In Robertson v. Baldwin38 the court upheld certain provisions of the Revised Statutes providing for the apprehension of deserting seamen, and the compulsory fulfilment by them of their contracts, as not in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.39 regulate the use of the streets of its cities and towns as to compel white citizens to keep on one side of the street and black citizens to keep on the other? Why may it not, upon like grounds, punish whites and blacks who ride together in street cars or in open vehicles on a public road or street? Why may it Dot require sheriffs to assign whites to one side of a court-room and blacks to the other? And why may it not also prohibit the commingling of the two races in the galleries of legislative halls or in public assemblages convened for the political questions of the day? Further, if this statute of Louisiana is consistent with the personal liberty of citizens, why may not the State require the separation in railroad coaches of native and naturalized citizens of the United States, or of Protestants and Roman Catholics?"

38 165 U. S. 275: 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326; 41 L. ed. 715.

39 In its opinion the court say: "The question whether Sections 4598 and 4599 conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, forbidding slavery and involuntary servitude, depends upon the construction to be given to the term 'involuntary servitude.' Does the epithet ' involuntary' attach to the word 'Servi-tude' continuously, and make illegal any service which becomes involuntary at any time during its existence; or does it attach only at the inception of the servitude, and characterize it as unlawful because unlawfully entered into? If the former be the true construction, then no one, not even a soldier, sailor, or apprentice, can surrender his liberty even for a day; and the soldier may desert his regiment upon the eve of battle, and the sailor abandon his ship at any intermediate port or landing, or even in a storm at sea, provided only he can find means of escaping to another vessel. If the latter, then an individual may. for a valuable consideration, contract for the surrender of his personal liberty for a definite time and for a recognized purpose, and subordinate his going and coming to the will of another during the continuance of the contract. . . Not that all such contracts would be lawful, but that a service which was knowingly and willingly entered into could not be termed involuntary. Thus if one should agree, for a yearly wage, to serve another in a particular capacity during his life, and never to leave his estate without his consent, the contract might not be enforceable for the want of a legal remedy, or might be void upon the grounds of public policy, but the servitude could not be properly termed involuntary. Such agreements for a limited personal servitude at one time were very common in England, and by statute of June 27. 1793 (4 Geo. IV, chap. 34, § 3) it was enacted that if any servant in husbandry or any artificer, calico printer, hands-craftsman, miner, collier, keelman. pitman, glassman. potter, laborer, or other person, should contract to serve another for a definite time, and should desert such service during the term of the contract, he was made liable to a criminal punishment.