The morning call., 1893-08-26
THE OSTROM ACT.
Attorney e General Holds
1t Invalid.
THE SALE OF PRISON BAGS.
The Directors May Meet the Demands
of All Consumers, Whether
Farmers or Not.

of jute bags manufactured in State Prison
was addressed yesterday by Oregon San
ders, second deputy attorney, TO Charles
Sonntag of the Board of Prison Directors.
1t holds that the Ostrom act is void and
that the prison directors can dispose of
the bags on hand in such manner as 10
meet the demands of the farmers and all
other consumers.
The opinion is dated at Sacramento.
August %. and in its essential parts reads
as follows:
Section q of article of the constitu-
ton provides:
''Sec. 81. No special privileges or.immunitles
shall ever be granted which may not be altered,
revoked or repealed by the Legislature: nor
shall any citizen or class of citizens be granted
privileges or immunities which, upon the same
terms. shall not be granted TO all citizens.
The act of the Legislature providing for
the sale OF jute bags by the State Board of
Prison Directors Statutes OF 1898, page 81
provides among other things that the
prison authorities shall confine the sale of
iute goods manufactured by prison labor
to consumers direct. aud that the orders of
farmers shall take precedence over all
Others. The object of this legislation was
to benefit the farmers and other consumers
VI JNtS OoSo W ShfAb6 " nv Ia
elusive privilege OF purchasing jute bags
manufactured by prison labor; but the
law, instead of benefiting the farmers and
other consumers, as expected, has had the
opposite effect.
The prison authorities, with $50, 600
bags on hand for which they can find DO
market, are not less embarrassed to know
what to do under the circums tances, and |
am again requested to examine the act,
and, if possible. to find a way out of the
difficulty. and l am especially requested to
examine the act with reference 20 the con-
stilutiOnal provisions and 20 pass upon its
constilutionaity.
able text writer's have said that laws
public in their object may, unless express
constitutional provision bids, extend TO
all the citizens, or be confined TO particu-
lar classes, as minors, or married women,
bankers or traders, and the like (Cooiey'S
Constitutional Limitations. page 4S2.) As
Il rule, the people are classified in this
manner, not for the purpose of comforting
special privileges upon any class, but for
the purpose OF imposing upon the men,
beers OF II special license. taxes or other
special burdens. But there is no doubt
that, under the recent decisions, the
people may be classified with view to
cOnferrng benefits. These classes must, OF
course. be composed 0f persons having
some common and distinguishing ch arac-
teristc. as the trading classes, the labor
ing classes, etc. People ex rel Daniels
vs.. Henshaw, 76 Cal. 1856; Pritchett VS..
Stanislaus County, 10 Cal, 800
The class here protected or attempted
to be protected are the consumers Qhe
broadcast word used in the statute), includ-
ing the farmers. who are, in fact, the
principal consumers of jute bags. Section
Il of article l declares in substance that
no class Of citizens land this includes the
class known as consumers shall be granted
any privileges land this might include the
privilege of purchasing bags from the
State) which upon the same terms shall
not be granted TO all citizens. The only
terms imposed upon consumers, when
from their affidavits they are found to he
such, are, first, that they shall forward 10
per cent OF the purchase price with their
order for the bags; second, that the bal
ance Of the purchase price shall be paid
on delivery of the goods; no other terms
are imposed.
''If IL were an open question l should say
that one net consumer would have the
same privilege or tight to purchase bags
with one who is consumer, provided he
complied with the terms on which the
bags were sold. but it seems to have been
held otherwise in this State. Brooks V.
Hyde, 81 Cal, 367.) There is one PROPOSE
ti0u, however. upon which all the authOIi-
ties agree, aud that is that class legisla-
ton TO be valid must embrace and treat
Will pdIlldlily all members OIL
the class to which it relates. =
The statute under consideration was
enacted for the benefit of the class known
as consumers. Including farmers, and OF
course under the decisions must dispense
its benefits equally 10 all the members OF
that classic all consumers. But by see
ton / Of the act discriminat alton is pro-
vided for against certain consumers, for
on the request of the Warden and the
unanimous approval Of the State Board of
Prison Directors some consumers may be
allowed to purchase more than 5000 bags a
year, and others on the mere y him of the
directors may be denied that privilege.
Again, section 2 of the act gives those con-
sumerS who are farmers an immense adj
vantage over those who are not, for orders
Of farmers shall take precedence over all
others The fact that the farmers are the
most numerous, important or deserving
class cannot change the rule. Ii the orders
of farmers are TO take precedence over the
orders OF other consumers the farmers
might exhaust the entire supply of the
prisOn-made bags, and the other consumers
would derive no benefit whatever from
the act. This appears to be legislating not
for class. but for class within class,
and if so it is certainly void"
The third section Of the act is then
quoted. and is found to be void in that the
procuring OF jute goods falsely and fraudu u
lently IS, by It's provisions, said to be sim
ply miSdemeanor, while the general laws
OF ths State hold perjury 10 be a felony,
and person would necessarily periure
himself in order to violate the provisions
of the section mentioned.
The action of the Supreme Court in de-
ciariHg the Law VOID regulating the hours
of labor nj bakers Is quoted. and the
opinion closes as follows:
ITO say that the applicant could be pun
ished Tor perjury under the penal code
aud for misdemeanor under the act won Id
be to say that he could be punished twice
for the same offense. You will notice
further the penal features of the act are
u OF mentioned in lis title, which would of
ltseli render the penal clause void. (Sec-
ton "a. article " of the consttution.)
''As the directors are not court and
cannot with or without jury pass upon
questions of fact, am at loss to know
how they are to determine the question
whether an applicant is a consumer or ct.
They are not authorized to take testimony
on the question and they certainly cannot
rely upon the worthless affidavit prescribed
by the act.
From the authorities cited / have ar
rived at the conclusion that the act ard
each and every section of it is void, and
that the prison authorities. acting under