er and were written by Justice
White and Justice Holmes.

Several conclusions of importance may be drawn from the court's
decision.

1. That Congress may forbid transactions of purchase and sale when such
transactions confer on an individual or group of individuals the power
to destroy competition.

2. No State can create corporations and confer upon them power to
interfere with interstate commerce.

3. The Sherman law is not to be interpreted as forbidding the reasonable
restraints of trade which are not objectionable at common law.

The Bailey case is one of importance by reason of the fact that the
decision handed down by the Supreme Court was an effective blow against
the "peonage system," which is an evasion of the constitutional
prohibition of slavery. The Alabama law provides, in effect, that the
mere act of quitting work on the part of a contract laborer is
conclusive evidence that he is guilty of the crime of defrauding his
employer.

Alonzo Bailey was engaged by a corporation to do farm work and signed a
contract for a year, the wages being $12 a month. The company, to bind
the contract, paid Bailey $15 down and it was agreed that thereafter he
should be paid at the rate of $10.75 a month. After working a month and
a few days he left. Instead of suing him for a breach of contract and
recovery of damages, the company caused the arrest of Bailey on the
charge of an attempt to defraud. No direct evidence could be produced
that this was his intention, but the law expressly authorized the jury
to find him guilty of fraud, on the ground that he quitted work. The
accused was not allowed to testify as to his unexpressed intention. His
opportunity to escape prison was to pay back the $15 or to work out the
sum. In case neither was done, he was to be fined double the amount paid
at the time of making the contract or go to work at hard labor.

The attorneys for Bailey, wishing to test the constitutionality of the
Alabama law, carried the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The constitutionality of the law was called into question on the
following grounds: (1) That it violated the prohibition against
involuntary service; (2) it denied the plaintiff in error the right of
due process of law; (3) that by laying a burden on the employee and no
equivalent burden on the employer, the law denied to the plaintiff the
constitutional right of equal protection of the laws.

The decision of the court was not una