Everywhere the treatment of the Negro is the same, and everywhere the purpose of the South is plain. What with its contract labor laws and emigration laws and vagrancy laws and convict-lease and plantation-lease and credit systems the South is working mightily, night and day, to reduce the Negro laborer to wage slavery, to fix him in an industrial position where he shall have no rights which the white employer class is bound to respect. Negro labor toils and produces without adequate reward or protection against the rapacity of Southern employers. What it gets as its share bears no comparison with what the employer gets as his share. The employer gets wealth while the Negro gets a bare subsistence. I am speaking of course broadly, for there are many Negroes who get more than a bare subsistence out of the products of their labor, and that in spite of bad and unequal laws and conditions. But the great mass of Negro agricultural labor is exploited and plundered by the white employer class, and kept poor, because being poor they are esteemed less capable of giving the South trouble. It is the only labor class in the South that is deprived of the right to vote, and so is rendered powerless to influence legislation and administration and the courts in its favor. If the poverty of Negro labor renders it as a class less capable of giving the employer class trouble this poverty is at the same time a crime breeder and a huge crime breeder into the bargain. Take this case which has just been decided favorably for the colored laborer by the United States Supreme Court, as a fair example of what Southern law and administration are doing to reduce the Negro to a condition of helpless industrial slavery: An Alabama case, involving charges of peonage in connection with the operation of a convict labor law, now is before the Supreme Court, where its disposition may have an important bearing on similar statutes in other Southern States. The government contends that the Alabama statute permits peonage in violation of the Federal Constitution. The test case is that of a colored man named E. W. Fields, who was convicted in Monroe County of larceny. Upon his failure to pay his fine, J. A. Reynolds, a plantation owner, became surety for him, and, as permitted by the Alabama law, contracted to work out his indebtedness during nine months at the rate of $6 a month and keep. The government charges that Reynolds later had Fields arrested for failing to complete the contract. As a result of the arrest, Fields, in court, entered into contract to work fourteen months for G. W. Broughton, another plantation owner. Both Reynolds and Broughton were indicted by the Federal government, but the Federal district court for southern Alabama held that peonage had not been committed.