Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. And they send from one prison things manufactured there for use in the other prisons. Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Yes; for instance, the Federal prison at Leavenworth makes shoes and clothing, I believe, for the Army and the Navy. This amendment protects the Federal Government from coming under the provisions of this act as to goods that are shipped from the various penitentiaries, which are used only for Federal purposes. Mr. BURTNESS. But only in the event they are sold to some other agency of the Federal Government. Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Yes. Mr. RAMSEYER. I wish to reinforce what the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HUDDLESTON] has stated. If the gentleman is correct in his statement that goods manufactured in Federal penal institutions are not sold, I do not see the necessity of this amendment at all. I think it is entirely useless. Mr. COOPER of Ohio. As I have stated, it is offered at the suggestion of the Attorney General of the United States. Mr. RAMSEYER. Just what did he say? produced goods are shipped into a State as raw material for the purpose of manufacturing and processing they shall not fall under this law. In all kinds of manufacturing we have to have raw material and the furnishing of that raw material is a benefit rather than a detriment to labor in the factories and to processing and manufacturing plants. Now, there is a good deal of interest manifested in the question of the production of cotton on the farm, and some have mentioned the production of grain on a convict farm. This simply admits that cotton and grain for processing and manufacturing. Mr. KNUTSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. KNUTSON. Can the gentleman conceive of any activity that the prisoners might be connected with that would not compete with free labor? Mr. LOWREY. I am coming to that. We have to employ prison labor some way or somewhere, and we can not employ them without in some measure bringing them in competition with free labor. It seems to me that nothing could come nearer solving the question than along this line of furnishing raw material for processing and manufacture, and hence I have offered this amendment. Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CASEY. Do I understand the gentleman's amendment will exempt iron ore and such other raw material as that Mr. COOPER of Ohio. He said he was afraid the broad language of the bill might interfere in some way with our Fed-produced by convict labor? eral prison institutions and suggested that there be an amendment offered like this I have offered. Mr. BUSBY rose. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Mississippi opposed to the amendment? Mr. BUSBY. I am. Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in five minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa moves that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in five minutes. The motion was agreed to. Mr. BUSBY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to accentuate the thought of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HUDDLESTON} that as the present Federal penal institutions' business is being handled there is really no necessity for this amendment, and those of you who stood a while ago proclaiming your strength by your vote, that you stood for this bill and the principles of the bill, now I hope you will stand for the principle, making no exception in favor of the Federal Government, notwithstanding the fears of the Attorney General. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the House, I am going to support this legislation over the protest of the prison authorities of my State. They say it is very detrimental to our prison system, failing to recognize the fact that prison-made goods should not come in competition with other manufactured goods. If that reasoning is correct, why should the Government go into the business you are preventing the States from going into? There is no more reason for this than there is for any State selling prison-made goods. When the Government uses prison-made goods it takes away the opportunity for the manufacture and sale of goods by other people, and I hope you will vote down this amendment. [Applause.] The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CooPER]. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Mr. LOWREY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Page 2, line 6, after the word "otherwise," insert: "provided, that this restriction shall not apply to raw material brought into the said State or Territory for purpose of processing or manufacture." Mr. LOWREY. I had not thought of iron ore. especially. To be candid. I was thinking of agricultural materials that go into processing, Mr. CASEY. Will not the language of the gentleman's amendment include iron ores, coal. and other raw materials that may be manufactured or produced by convict labor? Mr. LOWREY. It would probably include ores to be proc essed or manufactured. I do not think it would include coal. Mr. BROWNING. Why should it not include iron and coal and everything else if it includes farm products? What is the objection? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired. Mr. KINCHELOE rose. Mr. KOPP. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate upon the section and all amendments thereto close in five minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? Mr. KINCHELOE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it is because this is such an important proposition that I take the floor at this time. We need not deceive ourselves. If you adopt this amendment, you might just as well have eliminated the word "produced when that amendment was offered a moment ago. If I understand the bill, the purpose of it is to prevent the products of convict labor from coming into competition with the products of free labor in the States. If that is what is to be accomplished, and it is a good thing, then let us accomplish it. Why should the manufactured products of convict labor be forbidden to come into competition with the manufactured products of free labor and the products of convict labor in the form of raw materials be not prohibited from competition with raw material produced by free labor? The author of this bill may be correct that there are very few penitentiaries in the United States to-day producing raw material that would come in competition with the raw material produced by free labor, but I know, and so do you, and we need not fool ourselves, that practically every penitentiary in every State in the Union except the Atlantic seaboard that now has contract labor, the products of which are coming into competition with the products of free labor, when they have to adjust themselves will adjust themselves to raise farm products, which will increase a thousandfold the amount of raw material being produced by the penitentiaries to-day. I would like some one to give me a good reason why you pick out the farmer as the only laborer in America who will have to come in competition with the products of convict labor, which will be the result of this amendment be adopted. If you are going to readjust for the benefit of one class of labor, and if it is a Mr. LOWREY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the House, good thing to do for that class of labor that works in the I believe it is generally agreed that the object of this bill is to factory, then it is equally a good thing to protect the farmer. prevent competition of convict labor with free labor. It has If you are going to put the farmers in competition with the been suggested, if we pass the pending amendment, it would products of convict labor, why not put all in competition with tend to turn convicts from the labor they are now doing in fac- the products of convict labor? We all know that when these tories to making cheese and dairying products, and so forth. penitentiaries that now have convict labor and manufacture My amendment provides simply that wherever the convict-goods which come into competition with the products of free Mr. RAMSEYER. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. Was the time limited on the pending amendment or on the section? The CHAIRMAN. On the pending amendment. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for five minutes. labor have to adjust themselves under this law, they can so adjust themselves to raise hundreds of thousands of bushels of corn, or wheat, or cotton, or anything else that can be shipped and come into competition with the free products of the farmer. Mr. KNUTSON. Can the gentleman think of any activity that the prisoners can be put into that will not come into competition with free labor somewhere along the line? Mr. KINCHELOE. No. But why single out the farmer and make him the only one to come into competition with convict labor? Mr. KNUTSON. I am not doing that, but the only way that you can prevent convict labor from coming into competition with free labor in some way is to allow the convicts to sit idle in their cells or furnish them with golf clubs. Mr. KINCHELOE. The gentleman's question is directed against the whole bill? Mr. KNUTSON. Absolutely. Mr. KINCHELOE. I am not talking about that. I say that if convict-made goods are to come into competition with one class of labor, they ought to come into competition with all classes of labor. Mr. KETCHAM. And is it not true that with the invention of machinery and the application of it to farm problems the phraseology the gentleman offers will be a real menace to agriculture? Mr. KINCHELOE. And in addition to that the big landowners can go and get convicts and put them on their lands and raise thousands of bushels of corn and wheat and everything else which, if this amendment is adopted, will come in competition with the farmers' products. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky has expired. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi. The amendment was rejected. Mr. KOPP and Mr. ANDRESEN rose. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, the chairman of the committee. Mr. KOPP. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment: Page 2, insert, after line 6, a new section, as follows: "SEC. 2. This act shall take effect two years after date of its approval." Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the committee amendment to strike out the word "two" and insert the word "three." Mr. KOPP. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the committee I accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. CHINDBLOM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. CHINDBLOM. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. ANDRESEN] was on his feet to offer an amendment to section 1. The Chair recognized the gentleman from Iowa, who said he offered a committee amendment. The committee amendment, which is the addition of a new section, is not in order until all amendments have been offered to section 1. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is not able to read the mind of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Kopp], and concluded that the gentleman from Iowa wanted to offer an amendment to section 1. The Chair thinks the point of order is well taken. The Chair recogonizes the gentleman from Minnesota to offer an amendment. Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. ANDRESEN: Page 1, line 4, after the comma, following the word "mined," insert "excepting farm machinery and binder twine." The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. ANDRESEN]. The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. ANDRESEN. A division, Mr. Chairman. The committee divided; and there were-ayes 25, noes 100. Mr. KOPP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa offers an amend-| ment, which the Clerk will report. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Iowa accepts the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee? Mr. KOPP. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. GARRETT] to the committee amendment. Mr. DOWELL. Mr. Chairman, section 2 has not yet been read for amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Section 2 has been reported. Amendment offered by Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee to the committee amendment: Page 2, line 7, strike out the word "two" and insert in lieu thereof the word "three." Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of the committee for a moment, although the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KoPP] has accepted the amendment I have offered. It seems to me that there ought not to be any hesitation on the part of the proponents of this measure to accept this amendment. It is insisted by all the prison authorities of most of the States, so far as I am advised, that the passage of this legislation will create a revolution in the handling of prison labor, and will make necessary radical changes. I am not out of sympathy with the desire of manufacturers and producers and the labor they employ to be rid of the competition which prison labor affords under the present conditions. But, after all, what will become of the prisoners? What can be done with them? It is surely not desirable to reduce them to a state of idleness. Some method of employment must be found, and the prison authorities agree that it is going to take more than two years to work out the problem. Personally the commissioner of institutions in my own State, a gentleman who is making a great record, feels that it ought to be five years. I should be very glad if I could prevail upon the committee which sponsors this bill to accept a five-year term. They have advised me-certain members of it have advised me that they could not do so, and I am offering the very best that it seems possible to get. Mr. RAMSEYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. Yes. Mr. RAMSEYER. Why can they not accept five, but can accept three? What testimony have they that contradicts the testimony of the warden of the Tennessee Penitentiary, when he states that it will take at least five years to work out this problem? Now, if it will take five years, why give three years, which would simply aggravate the situation? Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. I know of no testimony which the committee has which will contradict the statement contained in the telegram I have. Mr. RAMSEYER. Does the gentleman know why the committee adopted two years instead of one year? Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. No. I have never heard the reason for it, except I suppose it was the thought of the committee to give some reasonable amount of time for the present authorities of the States to readjust themselves to these conditions. Mr. RAMSEYER. The committee probably supposed that would give time for the present authorities to adjust themselves. I think we ought to have some statement from people of experience as to the length of time they need to readjust themselves to the conditions imposed by this bill. Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. Let me explain my situation to the gentleman. I favor the five years. Mr. RAMSEYER. Why did the gentleman change on that? Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. I have been to the committee on this matter of legislation. They agree to accept three years, or certain members of the committee did. Mr. RAMSEYER. The gentleman feels that it is not long enough? Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. I fear it is not. But I am keeping faith with the committee. Mr. RAMSEYER. The taxpayers should be considered also. Mr. CONNERY. If my memory is correct on this subject, when the matter came up the committee determined on one year. We asked some of these prison wardens regarding the feasibility of one year, and they suggested two years. I am willing to vote for three years and give them a little longer. Mr. CARSS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for two minutes in which to make a statement. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. Mr. CARSS. I agreed with the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. GARRETT] that I would not oppose this amendment, but I want to state for the benefit of the House that when we had these prison wardens before us they testified that they had known for the last 25 years that this legislation was coming, and they had taken no steps to set their houses in order and readjust themselves for such legislation, if it were put on the statute books. I do not think they should have had any time, but we agreed to give them two years. I was not opposed even to three years. Mr. RAMSEYER. Is it not important that they should readjust themselves for anticipated legislation? Mr. CARSS. Yes. They saw it coming, and if they are so wedded to this contract system, they should have set their houses in order. Mr. KOPP. Mr. Chairman, I move to close debate on this section and all amendments thereto. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa moves to close debate on this section and all amendments thereto. The question is on agreeing to that motion. Mr. RAMSEYER. Mr. Chairman, in order that we may get the reasons of the committee for making this time limit of three years I move as an amendment to the motion made by the gentleman from Iowa that debate close in 20 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion as amended, that debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. RAMSEYER) there were-ayes 44, noes 132. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. RAMSEYER. Mr. Chairman, I move that debate close in five minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa that debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in five minutes. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. RAMSEYER) there were-ayes 54, noes 128. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. RAMSEYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for two minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa asks unanimous consent to proceed for two minutes. Is there objection? There was no objection. Mr. RAMSEYER. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to utilize these two minutes in getting information. I think every Member of the House is sincere in wanting to know why this time limit was made two years and overnight the committee agreed to accept an amendment for three years. This amendment involves millions of dollars in investments by States in prisons and are you just trading around simply in order to get votes in support of the bill? I can not conceive that that is the situation. Mr. KOPP. Does the gentleman want me to answer that question? Mr. RAMSEYER. That is exactly what I want, and I yield to my colleague from Iowa for that purpose. Mr. KOPP. After hearing the evidence in this matter the committee had a difference of opinion as to whether it would require two years or three years for the States to readjust themselves. Mr. McDUFFIE. If the gentleman will yield, in some of the States the legislatures will not meet for three or four years and there can not be a readjustment. Mr. RAMSEYER. I do not want the gentleman to tell us about the vote in the committee. Mr. KOPP. I am not going to do that, but, as I said, there was a difference of opinion. Mr. RAMSEYER. Expert opinion? Mr. KOPP. Yes; expert opinion that came before us. Then there was another feature. Nearly all legislatures meet at intervals of two years and so there should be some time after the last legislature meets for a readjustment. Mr. RAMSEYER. Before they can do anything the legislatures must act, and then they ought to have two or three years after the meeting of the legislatures in order to readjust themselves. Mr. KOPP. That was not thought necessary by the committee. Mr. RAMSEYER. The prison wardens can not do this of their own accord. The legislatures must act first and then the wardens and boards in charge of prisons should have some time to readjust their business to comply to this bill. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. CHINDBLOM. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. order. The gentleman will state his point of This act shall take effect five years after the date of its approval. The CHAIRMAN. There are two amendments pending, the committee amendment and the amendment to the amendment. If the amendment which the gentleman offers is to the original committee amendment it is in order but if it is to the amendment to the amendment it is not in order, being in the third degree. Will the gentleman make that clear to the Chair? Mr. RAMSEYER. I offered it as a substitute, but I am perfectly willing to have it go in as the Chair suggests, so that it may be in order. The gentleman from Iowa offers an amendment as a substitute for the committee amendment, which the Clerk will report. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. RAMSEYER as a substitute for the committee amendment: In line 7, strike out the word "two" and insert in lieu thereof the word " 'five," so it will read: "SEC. 2. This act shall take effect five years after the date of its approval." The CHAIRMAN. The question now is on the amendment to the committee amendment as offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. GARRETT]. Mr. DOWELL. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The amendment itself clearly shows it is not a substitute but is an amendment to the amendment, and is therefore out of order. The amendment itself clearly shows it is an amendment to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment was offered in the nature of a substitute, and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order. The question is on the amendment to the committee amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. GARRETT]. Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, should not the vote first come on the Ramseyer amendment? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state there is now pending before the committee a committee amendment, an amendment to that amendment, and a substitute to the original committee amendment. In this state of affairs the first vote comes on the amendment to the committee amendment as offered by the gentleman from Tennessee. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee) there were-ayes 189, noes 18. So the amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. RAMSEYER]. Mr. MCCLINTIC. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MCCLINTIC. If I understand it correctly, the substitute, if adopted, would make the time five years instead of three years. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. RAMSEYER) there were-ayes 74, noes 151. So the substitute was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The question now comes on the committee amendment as amended. Mr. BROWNING. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. BROWNING. May I ask the Chair if it would be in order to now move to amend so as to make it four years instead of three years? The CHAIRMAN. That can be offered as a substitute amendment. Mr. BROWNING. ment, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BROWNING] offers a substitute amendment, which the Clerk will report. Then I offer that as a substitute amend The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. BROWNING as a substitute for the committee amendment: Strike out all of the committee amendment and insert in lieu thereof the following: "SEC. 2. This act shall take effect four years after the date of its approval." The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BROWNING) there were-ayes 62, noes 149. So the substitute was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The question now is on the committee | Welch, Calif. amendment as amended by the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee. The committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. KOPP. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House, with an amendment, with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. BEEDY, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that committee, having had under consideration the 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, had directed him to report the same back with an amendment, with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. The SPEAKER. Under the rule the previous question is ordered. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill. Mr. BUSBY, Mr. McDUFFIE, and Mr. CONNERY asked for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were-yeas 303, nays 39, answered present" 1, not voting 87, as follows: Weller Welsh, Pa. White, Colo. Aldrich Allgood Bankhead Bland Brigham Burdick Busby Chapman Clague Cole, Md. Ackerman Andrew Anthony Auf der Heide Black, Tex. Boies Reid, Ill. Bushong Butler Clancy So the bill was passed. The following pairs were announced. On the vote: Mr. Nelson of Wisconsin (for) with Mr. Gibson (against). Mr. Hughes (for) with Mr. Dominick (against). Mr. Igoe (for) with Mr. Smith (against). Mr. Linthicum (for) with Mr. Hare (against). Mr. Manlove with Mr. Oldfield. Mr. Bacharach with Mr. Hudspeth. Mr. Murphy with Mr. Tillman. Mr. Begg with Mr. Blanton. Mr. Reid of Illinois with Mr. Wingo. Mr. Ackerman with Mr. Drane. Mr. McFadden with Mr. Connally of Texas. Mr. Butler with Mr. Stevenson. Mr. Lehlbach with Mr. Bowling. Mr. Beck of Pennsylvania with Mr. Wilson of Mississippi. Mr. Clancy with Mr. Gilbert. Mr. Swick with Mr. Kunz. Mr. Connolly of Pennsylvania with Mr. Quayle. Mr. Perkins with Mr. Yon. Mr. Wurzbach with Mr. Boylan. Mr. Johnson of Washington with Mr. Howard of Nebraska. Mr. Hudson with Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Golder with Mr. Bulwinkle. Mr. Fish with Mr. Fisher. Mr. Boise with Mr. Larsen. Mr. Eaton with Mr. Oliver of New York. Mr. Seger with Mr. Moore of New Jersey. Mr. Stalker with Mr. Sears of Florida. Mr. Barber with Mr. Lyon. Mr. Fort with Mr. Goldsborough, Mr. James with Mr. Doyle. Mr. Hoffman with Mr. Auf der Heide. Mr. PALMISANO. Mr. Speaker, I want to state that if the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. LINTHICUM] had been present he would have voted "aye." Joint Resolution 82, insist on the House amendments, and agree to the conference asked for. Is there objection? There was no objection. The SPEAKER appointed as conferees on the part of the House Mr. LUCE, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. DAVENPORT, Mr. GILBERT, and Mr. BULWINKLE. EXTENSION OF REMARKS-CONVICT-MADE GOODS Mr. KOPP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days to extend remarks on the Hawes-Cooper bill just passed. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa asks unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days in which to extend remarks on the bill just passed. Is there objection? There was no objection. Mr. MAJOR of Illinois. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, the bill now before the House known as the HawesCooper bill is not a new legislative proposal but one which has been before Congress for years. The bill either in its present or similar form has been favorably reported three times by a committee of the House, and has each time passed the House. A similar bill has often been reported by the Committee on Interstate Commerce of the Senate, but for some reason or other a vote has never been had in both branches at the same session. I became interested in this proposal during the Sixty-eighth Congress, when the Committee on Labor, of which I was a member, held extensive hearings. Before that committee and before the present Labor Committee every interested person has had an opportunity to be heard and every feature of the matter was thoroughly considered. It perhaps is not out of place for me to say the last time I talked to the late Edgar Wallace, legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor, only a few days before his death, was with reference to this bill. He was a strong advocate of the measure and entertained high hopes that it would become a law during this session. It now seems likely his hope is to be consummated, but not until death has removed him from a busy and useful life devoted to the welfare of organized labor and mankind generally. THE BILL 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 reformatory 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. Under our present situation the States are powerless to pre'vent prison-made goods and merchandise from coming in conflict with those produced by free labor. The State of Illinois, for instance, may regulate or control or prohibit the products of its own prisons from being placed on the market in competition with products of free labor, but is powerless to exercise that authority over prison-made merchandise of other States. In other words, the States whose legislatures try to curb this pernicious evil can only act in vain. Each State is at the mercy of the other 47 States of the Union and has no way of protecting itself from being a dumping ground for the prison-made goods of the other States. Of the many evils growing out of our present system of prison management, the most monstrous of all no doubt is what is known as the contract system where those confined within the prison are hired to a contractor at a wage in many instances of a few cents per day. The factory is furnished by the State with the light and heat and all the other essentials which go to make up the overhead expense. The contractor then is permitted to sell products thus made in competition with the manufacturer who must furnish his own factory, his own light, his own heat, and pay a wage in conformity with our standard of living. This means restricted wages and reduced employment. Surely the man or woman, girl or boy, who travels the path of rectitude in an honest and honorable endeavor to earn a livelihood for their self and family should not have his or her opportunity of employment denied or his or her wages restricted by being required to compete with the man or woman who has gone wrong and is so unfortunate as to be required to spend their days in prison. It is claimed by some that this is a State problem and Congress should have nothing to do with it. I agree prison management is for the States and that is the reason this bill should be enacted into law. It enables each State to handle the matter as it sees fit. The bill prohibits nothing, interferes in no way with prison management in the respective States, and makes no pretense of directing the manner in which the convict-labor question shall be handled. Those things are all left to the States as at present but it does clothe the States with the very essential power of handling the situation as its agencies may see fit, and making its laws effective not only to the goods and merchandise produced in its own prisons but to that proci need in other States as well. In my opinion this bill is meritorious and I hope it will pass and become a law. Mr. HOLADAY. Mr. Speaker, the Cooper-Hawes "Prisonmade goods" bill provides that all goods, wares and merchandise produced by convicts in any penal institution, transported into another State for use or sale, shall upon arrival in such State be subjected to the laws of such State. Each State now has the power, and many States are exercising their power, to regulate the sale of convict-made goods that are produced in that State, but a State does not have the power to regulate the sale of convict-made goods made in another State and shipped into that State through interstate commerce. This bill proposes to give to each State the right to regulate the sale of convict-made goods wherever produced. CONVICT LABOR AND STATE-USE SYSTEM It is now almost universally conceded that convicts of all kinds should work at some form of useful labor during their imprisonment. The important problem arises how convicts may be employed at useful work without diminishing the demand for the labor of men outside of penal institutions. The manufacture of commodities by enforced labor of convicts enables prison authorities or contractors, if they are allowed to do so, to sell these commodities at prices with which firins employing paid labor can not possibly compete, and so tends to lower the wages of free wage earners and penalize their righteousness by taking from them or lowering the market of employing firms. The same is true where the service of convicts is contracted for in competition with free labor. Even where the product of service of convict labor is not sold in competition with the product or service of free labor, but is confined to making necessaries for prisoners and governmental institutions, convicts are still required to do work, which if not done by them, would have to be done by free labor. On the other hand, to keep convicts in idleness is physically and spiritually bad for the convicts and is not good for the community. To deal with the convict-labor problem constructively, there fore, the convict must produce in the way that interferes in the slightest possible degree with the markets of commodities or service rendered by free labor. |