Contested Meanings of Freedom: Workingmen's Wages, the Company Store System, and theGodcharles v. WigemanDecision

Abstract

In 1886, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited employers from paying wages in company store scrip and mandated monthly wage payments. The court held that the legislature could not prescribe mandatory wage contracts for legally competent workingmen. The decision quashed over two decades of efforts to end the “truck system.” Although legislators had agreed that wage payments redeemable only in company store goods appeared antithetical to the free labor wage system, two obstacles complicated legislative action. Any law meant to enhance laborers' rights could neither favor one class over another nor infringe any workingman's ability to make voluntary contracts. These distinctions, however, were not as rigid and laissez faire-oriented as depicted by conventional history. Labor reformers argued that principles of equity must supplement these categories of class legislation and contract freedom. This essay explores how legal doctrine helped both sides of the anti-truck debate articulate the contested meanings of liberty. Ultimately, the Godcharles ruling enshrined the specialness of workingmen's labor contracts and rejected the use of equity principles to justify contract regulations, but the controversy also informed future labor strategies, especially the turn to state police powers as the rubric under which workers' safety, morals, and health could be protected.

Informal Institutions as Inhibitors of Rent-Seeking Entrepreneurship: Evidence From U.S. Legal History

“…From reviewing the second literature on American legal culture, political culture, economic thinking, and public policy in this period, we identified four broad trends or changes in the ideas that informed how most Americans viewed the world that are relevant to understanding the documented shift in judicial thinking and behavior described above. These trends are: the growing popularity of ideologies that researchers describe as ''collectivist'' at the expense of classical liberal or ''individualist'' ideologies (Balogh, 2009;Postell, 2016;Sawyer, 2013;Schiller, 2016); growing confidence in the ability to expert planners to produce better socio-economic outcomes than those provided by spontaneous order systems such as the market (Horwitz, 1997;Leonard, 2017); growing acceptance in American culture of militarism, overseas military action, and historically unprecedented levels of military spending; and intensification of the already high levels of prejudice against minorities, be they non-whites or white immigrants from countries from outside of north-western Europe.…”

Class Jurisprudes: Free Labor Ideology and For-Profit Penal Labor in Gilded Age Courts

“…Workers and capital stood as formal equals, protected from the other's use of the state. This sanctification of employment bargaining prompted courts to jettison a “presumption of constitutionality” for direct interventions in market relations concerning “ordinary” workers and goods (McCurdy 1998, 167; Sawyer 2013 ) . Labor, the abstraction, was protected from labor, the workingman.…”