it was concluded that service would be more readily obtainable for the International Motor Co.'s machine than for that offered by Pirsch Bros. Co., and as an additional reason for the award it is suggested that no bidder is in a position to guarantee adequate service for 15 years or more of a truck composed of assembled motive parts. The possibility that the manufacture of some of the parts used by Pirsch & Sons Co. in the manufacture or assembling of their truck may be discontinued in the future is also urged as a reason for the rejection of its bid. "All provisions, clothing, hemp, and other materials of every name and nature for the use of the Navy, and the transportation thereof, when time will permit, shall be furnished by contract, by the lowest bidder, * * *. The person offering to furnish any class of such articles, and giving satisfactory security for the performance thereof, under a forfeiture not exceeding twice the contract price in case of failure, shall receive a contract for furnishing the same." The object of the statute referred to is to give the Government the advantage of the lowest price obtainable for the furnishing of an article through the widest possible competition and to allow all manufacturers and dealers an equal opportunity to furnish goods for the requirements of the Government. The fact that one bidder proposes to furnish goods manufactured by it in its own plant is not in itself sufficient reason to warrant the exclusion of other dealers who propose A similar risk is run that to furnish goods of equal or better quality. replacements may be difficult to obtain several years hence in the one case as in the other. All or many parts are unlikely to require replacement or renewal at the same time-but if so, it might be argued that there is safety in numbers and many parts requiring replacement or renewal would more certainly be obtainable without the possibility of delays if all were only obtainable of one manufacturer. But be this as it may, it is common knowledge that with few exceptions manufacturing to-day in the United States has reached such a state of mass production and specialization that the dealer engaged in placing a completed article on the market frequently finds it more satisfactory to rely either on its subsidiary corporations or other manufacturers for furnishing the component parts of its product than to attempt construction of the article from raw material in its own plant. Indeed, it appears that the company to whom the contract here in question was awarded relies on other manufacturers to furnish essential parts of its completed article. Upon the facts appearing, I am constrained to hold that the contract with the International Motor Co. was improperly awarded and payment thereunder may not be made from public funds. It is not clear whether delivery of the fire equipment has been made under the contract. The bid called for delivery within 120 days after date of contract or bureau order. The contract is dated December 16, 1926, and 120 days thereafter would make the delivery date about April 15, 1927. Such a period of time has elapsed since the contract date; it may be assumed that work thereunder has materially progressed. This is referred to because usually questions concerning acceptance of other than low bid present a situation in which the thing has been delivered and apparently present an equity in the contracting party to receive payment. Even if delivery has been made, however, it can have no bearing upon the legality of the procedure in making the award. At most, equity may be involved, but as in all such situations that is a question almost wholly whether the Congress should choose to consider the matter and give relief. Where other than a low bidder receives an award it must be with the knowledge in that accepted bidder that his bid was not the low bid and it was thus peculiarly brought to the attention of such a one that the award may be questioned and particularly so where a Government contract is involved. The limits of authority of Government officials must be strikingly assumed as in the knowledge of an accepted bidder other than the low bid. I am constrained, therefore, to say that whether in the present matter the apparatus has been delivered or work thereon has materially progressed, it presents no reason for other than now denying legality of the award to that bidder. Respectfully, J. R. MCCARL, Comptroller General of the United States. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, The honorable the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. These armored cars are intended for use in delivering currency and Gustav Schaefer Wagon Co., offering General Motors truck, Gustav Schaefer Wagon Co., offering Pierce Arrow Model American Coach & Body Co., offering White Model 51 Gustav Schaefer Wagon Co., offering White Model 51 chassis Four $12,500.00 13, 450, 00 13, 496. 18 13, 500.00 "The proposals for the first two of the foregoing bids did not conform to the bureau's specifications. The variations are mentioned below: "G. M. C. Model K-52-S: While the General Motors Truck Co. in its letter of May 31, 1927, attached, states that the G. M. C., Model K-52-S, chassis is a standardized current stock model, the Washington representative of the company was unable to give any information concerning this model chassis. The Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing advises that the General Motors Co. does not advertise this model, and it appears that the company plans to change its 21⁄2-ton truck in order to meet the bureau's specifications. In these circumstances the bureau would not be receiving a stock model 2-ton chassis, as required by the specifications, but instead would be receiving a special truck devised to meet the specifications. The director of the bureau regards it as essential that he receive a standard truck, so that there will be no difficulty with respect to the securing of replacement parts at some future date. Paragraph 13 of the specifications calls for the frame on the chassis to be not less than 6-inch channel. The frame of Model K-52-A is made of 5%-inch channel. In a letter dated May 31, 1927, the General Motors Truck Co. states that the Model K-52-S on as which the Schaefer Co. failed to submit any data is the same Model K-52-A, except that the 5%-inch channel frame has an insert section 5 inches by inch fastened to it, and that it has a larger engine with cylinders of 41⁄2-inch bore by 61⁄2-inch stroke, developing a minimum of 40 brake horsepower. The Model K-52-A is rated at 37 (actual) brake horsepower. These changes which the General Motors Co. offer to make convert their Model K-52-A into a special model, or one that is not standard. "Paragraph 18 of the specifications provides that the cylinders have water passages cast integrally with the cylinder walls. The engine offered by the General Motors Co. has removable liners in the cylinders. Paragraph 28 of the specifications calls for a geared centrifugal pump in connection with the cooling system. The General Motors Co. engine uses a belt-driven pump. "With the exception of the changes noted in the foregoing para graphs, the chassis offered in this bid meets the bureau's specifications. "Pierce-Arrow Model X-A: The next lowest proposal is that of the Gustav Schaefer Wagon Co., based on a Pierce-Arrow Model X-A chassis. "Paragraph 3 of the specifications requires that the chassis be a standardized, current stock model, and also that it shall be rated by its manufacturer for a load, exclusive of body weight and accessories, of not less than 21⁄2 tons. Pierce-Arrow Model X-A is rated by its manu facturer as a 2-ton truck chassis. Since the opening of the bids. the Washington representative of the Pierce-Arrow Motor Car Co. and the Gustav Schaefer Wagon Co. have submitted letters to the effect that the X-A 2-ton chassis offered would be built up to their X-B 3-ton chassis standard, with the exception of the difference of material in the frame. The difference in material referred to is that the S-A 2-ton chassis is of 30-35 carbon steel, heat treated, and the X-B 3-to is of chrome nicket steel, heat treated. This change would require the addition of one leaf to each of the rear springs, and making these changes, therefore, would convert this chassis into a model that is a standard stock model with the Pierce-Arrow Co. "The third and fourth bids meet the specifications of the bureau every respect. not in he "In order that the award of the contract may be made in conformity with the findings of your office, the Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing wants to know whether, in view of the specifications, should award the contract to a bidder who offers a current stock model on which certain mechanical changes have been made in order to meet the specifications; whether or not the mechanical changes are objectionable; or whether the award must be made to the bidder whose current stock model meets the specifications in every respect without altera. tions." Under existing laws governing purchase of equipment for the GO" ernment, the controlling element is the job to be done the work necessary to be accomplished. The request for bids should fairly reflect the actual need, through specifications or otherwise, and the equipment to be had at the lowest price that will serve the purpose is that authorized to be purchased at public expense. The matter of the purchase of automobiles and the drawing of speci fications to accompany the advertisement for bids has been the subject of numerous decisions by this office, and it has uniformly been held that for all ordinary uses all makes and grades of automobiles are for consideration in determining which will best meet the needs of the service, and that bids should be requested on specifications drawn not by designation of a particular make or to cover the mechanical construction of a particular make, but should show only such details as to construction and performance requirements as can satisfactorily be shown necessary to meet the needs of the service. (5 Comp. Gen. 771; id. 963.) An examination of the specifications in the instant matter discloses that they were drawn with greater detail than necessary or proper in that they cover mechanical construction of the engine and other nonessential details. It appears that what the Government requires in this case is two armored automobile trucks of sufficient power, durability, etc., for use in delivering currency and other securities from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to various places in the city of Washington, D. C. The make or model of an automobile such as "stock model is not the controlling element as to the acceptance or rejection of a bid. In other words, if the automobile offered at a lower price conforms to the essential requirements of the specifications and will satisfactorily meet the needs of the service, the fact that it is not a "stock model" or that it has a belt-driven pump instead of a centrifugal pump in connection with the cooling system, as specified, and other minor mechanical differences, is not sufficient justification for the rejection of the lower bid and acceptance of the higher. The bid of the Gustav Schaefer Wagon Co. offering General Motors truck, model K-52-S chasis, at a price of $12,500 is the lowest of the bids received, and it appears that the machine offered meets in every respect the needs of the service, and also conforms to the essential requirements of the specifications, differing only in minor mechanical details. Accordingly, the said bid should be accepted. J. R. MCCARL, Comptroller General of the United States. CLAIMS OF SETTLERS IN LAKE COUNTY, FLA. Mr. SINNOTT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Public Lands, I call from the Speaker's table the bill H. R. 5695, with a Senate amendment, and move to agree to the Senate amendment. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the bill by title. A bill (H. R. 5695) authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to equitably adjust disputes and claims of settlers and others against the United States and between each other arising from incomplete or faulty surveys in township 19 south, range 26 east, and in sections 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 30, and 31, township 19 south, range 27 east, Tallahassee meridian, Lake County in the State of Florida. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the Senate amend ment. The Senate amendment was read. institutions, 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 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, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced in the original package or otherwise. Mr. NEWTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. NEWTON: Page 1, line 4, after the word "part," insert "under leasing or contract labor system." Mr. NEWTON. Mr. Chairman, I am in sympathy with the general purpose sought to be accomplished by this legislation. There can be no question but what abuses have existed. I have not had an opportunity to go over the evidence in the rather exhaustive hearings in as minute detail as I would like, but I judge from such examination as I have been able to make that substantial abuses still exist which ought to be corrected by legislation. Undoubtedly much of this can and should be corrected through legislative action in the States. The fact that we in Congress are considering approaching it from a national viewpoint, should not deter those outside of Congress sponsoring this legislation from urging the various States where abuses exist to take appropriate action to correct them. We abolished the contract-labor system in the State prison at Minnesota 18 years ago. We have a prison there where the prisoners are employed in industrial activities. It stands without a rival in the country to-day. Yesterday I am sure you gentlemen heard the remarks of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. CARSS] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. CLAGUE] in that connection. I shall not repeat. In our State prison we manufacture farm machinery and twine. We do an annual business in these lines of $3,000,000. It is generally accepted as a fact that it was the Minnesota State prison embarkation in the manufacture of binder twine that broke up the trust many years ago. The neighboring States buy our twine. glad to get it. In 1927 we sold twine as follows: Wisconsin, 820,500 pounds---North Dakota, 2,230,700 poundsSouth Dakota, 759,750 pounds. Iowa, 662,260 pounds. Nebraska, 854,200 pounds_ They are $102, 562. 50 292, 211, 70 89, 270. 62 78, 815. 55 100, 368.50 32, 649. 61 There was sold in the State of Minnesota during the same year nearly 17,000 pounds of binder twine for which the State received over $2,000,000. We manufacture farm machinery. We sold binders, mowers, rakes, and trucks in Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and several States. The total business amounted to about $500,000. Our business in our own State, The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the Senate along the farm-machinery line, amounted to nearly $500,000. amendment. The Senate amendment was agreed to. CONVICT-MADE GOODS Mr. KOPP. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H. R. 7729. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa moves that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H. R. 7729. The question is on agreeing to that motion. The motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. BEEDY] will please take the chair. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H. R. 7729, with Mr. BEEDY in the chair. The CHAIRMAN. The House is in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H. R. 7729, which the Clerk will report by title. The Clerk read as follows: A bill (H. R. 7729) to divest goods, wares, and merchandise manufactured, produced, or mined by convicts or prisoners of their interstate character in certain cases. These goods are known to have been made in a prison and are marked as prison made. There is no question but what it is prison labor. There is no question but what it comes in competition with free labor. We pay our prisoners from 25 cents to $1.30 per day. The dependents of these prisoners receive a substantial portion of the amount of the wage, and where that is insufficient the State helps out these dependents from its own treasury. We are doing a very wonderful work there and a work which should be encouraged. Mr. Chairman, this bill as it is drawn permits any one of these adjoining States to pass legislation which would prevent the sale of the products of this prison within the borders of the State. This restriction applies not only to the product of contract labor within a prison but to the products of all prison labor. I believe that prisoners should be employed whether they are employed on a farm, upon the public highways, in the manufacture of binder twine, farm machinery, or anything else. The products of their labor come into competition, directly or indirectly, with the products of free labor. That is unfortunate, but it is true from the standpoint of the prisoner, from the standpoint of society, and from the standpoint of economy, these men ought to be kept busy while they are in prison. Care should be taken in selling the products of prison labor so as not to unduly interfere with the products of free labor. Our State The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the bill for amend- is doing this. The production should be done, however, under ment. The Clerk read as follows: suitable conditions. Generally speaking, it is not done where the contract labor system prevails. That is the reason that we abolished the contract system. It is the contract system and its abuses that have led to the demand for some sort of legis. Be it enacted, etc., That 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 reformatorylation of this character. This bill goes beyond the abuse. It proceeds further than it should. If enacted into law, some of these States might take action to prevent the sale of convict-labor goods even when they were made under the unusual conditions prevailing in the Minnesota State Prison. Therefore, I think the bill should be amended so that it will apply only to goods manufactured or produced under a so-called leasing or contract labor system. That is the purpose and intent of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, there is another reason why we should approach the consideration of this question carefully and not extend the provisions more than to the products of the contract labor system. There can be no question but what this measure is of doubtful constitutionality. I say doubtful because in my judgment the question is very close. Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. NEWTON. I will be glad to yield to my friend from Ohio. Mr. COOPER of Ohio. I doubt the statement the gentleman has made when he says this bill will prohibit the sale of convict-made goods in other States of the Union. Mr. NEWTON. The gentleman misunderstood. I did not say that. I said this bill will permit any State legislature to prohibit the sale within its borders of anything that may be manufactured in a State penitentiary. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBSTEIN. That is only provided the State itself does the same thing? Mr. NEWTON. Certainly; but it permits it to be done. Mr. NEWTON. Yes. Mr. CASEY. Does the gentleman contend the State has not the right to do that now? Mr. NEWTON. I doubt very much whether the State has that right. I am not certain whether it ought to be permitted to have that right. Mr. CASEY. But the gentleman is not ready to say whether it has or not. Mr. NEWTON. No; I have a doubt. Mr. NEWTON. That would be the case if the prohibition as to sale applied to goods manufactured by tuberculars, where it would be rather clear that there was a question of public health. It would not be the case if that were done merely under the guise of a public health regulation. This is of course assuming Congress has passed legislation like the Wilson Act. Mr. CASEY. Suppose we said it was done for that purpose? Mr. NEWTON. A mere arbitrary statement of that kind would not suffice. Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield further? Mr. COOPER of Ohio. I do not know whether this is a fair Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Well, would that change the constitutionality of the proposition? Mr. NEWTON. I do not think so. However, I said it was of doubtful constitutionality. I do not believe in the contract labor system. I am in doubt about the constitutionality of this measure. But it is a doubt and unless I am convinced that it is unconstitutional I shall vote for it. However, the bill is drawn so as to take in far more than the evils of the contract labor system. Under the circumstances it seems to me it ought to be amended so as to be confined to that rather than to go beyond it. Mr. COOPER of Ohio. I do not think that is the fundamental thing in this bill. I think the fundamental thing in this bill is whether or not each State of the Union has the right to regulate the sale of prison-made goods. It does not say anything about the contract system in this bill. Mr. NEWTON. No; and that is the reason the gentleman and I differ. I claim the bill goes too far. Mr. CARSS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CARSS. The gentleman states that unless his amendment is adopted the States might pass laws prohibiting the sale of convict-made goods in their States provided they were made under the contract system? Mr. NEWTON. Yes. Here is the constitutional question as I see it and I have not had the time to go into it thoroughly. In the forming of our Government certain powers were granted to the Federal Government, including the right to regulate interstate commerce. Those not granted were reserved to the States or the people. Among the powers reserved was the police power. The States reserved the right to protect its people in matters affecting morals, public health, and so forth. Certain States prohibited the sale of alcoholic liquors, as they had a right to do. Liquor dealers outside of the State shipped liquor into the State, thereby circumventing the States in their legitimate functions. Congress felt that the commerce clause of the Constitution should not be used for that purpose and in 1890 passed the Wilson Act. This was upheld in the case of Rohrer (140 U. S. 545). It divested these goods of their interstate character upon arrival in the State of destination, permitting them upon arrival to be sub-subsequent action on the part of legislatures? ject to the police power of the State. It was a police power proposition. There is a grave question in my mind whether under the police power the States themselves have the right to forbid the sale of prison-made goods within their borders where there is not involved a question of morals or public health. Mr. CARSS. How would you remedy it? They could also, under that same line of logic, prohibit the importation and sale of goods made in such prisons as we have in Minnesota, so I can not see where the gentleman's proposed amendment would remedy the situation at all. Mr. NEWTON. Possibly I did not understand the gentle man. The proposed amendment restricts the bill to goods, wares, and merchandise manufactured, produced, or mined under the "leasing or contract labor system." It is only as to goods manufactured by virtue of that kind of leasing or contract system that the law would then apply. It would not extend to goods manufactured in any prison where the leasing or cont ract system did not exist. Mr. CASEY. Would they have the right under the police power to prohibit anything from coming into the States from the outside? Mr. NEWTON. Clearly not. As I understand it the police power covers intoxicating liquor, deleterious food, or other public health propositions, or those going to the question of morals. Mr. CARSS. Does the gentleman claim that would prevent Mr. NEWTON. Certainly; it would very clearly restrict this bill. The goods that are not included in this bill, the goods that are manufactured in a State penitentiary not under a contract, would not be divested of their interstate character. Mr. LOWREY. Will the gentleman yield to me a moment now? Mr. NEWTON. Yes. Mr. LOWREY. I have sent to the clerk's desk an amend ment in line with the amendment of the gentleman, and yet to I believe it goes a little further and I believe it is a litle better. After the word "institution" in line 6, I propose insert the words, "which allows prisoners to work unde a contract or lease system." This forbids any prison that prac tices the contracting or leasing system to sell its goods. I mean by that statement that it puts the goods under the same Lan that the bill does. Mr. NEWTON. I have no special pride of authorship. Wat I am trying to get at is to make this bill apply to those goods that are made under a contract labor system. Mr. LOWREY. While we are all condemning the contract labor system, would not the gentleman be willing to make it apply to the goods of any prison that practices the contract system? Mr. NEWTON. No; I am inclined to think we are on more solid ground if we confine it to the goods that are manufactured under that system. Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I trust the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota is not adopted. If this amendment is adopted, it kills the very purpose of the bill. This bill does not say anything about the contract system. There is not a word about prison-contract labor in this bill. The whole purpose of the bill is to give each State of the Union the right to regulate the sale of convict-made goods. There are several States in the Union that have laws regulating the sale of convict-made goods. If the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota is adopted, it means that Minnesota can still ship its prison-made goods, its farm machinery, and its binder twine, or anything else that it may make in the prisons of Minnesota, into these States. I hope the amendment will not be adopted, because it will kill the very purpose and object of the bill. Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, may we have the amendment again reported? The Clerk read the Newton amendment. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. NEWTON] Who introduces this amendment misses the entire point of this proposed legislation. We do not seek in this bill to say what shall be made or what shall not be made in prisons, or the method of producing these convict-made goods. Anyone who thinks that Congress is trying to usurp authority which properly belongs to the States, does not understand this pending legisla tion. As a member of the committee I have followed it for several years. The purpose of this legislation is to give to the States more authority to control the marketing of prison-made goods. Mr. VINSON of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Let me first complete my statement, and then I will be pleased to yield. Under this bill the States will have more power and more authority to deal with goods manufactured in prisons and shipped in interstate commerce, whether they are made by contract system or by the State itself, and therefore the point of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota is aside from the mark. This legislation is permissive legislation. There is nothing mandatory about it. No State need pass any legislation. A State that does not want to do anything need do nothing under this bill. The State, however, under this bill that desires to protect itself against the sale of articles manufactured in Minnesota or any other State whether it be contract labor or by the State government itself, will be free to protect itself. Furthermore, as the law will not go into operation for two years the States will have ample opportunity to readjust themselves to changed conditions. The purpose of this legislation, gentlemen, is simply to enable each State to protect the free labor of that State against unfair competition in the sale of goods made by prison labor shipped in from other States. I now yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. VINSON of Kentucky. The gentleman says the legislation proposes to give more rights or more powers to the States. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Yes; I honestly believe it does. Mr. VINSON of Kentucky. Does the gentleman admit that in the giving of added rights or added powers, which this bill seeks to do, it takes away certain powers and certain rights of other States? Mr. JACOBSTEIN. I think it does, but since all States are given new power no one State is discriminated against. It gives my State the right to say that goods coming into New York State shall stand on the same bottom as prison-made goods manufactured within New York State, and if the goods from Mississippi manufactured in a prison come into New York State they must subject themselves to the same laws that apply to the same class of goods manufactured in prisons within New York State, and that is all. Mr. VINSON of Kentucky. But under the present law the State may ship in interstate commerce such commodities into New York. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. That is right, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on the merits of this bill. Mr. VINSON of Kentucky. If New York, under this law, prevents the shipment of those commodities and this law gives New York State an added right, does it not take away rights from the sister States? Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Of course, if you increase the rights of one State to-day under this bill you necessarily restrict the rights of the other States. But, of course, it is not true that under this bill any State can prevent the shipment into it goods made by prison labor. It does no such thing, and no State can exercise such power. It merely enables the States to impose conditions on convict-made goods shipped into these States similar to restrictions imposed on goods made in prisons within the State. Mr. VINSON of Kentucky. And to that extent taking away certain rights of other States. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Yes; that is the whole purpose of this legislation-giving authority and taking away authority-but without discrimination as between the States, to correct a great evil. It is giving every State in the Union the right to impose conditions on the sale of goods manufactured in prisons in other States and planned to ship into your State. That is a sound proposition. I hope the Cooper bill will pass, because it is in the interest of free labor. It will help destroy a vicious system known as the contract labor system, which exploits prison labor at the expense of free labor. Mr. BUSBY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BUSBY. This bill would seek to nullify the clause in the Constitution without repealing that clause. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. What clause is that? Mr. BUSBY. The clause that provides that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several States. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. It is under that very power that Congress seeks to divest the interstate-commerce character from this particular class of commodities. If Congress did not have that right it could not be considering such legislation as before us to-day. The passage of this bill will not deprive convicts of the opportunity of employment. I hate to think it will do that and believe it will not. Idleness in prisons is a terrible thing. Many States, including my own, New York, have developed the "Stateuse" system, which keeps the prisons busy but does not put the convict-made commodities on the open market in competition with free labor. I believe the bill is constitutional, following the precedent established in the Wilson bill of 1890 and the Webb-Kenyon Act. The slight doubt of its constitutionality should not deter us from voting for this bill. This measure has the approval of organized labor. A large group of manufacturers and welfare organizations too. I am a member of the Labor Committee, which has had this measure under consideration for nearly four years. I have listened with an open mind to both sides of the question. I am convinced this is a good, a sound, and a just proposal, and I hope and believe the House will pass it by an overwhelming vote. The CHAIRMAN. York has expired. The time of the gentleman from New Mr. LAGUARDIA. to proceed for 10 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota has been fully answered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. COOPER]. I am surprised that the gentleman from Minnesota, who is a very good parliamentarian, did not take the direct way and move to strike out the enacting clause because that would be the effect of his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent Now, I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that the question of constitutionality is generally invoked by the opponents of a bill when they have no argument on the merits. The constitutionality of this measure has been suggested by the gentleman from Iowa, the gentleman from Connecticut, the gentleman from Minnesota, and I am surprised we have not heard it set up by some one from West Virginia, because those States are the principal States that feature convict-manufactured goods. While I am not an authority on the Constitution and do not claim to be, I leave that to some other Member of the HouseI believe I can make as many mistakes on the constitutionality of any law as any expert in the House. [Laughter.] That being so, I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the leading case on the subject which you will find in 135 United States, page 100. It is the case of Leisy v. Hardin. That is the case that definitely held the limit of the power of the States to prohibit interstate commerce in certain commodities. It has been suggested on the floor that the States have that power in reference to liquor and other articles under the police power of a State. That is not so, because in the Leisy case it was definitely stated that the statute of the State of Ohio prohibiting the sale, storage, and possession of liquor was invalid as to goods shipped in interstate commerce. The matter of the power of the State in prohibiting the sale, traffic, or even entry into the State of any article or commodity the proper subject of interstate commerce first came up when several of the States commenced enacting prohibition laws. At That is, laws forbidding the traffic and possession of liquor within the boundary of the State. I do not believe that before that time there was occasion to question the power of the Federal Government in the regulation of interstate commerce. least the conflict between the regulation of commerce within the State and the application of such regulation to any article or commodity that came from another State did not arise until that time. The question naturally arose after the enactment of State laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages within the State while such sale was lawful in other States and such beverages were shipped into the State having State prohibition. The law was definitely laid down in the so-called original package cases. In the case which I have just cited, Leisy v. Hardin (135 U. S. 100) the law was so clearly defined that there can be no question since that decision as to the power of the Federal Government in the regulation of interstate commerce and the limitation of the State in interfering in any way, and I want to emphasize "in any way" because of some of the statements that were made on the floor, to which I will refer in a minute. This case declared void and unconstitutional a statute enacted and approved by the State of Iowa. It was there held, to quote the law briefly, that a statute of a State prohibiting the sale of any intoxicating liquors is, as applied to a sale by the importer and in the original packages or kegs, unbroken and unopened, of such liquors manufactured in and brought from another State, unconstitutional and void, as repugnant to the clause of the Constitution granting to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. This is the law in reference to the power of the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce whether the commerce be liquor, convict-labor products, or whatever the subject of the commerce may be. It is the law to-day. I believe that examining the law in reference to the bill under consideration that we must determine what the rights of the Federal Government are and those of the State in the subject of interstate commerce. I note that many of my colleagues have cited both the Wilson Act and the Webb-Kenyon Act as the law on the question. It must be remembered, however, established in the so-called original package cases in the case which I have just cited that made necessary the enactment of both the Wilson Act and the Webb-Kenyon Act. Therefore we are confronted with the law that holds that a State can in no way interfere regardless of its own local laws and the purpose of these laws in the traffic of any article that is the subject of interstate commerce. After the law was so established and so definitely, Congress was asked and it did enact a law in which it waived, so to speak, its power and control over liquor and permitted the State to enforce its law over liquor, but only by virtue of the express permission of Congress to do so. For instance, the case clearly held that The power vested in Congress "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes," is the power to prescribe the rule by which that commerce is to be governed and is a power complete in itself, acknowledging no limitations other than those prescribed in the Constitution. It is coextensive with the subject on which it acts and can not be stopped at the external boundary of a State, but must enter its interior and must be capable of authorizing the disposition of those articles which it introduces, so that they may become mingled with the common mass of property within the territory entered. Here the court cites Gibbons v. Ogden (9 Wheat. 1), Brown v. Maryland (12 Wheat. 419). Now, in reply to my colleagues who have suggested that the State has exclusive power within its boundaries over any matter affecting health, morals, and safety, permit me to state that such is not the law. Even as to those matters permitting the exercise of the extreme police power of the State, that extreme power is limited if it runs in conflict with the power of the Federal Government over interstate and foreign commerce. Here is the law: And while, by virtue of its jurisdiction over persons and property within its limits, a State may provide for the security of the lives, limbs, health, and comfort of persons and the protection of property so situated, yet a subject matter which has been confided exclusively to Congress by the Constitution is not within the jurisdiction of the police power of the State unless placed there by congressional action. (Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259; Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465; Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 466; Robbins v. Shelby Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489.) All cited in the Leisy case. Now, that answers fully the argument made by some of the gentlemen and also the doubt that was expressed by some as to the real power of the State to act regardless of congressional action. In other words, even a liquor law the enforcement of which is carried on under the police power of the State was limited and ineffective as to liquor coming from another State, and therefore the necessity of the Wilson Act, which was enacted by Congress three months after the decision in the Leisy case, which I have cited and from which I have been quoting. So it is with any article manufactured in whole or in part from convict labor. The law of the State may prohibit it. In fact, my State, for instance, and many other States, specifically prohibits the sale of convictmade goods in our own State, yet the State of New York is helpless and can not prevent the sale of convict-made goods, such as the shirts from Wethersfield Prison, Connecticut, or the brooms from Iowa prisons, the twine from the Minnesota penitentiary, and so on. Now, all that this bill does is this: It waives the rights and the power of the Federal Government in the regulation of interstate traffic in so far as it affects and concerns prison-made goods. In keeping with the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, which held that any matter which has been confided exclusively to Congress by the Constitution is not within the jurisdiction of the police power of the State "unless placed there by congressional action," we are now placing it within the power of the State by action of Congress, as expressed in this bill. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Does not the gentleman think that New York State ought to have the right to make prison-made goods subject to the laws of New York State, even though not manufactured under the contract system? The purpose of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota Mr. LAGUARDIA. Oh, the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota is destructive. We may as well vote to strike out the enacting clause. Mr. CONNERY. Then the gentleman does not believe, as I do not, that Congress is limited in its regulation of interstate commerce merely to the police power? Mr. LAGUARDIA. Oh, no; it was so held in the Iowa case. Mr. CONNERY. That is what I wanted to bring out. Mr. LAGUARDIA. It was the Leisy case that brought out the enactment of the Wilson law. Mr. CONNERY. Gentlemen yesterday were claiming it was merely under the police power that Congress had the right to regulate interstate commerce. Mr. LAGUARDIA. What I could not understand is State rights champions objecting to this bill, which surrenders certain rights of the Federal Government to the States. Mr. BUSBY. I can explain that. You surrender the rights of all the other States to trade in New York when you say that New York can keep the other States out, and yet New York will proceed to trade in the other States. It is the mutual right that one State has to commerce in the other States. That is the explanation. Mr. LAGUARDIA. And let me say to the gentleman that under the law of the gentleman's State, and under the law of my State, and under the Federal law, a convict is divested of all civil rights. He can not go out and contract for his own labor; he can not make a contract if he has been convicted of a felony. Therefore we ought to take from the State the right to constitute itself an agent of these convicts, in competition with free labor. [Applause.] Mr. KVALE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KVALE. The gentleman is somewhat familiar with the conditions in our State and with our wonderful penitentiaries? Mr. LAGUARDIA. Oh, no penitentiary can be wonderful. I am sure the gentleman will join me in the hope to see the time when the economic conditions of this country will be such that our penitentiaries will be almost entirely empty. If this Mr. KVALE. I will go as far as the gentleman any time along those lines, but as a penitentiary it is wonderful. bill is enacted into law, what part of the bill, what sentence, phrase, or word will in any way so injure the farmers of my State directly or indirectly, now or at any time in the future, as claimed by some people? Mr. LAGUARDIA. Oh, the gentleman knows that the poor overworked farmer is brought in on almost every bill, very often by both those for and against a measure. I hope to see the time that the poor farmer will not be blamed for everything that is wanted or not wanted in Congress. There can be no doubt, as I read the law, of the constitu tionality of this bill. It is in keeping with the decisions of the Supreme Court and follows the general principles contained in previous acts of Congress enacted after the decisions of the Supreme Court. This bill will permit, by reason of the express assent of Congress, States from treating convict-made goods in accordance with their own State statutes whether such goods are made within its own boundary or comes from another State. I agree that the amount of convict-made goods is not so great and that perhaps it has been exaggerated, but the principle and the purpose of the bill are sound and wholesome in keeping with progressive legislation, and as the bill is drawn, meeting the |