Слике страница

pluses. The House amendment contained no such provision. The substitute provides that at least $200,000,000 of the revolving fund shall be made available by the board solely for use in milking advances to the stabilization funds for agricultural commodities in respect of which marketing periods are commenced and that in the allocation of such amount among the stabilization funds, the board shall take into consideration the values of the respective commodities.

The substitute differs from the Senate provision in two main ivspects: First, the affirmative duty is not put upon the board of allocating the $200.000,000 among the various stabilization funds for the reason that the board can not in advance determine the number of stabilization funds. The board is therefore simply directed to take into consideration certain factors in the allocation of such amount. Secondly, the board is directed to take into consideration in such allocation the values of the respective commodities and not Ihe values of the exportable surpluses nf the respective commodities. The purpose of the bill to effect the orderly marketing of agricultural commodities might be impeded in the case of commodities having small exportable surpluses, if the allocations of the revolving fund were made folely on the basis of the values of exportable surpluses.

The Senate bill provided that the total amount of loans to cooperative associations should not exceed $250.000,000. The House amendment provided that the total amount of loans should not exceed $400.000,000. The substitute provides that tlie total amount of loans shall not exceed $200,000.000, so that the total amount of loans authorized together with the amount, namely, $200.000,000, of the revolving fund made available for advances to stabilization funds shall not exceed the total amount of the revolving fund which is $400.000.000.

12. Confidential information: The Senate bill provided that the President might prescribe such limitations as to the use of the information and data which he directed any governmental establishment to furnish to the Ixiard as he might deem desirable. The House amendment provided that the President could not direct that the board be furnished with any information or data supplied in confidence to liny Government establishment by any person either in pursuance of law or under an agreement with the governmental establishment. The substitute retains the provision of the House amendment.

To authorize the President to require any Government establishment to furnish to the board information given voluntarily to such establishment by any person in confidence and in contemplation of Its possession and use only by such establishment makes possible a violation of the confidence of such person, even though the President is empowered to impose limitations upon the use of the information by the board. While the same is not technically true in the case of information which, although given under compulsion of law, is made confidential by law, nevertheless authorization of the President to require the establishment to which such information is furnished to turn it over to the board is contrary to the policy of the law making such information confidential. The possibility that the confidence of persons giving information voluntarily to a Government establishment may be violated by such information being given to the board might prevent the giving of much valuable information to various Government establishments. Under the provision of the substitute the confidence of any informant of any Government establishment will be safeguarded.

13. Fruits and vegetables: The Senate bill provided that fruits and vegetables and beef and beef products were not to be included within the meaning of the term "agricultural commodity." The House amendment contained no such provision. Both the Senate bill and the House amendment required the board to find, among other things, that the nature of an agricultural commodity and Us method of marketing were adapted to the use of the marketing agreements before a marketing period could be commenced or equalization fees collected in respect to it. In practice this would have eliminated fruits and vegetables from those sections of the bill relating to marketing agreements and equalization fees.

The substitute, therefore, specifies that those provisions relating to marketing agreements and equalization fees are not applicable to fruits and vegetables, leaving the producers of these commodities free to enjoy the benefits of its other provisions, including those for loans and clearing houses. In adopting the language of the .Senate bill the term "perishable" is used in conjunction with "fruits or vegetables," in order to indicate that it is intended to exclude from the marketing agreement and equalization fee provisions only those commodities considered as "fruits or vegetables" as those terms are commonly used. The terms are not used in their broad botanical sense which, if literally applied, might extend their meaning to cover a much broader field than the substitute intends. The sub

stitute follows the House amendment in making the benefits of the measure available to producers of beef cattle if need arises.

14. Penalties: The House amendment provided that sections 123 and 124 of the Penal Code, as amended, should apply to every member, officer, or employee of the board and further declared that any speculation in any agricultural commodity, directly or indirectly, by any member, officer, or employee of the board should be held a violation of section 123 of such act. It, furthermore, made it unlawful for any cooperative association or corporation or other agency acting on behalf of the board under any marketing agreement or for any director, officer, or employee of any such association, corporation, or agency to impart in violation of any regulation of the board any information which had been imparted in confidence by the board to such association, corporation, or agency and for a violation of such provision provided a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. The Senate bill contained no such provision. The House provision is adopted by the substitute.

15. Application of Federal food and drug act: The Senate bill contained an added provision which did not appear in the House amendment relating to the application of the Federal food and drug act of 1900 to fresh fruits. The substitute omits this provision.

1G. Marketing agreement agency: The Senate bill contained the provision that, in the event no cooperative association was found capable of carrying out the marketing agreements for the purchase, withholding, and disposal of the agricultural commodity, then the board might make such agreements with other fami agencies. The House amendment provided tlmt, in such case the board might make such agreements with any other agencies. The House bill is broader than the Senate provision and allows the making of marketing agreements with any agency found best adapted to carry out the purposes of the act, in the event that the cooperative agencies are not able to undertake the agreement. The substitute follows the House provision in this regard.

Gilbert X. Haugen, Fred S. Purnell, Thomas S. Williams, David H. Kincheloe, Managers on the part of the Houxe.

Mr. HAUGEN. Mr. Speaker, the report of the conference committee, with a few exceptions, leaves the bill substantially as it was when it was passed by the House. The only provisions of importance in conference are as follows:

Section 4. Commodity advisory councils. 800 page 5 to page 10. Senate bill required the board to cause to be sent out notices to each cooperative association or otber organization which .-hall nominate not more than seven persons, etc. In all, 130 days are consumed before the advisory council can be organized. The House provisions or substitute directs the board to create an advisory council to be selected from lists submitted by cooperative associations and by governors and heads of the agricultural departments in the several States producing 3 per cent of the total of the commodity, and provides that the particular advisory council shall act within 15 days. (See p. MI44, Congressional Recobd.) The advisory council is made a governmental and not a private agency, so as not to improperly delegate legislative power to a nongovernmental agency.

Page 14, paragraph 2, mnkes available $2,000.000 for the federating, consolidating, merging, or extending the membership of cooperative associations. This we cut to $1,000,000 in conference.

1'age 36, Senate bill, cxccpts fresh or natural fruit from the food and drugs act. Senate recedes.

Page 36. lines 21 to 23, Senate bill, defines agricultural commodity to mean an agricultural commodity which is not a fruit or vegetable or beef or beef products. Conference agreed to an amendment "(-ball not apply to perishable fruit and vegetables" in respect to marketing agreements, which will give fruit and vegetable growers the benefit of the loan and clearing house and terminal marketing provisions.

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman permit a question?

Mr. HAUGEN. Yes.

Mr. HARRISON. As I understand the statement accompanying this conference report, the word "perishable ' is used in the ordinary colloquial meaning and applies to apples und fruits of that character'{

Mr. HAUGKN. Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I move the adoption of the conference report.

The SI'KAKER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

Mr. KINCHKLOK. Mr. Speaker. I ask for a division.

The SPKAKKR. A division is demanded.

The House divided; and there were—ayes 94, noes 38.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Beck, Wis.
Black, Tex.
Brand. Ga.
Brand. Ohio
Cole, Iowa
Cole, Md.
Cooper, Wis.
Dickinson, Iowa
Dickinson, Mo.

Evans, Mont. Faust

[blocks in formation]

Nelson, Wis. Norton, Nebr.


Black, N. Y.


Briggs Brigham Britten Buchanan Burdick Burton ("halmers Chindblom Clancy Clarke Cochran, Mo. Cochran, Pa. Combs Connery Cooper, Ohio Corning




Auf der Heide
Beck, Pa.

Huddleston O'Connor, La.
IHudson Oliver, Ala.
Hull, Wm. E. Parks
Irwin Peavey
Jeffers Pou
Johnson, Ill. Purnell
Johnson, Ind. uin
Johnson, Okla. Ragon
Johnson, S. Dak. Rajney
Johnson, Tex. Ramseyer
Jones Rankin
Kading Rathbone
Kemp Reece

Ixerr Reed, Ark.
Dallinger Kiess
Darrow Kindred
Dyer Korell
Edwards Lanham
England Lankford
Estep Leech
Evans, Calif. Linthicum
Fenn Luce
Fitzgerald, Roy G. McDuffie
Fitzgerald, W. T. McFadden
Fitzpatrick McLeod
Fort McMillan
Foss MacGregor
Freeman Magrady
Frothingham Mapes
Garrett, Tenn. Martin, Mass.
Gibson Mead
Griffin Merritt
Hale Monast
Hancock Montague
Hare Mooney
Hersey Moore, Ohio
Hoffman . Nelson. Me.
Houston, Del. Newton
Hull, Morton D. Niedringhaus
Hull. Tenn. O'Brien
Jenkins O'Connell
Kahn Parker
IKearns Peery

Kent Perkins

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]



Johnson, Wash.


[ocr errors]

Kurtz Norton, N. J. Seger Underwood
Larsen O'Connor, N. Y. Sirovich Updike
Lehlbach Oldfield Somers, N. Y. Wainwright
Lindsay Oliver, N. Y. Stalker Watson
Lyon Palmer Stevenson Welsh, Pa.
Manlove Palmisano Stobbs White, Kans.
Menges Porter Strother Williamson
Michaelson Quayle Sullivan Wilson, Miss.
Moore, N. J. Ransley swick Woodrum
Moore, Va. Rayburn Taber Wurzbach
Morin Reid, III. Taylor, Colo. Yates
Murphy Sears, Fla. Tillman You

So the conference report was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote:

. Oldfield (for) with Mr. Ackerman (against). . Manlove (for), with Mr. Connally of Texas (against). . Boies {*} with Mr. Cullen (against). . Reid of Illinois (for) with Mr. Deal (against). . Taylor of Colorado *} with Mr. Michaelson (against). . Hughes (for) with Mr. Dominick sons). . Gilbert (for) with Mr. Seger (against). Mr. Updike (for) with Mr. Quayle (against). ‘. Tillman (for) with Mr. Gifford (against). . James (for) with Mr. Cohen (against). . Yon (for) with Mr. Taber (against). . Wurzbach (for) with Mr. Douglass of Massachusetts (against), . Driver (for) with Mr. Free (against). . White of Kansas (for) with Mr. Stevenson (against). . Fisher (for) with Mr. Butler (against). . Iłoutrich (for) with Mr. Drewry (against). . Wilson of Mississippi (for) with Mr. Ransley (against). . Yates (for) with Mr. Moore of Virginia (against). . De Rouen (for) with Mr. Wainwright (against). . Menges (for) with Mr. Boylan (against). . Larsen (for) with Mr. Eaton o . Oliver of New York (for) with Mr. Lehlbach (against). . Murphy (for) with Mrs. Norton of New Jersey (against). . Rayburn (for) with Mr. Watson (against). . Siroyich (for) with Mr. Johnson of Washington (against). . Williamson (for) with Mr. Lindsay (against). . Sullivan (for) with Mr. Welsh of Pennsylvania (against). . Curry (for) with Mr. Dickstein o: ( * onnor of New York (for) with Mr. Connolly of Pennsylvania against).

§: Blanton (for) with Mr. Woodrum (against).
Mr. Anthony (for) with Mr. Igoe (against).
Mr. Lyon (for) with Mr. Golder (against).
Mr. Clague (for) with Mr. Auf der Heide (against).
Mr. Celler (for) with Mr. Graham (against).
Mr. Garrett of Texas (for) with Mr. Moore of New Jersey (against).
Mr. Goldsborough (for) with Mr. Porter (against).

Until further notice:

Mr. Begg with Mr. ‘of Mr. Swick with Mr. Bowling. Mr. Fish with Mr. Kunz. Mr. IXavenport with Mr. Douglas of Arizona. Mr. Stobbs with Mr. Somers of New York. Mr. Morin with Mr. Doyle. Mr. Beers with Mr. Hudspeth. Mr. Dempsey with Mr. Underwood. Mr. Glynn with Mr. Sears of Florida. Mr. Bachmann with Mr. Drane. Mr. Kendall with Mr. Jacobstein. Mr. Chase with Mr. Palmisano. Mr. Kurtz with Mr. Berger. Mr. Kelly with Mr. Bloom. Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if I am paired, I withdraw my vote of “nay" and record myself as “present.” The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The doors were opened. PROCEEDINGS AT THE UNVEILING OF THE STATUE OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS Mr. KIESS. Mr. Speaker, I present a privileged resolution from the Committee on Printing. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania presents a privileged resolution from the Committee on Printing, which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows: Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That there be printed and bound the proceedings in Congress, together with the proceedings at the unveiling in Statuary Hall, upon the acceptance of the statue of Alexander Hamilton Stephens, presented by the State of Georgia, 5,000 copies, of which 1,000 shall be for the use of the Senate and 2,500 for the use of the House of Representatives, and the remaining 1,500 copies shall be for the use and distribution of the Senators and Representatives in Congress from the State of Georgia. The Joint Committee on Printing is hereby authorized to have the copy prepared for the Public Printer, and shall procure suitable illustrations to be bound with these proceedings.

The resolution was agreed to.

REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ON CoopFRATING MARketing or FairM Products Mr. KIESS. Mr. Speaker, I present another privileged resolution from the Committee on Printing. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania presents a privileged resolution from the Committee on Printing which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Senate Concurrent Resolution 18

Rexolvrd by the Kenate (the Houie of Representatives concurring), Tlint 1,500 copies of Senate Document No. 95, entitled "Report of the Federal Trade Commission on Cooperating Marketing of Karm Products," transmitted to the Senate on May 2, 1928, in response to Senate Resolution No. 34, Sixty-ninth Congress, be printed with Illustrations, of which 500 copies shall be for the use of the Senate and 1,000 copies for tbe use of the House of Representatives.

The resolution was agreed to.


Mr. KOPP. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of H. R. 7729, to divest floods, wares, and merchandise manufactured, produced, or mined by convicts or prisoners of their interstate character in certain cases. Pending that motion I ask unanimous consent that onehalf of the time be controlled by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Busby] in opposition to the bill, and that the other half be controlled by myself in favor of the bill.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa moves that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of House bill 7729, and pending that motion asks unanimous consent that the time be divided equally, one-half to he controlled by himself in favor of the bill, and one-half to be controlled by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Busby] in opposition to the bill. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Iowa.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of II. R. 7729, with Mr. Beedy in the chair.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., Thnt all goods, wares, and merchandise manufactured, produced, or mined, wholly or in part, by convicts or prisoners, except paroled convicts or prisoners, or in any penal and/or reformatory institutions, transported into any State or Territory of the United States and remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage, Khali upon arrival and delivery in such State or Territory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory to the same extent and in the same manner as though such Roods, wares, and merchandise had been manufactured, produced, or mined in such State or Territory, and shall not be exempt tberefrom by reason of being Introduced in the original package or otherwise.

With the following committee amendment:
On page 2, after line 6. insert:

"Sic. 2. This act shall take effect two years after the date of Its approval."

Mr. KOPP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cooper], the author of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 15 minutes. [Applause.]

Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I fully realize the obligation society has in furthering the rehabilitation and reformation of the inmates of our penal Institutions. I also believe that States should have the right to regulate its own penal institutions and protect its own industry and business, and free labor from prison competition. And this is what is proposed in the bill now before us for consideration. This measure does not represent a now legislative proposal. The same has been considered by Congress several times in the past. The purpose of the bill is to divest prisonmade products of their interstate character, when arriving in a State, other than that in which they were manufactured or produced, and makes them subject to the laws and regulations of the State into which they were transported.

There are several States which have laws regulating the sale of prison-made goods produced in their own penal institutions. But at the present time there is no way that these States can regulate the sale and distribution of prison-made goods that are shipped into the State through interstate commerce. My own State of Ohio has a law regulating the sale and distribution of its own prison-made products. And at the same time it is a favorite dumping ground for prison-made goods from other States. It has been stated that last year more than $1,000,000 worth of prison-made goods were sold in Ohio which came from border States.

The State of Ohio does not sell a dollar's worth of its own prison products on the competitive open market, at home or outside the State, and yet we are powerless to regulate or

control the sale of prison-made goods coining Into the State through interstate commerce. I am aware of the fact that, should Congress enact a law preventing the shipment of legitimate goods in interstate commerce, it would be unconstitutional.

The bill which we now have before us does not attempt to interfere with or prohibit the transportation of prison-made goods from one State into another.

It does not compel the enactment of any State law.

It does not alter or interfere with the existing laws of any State.

Nor does it in any way interfere with the supervision or management of any State penal institution.

The opposition to this bill is confined to prison officials ami prison-labor contractors. Many of the State-prison officials, wlio are opposed to this bill, are capable and conscientious men and women, who are trying to do the best they can with a great problem.

But when it comes to the prison-labor contractor, he has no interest in the prisoner only to the extent of making money out of liis labor.

Millions of dollars profit are realized every year by these contractors out of the labor of prisoners.

The prison contractor may have a legal right to contract for the labor of a prisoner. But I say it is morally wrong for him to take advantage of unfortunate inmates in our penal institutions for the purpose of making money.

In some of the States where the contract system is in effect the work of the prisoners is under the supervision of a representative of the contractor.

The hearings before the Senate committee on this bill will show that in one State, which had a law requiring the labeling of prison-made goods, the prisoners in the penal institutions of that State were required to place false labels of misrepresentation on shirts, clothing, shoes, which were shipped into other States to be dumped on the market in competition with legitimate industry and free labor, or, in other words, in order to enable the contractor to fool the public and make large profits the prisoners were required to sew false labels on shins, clothing, and so forth.

I have here copies of the labels these prisoners were required to sew on these shirts and clothing. This one says:

Cownie's dependable garments, Des Moines, Iowa.

These garments were not made In Des Moines, but were made in a State prison 500 miles from Des Moines.

The Ohio Garment Co., Springfield, Ohio. Victor. Lot, —; stit, —; warranted.

These goods were not made in Ohio.

The Trojan work shirt. Lot, —; site, —; 718; trade-mark regi«tered.

Those were the labels these prisoners were required to sew on this clothing. Here is another one:

The Echo shirt. The Lawnnceburg Overall Manufacturing Co., Lawrenceburg, Ind.

Here is another one:

A shirt with a reputation; tailored by Packard, Chicago. Holson. Holson means bigger and better. Lot, —; sbte, —. Giant. 1SOOK. 17.

Then here are the labels they had to put on the furniture manufactured In that State prison:

On every piece Karpen guaranteed construction furniture. uphoMend furniture, hand-woven fiber, and enameled cane davenport beds, Windsor chairs.

Karpen hand-woven fiber: Pattern No. —; finish. —; uph. No. 4174 RC; order No. —. S. Knrpen & Bros., Chicago; Michigan City. Ind.; New York.

In this same State prison shoes were manufactured which carried the shield of the United States, and the words "Munson Army last" was stamped in the sole. The prison officials and contractors did not attempt to market these goods, labeled and stamped as they were, in the State in which they were made, for that would be a violation of tbe State law.

I say it. is morally wrong for prison officials to compel the false labeling of prison-made goods in order to promote their sale on the open market. On that Secretary of Labor James ,1. Davis has this to say:

The prisoner who sews a false label In a prison-made garment, indicating that it was made by an outside manufacturer, knows lie H forced to become a liar and :i cheat. If our jails and penitentiaries teach a man to lie, what can we expect of that man when they set him free.

One prison warden appearing before the committee stated:

That a shoe manufacturer had equipped a shoe factory In the State prison in which were employed 200 prisoners producing 1,200 pairs of shoes per day. The contractor paid the prisoner 6 cents per pair for his labor and gave to the State 10 cents, making the total labor cost on a pair of shoes, while the minimum cost for labor in the manufacture of a pair of shoes where free labor is employed is 42 cents.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it seems to me the most important thing in this bill is whether or not each State in the Union shall have the power to regulate the sale of prison-made goods, and that is the only issue involved in this measure.

It has the indorsement of the American Federation of Labor, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, and manufacturers representing more than $2,500,000.000 invested in industry which employs free lubor. President Coolidge, in his first message to Congress, December 6, 1923, had this to say on this important question:

The National Government has never given adequate attention to its prison problems. It ought to provide employment in such forms o'f ^reduction as can be need by the Government, though not sold t»j.the public in competition with private business, for all prisoners <t*i can be placed at work, and for which they should receive a reasonable compensation, available for their dependents.

Two independent reformatories are needed; one for the segregation of women, and another for the segregation o£ young men serving their first sentence.

The President realized we had a very serious problem before us, and he expressly advocated that all goods made in our Federal prisons should be used and sold only for Federal purposes.

You men will recall that when we had the Treasury appropriation bill before the House during this session of Congress it carried an appropriation for the erection of a brick plant at the Federal prison in Chillicothe, Ohio. There was an amendment offered to that provision which provided that no brick that was manufactured in the plant could be used except for the erection of Federal buildings.

This is almost a unanimous report from the Committee on Labor, and we come to you and ask your careful consideration of this measure. It seems to me every man who is in favor of State rights should support this bill because it does not prevent the shipment of prison-made goods in interstate commerce, it changes no State law, it compels no State law to be enacted, but leaves it entirely to the State to regulate the sale of convictiiculi • goods.

Mr. GREEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Yes.

Mr. GREEN. I believe the gentleman has answered the question I had in mind. I wanted to know whether or not there was anything in the bill which would interfere with a prison farm or a prison selling in that State any goods provided such sale is not prohibited by State law.

Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Not at. all.

Mr. GREEN. Then if Florida, for instance, sends goods to Georgia or to Alabama, the products it sends to those States will he governed by the State law of Alabama or Georgia?

Mr. COOPER of Ohio. That is it exactly.

Mr. KEARNS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COOPER of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KEAKNS. Is the manufacturer of goods required to equip these prisons with the necessary machinery to make the goods?

Mr. COOPER of Ohio. I do not think he equips it. I know the warden from the VeiTuont State Penitentiary stated before the committee that the contractor had equipped the prison with the machinery for the manufacture of shoes.

Mr. KEARNS. But he pays nothing as rent.

Mr. COOPER of Ohio. He pays no rent and no taxes.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired. [Applnnse.]

Mr. BCSBY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this bill we are aliont to consider has been knocking at the door of Congress for three or four years. I want to say that I have never, when 1 felt at all justified in supporting it, opposed any legislation that was being backed by labor or by labor organizations. I have never opposed, for the sake of offering opposition, any legislation that was backed by either of the other organizations thiit are mentioned in this report as favoring this bill.

It is stated at the outset of the report on this bill that "the penitentiary problem is a problem for the State." I admit that (Jus first sentence states the truth, but I deny that the propo

IAIX 545

sition we are dealing with here in this bill is a penitentiary problem. It Is a problem having primarily to do with interstate commerce, and nothing else.

The next sentence in this report is that "the factors that enter into its adjustment are so many and so varied as to make it essentially a State problem, and no Federal impediment should stand in the way of any State which seeks to determine its own prison affairs and the regulation of the sale of prison products."

I do not agree that this sentence is founded on a sound premise. It begs the question to start with, and to follow it and to concede the statement leads one into error at the beginning.

There was once what was known as the Malthusian doctrine. It was that population tends to increase faster than the power of providing food. To use his words, Malthus said:

There Is a natural tendency ami constant effort In population to Increase beyond the means of subsistence.

To state it differently: That population, constantly tending to increase, must, when unrestrained, ultimately press against the limits of subsistence not as against, a fixed but as against an elastic barrier, which makes the procurement of subsistence progressively more and more difficult.

This theory has been fully disproved and overthrown. Our farm population is growing smaller each year because of the drift to the city, yet our farmers produce more than ever before, and the surplus of farm products become greater and greater each year. Better methods, machinery, and ways of bundling the business on the farm has done this. The power of the people to produce the necessaries of life is not measured by the necessaries of life actually produced. Population is growing in every section of our country. New occupations open up and employ labor. Our country has rapidly advanced in wealth, and with it has come the benefits of employment and labor.

I do not think this is true because the prison goods that are put on the market are so infinitesimal in comparison with the great quantity of every like kind of goods that is manufactured and is to be found in the commercial world that we can hardly tfike note of it.

In order that the House can fully appreciate how small is the per cent of goods made by convict labor that goes on the market, I am placing in my speech a very thoroughly prepared table submitted by Air. John J. Haniuin. president of the State Board of Control of the State of Wisconsin to the Senate in the hearings of a bill similar to this. It will be found on pnge 145 of the Senate hearings on bill S. 1940, and is as follows:


'Twine and ropo have been combined because no separate figures are obtainable for the prison production of these two products. Almost the entire total of the prison production, however, is of twine, only 3 prisons producing any rope and these in small quantities. The free-labor production of twine aloue was valued at $51,883,93*. As the value of the twine aud rope produced in prisons was $5,588,372 and nearly all of this represented twine, the prison production of twine can be put down as amounting to about 10 per cent of the free-labor production.

1 The figure for the free-labor production is the census total for "wearing apparel," excluding custom-made clothing, -shoes, knit Roods, and shirts.

'Chairs represent the major part of the prison production of furniture, accounting for $2.228,460 of the $2,913,793, total value of furniture produced in prisons. In this particular line prison production is a much more important factor in the total products thrown on the market than in "furniture" as a whole.

* The free-labor production is for brick, tile, terra cotta, fire clay, and other play products, eicept pottery.

'The free-labor production does not include agricultural implements manufactured in plants whose principal product is some other line.

I am sure that everyone agrees with the economic proposition that the man who is capable of producing with bis labor is entitled to Inbor. It nuikes no difference if he N behind prison bars, he is entitled to exorcise himself in labor. This is tlie first fundamental principle thnt a man must look to if he Is to preserve life itself. lie must have activity and he must labor, and we go back and we find that a man is commanded to labor 1C he is to live and have the things that are necessary to sustain his life: that is, clothes, food, shelter, and heat.

Some one may say that if a man is to be thrown out of work because he is competing with some prisoner that is incarcerated behind walls he can never pass beyond, let the man who is behind the wiills be kept in idleness and let the man outside labor. This will not remedy the situation. If we want to do full justice to the people that are unfortunate, those who have looked to the man who is behind the prison walls, let us provide a system which will pay for the labor of the man behind the prison walls and pass that on to his unfortunate dependents on the outside. Do not come into the Congress and say to this man that he must remain in idleness, that he must languish behind prison walls, that he shall not have the exercise which is so wholesome to his body and which is so necessary to prison discipline, but that he must languish behind the walls and his deiiendents must languish on the outside.

Now, what is the main objection that is urged to this bill? It is primarily this: To wiy to the States, the same States which would have the power to prohibit the sale of goods that come from prison farms or prison factories within other States, you may prohibit tbe sale of these goods within your territory because they come from this source. Why do not these States say. by their legislative enactments, "We will have no more of this contract labor: we will adopt a sensible, sane method of handling our prisoners, and we will handle them in some other way besides leasing or contracting them out to some taskmaster who has no concern for their welfare or the welfare of anyone connected with them, but will use them and their lives in the manner of a hard taskmaster in order to produce dollars for ourselves."

Mr. SMITH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BUSHY. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Does the gentleman think it is necessary for Congress to pass a iaw in order to enable the State legislature to pass a law keeping out prison-made goods?

Mr. RUSHY. I believe prison-made goods are a subject for Interstate commerce just as truly as any other goods.

Mr. SMITH. This bill attempts to give jurisdiction to State legislatures, which already have jurisdiction to pass laws to keep out any commodities that are injurious to public health or the public, morals, and a law to do more than that would be unconstitutional.

Mr. Laguakdia. The gentleman has got his law wrong.

Mr. BUSBY. That might be a question of police power. Whether it would reach that far I am not advised. The Constition provides that "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce between foreign nations and among the, several States and with the Indian tribes." The most we can say is that. Congress has been given exclusive power over the subject of interstate commerce-—whether it be prison-made goods or something else. The most we can say for the bill is that while Congress has the power it will pass it back to the Suites. I am not sure what the courts would say about Congress regulating interstate commerce in that sort of a way—that is, by passing the power bestowed on It back to the States from which it came.

Mr. SHREVE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BUSBY. I yield.

Mr. SIIREVE. How will this bill affect our own Federal penitentiaries in the matter of things that we are now manufacturing? In the last few years we have been trying to find something that might he manufactured in the Federal penitentiaries that would not be objected to by labor unions, and yet would give employment to men in the penitentiary?

Mr. BUSBY. I will come to that immediately.' I would like to say that the present managers, the trustees of the penitentiaries, have found that it is absolutely necessary to afford some kind of employment, some kind of activity for these prisoners, if they are to have good prison discipline.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired.

Mr. BUSBY. Mr. Chairman, I will take 10 minutes more.

The best way they have found to control inmates is by employment which gives them the greatest latitude and activity in the open air. Factories have been provided that are as near complying with that as possible, and yet maintaining that sort of supervision over them to prevent them from escaping from prison. Our States have done that, the Federal (government has done that thing, but every time we try to do something we turn to rind a group of objectors who say you are trying to do some

thing we do not want you to accomplish. Then they get in touch with an organization, and that organization in touch with a third organization, and all together they swoop down on C"ngress, and the Members do like we have seen them do within the past week. They all begin to dodge before the bill is read by the Clerk. [Laughter.]

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. May I interrupt the gentleman?

Mr. BUSHY. I yield.

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. May I suggest that as far as I know goods made in the Federal prison are manufactured for Federal use and do not go into interstate commerce.

Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BUSBY. Yes.

Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Suppose you had a law in Mississippi regulating prison-made goods made in your own penal institution. Would you think it would be fair for another State to flood your State with convict-made goods over which you had no regulation or control?

Mr. BUSBY. I think as an economic proposition It is not right to make an isolated territory out of any State where interstate commerce that is proper and right and fair could be prohibited from entry. I think you are wrong to start with on any such proposition.

Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Does the gentleman think it Is proper for a contractor to suck the lifeblood, the profits, out of these men and ship the goods to uiy State of Ohio?

Mr. BUSBY. That is like this bill and report—it assumes premises that do not exist. It is unfair because it begs the question from start to finish. Simply because you have pone along and subordinated the original idea of regulating interstate commerce, and we are dropping back into the error from which the Constitution makers tried to save us. that from which they tried to prevent us from failing into. Whenever you have permitted for one reason prohibition of commerce in one State, and prohibited it in another for a different cause, and in a third State for still another cause, you have created a confusion, throughout the country.

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BUSBY. Yes.

Mr. HUDSON. The question was asked a moment ago as to the effect of this bill on goods manufactured in Federal penitentiaries. I want to know if the following language in the bill would not prohibit the Federal prisoners from working at all? I refer to lines 7 and 8 of the bill:

• * * transported into any State or Territory of the United States and remaining therein for use. consumption, sale, or storage, shall upon arrival and delivery in such State or Territory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory—

And so forth.

Under that language, how are you going to bring merchandise from Federal penitentiaries in for use or consumption?

Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman permit me to answer that question?

Mr. BUSBY. I yield.

Mr. COOPER of Ohio. We have an amendment to ^>^ that proposition when the time comes.

Mr. BUSBY. Mr. Chairman. I am unable to tell we are going to carry this theory of government when get. it started. I am sure that no one on the floor of this^a can foresee the end of tills thing. You know that this* beginning—the very beginning. There is nothing likctlie statute books and there has never been anything ]

Mr. COMBS. The \Vilson Act. passed in 1890. is c» 1 analogous to this in divesting goods of their iuterstattsacter.

Mr. BUSBY. Was not that declared unconstitutionim 1 ~>

Mr. COMBS. No: it was upheld by the Supreme ('our*:

Mr. BUSBY. It has no bearing on the proposition « am arguing. Iwcause it dealt with a question that ix^m ~~ the police powers of a State. I want to return to the t contained in the bill, that we will not be permitted tin goods from one Stale to another and be free from tl sibility that that State may outlaw the products wheget there. After a dealer has purchased goods and s-;"*"1 »T»J'pr/ them into another State he might find himself like tl* *=^ *«i*. sian Government did when they shipped $5.000.000 of gc**-^ the United States recently and found it to be outlawed ai » ^-* had to be returned to some place in Europe.

Mr. Chairman, goods are worth nothing to the owner they can he sold or used. This bill is absolutely nn i» * to carry back to the States the power which they ex~* ~ placed in the Federal Government to control commerce the several States. I want to show you how it might

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

my own State of Mississippi. We used to have (lie old ct» » J . system under which we tried to operate our penitenC**

« ПретходнаНастави »