Cent. R. R., 86 Georgia, 251; Georgia Statutes for Switch and Physical Connections; Int. Com. Comm. v. Atchison &c. Ry., 234 U. S. 294; Ill. Cent. R. R. v. La. R. R. Com., 236 U. S. 157; Louis. & Nash. R. R. v. Higdon, 234 U. S. 592; Louis. & Nash. R. R. v. Finn, 235 U. S. 601; McNeil v. Southern Ry., 202 U. S. 543; Mo. Pac. Ry. v. Nebraska, 217 U. S. 196; Oregon R. & N. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U. S. 510; Ga. Railway Com. v. Louis. & Nash. R. R., 140 Georgia, 817; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Edwards, 227 U. S. 265; St. Louis S. & P. R. v. Peoria &c. Ry., 26 I. C. C. Rep. 226; Southern Ry. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424; State v. Wrightsville &c. R. R., 104 Georgia, 437; Tex. & Pac. Ry. v. Abilene Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426; United States v. Union Stock Yards, 226 U. S. 286; Wadley So. Ry. v. State, 137 Georgia, 497; S. C., 235 U. S. 651; Wisconsin &c. R. R. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287.

Mr. James K. Hines for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the court.

After hearing the interested parties, the Railroad Commission of Georgia concluded that making and maintaining physical connection at Lawrenceville, Georgia (a manufacturing town with two thousand inhabitants), between Lawrenceville Branch Railroad and Seaboard Air Line Railway would be practicable and to the public interest; and accordingly passed an order that within four months the roads should provide and maintain one, together with sufficient interchange tracks to care for traffic moving between them. No definite point for the connection was prescribed; opinion was expressed that expenses should be borne equally by the two companies; and they were directed to report their action within thirty days.

Appellant brought this proceeding in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, alleging the order was null and void and asking that its enforcement be enjoined. That court heard additional evidence and upon the whole record concluded the challenged order was not unreasonable and the commission was fully justified in making it. 206 Fed. Rep. 181. Injunction was accordingly denied and suit dismissed, and this action was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 213 Fed. Rep. 27.

Section 2664, Georgia Code, 1910, gives the railroad commission "power and authority, when in its judgment practicable and to the interest of the public, to order and compel the making and operation of physical connection between lines of railroad crossing or intersecting each other, on entering the same incorporated town or city in this State." Wadley Southern Ry. v. Georgia, 235 U.S. 651.

It is within the power of a State, acting through an administrative body, to require railroad companies to make track connections where the established facts show public necessity therefor, just regard being given to advantages which will probably result on one side and necessary expenses to be incurred on the other. The facts being established, the question then presented is whether as matter of law there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of public necessity-the mere declaration of a commission is not conclusive. Wisconsin &c. R. R. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 295, 296; Oregon R. R. & Nav. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U. S. 510; Great Northern Ry. v. Minnesota, 238 U. S. 340, 345.

The state commission and both courts were of opinion that the facts sufficed to show public necessity for the connection in question and that it could be constructed and maintained without unreasonable expenditure. The only substantial question before us is whether such find

ing is plainly erroneous because the evidence is insufficient to support it; and, having examined the record, we are unable to say the facts disclosed do not give the essential support. The judgment of the court below is accordingly Affirmed.

BUTLER v. PERRY, SHERIFF OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

No. 182. Submitted January 14, 1916.-Decided February 21, 1916.

The term involuntary servitude, as used in the Thirteenth Amendment, was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which in practical operation would tend to produce like results, and not to interdict enforcement of duties owed by individuals to the State.

The great object of the Thirteenth Amendment was liberty under protection of effective government and not destruction of the latter by depriving it of those essential powers which had always been properly exercised before its adoption.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to recognize and protect fundamental objects long recognized under the common law system. Ancient usage and unanimity of judicial opinion justify the conclusion that, unless restrained by constitutional limitations, a State has inherent power to require every able-bodied man within its jurisdiction to labor for a reasonable period on public roads near his residence without direct compensation.

A reasonable amount of work on public roads near his residence is a part of the duty owed by able-bodied men to the public; and a requirement by a State to that effect does not amount to imposition of involuntary servitude otherwise than as a punishment for crime within the prohibition of the Thirteenth Amendment; nor does the enforcement of such requirement deprive persons of their liberty and property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The statute of Florida requiring every able-bodied man within its jurisdiction to work during each year for six ten hour days on public roads within the county of his residence, and imposing penalties for willful failure so to do, is not unconstitutional as contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment or to the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.

67 Florida, 405, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the constitutionality under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of a statute of Georgia requiring able-bodied men to do a certain amount of work on public roads, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Charles C. Howell, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Thomas F. West, Attorney General of the State of Florida, for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the court.

Chapter 6537, Laws of Florida (Acts of 1913, pp. 469, 474, 475), provides:

"SEC. 10. Every able-bodied male person over the age of twenty-one years, and under the age of forty-five years, residing in said county for thirty days or more continuously next prior to the date of making of the list by the Board of County Commissioners, or the date of the summons or notice to work, shall be subject, liable and required to work on the roads and bridges of the several counties for six days of not less than ten hours each in each year when summoned so to do, as herein provided; that such persons so subject to road duty may perform such services by an able-bodied substitute over the age of eighteen years, or in lieu thereof may pay to the road overseer on or before the day he is called upon to render such service the sum of three dollars, and such overseer shall turn into the county treasury of his county any and all moneys so paid to him, the same to be placed to the

credit of the road and bridge fund and subject to the order of the Board of County Commissioners for road and bridge purposes;

"SEC. 12. Any person or persons not exempt as aforesaid who shall fail to work on public roads of the several counties when required to do so, or to provide a substitute as herein provided, and shall neglect or refuse to make payment for the same, as hereinbefore provided, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned in the county jail for not longer than thirty days."

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the County Judge's Court, Columbia County, upon a charge of failing to work on a road, and sentenced to jail for thirty days. The Circuit Court granted a writ of habeas corpus; he was heard, remanded to the custody of the sheriff, and then released under bond. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the action of the Circuit Court (67 Florida, 405), and the cause is here upon writ of error.

It is insisted that §§ 10 and 12, supra, are invalid because they undertake to impose involuntary servitude not as a punishment for crime, contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution; and also because their enforcement would deprive plaintiff of his liberty and property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In view of ancient usage and the unanimity of judicial opinion, it must be taken as settled that, unless restrained by some constitutional limitation, a State has inherent power to require every able-bodied man within its jurisdiction to labor for a reasonable time on public roads near his residence without direct compensation. This is a part of the duty which he owes to the public. The law of England is thus declared in Blackstone's Commentaries, Book 1, page 357:

'Every parish is bound of common right to keep the