The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-21
THE CONVICT GOODS LAW
1T is HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY
JUDGE FOX, OF WAYNE COUNTY.
1t Interferes with the Right of Con-
tract, with Interstate Commerce,
and Is Class Legislation.
Richmond Palladium, July 20.

in the case of the State against William
III. Porter, for violating the law of the
State of Indiana prohibiting the sale of
convict-made goods made in any other
State or Territory This decision has been
waited for with some Impotence by the at
torneys, though the outcome of it is not
a matter of surprise in the light of de-
cisions rendered by other courts on the
same or similar laws. This, however, is
the first judicial opinion on the Indiana
law of this sort, and it will be made the
basis of an appeal. the case TO continue un-
til it has been decided by the State Supreme
Court. The decision is no surprise to the
attorneys who represented the State in the
case, as they had already stated for publi-
cation that they did not believe the case
was very firmly based on legal principles.
However, the appeal will be taken and the
thing forced to an issue as rapidly as pos
sible. The defendant in the case at no time
had any doubt of the result of the htiga-
ton, as the law was so similar TO other
state laws that had been declared to be
in conflict with the interstate commerce
law. The opinion follows:
IAN information has been filed in this
case against the defendant, charging him
with violating the terms of the statute ap-
proved by the General Assembly on the
18th day of March, 1885, by exposing mer-
chandise. to-wit, chairs, for sale in this
county, without first procuring a license
as required by the statute above mentioned.
This statute is entitled as follows:
"An act to regulate the sale of convict
made goods wares and merchandise man
ufactured by convicts in other States and
providing for the labelling the same"
The defendant has moved to Quash this
information, giving as a reason that the
above-named statute is in conflict with the
federal Constitution, and therefore void
If this statute is void, as urged, then the
defendant is not guilty of a crime and the
motion should be sustained.
There are numerous decisions bearing
upon the subject involved and it's analogies
made by the Supreme Court of the United
States as we'll as by the state courts An
examination of these decisions will show
that they are without substantial conflict;
and for this reason the court is relieved
from embarrassment in declaring what the
law is and as how it should be applied in
this case
There can be no doubt as to the subject
intention of the General Assembly in en-
actingyit is plainly manifested by its terms
and for this reason there is nothing left for
construction While the statute upon it's
face purports only to regulate the sale of
conVict-made goods made in other States,
yet the restrictions imposed are so string
ent that it is evident the statute was in
tnded to be and is in fact prohibitory in
character.
PROVISIONS OF THE LAW.
Sections l and of the act provides that
before any person shall expose for sale in
this State goods made by cOnvicts in other
States he shall procure license from the
secretary of state and execute bond with
surety in the sum of S., 00O conditioned that
he will comply with the terms of the statute
and all other statutes of the State regu-
lating the sale of cOnvict-made goods.
Section requires the person obtaining
such a license to keep the same conspicu-
ton requires the holder of such a license
to render an annual report to the secretary
of state in which he shall state his name
and place of business; also the names of the
Keepers of prisons employing convict labor
with whom he has done business; the
amount he has paid to such persons and
the CHI racter of the goods he has received !;
also the names of persons to whom he has
sold goods, together with a particular de-
scriptiOn of the place where they reside.
Section 5 requires the payment of a license
fee of $500. Section Z authorizes the sec
rotary of state to revoke any such license
II the holder violates the provisions Of any
statute of this State regulating the sale OF
convict-made goods. Sections and pro-
vides> that all articles of merchandise sold
branded with the words convict made. -
Section 10 provides that any person vio-
lating any of the provisions of the statute
shall, upon conviction, be fined not less
than $50 nor more than $1,000, to which may
be added Imprisonment not exceeding one
year nor less than ten days Section Y pro-
vides that the act shall not apply to the
products of convict labor made in this
State.
Does this statute conflict with the Con-
stitution of the United States? is the ques-
ton presented.
The federal Constitution, together with
the acts of Congress in aid thereof, apply
to the citizens of the United States as SUCH
and not to them as citizens of the several
States. The whole is regarded as a unit
equality of all before the law and uniforms
~ IN its application and inspiration of our
institutions. Individual rights guaranteed
by the fundamental law of the general gov
eminent to it's citizens can not be abridged
or taken away by the States. In some in
stances State may regulate and even pro-
hibt the sale of certain classes of merchan-
disc within it's borders in the exercise OF it's
police power. This, however, can only be
done where there is something in conditions
or in the inherent qualities of the merchan-
disc itself that renders such action proper
in the promotion of the health, comfort
safety and general welfare of society.
STATES POLICE POWER.
The police power possessed by a State,
like some natural forces, is hard to describe
or define; nevertheless, it is not simply a
convenient term that courts may use in
order to uphold statutes when no other rea-
son can be given for so doing. Concern
ing the question of police power vested in
the state authorities, Elliott justice in the
case of Mclaughlin VS.. the city of South
Bend, 126 Indiana, All, uses the following
language:
THE current opinion in the federal courts
runs far in the direction of utter annihi-
latiOn of state power in matters bearing
upon commerce between the States, and
although there may be some police power
remaining in the States enabling them to
legislate concerning matters of interstate
commerce, its nature is very shadowy and
its extent narrowly circumScribed.
1t will be conceded that chairs are neces-
sary articles in every day use by all classes
and in every household in the land; that
they possess no inherent qualities that can
Justify any community in invoking the po-
lice power of the State as a matter of pro-
lection in either restraining or regulating
their use or sale. To hold that the right to
regulate commerce with foreign countries
and between the several States has been
delegated by the State TO the general gov
eminent is but to follow a beaten track.
Commerce is a very comprehensive term; II
embraces the purchase, sale, exchange and
transportation of commodities between the
citizens of our country and the subjects or
foreign countries and the citizens Of the
different States. The right to regulate II
carries with it all the incidents and powers
that are necessary to protect the subjects
of it and to render ii SuCceSSful. every at
tempt to hinder or fetter the commercial
rights or relations of citizens of the United
States, as such, except when the poHce
power may be properly invoked, is an in
reference with the federal authority. No
State has a right to discriminate between
its own citizens and the citizens of other
States in matters pertaining 10 general
commerce. 1T cannot Obstruct the neces-
sarV channels through which ii flows. nor
ffc y1a1fa