie evidence provision from consideration because in fact it played no part in producing this conviction. Such was the holding of the State Supreme Court. We are not concluded by that holding, however, but under the circumstances are authorized to make an independent determination.

州方主张，我们必须将表面证据规定排除在审议之外，因为事实上它在本定罪的产生中未起任何作用。州最高法院即持此认定。然而，我们不受该认定的约束，而是在此情形下有权作出独立判断。

OCTOBER TERM, 1943.

1943年10月开庭期。

What the prisoner actually did that constituted the crime cannot be gleaned from the record. The charge is cast in the words of the statute and is largely a conclusion. It affords no information except that Pollock obtained $5 from a corporation in connection with a promise to work which he failed to perform, and that his doing so was

囚犯实际实施了何种构成犯罪的行为，无法从记录中查明。指控是以法条的文字表述的，很大程度上是一个结论。它除了表明Pollock从一家公司获得了5美元，与其承诺工作但他未能履行有关，以及他的这一行为是

fraudulent. If the conclusion that the prisoner acted with intent to defraud rests on facts and not on the prima facie evidence provisions of the statute, none are stated in the warrant or appear in the record. None were so set forth that he could deny them. He obtained the money on the 14th of October, 1942, and the warrant was not sought until January 2, 1943. Whether the original ad- vancement was more or less than $5, what he represented or promised in obtaining it, whether he worked a time and quit, or whether he never began work at all are undis- closed. About all that appears is that he obtained an advancement of $5 from a corporation and failed to keep his agreement to work it out. He admitted those facts and the law purported to supply the element of intent. He admitted the conclusion of guilt which the statute

欺诈性的之外，没有提供任何信息。如果关于囚犯具有欺诈意图的结论建立在事实而非法条的表面证据规定之上，那么逮捕令中并未陈述任何此类事实，记录中也没有出现。没有任何此类事实被如此列明，以致他能够否认它们。他于1942年10月14日获得该款项，而逮捕令直到1943年1月2日才被申请。最初的预付款是否多于或少于5美元，他在获得该款项时陈述或承诺了什么，他是否工作了一段时间后辞职，还是他根本没有开始工作，均未披露。大致上出现的情况只是他从一家公司获得了5美元的预付款，却未能履行其工作抵偿的协议。他承认了这些事实，而法律意图提供意图这一要件。他承认了法条所规定的有罪结论，该法条

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS.

POLLOCK 诉 WILLIAMS。

made prima facie thereon. He was fined $20 for each dollar of his debt, and in default of payment was required to atone for it by serving time at the rate of less than 90 per day. Especially in view of the undenied assertions in Pollock's

据此构成表面证据。他因其债务的每一美元被罚款20美元，若不缴纳罚款，则须以每天不足90美分的折算率服刑抵偿。 尤其鉴于Pollock

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 legis- lature 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 lack- ing. No one questions that we clearly have held that

请愿书中未被否认的主张，我们无法怀疑该推定条款在促成认罪答辩方面具有强制效果。该法条将其全部重量加诸于他。立法机关甚至没有加入可分性条款。22 当然，表面证据条款的功能是使在缺乏有罪证明时定罪成为可能。无人质疑我们已明确裁定

such a presumption is prohibited by the Constitution and the federal statute. The Florida Legislature has enacted

此种推定为宪法和联邦法律所禁止。佛罗里达州立法机关在我们如此裁定之后，已制定

and twice re-enacted it since we so held. We cannot as- sume it was doing an idle thing. Since the presumption was known to be unconstitutional and of no use in a con- tested case, the only explanation we can find for its per- sistent appearance in the statute is its extra-legal coercive

并两次重新制定该条款。我们不能假定它在做无用之事。既然该推定已知违宪且在争议案件中毫无用处，我们所能找到的它在法条中持续出现的唯一解释，是其压制抗辩的法外强制

effect in suppressing defenses. It confronted this de- fendant. There was every probability that a law so re- cently and repeatedly enacted by the legislature would be followed by the trial court, whose judge was not required to be a lawyer. The possibility of obtaining relief by appeal was not bright, as the event proved, for Pollock had to come all the way to this Court and was required,

效果。它摆在本被告面前。立法机关如此近期且反复制定的法律，极有可能被初审法院遵循，而该法院的法官并不要求是律师。通过上诉获得救济的可能性并不大，正如结果所证明的那样，因为Pollock不得不一路来到本法院，并被要求

and quite regularly, to post a supersedeas bond of $500, a hundred times the amount of his debt. He was an il- literate Negro laborer in the toils of the law for the want of $5. Such considerations bear importantly on the de- cision of a prisoner even if aided by counsel, as Pollock was not, whether to plead guilty and hope for leniency or to fight. It is plain that, had his plight after conviction

且相当经常地提交500美元的暂缓执行保证金，这是他债务金额的一百倍。他是一个因缺5美元而陷入法律罗网的不识字黑人劳工。此类考量对囚犯决定是认罪以求宽大还是抗争具有重要影响，即使有律师协助也是如此，而Pollock并没有律师。显然，如果他在定罪后的困境

16 OCTOBER TERM, 1943.

16 1943年10月开庭期。

not aroused outside help, Pollock himself would have been unheard in any appellate court.

未引起外界帮助，Pollock本人在任何上诉法院都将无人听取。

In the light of its history, there is no reason'to believe that the law was generally used or especially useful merely to punish deceit. Florida has a general and comprehen- sive statute making it a crime to obtain money or property by false pretenses 23 or commit "gross fraud or cheat at common law." 24 These appear to authorize prosecution for even the petty amount involved here. 5 We can con- ceive reasons, even if unconstitutional ones, which might lead well-intentioned persons to apply this Act as a means to make otherwise shiftless men work," but if in addition to this general fraud protection employers as a class are so susceptible to imposition that they need extra legislation, or workmen so crafty and subtle as to constitute a special menace, we do not know it, nor are we advised of such facts.

鉴于其历史，没有理由相信该法律被普遍使用或特别有用，仅仅是为了惩罚欺诈。佛罗里达州有一项一般且全面的法条，将以虚假借口获取金钱或财产23或实施“普通法上的严重欺诈或欺骗”24定为犯罪。这些似乎授权对甚至本案所涉的微小金额提起诉讼。5 我们可以设想出一些理由，即使是不符合宪法的理由，可能促使善意之人将该法作为使原本游手好闲的人工作的一种手段，25但除此之外，如果作为一类人的雇主如此易受欺诈以致需要额外立法，或者工人如此狡猾和精细以致构成特殊威胁，我们并不知道这一点，也未被告知此类事实。

We think that a state which maintains such a law in face of the court decisions we have recited may not be heard to say that a plea of guilty under the circumstances is not due to pressure of its statutory threat to convict him on the presumption.

我们认为，一个在我们所列举的法院判决面前仍维持此类法律的州，不能被听取声称在此情况下认罪答辩并非由于该州以推定定罪这一法定威胁的压力所致。

As we have seen, Florida persisted in putting upon its statute books a provision creating a presumption of fraud

正如我们所见，佛罗里达州坚持在其法典中列入一项创设欺诈推定的条款

judges required to be lawyers and where presumably defendant's rights are more accurately observed. See Florida Constitution, Art. V, §§ 3, 17; Florida Statutes (1941) §§ 32.05, 33.03, 36.01. 2 8Dr. Albert Bushnell Hart in The Southern South, after reviewing and unsparingly condemning evidences of peonage in some regions, says, "Much of the peonage is simply a desperate attempt to make men earn their living. The trouble is that nobody is wise enough to invent a method of compelling specific performance of a labor con- tract which shall not carry with it the principle of bondage." P. 287.

要求法官必须是律师，并且据推测被告的权利 得到更准确的遵守。 见《佛罗里达宪法》第V编第3条、 第17条；《佛罗里达法规》（1941年）第32.05条、第33.03条、第36.01条。 2 8Albert Bushnell Hart博士在《南方之南》一书中，在审视并毫不留情地谴责某些地区债役的证据后 说：“许多债役不过是一种绝望的尝试，迫使人们谋生。问题在于，没有人足够明智，能够 发明一种强制具体履行劳动 合同的方法，而该方法不附带奴役原则。”第287页。

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS.

POLLOCK 诉 WILLIAMS。

from the mere nonperformance of a contract for labor serv- ice three times after the courts ruled that such a provision violates the prohibition against peonage. To attach no meaning to such action, to say that legally speaking there was no such legislation, is to be blind to fact. Since the Florida Legislature deemed these repeated enactments to be important, we take the Legislature at its own word. Such a provision is on the statute books for those who are arrested for the crime, and it is on the statute books for us in considering the practical meaning of what Florida has done.

该推定仅从劳动服务合同的不履行中产生，这是在法院裁定此类条款违反禁止债役规定之后第三次如此。对这种行为不赋予任何意义，说从法律上讲不存在此类立法，就是无视事实。既然佛罗里达州立法机关认为这些反复制定的条款重要，我们就以立法机关自己的话为准。此类条款存在于法典中，针对那些因该罪被捕的人，也存在于法典中，供我们在考虑佛罗里达州所做之事的实际意义时使用。

In the view we take of the purpose and effect of this prima facie evidence provision it is not material whether as matter of state law it is regarded as an independent and severable provision.

根据我们对这一表面证据条款的目的和效果的看法，它作为州法事项是否被视为独立且可分的条款并不重要。

III.

III.

We are induced by the evident misunderstanding of our decisions by the Florida Supreme Court, in what we are convinced was a conscientious and painstaking study of

佛罗里达州最高法院对我们的判决存在明显误解，而我们确信这是对该等判决进行认真勤勉研究的结果，这促使我们更明确地阐明此类法条违宪的

them, to make more explicit the basis of constitutional invalidity of this type of statute.

依据。

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 con-

第十三修正案经《反债役法》实施后的无疑目标，不仅是结束奴隶制，而且是在全美国维持一个完全自由和自愿的劳动制度。在某些特殊情况下，强制劳动可能

sistent with the general basic system of free labor. For example, forced labor has been sustained as a means of punishing crime, 7 and there are duties such as work on

与自由劳动的一般基本制度相一致。例如，强制劳动已被维持作为惩罚犯罪的一种手段，7并且存在诸如在

OCTOBER TERM, 1943.

1943年10月开庭期。

highways 28 which society may compel. But in general the defense against oppressive hours, pay, working con- ditions, or treatment is the right to change employers. When the master can compel and the laborer cannot es- cape the obligation to go on, there is no power below to redress and no incentive above to relieve a harsh over- lordship or unwholesome conditions of work. Resulting depression of working conditions and living standards af- fects not only the laborer under the system, but every other with whom his labor comes in competition. What- ever of social value there may be, and of course it is great, in enforcing contracts and collection of debts, Congress has put it beyond debate that no indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free from compulsory service. This congressional policy means that no state can make the quitting of work any component of a crime, or make criminal sanctions available for holding unwilling persons to labor. The federal statutory test is a practical inquiry into the utilization of an act as well as its mere form and

公路28上工作等社会可以强制履行的义务。但一般而言，对抗压迫性工时、报酬、工作条件或待遇的防御手段是更换雇主的权利。当雇主能够强制而劳动者无法逃避继续履行的义务时，下面没有权力纠正，上面没有动力缓解严酷的霸主统治或不健康的工作条件。由此产生的工作条件和生活水平下降，不仅影响该制度下的劳动者，而且影响其劳动与之竞争的所有其他人。无论强制执行合同和收取债务可能具有何种社会价值——当然这种价值是巨大的——国会已使以下一点无可争议：任何债务都不构成中止免于强制服务权利的正当理由。这一国会政策意味着，任何州都不能将辞去工作作为犯罪的任何组成部分，也不能使刑事制裁可用于将不情愿的人扣留于劳动之中。联邦法条的检验标准是对某一行为之利用以及其单纯形式和

terms.

措辞进行实际调查。

Where peonage has existed in the United States it has done so chiefly by virtue of laws like the statute in ques- tion. Whether the statute did or did not include the presumption seems to have made little difference in its practical effect. In 1910, in response to a resolution of the House of Representatives, the Immigration Commis- sion reported the results of an investigation of peonage among immigrants in the United States. 29 It found that no general system of peonage existed, and that sentiment did not support it anywhere. On the other hand, it found sporadic cases of probable peonage in every state in the Union except Oklahoma and Connecticut. It pointed out that "there has probably existed in Maine the most com-

在美国，债役存在的地方，主要正是凭借像本案所涉法条这样的法律而存在。该法条是否包含该推定，对其实际效果似乎影响甚微。1910年，应众议院一项决议，移民委员会报告了对美国境内移民中债役的调查结果。29 它发现不存在普遍的债役制度，且任何地方的情绪都不支持它。另一方面，它发现在除俄克拉荷马和康涅狄格以外的每个州都存在零星的 probable 债役案件。它指出，“缅因州可能存在最

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS. 19

波洛克诉威廉姆斯案。 19

plete system of peonage in the entire country," in the lumber camps. 8 " In 1907, Maine enacted a statute, ap- plicable only to lumber operations but in its terms very like the section of the Florida statute we are asked to sep-

在全国范围内完整的劳役偿债制度”，在伐木营地。8” 1907年，缅因州颁布了一项法规，仅适用于伐木作业，但其条款与我们被要求分离的佛罗里达州法规的该节非常相似——

enter into an agreement to labor for any lumbering operation or in driving logs and in consideration thereof receive any advances of goods, money, or transportation, and unreasonably and with intent to defraud, fail to enter into said employment as agreed and labor a sufficient length of time to reimburse his employer for said advances and expenses. Judges in municipal courts and trial justices were given jurisdiction to

为任何伐木作业或赶运原木而订立劳动协议，并因此接受任何货物、金钱或运输的预付款，而无理且意图欺诈地未能按约定从事所述雇佣并劳动足够长的时间以偿还其雇主的所述预付款和费用。 市法院法官和审判治安法官被赋予审理

20 OCTOBER TERM, 1943.

20 1943年10月开庭期。

arate and save. The law was enforcible in local courts not of record. The Commission pointed out that the Maine statute, unlike that of Minnesota 8 and the stat-

分离并保留。该法律在非记录地方法院可执行。委员会指出，缅因州法规与明尼苏达州8及其他西部和南部各州

utes of other states in the West and South, did not contain a prima facie evidence provision. But as a practical mat- ter the statute led to the same result. 82

的法规不同，不包含表面证据条款。但作为实际问题，该法规导致了相同的结果。82

32 "There is no provision in the Maine statute that- the failure or refusal of any employee to perform such labor or render such services in accordance with his contract or to pay in money the amount for such transportation or such advancement shall be prima facie evidence of his intent to defraud; as appears in the contract-labor law of Minnesota and in the stat- utes of other States in the West and the South. However, justices of the peace in Maine have decided indiscriminately that, in order to obtain a conviction under the law of that State, it is necessary to show only that the laborer obtained the 'advances' and failed 'to labor a sufficient length of time to reimburse his employer.'

32 “缅因州法规中没有规定，任何雇员未能或拒绝按照其合同从事此类劳动或提供此类服务，或未能以金钱支付此类运输或此类预付款的金额，应作为其欺诈意图的表面证据； 而明尼苏达州的合同劳动法以及西部和南部其他州的法规中有此规定。然而，缅因州的治安法官不加区分地裁定，要根据该州法律获得定罪，只需证明劳工获得了‘预付款’并且未能‘劳动足够长的时间以偿还其雇主’。

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS. 21

波洛克诉威廉姆斯案。 21

The fraud which such statutes purport to penalize is not the concealment or misrepresentation of existing facts, such as financial condition, ownership of assets, or data relevant to credit. They either penalize promis- sory representations which relate to future action and

此类法规意图惩罚的欺诈，不是对现有事实的隐瞒或虚假陈述，例如财务状况、资产所有权或与信用相关的数据。它们要么惩罚与未来行动和

conduct or they penalize a misrepresentation of the present intent or state of mind of the laborer." 3 In these "a hair perhaps divides the false and true." Of course there might be provable fraud even in such matters. One might engage for the same period to several employers, collecting an advance from each, or he might work the same trick of hiring out and collecting in advance again and again, or otherwise provide proof that fraud was his

行为，或者他们惩罚对劳动者当前意图或心理状态的虚假陈述。”3 在这些情形中，“真假之间或许只差一根头发。” 当然，在此类事项中也可能存在可证明的欺诈。一个人可能与多个雇主就同一期间订立合同，从每一方收取预付款，或者他可能反复玩弄同样的伎俩，受雇并再次收取预付款，或者以其他方式提供证据证明欺诈是他的

OCTOBER TERM, 1943.

1943年10月开庭期。

design and purpose. But in not one of the cases to come before this Court under the antipeonage statute has there

设计和目的。但在提交本法院的根据反劳役偿债法规审理的案件中，没有一件

been evidence of such subtlety or design. In each there was the same story, a necessitous and illiterate laborer, an agreement to work for a small wage, a trifling advance, a breach of contract to work. In not one has there been

有这种微妙或设计的证据。每件案件中都有相同的故事：一个贫困且不识字的劳工，一份以微薄工资工作的协议，一笔微不足道的预付款，一次违反工作合同。没有一件案件

proof from which we fairly could say whether the Negro never intended to work out the advance, or quit because of some real or fancied grievance, or just got tired. If such statutes have ever on even one occasion been put to a worthier use in the records of any state court, it has not been called to our attention. If this is the visible record, it is hardly to be assumed that the off-the-record uses are more benign.

中有证据使我们能够公正地说，该黑人从未打算通过工作偿还预付款，还是因某种真实或想象的不满而退出，或者只是厌倦了。如果此类法规在任何州法院的记录中哪怕有一次被用于更有价值的用途，也没有人提请我们注意。如果这是可见的记录，就很难假定记录之外的用途更为良性。

It is a mistake to believe that in dealing with statutes of this type we have held the presumption section to be the only source of invalidity. On the contrary, the substan- tive section has contributed largely to the conclusion of un- constitutionality of the presumption section. The latter in a different context might not be invalid. Indeed, we have sustained the power of the state to enact an almost identical presumption of fraud, but in transactions that

认为在处理此类法规时我们仅将推定条款视为无效的唯一来源，这是错误的。相反，实体条款在很大程度上促成了推定条款违宪的结论。后者在不同的背景下可能并非无效。事实上，我们维持了州制定几乎相同的欺诈推定的权力，但前提是交易

did not involve involuntary labor to discharge a debt. James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Co. v. Harry." 4 Absent this feature any objection to prima facie evidence or pre- sumption statutes of the state can arise only under the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than under the Thirteenth. In deciding peonage cases under the latter this Court has been as careful to point out the broad power of the state to

不涉及为清偿债务而进行的非自愿劳动。 James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Co. v. Harry。” 4 缺乏 这一特征，对州表面证据或推定 法规的任何异议只能依据 第十四修正案提出，而非依据第十三修正案。 在依据后者裁决劳役抵债案件时，本法院一直 同样谨慎地指出，州拥有广泛权力

create presumptions as it has to point out its power to punish frauds. It "has frequently recognized the general power of every legislature to prescribe the evidence which shall be received, and the effect of that evidence in the

权力时，已颁布了许多法规，规定证明某一事实应成为争议主要事实的表面证据；如果推论并非纯粹武断，且两个事实之间存在合理关系，并且被告未被剥夺提交所有与争议相关事实的适当机会，则

courts of its own government. In the exercise of this

已裁定此类法规不违反正当法律程序的要求。” 贝利诉阿拉巴马州案。5 但法院补充说，“州不得以这种方式干涉联邦宪法从其权力中撤回的事项——

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS.

波洛克诉威廉姆斯案。

power numerous statutes have been enacted providing that proof of one fact shall be prima facie evidence of the main

权力时，已颁布了许多法规，规定证明某一事实应成为争议主要事实的表面证据；如果推论并非纯粹武断，且两个事实之间存在合理关系，并且被告未被剥夺提交所有与争议相关事实的适当机会，则

fact in issue; and where the inference is not purely arbi- trary and there is a rational relation between the two facts, and the accused is not deprived of a proper opportunity to submit all the facts bearing upon the issue, it has been held

已裁定此类法规不违反正当法律程序的要求。” 贝利诉阿拉巴马州案。5 但法院补充说，“州不得以这种方式干涉联邦宪法从其权力中撤回的事项——

that such statutes do not violate the requirements of due process of law." Bailey v. Alabama. 5 But the Court added that "the State may not in this way interfere with matters withdrawn from its authority by the Federal Con-

已裁定此类法规不违反正当法律程序的要求。” 贝利诉阿拉巴马州案。5 但法院补充说，“州不得以这种方式干涉联邦宪法从其权力中撤回的事项——

stitution or subject an accused to conviction for conduct which it is powerless to proscribe." 1 And it proceeded to hold that the presumption, when coupled with the other section, transgressed those limits, for while it appeared to punish fraud the inevitable effect of the law was to punish failure to perform labor contracts.

stitution or subject an accused to conviction for conduct which it is powerless to proscribe." 1 并且它接着认定，该推定与另一条款相结合时逾越了那些界限，因为尽管它表面上惩罚欺诈，但该法律的必然效果是惩罚不履行劳动合同。

In Taylor v. Georgia both sections of the Act were held unconstitutional. There the State relied on the presump- tion to convict. But it was not denied that a state has power reasonably to prescribe the prima facie inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence. It was the sub- stance of the crime to establish which the presumption was invoked that gave a forbidden aspect to that method of short-cutting the road to conviction. The decision strik- ing down both sections was not, as the Supreme Court of Florida thought, a casual and unconsidered use of the plural. Mr. Justice Byrnes knew whereof he spoke; un-

在Taylor v. Georgia案中，该法的两个条款均被认定违宪。 在该案中，州方依赖该推定来定罪。但无人否认州有权合理规定从间接证据中得出的初步推定的效力。 正是该推定所援引来确立的犯罪实质，使这种缩短通往定罪之路的方法带有了被禁止的性质。 推翻两个条款的判决并非如佛罗里达州最高法院所认为的那样，是对复数形式的随意和未经考虑的运用。Byrnes大法官知道他所言何指；违

constitutionality inhered in the substantive quite as much as in the procedural section and no part of the invalid stat-

宪性同样存在于实体条款之中，正如存在于程序条款之中一样，且无效法规的任何部分

ute could be separated to be salvaged. Where in the same substantive context the State threatens by statute to convict on a presumption, its inherent coercive power is such that we are constrained to hold that it is equally use-

均不能被分离出来加以挽救。 在同一实体语境中，州通过法规威胁依据推定定罪时，其固有的强制力如此之大，以至于我们不得不认定，它在试图强制执行以清偿债务为目的的非自愿劳役时同样有

OCTOBER TERM, 1943.

1943年10月开庭期。

ful in attempts to enforce involuntary service in discharge of a debt, and the whole is invalid.

效，且整体无效。

It is true that in each opinion dealing with statutes of this type this Court has expressly recognized the right of the state to punish fraud, even in matters of this kind, by statutes which do not either in form or in operation lend themselves to sheltering the practice of peonage. Deceit is not put beyond the power of the state because the cheat is a laborer nor because the device for swindling is an agree- ment to labor. But when the state undertakes to deal with

诚然，在每一份涉及此类法规的意见中，本法院都明确承认州有权惩罚欺诈，即使在此类事项中也是如此，只要所依据的法规在形式或运作上均不致使自身成为庇护债役做法的工具。欺诈并不因行骗者是劳工或行骗手段是劳动协议而超出州的权力范围。但当州着手处理

this specialized form of fraud, it must respect the constitu- tional and statutory command that it may not make fail- ure to labor in discharge of a debt any part of a crime. It may not directly or indirectly command involuntary ser- vitude, even if it was voluntarily contracted for.

这种特殊形式的欺诈时，它必须遵守宪法和法规的指令，即不得将不履行债务劳役作为任何犯罪的一部分。 它不得直接或间接命令非自愿劳役，即使该劳役是自愿订立的。

From what we have said about the practical considera- tions which are relevant to the inquiry whether any partic- ular state act conflicts with the Antipeonage Act of 1867 because it is one by which "any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain or enforce" the prohibited ser- vitude, it is apparent that we should not pass on hypotheti- cal acts. Reservation of the question of the validity of an act unassociated with a presumption now, as heretofore,

根据我们上述关于实际考量的论述——这些考量与任何特定州法是否因属于"今后任何试图建立、维持或强制执行"被禁止劳役的法律而与1867年《反债役法》相冲突这一调查相关——显而易见，我们不应就假设性的法律作出裁决。对与推定无关的法律效力的保留，现在如同以往一样，

does not denote approval. The Supreme Court of Florida has held such an act standing alone unconstitutional. 7 A considerable recorded experience would merit examination

并不表示认可。 佛罗里达州最高法院已认定此类单独存在的法律违宪。7 大量有记录的经验值得结合任何具体的劳动欺诈法加以审查。8 我们不再进一步探究，仅限于面前的这部法律。

in relation to any specific labor fraud act. 8 We do not enter upon the inquiry further than the Act before us.

8 Goode v. Nelson, 前引注18。

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS.

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS。

Another matter deserves notice. In Bailey v. Alabama it was observed that the law of that state did not permit the prisoner to testify to his uncommunicated intent, which handicapped him in meeting the presumption. In Taylor v. Georgia the prisoner could not be sworn, but could and did make a statement to the jury. In this Florida case appellee is under neither disability, but is at liberty to offer his sworn word as against presumptions. These distinc- tions we think are without consequence. As Mr. Justice Byrnes said in Taylor v. Georgia, the effect of this dis- ability "was simply to accentuate the harshness of an otherwise invalid statute."

另一事项值得注意。 在Bailey v. Alabama案中，有人指出该州法律不允许被告就其未传达的意图作证，这使他在应对推定时处于不利地位。 在Taylor v. Georgia案中，被告不能宣誓作证，但可以且确实向陪审团作了陈述。在本佛罗里达案件中，被上诉人不受上述任何限制，可以自由地以其宣誓证词对抗推定。 我们认为这些区别无关紧要。 正如Byrnes大法官在Taylor v. Georgia案中所言，这一限制的效果"只是加剧了一部本来无效的法规的严苛性"。

We impute to the Legislature no intention to oppress, but we are compelled to hold that the Florida Act of 1919 as brought forward on the statutes as § § 817.09 and 817.10 of the Statutes of 1941 are, by virtue of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Antipeonage Act of the United

我们并不认为立法机关有压迫的意图，但我们不得不认定，1919年佛罗里达州法作为1941年法规第§§ 817.09和817.10条被编入法规，依据第十三修正案和合众国《反债役法》，

States, null and void. The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceed- ings not inconsistent with this opinion.

无效。下级法院的判决被撤销，案件发回重审，以进行与本意见不相抵触的进一步程序。

Reversed.

撤销。

MR. JUSTIcE REED, dissenting: The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

REED大法官异议： 《合众国宪法》第十三修正案规定如下：

"Section 1. 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.

"第1条。在合众国境内或受其管辖的任何地方，不得存在奴隶制或非自愿劳役，除非作为对当事人经依法定罪的犯罪的惩罚。

"Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

"第2条。国会有权以适当立法强制执行本条。"

26 OCTOBER TERM, 1943.

26 1943年10月开庭期。

clared invalid laws of a state by virtue of which involun- tary service is enforced or attempted to be enforced in liquidation of any debt. This Court reiterates today in accordance with its previous rulings that the second section

布州法律无效，依据这些法律，非自愿劳役被强制执行或试图被强制执行以清偿任何债务。本法院今日依照其先前裁决重申，佛罗里达州法第二条

of the Florida statute, § 817.10 set out in note 1 of today's opinion, is invalid under the Thirteenth Amendment and the Federal Act because this second section enforces labor by fear of conviction of the crime denounced in the first section. The second section provides that a refusal to perform labor for which one has contracted and been paid in advance is prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud under the first section which makes it a crime to obtain money with intent to defraud under a contract to perform labor. This conclusion is accepted as a proper interpreta- tion of the Federal prohibitions. In the effort to obliterate compulsory labor to satisfy a debt, Congress may invali- date a state law which coerces that labor by fear of a con- viction obtained by a presumption of law which may be false in fact. Taylor v. Georgia, 315 U. S. 25.

即今日意见注1所列的第§ 817.10条，依据第十三修正案和联邦法无效，因为该第二条通过使人恐惧因第一条所谴责的犯罪而被定罪来强制劳役。第二条规定，拒绝履行已为其订立合同并已预付报酬的劳役，即为第一条下欺诈意图的初步证据，而第一条将依据履行劳役合同以欺诈意图获取金钱定为犯罪。这一结论被视为对联邦禁令的适当解释。 在努力消除为清偿债务而强制劳役的过程中，国会可以使州法无效，该州法通过使人恐惧依据一项事实上可能虚假的法律推定而被定罪来胁迫该劳役。Taylor v. Georgia, 315 U. S. 25。

However much peonage may offend our susceptibilities, and however great our distaste for a statute which is cap- able of use as a means of imposing peonage on the work- ing man, the present statute is, in this Court, no more immune than any other which a state may enact, from the salutary requirement that its constitutionality must be presumed, and that the burden rests on him who assails it, on constitutional grounds, to show that it is either un- constitutional on its face or that it has been or will be in fact so applied as to deny his constitutional rights.

无论债役多么触犯我们的情感，无论我们对一部可能被用作对劳工施加债役的手段的法规多么厌恶，在本法院看来，本法规并不比州可能制定的任何其他法规更能免于这一有益要求：其合宪性必须被推定，且以宪法理由攻击它的人负有责任证明它要么表面上违宪，要么已被或将被事实上如此适用以致剥夺其宪法权利。

This Court now holds, as it has held before, that when the presumption section is applied in the trial of a crim- inal charge under the substantive section, both are invalid and a conviction thus obtained by resort to a presumption of law which may be false in fact, cannot be sustained. But the Court's opinion fails to bridge the gap between

本法院现在如同以往一样认定，当推定条款在依实体条款提起的刑事指控审判中被适用时，两者均无效，如此通过诉诸一项事实上可能虚假的法律推定而获得的定罪不能维持。 但本法院的意见未能弥合

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS.

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS。

these earlier decisions of the Court and its present conclu- sion that the substantive provision, when resorted to alone

本法院这些先前判决与其当前结论之间的差距，即实体条款在仅作为

as the basis for a sentence on an admission of guilt, is likewise invalid, because of the mere existence of the presumption section.

基于认罪的量刑依据而被单独援引时同样无效，理由仅仅是推定条款的存在。

Whether this conclusion rests upon the ground that the State of Florida cannot constitutionally make it a penal offense for a laborer fraudulently to procure advances of wages for which he intends to render no service or upon the ground that the presumption section has in fact oper- ated in this case to coerce petitioner's plea of guilty, the one is platinly without support in law and the other is without support in the record.

无论这一结论是基于佛罗里达州在宪法上不能将劳工以欺诈手段获取其无意提供服务的工资预付款定为刑事犯罪这一理由，还是基于推定条款在本案中事实上起到了胁迫请愿人认罪的作用这一理由，前者在法律上显然没有依据，后者在记录中没有依据。

So far as the decision of the Court rests on the ground that the substantive section is unconstitutional on its face, the decision necessarily proceeds on the assumption that because of the Thirteenth Amendment a state is without power to punish a workman who fraudulently procures an

就本法院的判决基于实体条款表面上违宪这一理由而言，该判决必然基于以下假设：由于第十三修正案，州无权惩罚以欺诈手段获取

advance of a wage when he intends not to work for it, or that the two sections in law and in fact are inseparable in their application so that the substantive section is tainted by the presumption section, although in this case it is not shown to have influenced the plea of guilty.

工资预付款而无意为此工作的工人，或者两个条款在法律上和事实上在适用中不可分割，以致实体条款被推定条款所污染，尽管在本案中并未显示推定条款影响了认罪。

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 con-

我们没有获得任何宪法理由来说明州不能惩罚以欺诈手段获取工资预付款，正如不能惩罚开具空头银行账户支票，或普通法长期以来承认的任何其他行为方式，即以欺诈或欺骗手段获取金钱或财产。当然，没有宪法理由说明佛罗里达州不应以不同于其他类合同欺诈的方式惩罚劳动合

tracts differently from fraud in other classes of contracts. Legislation need not seek to correct every abuse by a single enactment. The state may select its objective. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 370; Tigner v. Texa-s, 310 U. S.

同中的欺诈。 立法不必试图以单一法令纠正每一种弊端。州可以选择其目标。Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 370; Tigner v. Texas, 310 U. S.

141, 149. The Constitution does not require that all per- sons should be treated alike but only that those in the same class shall receive equal treatment.

141, 149。宪法并不要求所有人受到同等对待，而只要求同一类别的人受到平等对待。

Not only has the Supreme Court of Florida held as a matter of law that the two sections of the statute now be- fore us are separable, 2 but it is obvious that as a matter of law the presumption section is not called into operation where, as here, the accused does not go to trial but pleads guilty to the substantive charge. In rejecting these con- clusions as to the separability of the two sections, we take it that the Court is not rejecting the Supreme Court of Florida's interpretation of the Florida statute, but rather that it concludes as a matter of fact that the presumption section is so all-pervasive in its operation that we must

佛罗里达州最高法院不仅作为法律问题认定现在面前的法规两个条款可分割，2 而且显然，作为法律问题，当被告不进行审判而是对实体指控认罪时，如本案，推定条款并未被援引运作。在拒绝关于两个条款可分割的这些结论时，我们认为本法院并非在拒绝佛罗里达州最高法院对佛罗里达州法规的解释，而是作为事实问题认定推定条款在其运作中如此无处不在，以至于我们必须

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS.

POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS。

conclude without further proof that it so operated in peti- tioner's case as to coerce his plea of guilty to the charge of violating the substantive section.

在没有进一步证明的情况下认定，它在申请人案件中如此运作，以致胁迫其对违反实体条款的指控作出认罪答辩。

But neither the present record nor any facts of which we can take judicial notice lend support to that con- clusion. For all that appears petitioner had no defense to the charge even though the substantive section had stood alone. Unless we are to presume that the statute can only be given an unconstitutional application, we cannot say that petitioner had any defense to the charge of fraud to which he pleaded guilty, and certainly we can- not treat the presumption section as depriving him of a defense which he did not have.

但无论是本案记录还是我们可以司法认知的任何事实，都不支持该结论。 就所显示的一切而言，即使实体条款单独存在，申请人对该指控也没有抗辩理由。除非我们推定该法规只能被赋予违宪的适用，否则我们不能说申请人对某欺诈指控有任何抗辩理由，而他对该指控已作认罪答辩，当然我们也不能将推定条款视为剥夺了他并不拥有的抗辩理由。

The Court apparently concludes that the enactment and maintenance of the presumption section, after a de- termination here of its invalidity, makes the entire stat- ute invalid on its face. This result is reached by assum- ing that the existence of the presumption section coerces involuntary labor under the contract by fear of conviction for violation of the first or substantive section. We can- not properly take judicial notice of such an effect. If pleaded and proven a different situation would emerge.

法院显然认定，在推定条款被本院裁定无效之后，该条款的制定和维持使整部法规在表面上无效。这一结果是通过假定推定条款的存在会以担心因违反第一条即实体条款而被定罪为恐惧，从而胁迫履行合同下的非自愿劳动而得出的。我们不能适当地对此种效果进行司法认知。 如果提出主张并加以证明，就会出现不同的情况。

The petition for habeas corpus in this case can hardly be said to go farther than object to conviction on the ground of the unconstitutionality of the Florida statute as a whole. No coercion to plead guilty is alleged. The

本案中的人身保护令申请很难说超出了以佛罗里达州法规整体违宪为由反对定罪的范畴。并未指控存在胁迫认罪答辩的情形。该

statements in the petition as to lack of counsel and of knowledge of the elements of the offense are referred to in the Court's opinion but we do not understand that the Court relies upon them. No use was made of the presump- tion section at the trial. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the substantive crime. No allegations or proof appear in the record that the Florida statute was used or applied to promote peonage or involuntary servitude of petitioner or to coerce his plea of guilty. The decision is in effect that

申请中关于缺乏律师以及不了解犯罪构成要件的陈述在法院意见中被提及，但我们不理解法院是依赖这些陈述。审判中并未使用推定条款。申请人对实体犯罪作了认罪答辩。记录中没有出现任何指控或证明表明佛罗里达州法规被用于或适用于助长申请人的劳役偿债或非自愿奴役，或胁迫其作出认罪答辩。该判决实际上是

30 OCTOBER TERM, 1943.

30 1943年10月开庭期。

because the two sections standing together are capable

因为这两条并存时能够

of being used in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and the peonage act, each must be taken to be invalid on its face. The presumption of constitutionality of statutes

被用于违反第十三修正案和劳役偿债法，所以每一条都必须被视为表面上无效。法规合宪性的推定

is a safeguard wisely conceived to keep courts within con- stitutional bounds in the exercise of their extraordinary power of judicial review. It should not be disregarded here.

是一项明智设想的保障，用以使法院在行使其非凡的司法审查权时保持在宪法界限之内。 此处不应忽视该保障。

We cannot conclude that a statute which merely pun- ishes a fraud in a contract, as the first section does if con- sidered alone, violates the provision of the Thirteenth Amendment against involuntary servitude or is null and void under 8 U. S. C. § 56 because it is an attempt to en- force compulsory service for a debt. Conviction under the statute results not in peonage, work for a debt, but in punishment for crime, probably in the county work- house. Cf. United States v. Reynolds, 235 U. S. 133, 149. The conception embodied in the Court's opinion that the fear of conviction for his fraud might compel the defend- ant to work as agreed is without basis in the record. At

我们不能认定，一部仅仅惩罚合同欺诈的法规——如第一条单独考虑时那样——违反第十三修正案关于禁止非自愿奴役的规定，或依8 U. S. C. § 56而无效，因为它是为债务强制执行强制服务的企图。依该法规定罪的结果不是劳役偿债、为债务劳动，而是对犯罪的惩罚，很可能是在县工场。参见United States v. Reynolds, 235 U. S. 133, 149。法院意见中所体现的观念，即担心因其欺诈而被定罪可能迫使被告按约定劳动，在记录中没有依据。无论如何，

any rate, fear of punishment is supposed to be a deterrent to crime.

对惩罚的恐惧本应是对犯罪的威慑。