Congress under its power to regulate commerce has passed laws excluding certain articles from such commerce which might be deleterious to health or morals. This has been approved by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is too clear for argument that the power of Congress over these subjects or articles terminates when the subject or article arrives at its destination. Though immoral or unhealthy and hurtful to the people, when once it lands in a State the power of Congress over it ceases entirely and its control pasess to the State. And while the carrying of convict-made goods in interstate commerce may be the subject of legislation by Congress, and Congress alone, the laws which control such property after its arival in the State are not for Congress to determine, but rest solely with the State, subject only to this condition, that such State law must not in its control and disposition of such property in any way interfere with or attempt to regulate commerce. When the property lands at its destination in the State two species of State laws may attach to them. First, the police power of the State, and second, the powers given by the tenth amendinent:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, this bill before us is framed practically in the exact language of the Wilson bill, which became a law August 8, 1890, except that this bill says that the convict-made goods

upon arrival and delivery in such State or Territory shall 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 goods, wares, and merchandise had been manufactured, produced, or mined in such State or Territory-

Other cases in the reference above uphold this doctrine. So that this bill leaves the power of the State to control convictmade goods when they arrive within the borders under the powers reserved to it under the tenth amendment.

Now, the tenth amendment reserves to the States every power not granted. But the power to regulate commerce has been granted to Congress, and that is a supreme power; and therefore if the State in passing a law to control these goods interferes with interstate commerce it is invalid, because the language of the amendment says that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution rests with the States; but a power that has been delegated by the Constitution to Congress is supreme over the States. So that a State law passed in reference to such goods, if it interferes with any graut of power to Congress, is invalid; and the discussion on this bill and the hearings thereon show quite clearly that it is an attempt to violate that principle which has been recognized from the foundation of the Government, and gives to the States the power to nullify the interstate-commerce power of Congress. On page 255 of the hearings on this bill the brilliant and able Representative from New York [Mr. JACOBSTEIN] says that if this bill becomes a law

we are not taking a power away from the State. On the contrary, we are conferring power upon the State-it is an enabling act-permitting the State to do something which it now can not do.

As it can not now interfere with interstate commerce the inference is irresistible that the object of this bill is to set up that right in the States. Where, in all the records of the Constitution or history, do we find any power given to Congress to endow a State with any such power?

Let us be not deceived. I know nothing about the economics of this question. I do know about the principles at the bottom

interstate commerce into a State

shall be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police power to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such State or Territory.

Why the difference in the two bills? It is quite apparent that the author of the bill was afraid that such convict-made goods would not come under the definition of the police power of the State, which embraces all that may affect the health, the morality, or the safety of the people, and chose to let it rest under the pervasive power of the tenth amendment, which embraced every other power which the State could have. The police power, which has been treated by the court in many cases [for a consideration of this question, I beg to refer to Limitations on the Treaty-Making Power" (p. 284 etc.), by H. ST. GEORGE TUCKER] is confined in those decisions to questions affecting the health, the morality, and the safety of the people of a State; and since the proponents of this bill, while following the language of the Wilson liquor law of August 8, 1890, have declined to follow it by allowing the convict-made goods to be subject to the police power of the State, they must have intended to let it rest under the general powers of the tenth amendment; and this was doubtlessly done because the language of the court in the child-labor cases indicated quite clearly that the purity, cleanliness, and innocence of an article could not be affected by the hand that made it. The court in many cases has recognized that the police power of the State does not yield to the supreme power of commerce. Chief Justice Fuller in the case of In re Rahrer, the Wilson liquor case, 140 U. S. Reports, 554, opens his opinion with the declaration of certain principles which have governed the court on this subject, and says:

And this court has uniformly recognized State legislation, legitimately for police purposes, as not in the sense of the Constitution necessarily infringing upon any right which has been confided expressly or by implication to the National Government.

And, following that view, Justice White, in the case of Compagnie Française de Navigation v. State Board of Health (186 U. S. 394), referring to a French vessel, the Britannia, sailing from France to New Orleans under a treaty providing that if any vessel should leave France with a clean bill of health, and no disease had broken out on the voyage, it would have a right to enter any port of the United States immediately. The Britannia was stopped by a quarantine officer at New Orleans.

Justice White said:

In other words, the treaty was made subject to the enactment of such health laws as the local conditions might evoke, not paramount to them. Especially where the restriction imposed upon the vessel is based, not upon the conditions existing at the port of departure, but upon the presence of an infectious or contagious malady at the port

of arrival within the United States.

passed. It is useless or unconstitutional. It is simply vox et præterea nihil. [Applause.]

Mr. KOPP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CONNERY].

Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I shall not attempt to go into the constitutionality of this bill except to state that it seems to me that the Wilson Act, which was upheld by the Supreme Court and which is quoted by the chairman, is clearly analogous to this bill. In that case the Supreme Court did not say in specific language that they were dealing with intoxicating liquors. They merely laid down the power of Congress to divest commerce of its interstate character at any point at which Congress might see fit or at any period of time at which it might see fit to do so. I shall devote myself to speaking in connection with the evils the people of the United States and of the States endure as a result of convict-made goods coming into the various States. In the State of Massachusetts convict-made goods are permitted only in State use. They are used in the State institutions. If you do not pass this bill then Massachusetts or Ohio or New York or any other State which does not permit their convict-made goods to be sold in other States can not pass a law providing that no convict-made goods shall be sold in their own State without having convict-made goods dumped upon them as a result of interstate commerce regulations. It will leave the State of Massachusetts and these other States with no recourse whatever. These goods can be falsely branded as was illustrated by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. COOPER]. In some instances they put on the name "Yankee shirts," or "United States goods," and all sorts of misleading brands on the goods. In my district, the seventh Massachusetts, in the city of Lynn, my home city, we manufacture mostly shoes. The General Electric Co. has works there, but the main product is shoes. The main product of the city of Lawrence, in my district, is textiles; we have large mills there; and there remains one more city in the district, the city of Peabody, where we have the manufacture of leather. Mine is a great industrial district, and other Congressmen have the same sort of districts.

You can see what prison-made goods of that character mean to my district, to say nothing of the city of St. Louis or of Rochester or other cities that manufacture similar goods. Convict-made goods, shoes, textiles, leather can be shipped into the State of Massachusetts now and sold at lower prices than can the shoes and textiles and the leather goods made in Lawrence, Lynn, and Peabody, in my district, and the free labor and the manufacturers in that district have to suffer greatly thereby.

I do not believe in keeping the prisoners in the penitentiaries idle. We had thorough hearings on this bill. Many wardens of almost all the States came before us, and when I had the opportunity the first question I asked of each warden was what they made in their penitentiaries. Almost invariably the first thing

Mr. CONNERY. It fixes the time at which prison-made merchandise can be divested of the right of interstate com

merce.

Mr. BUSBY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONNERY. Yes.

Mr. BUSBY. In a State like mine, where they work prison farms, and work these farms in a reasonable way, would it not help us in the conduct of that system if you passed this bill? Mr. CONNERY. The Department of Justice is studying conditions in the Federal penitentiaries on that very problem. Mr. BUSBY. You say these shoes made in your State are turned over to the children and are used in the schools?

Mr. CONNERY. No. I did not say that they were used by children in the schools. There are different articles manufactured by the prisons such as ink, and so forth, which, under the law, must be bought from the State institutions; but of course they would not allow prison-made shoes to be sold to children. That would be absurd in such a great free-labor State as Massachusetts.

Mr. BUSBY. So in Massachusetts you have no system except to close access to your prison labor and its products?

Mr. CONNERY. We have a wonderful system in Massachusetts and we do not dump our convict-made goods on other States.

Mr. BUSBY. You do not work your prisoners on farms, do you?

Mr. CONNERY. We have some working on farms; yes. Mr. BUSBY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. MERRITT].

Mr. MERRITT. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlemen who have been discussing this bill and who are in favor of it fail to appreciate or, at least, to express what seems to me to be an undeniable fact, and that is the mere provision that the prisons shall make goods only for State use does not take them out of competition with free labor. It is stated as a fact in favor of the Federal law that in the brick works at a Federal prison which we recently provided for, all the bricks produced should be used only in Federal works. It is perfectly obvious that all those bricks which are made in the Federal prisons prevent the use and sale of an exactly equal number of other bricks which would be made by free labor. The same is true in the other institutions, that the goods they make for State use go into use and fill a void which otherwise would be filled by free labor.

All those who favor the bill agree that it would be absolutely inhuman to keep prisoners without work. Some of us have been in prisons where we have seen men sitting in cells without work, and more miserable and dejected beings can not be conceived; and it is true that the only result of such treatment is to produce insanity.

Now, if we are going to allow these prisoners to work, and if we are going to have any idea of reformation in the treatment of prisoners, which has been making progress in the last generation, then it appears to me it is only fair-and it does not increase competition on the whole-to use these prisoners in an efficient and businesslike way; that is to say, you must have industries in the prisons which will fit these men to go into similar industries when they go out. And the prisoners must work under conditions similar to those in industry.

Now, gentlemen have spoken about the Mississippi prisoners making money for the State on farms. In Connecticut the prisoners are not under the control of any contractor. It is true they do make contracts for the prison labor, but the prisoners are always under the merciful control of the prison authorities. They do get wages and while they are in the prison they earn wages which are appreciable. The gentleman has spoken about the free man with eight children. Well, of course, a prisoner can have eight children as well as a free man, and his wife and his children are just as innocent as the wife and eight children of a free laborer. So it is quite merciful and beneficial to society to give prisoners wages so that they can help support their families while they are in prison and then when they go out they are handed a fund saved from their wages so they are not compelled to go on the streets and from despair drift again into crime.

I think it is a fact that the net cost of the goods made in Connecticut prisons is little less than relatively equal to goods made with free labor.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. The gentleman does not seriously contend that the cost of manufacturing goods in prisons is equal to that on the outside?

Mr. MERRITT. I do seriously contend substantially that in relation to the products of the Connecticut prisons.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. I do not know what arrangements you have in Connecticut, but that is not true in any other State I know of.

Mr. CARSS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MERRITT. Yes.

Mr. CARSS. Do you have the contract system in your State? Mr. MERRITT. Not in the sense that the contractors work the prisoners.

Mr. CARSS. Do they take the products of the prisoners? Mr. MERRITT. Yes.

Mr. CARSS. If that labor costs as much as free labor, what object is there in a person contracting to employ that labor?

Mr. MERRITT. Well, of course, he gets a regular supply of labor and the goods are a low grade of goods. It may be that the first cost is relatively somewhat less.

Mr. CARSS. Then it is not true that the wages paid are equal to those paid to free labor?

Mr. BRIGHAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Yes.

Mr. MERRITT. Mr. BRIGHAM. Is it not true that this labor is somewhat inefficient and that prisoners have to come and learn their trade, so that the turnover of labor is very great. Therefore, while the price is relatively small, nevertheless the labor cost is great?

Mr. MERRITT. I think the unit cost is not very different in either case.

Now, another point that has been raised here I think is really the fundamental point. Aside from the constitutional point, which I shall not argue, it appears to me that this proposed legislation is of a type which unfortunately has grown upon the Congress and upon the country. I do not deny that as to prison-made goods in many of the States there are some evils, which I should be glad to see corrected, but they should be corrected, just as the Mississippi case has been corrected, by the States themselves.

The great difficulty nowadays is that, when any evil appears in any part of the country, those who want change, or what they call reform, come to Congress at once and want to correct the entire evil with one law, which, of course, they can not do. The effect of this law, if it is passed, is that, in attempting to cure certain evils which are claimed to exist, it will produce a great many other evils which are worse, but which are not foreseen.

I do not myself perceive why, if it is competent for Congress to permit one State by legislation to prevent the entrance within its borders and remaining there for sale of prison-made goods, it is not also competent, as has already been suggested, to pass a law forbidding goods to come into that State and be sold which are made by colored people, or by union labor, or made in a wooden house because it might burn up, or made in a stone house for some other reason, neither do I see why it would not be entirely possible to destroy the whole patent system of the United States. We will suppose, as has often happened in the history of this country, that one class of goods which has wide distribution is supplanted by some improved article which is patented. Now, a State perceives that its industry is being threatened by this improved article and the State says, "We can not stand this competition and therefore we will legislate so that goods made in accordance with a certain patent shall not be sold in this State." I do not see any difference between this and the legislation here proposed.

Mr. CROSSER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MERRITT. I will.

of violating the spirit of the doctrine of State rights, this really is going right along with it when it says the State may regulate the proposition as it sees fit?

Mr. CROSSER. Does not the gentleman think that, instead

Mr. MERRITT. I do not think it is in accord with the doctrine of State rights, but, on the contrary, I think it destroys constitutional rights of property and contravenes the basis of the Constitution that trade shall be free among the various States. [Applause.]

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

Mr. KOPP. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. COMBS].

Mr. COMBS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, due to the fact that our hearings on this bill were both exhaustive and lengthy, we have available a mass of data which perhaps it would have been well for the House to have studied at greater length. In view of the impossibility of this, however, in answer to the gentleman from Connecticut, I want briefly to give the House some indication of the difference between the cost of prison-made and free-labor-produced commodities. I believe the gentleman stated that the unit cost was approximately the same in the case of the two different types of manufactured goods.

Mr. COMBS. In Connecticut? Accepting the gentleman's correction, I still feel that it is important that we know approximately what the laborers are getting in the penitentiaries for the work which they do.

In the average shoe factory run by a contractor under the lease system, the convict is paid 5 or 6 cents a pair. He receives for a week's work a sum rarely in excess of $1.90. Necessarily, the margin between this $1.90 and the price which would be paid a free laborer is either the contractor's artificial margin of profit or the zone in the range of which he can safely depress his prices and stifle competition from independent or free-labor scurces. In the case of shirt manufacturing, I believe, the figures show the cost of prison labor to be approximately onethird of that of free labor.

So it is obvious that throughout the country wherever cheap work clothing is manufactured the effect of the prison-contract system has been virtually to destroy the market in those communities which have experienced this depressive effect. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. COMBS. Yes.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Is it not a complete answer to the suggestion made by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. MERRITT] that if it would cost as much to manufacture in prison contractors would not go to the penitentiaries to manufacture their goods?

Mr. COMBS. Why, of course, that is perfectly obvious. They bear no part of the overhead expense, they pay no rent, and they receive the labor of the convicts for sums usually less than $2 a week.

Mr. BUSBY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COMBS.

Yes.

Mr. BUSBY. If the States would correct their system of leasing labor to contractors, would that not reach the objection that is trying to be reached by this bill?

Mr. COMBS. Not entirely, sir; it would in a measure. Mr. BUSBY. The burden of the complaint is that this thing goes on of leasing convict labor to contractors by the State authorities.

Mr. COMBS. Of course, the most pernicious feature of our present system that this bill is aimed to correct is the leasing or the contract system, but that is not by any means the sum total of the fault of the present sysem.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. COMBS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. GREENWOOD. And since some States will not correct that system, this law prevents those States from dumping their goods into other States that will do it.

Mr. COMBS. Yes. One State, I believe the State of Indiana, actually exports and sends into other States 85 per cent of its convict-made goods.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Indiana?

Mr. COMBS. I believe that is the State.

Mr. COLE of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREENWOOD. If it is true that Indiana is at fault, then I am willing to correct the situation in Indiana the same as in any other State.

Mr. COLE of Iowa. Did I understand the gentleman to say that the average wage paid convict labor is only $2 a week? Mr. COMBS. That is true in a number of the States, in the shoe manufacturing divisions.

Mr. COLE of Iowa. That is ridiculous.
Mr. COMBS. Five and six cents a pair.

Mr. COLE of Iowa. That is worse than slave labor.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Let me add, however, that Indiana does not contract its prison labor.

Mr. COMBS. That is true.

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

Mr. BUSBY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman one additional minute.

Mr. COMBS. It has been said that it is impossible merely by changing the occupation or the nature of the work in which these men are employed to take them out of competition with free labor.

Mr. BUSBY. If cotton is produced by convict labor in Mississippi and is shipped into Massachusetts, it becomes merchandise of interstate commerce and would be subject to the same regulation that pertains to other articles?

Mr. COMBS. Yes.

chandise.

Mr. FOSS. What object would Massachusetts have in shutting cotton out?

Mr. BUSBY. That is what I want to know, but under the bill they are doing it.

Mr. COMBS. It is obvious if convicts are to be employed in any productive work they will be brought into competition with free labor, but this bill seeks to limit them, in the State-use system, to a restricted and noncompetitive market, the price levels of which will not affect the prevailing price levels on the open market. The time of the gentleman from Missouri

The CHAIRMAN. has again expired.

Mr. BUSBY. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DENISON].

Mr. DENISON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have for a long time been in favor of legislation to accomplish the purpose which this bill is intended to accomplish. Years ago, when I first came to Congress, I was on the Labor Committee. Our committee started legislation of this kind, and, if I remember correctly, reported a bill favorably to Congress. I do not now remember what disposition was made of it.

I wish the committee in considering the subject had brought in a bill in a somewhat different form from that now presented to the House. I am afraid that there may be something in the argument presented by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. TUCKER], judging by the phraseology of the bill. It says that all goods, wares, and merchandise manufactured, and so forth. by convicts or prisoners transported into any State or Territory in 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.

What is meant by "upon delivery"? Does that mean after delivery? If it does, then it seems to me that such goods would be subject to the laws of the State anyway and this bill would not have any effect. I do not know what construction the courts would place upon the word "upon," as used in the act.

I said that I wished the legislation had taken a somewhat different form, and I will tell you why. I have for a number of years been giving a great deal of study to a Federal blue sky law that is, a law of the Federal Government to prevent the sale of fraudulent securities-fraudulent stocks and bondsthrough the agency of the interstate commerce.

Forty-six States of the Union have passed laws to protect their own citizens against the sale of fraudulent and worthless securities. Most of these laws are effective-they protect their citizens in a way, and yet through the channels of interstate commerce the State laws are being evaded and nullified by dishonest promoters who sell their worthless securities through the channels of interstate commerce. States which have fraudulent securities laws appeal to Congress to pass some legislation to prevent the agencies of interstate commerce, which are exclusively under Federal control, being used to nullify the State laws. So I have had before Congress for a number of years a bill which provides about as follows:

That it shall be unlawful to send through the agencies of interstate commerce from one State into another State any security for sale which can not lawfully be sold in that State. Now, I studied the constitutional questions involved in such legislation and consulted a great many authorities, and I became convinced that that kind of a law is constitutional. In other words where a security is unlawful in one State, where it can not be lawfully sold because not qualified under the laws of that State, Congress can exercise its constitutional power to regulate commerce and forbid the transportation of such a security through interstate commerce into that State.

If this legislation had taken that form it seems to me that it would have been effective, and there would have been no question about its constitutionality. That was what the WebbKenyon Act did, and we have passed other similar laws. Congress can, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, prevent the transportation of any article from one State into another State for sale in such State, if such sale would be unlawful therein; and it would make no difference whether the State law was passed in the exercise of the State's police power, or of any other proper public policy.

Mr. BUSBY. Would not that be based upon the same reason

Mr. COMBS. I think it would, for it has been repeatedly stated-and I believe with some logic-that agricultural prod

mittee were based on; that is, the police power of the State to be used against worthless securities and against the sale of intoxicating liquors?

Mr. DENISON. I take it that each State has the right to pass such legislation as it may wish to protect its own citizens either against the sale of fraudulent securities or against the sale of prison-made goods. That is a question of police power and public policy.

Mr. BUSBY. Is there anything in the prison-made goods that would make them unwholesome or injurious to health or morals of the community?

Mr. DENISON. No; I do not think so; but I think that any State as a matter of its own public policy has a right, if it wants to, to pass a law to protect its citizens against the sale of prison-made goods within its own borders. Each State has full power to deal as it may choose with intrastate sales of prison-made goods.

Mr. MONTAGUE. The gentleman thinks the State has that power?

Mr. MONTAGUE. Can Congress confer that power on the States?

Mr. DENISON. No; I think that is a power that is inherent in the State.

Mr. CARSS. No. The sentiment against the sale of prisonmade goods has not developed to the extent that they bar these goods. Some of the gentlemen think the farmers are afraid, if this legislation is passed, that it will prevent binder twine and farm machinery from being shipped into their States. I say to you that the legislatures of the agricultural States are dominated by the farmers, and that they are not going to be foolish enough to pass any laws which will lay themselves open to being compelled to pay monopolistic prices for goods. In other words, they will not injure themselves by any act of their own legislatures.

Mr. COLE of Iowa. Does the gentleman sell this binder twine for less than twine made by free labor?

Mr. CARSS. A very little lower, if any; in fact, I think sometimes our prices have been a little higher, owing to the superior quality of our binding twine, and we are able to hold the market.

Mr. DENISON.

Yes. Let us take as an illustration the State of Virginia. If the legislature of that State thinks its own sound public policy, whatever its reasons may be, demands that prison-made goods made within the State be not sold within the State in competition with goods made by free labor, I think the State has the right to pass that kind of a law. If the State adopts that policy and passes such a law to protect its citizens against the sale of prison-made goods, made within the State itself, then Congress may very well come to the aid of that State, to the extent of saying that, since the State has adopted that policy, Congress will not permit its agencies of interstate commerce to be used to violate that State policy and nullify that State's law. I think we can properly forbid the shipping of prison-made goods from one State into another State to be sold contrary to the law of that State.

I intend to vote for this bill because I think its purpose is wise and proper. But I think it would have been more effective and subject to less criticism if it had been reported in the form I have suggested.

Mr. KOPP. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. CARSS].

Mr. CARSS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am in favor of this legislation. I attended all of the hearings of the committee and had something to do with examining the witnesses. I have been familiar with legislation of this sort for some time. I happen to represent a district from a State that has practically solved the prison-labor problem. We have no contract labor in Minnesota, we have no men sitting idle in prison houses going insane because they are not employed. We manufactured, I think, last year, 22.000.000 pounds of binder twine, and many million dollars' worth of agricultural implements. This binder twine is shipped into the different States and sold, but it is sold in conformity with the laws of those States, whatever they may be. We stamp our machinery and castings with the prison label and with a stencil put the prison label on the woodwork. We label all of our binding twine, and yet right in Minnesota where our law does not permit prisonmade goods to be sold unless labeled prison-made goods, millions of dollars of prison-made goods are coming in and are being dumped upon the people of that State, who are opposed to the sale of these goods, and we are not able to protect ourselves. I think the State of Minnesota has a right to protect itself. believe that is good old State-rights doctrine. I do not see how you gentlemen on the Democratic side can vote against this bill, if you believe in that.

Mr. CRISP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARSS. Yes.

I

Mr. CRISP. In how many States are convict-made goods manufactured and sold in interstate commerce and in competition with free labor?

Mr. CARSS. I have not the figures, but in a great many States.

Mr. SMITH. Suppose these surrounding States where you are selling the 22,000,000 pounds of binder twine were to pass a law to prohibit prison-made goods going into those States where it is now being sold?

Mr. CARSS. If the people of those States saw fit to pass a law of that kind to prohibit prison-made goods coming into their territory. I think they would have that right.

Mr. SMITH. Then your people would not be able to sell that great quantity of binder twine?

Mr. COLE of Iowa. Is it not true that anything made by prison labor, no matter where you sell it, will compete with free labor? Mr. CARSS. Absolutely. I do not think any sensible man without coming into competition with some kind of free labor. I wish it were possible to devise a plan to prevent this, but unfortunately there is none. The principal objection to the prison-contract system is that while the amount is small, it comes into competition with just a few industries. For instance, take the broom-making industry. It is about the only thing that poor blind people can engage in. That is being ruined by this unfair competition from the prison.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARSS. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Is it true that up in the Stillwater Penitentiary, in order to meet the demand for the goods manufactured at that institution, you have to employ free labor to cooperate with the convict labor in making the goods?

Mr. CARSS. Yes. And I want to say to you that we pay wages in Minnesota, and we have welfare organizations there that make an investigation of the prisoners' families, and we do not pay the families simply 7 or 8 or 10 cents a day, but as high as $1.20 is paid, and in some cases $60 per month for the support of the prisoners' families.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. You guarantee them their employment? In other words, the fellow in jail is sure of employment anyway?

Mr. CARSS. Yes. But the fellow employed in a shoe factory that is shut down and is out of a job on account of unfair competition of prison labor is liable to be forced to commit a crime in order to procure the necessities of life for his family. Mr. LAGUARDIA. In order to get a job?

Mr. MCDUFFIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CARSS. Yes.

Mr. McDUFFIE. What percentage of shoes is made by prison labor?

Mr. CARSS. They claim one-half of 1 per cent.

Mr. BRIGHAM. The report says 6.47 per cent of the twine is made by prison labor.

Mr. CARSS. It does not make any difference what the percentage is; it is the principle involved.

Mr. BUSBY. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. CLAGUE].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. CLAGUE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the State of Minnesota does not have a contract-labor system. That system was abolished many years ago. We manufacture in our State prison at Stillwater, Minn., some twine and farm machinery. Twine has been manufactured in our prison for the past 30 years and farm machinery for 18 years.

The gentleman from Minnesota who preceded me [Mr. CARSS] has stated that we pay our convicts. This is true. Every convict in our State prison receives pay, the lowest being 25 cents per day, and the highest $1.30 per day. The average is 50 cents per day. If a prisoner who has a family comes to our State prison, 75 per cent of his pay is sent to the family, and 25 per cent is retained by the prisoner, which he can use as he sees fit. If the prisoner has a family of several children. oftentimes more than 75 per cent of his pay is given to his family. The amount paid to families of prisoners ranges from $25 to $60 per month, depending on financial condition of the family, and the number of children. This is done for the purpose of keeping the family together, supporting the wife, and educating the children.