Montana labor news., 1936-03-05
Convict Labor Law Before
Supreme Court

The reactionary interests who are determined
to lower the living standards OF the masses by
selling convict-made goods in the open market
in competition with the products of free labor
have made their last stand by challenging the
constitutionality of the Hawes-Cooper Convict
Labor Act before the United States Supreme
Court.
The passage of the Hawes-C Cooper Act by Con-
gress was the elimination of many years effort
on the part of organized labor and other pro-
gressive forces to extend the state use system,
under which all products made in State prisons
and %reformatories are not sold to the public but
used by State institutions.
The Act provides that convict-mad9 goods
shipped from one State into another shall come
under the laws Of the latter State the same as
if manufactured there. This means that if a
State legislature prohibits the sale of its own
convict-made products on the open market, it IS
illegal for any other State to sell its convict
made goods in that State.
Twenty-four States have established the state
use system and accepted the provisions of the
H~awes-Cooper Act.
Alabama still clings to the anti-social system
of selling its convict-made goods on the open
market. 1t not only sells these products in Ala
bama but attempts to impose them on States
which have accepted the Hawes-Cooper Act and
barred such products from their borders.
In pursuit of the in convict-made
goods, Asa H. Whitfield, an Alabama official,
shipped work shirts made in the Wetumpka
prison to Ohio and sold them in that State in VIC
lation of the Ohio statute which prohibits such
sales in compliance with the terms of the Hawes-
Cooper Act. Mr.. Whitfield was convicted of
violating the Ohio statute. His appeal to the
Ohio Supreme Court was dismissed. This action
in effect affirmed the constitutionality of the
Hawes-Cooper Act.
The conviction of Mr.. Whitfield was %challeng-
ed by the State of Alabama before the United
States Supreme Court on the ground that the
Hawes-Cooper Act violates the Federal Consti-
tuition. Counsel for Alabama claimed the Fed
eral Constitution gives equal rights to all States,
prohibits taking property without due process OF
law, and bars legislation burdening interstate
commerce.
All of these alleged constitutional rights of
Alabama, it was claimed, were abolished SO far
as Ohio was concerned when that State in order
to protect its own citizens put Alabama convict
Wduc SOOuS Oh tie SdHC lOOluS d. Liz IOiVIOl-
made goods produced in its own prisons and de-
clared their sale on the open market in Ohio was
illegal.
In commenting on the arguments made, JUS
tice Sutherland said the question before the
court was whether Ohio can put convict-made
goods in one class and those produced by free
labor in another class"
The vital issue in the case was summed up by
John w. Bricker, Attorney General of Ohio, who
defended the Hawes-Coope Act. Pointing out
that the Supreme Court had invariably upheld
the validity Of the police powers Of the States
and the Nation in protecting the welfare of citi-
Gems, he said the Act was necessary to protect
both labor and capital from competition by pris-
on-made articles, adding:
ITO set aside the Hawes-Cooper Act as viola
tive of any constitutional provision would be to
deny to Congress the power to enable the States
to correct an evil inimical to the welfare Of their
people, and to construe the Constitution SO as
to accommodate and accomplish an end which its
trainers sought to preclude"
The H~awes-Cooper Act is modelled after the
Wilson Act, by which Congress Invested intoxi-
eating liquors Of their interstate character where
States barred their manufacture and sale within
their own borders. The Wilson Act was held
constitutional by the Supreme Court. Observ-
ers are of the opinion that the court will follow
this precedent and hold the Hawes-Cooper Act
a valid exercise of the powers of Congress.