HV 8923 a6 1916 U. S, Congress. House. Cominittee on Labor. Convict-labor bill. THE LIBRARY OF THE NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY kW ASSOCIATION FOR lABOR LEGISLATieH. LlUnAnY V/Ur» COISr VICT-L^BOR BILL, HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS First Session ON H. R. 6871 A BILL TO LIMIT THE EFFECT OF THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES IN GOODS, WARES, AND MERCHANDISE, WHOLLY OR IN PART MANUFACTURED MINED, OR PRODUCED BY CONVICT LABOR, OR IN ANY PRISON OR REFORMATORY JANUARY 20, 1916 \ WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PBINTINQ OPFIOB 1916 COMMITTEE ON LABOR, House of Rbpeesentatives, SixTY-FotuiTH Conqkess. DAVID J. LEWIS, Maryland, Ohwirman. JAMBS P. MAHBE, New York. J. M. C. SMITH, Michigan. WALTER A. WATSON, Virginia. BDWABD E. BEOWNE, Wisconsin. EDWARD KEATING, Colorado. JOHN I. NOLAN, California. W. C. HOUSTON, Tennessee. JOHN G. COOPER, Ohio. H. W. SUMNBRS, Texas. EDWARD B. DENISON, Illinois. EDWARD B. ALMON, Alabama. MEYER LONDON, New York." CARL C. VAN DYKE, Minnesota. Chas. T. ClaytoNj Olerk^ 2 HY 'fm^ CONVIOT-LABOK BILL. Committee on Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C, January 20, 1916. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. James P. Maher (act- ing chairman) presiding. Also present : Messrs. Cooper, Van Dyke, London, Denison, Nolan, Watson, Keating, Houston, Sumners, and Smith. The committee had under consideration a bill (H. R. 6871) en- titled "A bill to limit the effect of the regulation of interstate com- merce between the States in goods, wares, and merchandise wholly or in part manufactured, rained, or produced by convict labor, or in any prison or reformatory." The Acting Chairman. Well, gentlemen, are you ready to go ahead with this hearing? Judge Booher, will you take the chair there, and make any statement you desire? STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BOOHER, A MEMBER OF CON- GRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI. Mr. BooHEE. Gentlemen of the committee, this bill that I am going to ask you to consider this morning has been before Congress so often, and so many reports have been made upon it, and the various re- ports contain the facts much better and more succinctly than I could state them, that I do not know why I should occupy very much of your time in making a statement on this bill. I can not conceive what opposition there can be to it. It is simply to regulate convict labor as it comes in contact with free labor, and I can not imagine of anybody wanting the convict labor of this country, the Jabor of men inside of penitentiaries and reformatories coming in contact with the labor of free men who are on the outside, who are honest, upright, and industrious working men, who have families to support. I can not see why any citizen who is interested in the growth of the manufacturing institutions should oppose this bill. Now, this bill has been in Congress. a great .many times. I have looked up the history of it. It was first introduced, a bill along this line, by Mr. Slayden, of Texas, I think in the Fifty-seventh Con- gress — I am not sure as to the Congress. , Some time ago he intro- duced it for a session or two, and the committee always reported it favorably, but it did not get to a vote in the House. Then he dropped introducing it, and Mr., Gardner, of Massachusetts, took it up and PROPERTY OF LIBRARY 3 / NEW YORK STATE SCH6@i INBDSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS 4 CONVICT-LABOR BILL. introduced it, I think once. Then he dropped it, and on the petition of the small manufacturers in my district, of which there is a great number, and the labor organizations in that district, I introduced it first in the Sixty-second Congress. It was unanimously reported from the committee, and it passed by a unanimous vote of the House. There was not a single vote against it; but it failed in the Senate. In the Sixty-third Congress I introduced the bill again ; the commit- tee passed on it, recommended it without objection, it passed the House again unanimously, went to the Senate, and again failed to be reported on by the Committee on Labor in the Senate. Mr. Nolan. It was reported and reached the calendar, and there it died. Mr. BooHER. It was reported, and died on the calendar. That is right. I fina^Uy got it reported out, but it died on the calendar. I thank you, Mr. Nolan, for making the correction. Now, the object of this bill is stated in so much better terms and language in the report made by your colleague here,. Judge Watson, and in the report in the Sixty-third Congress that X am just going to read that into the record and close my remarks. He says : The object sought to be accomplishetl by this legislation is to lift the protect- ing hand of Congress from convict goods shipped from one State into another State — which shipment, of course, constitutes an act of interstate commerce — and subject them upon arrival at their destination to the local law of the State into which they are shipped. But for such permissive act on the part of Congress such goods would remain interstate commerce, free from State control, until their delivery to the consignee at the point of destination, and beyond that even, until the consignee had disposed of them or broken the package in which they were shipped. Now, he cites numerous decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States to sustain that. Now, gentlemen, all this bill seeks to do is to permit, the States into which these convict-made goods may be shipped to regulate their sale. For instance, my State, the State of Missouri,, for years had convict labor. It came very near ruining the boot and, shoe man- ufacturing industry in Missouri. It did ruin the saddle and harness industry outside of the penitentiary. It put a great many of the smaller manufacturers of the cheaper articles of clothing out of business, and the State of Missouri has abolished contract convict labor in the penitentiary. Mr. Watson. What are you doing with your convicts now ? Mr. BooHEE. They are making brick, they are hewing, stone for buildings, they are manufacturing, all the things. that the State uses; some of them are doing work on the roads, and it is -the intention of our State to use the convicts in road, building, where the convicts ought to be used in every State, in my judgment. Mr. Nolan. In other words, you have adopted the State-use system with them in the building of roads? Mr. BooHER. Yes, sir. Mr. Nolan. Is that confined to State roads ? Mr. BooHER. No; to such roads in the community as mi^t call for convict labor. Mr. Van Dyke. May I ask you a question there, Judgje,? What would you do in States where it would be impossible to build roads in the winter? CONVICT-LABOE BILL. 5 Mr. BooHEH. Well, let the convicts do as the men outside do in the wintertime. The great mass of the laboring people of this coun- try that are not in manufacturing institutions can not labor in the wintertime ; they can not go out in the field and work ; they can not go out and pursue the usual avenues of industry ; but there is always something that they can find for the convicts to do in the peniten- tiary. , But suppose they can not. Now, just take the other side of the question. Suppose they can not be occupied in the wintertime, all of them. Is it not better for those men to be unemployed in the wintertime and employed in the summer time than to drive but of employment and out of existence the laboring man outside and the small manufacturing institution? That is my position on this matter. Now, what harm will it do when these convict-made goods are shipped into my State, for instance, if you give to my State the right to brand them as they want to do, " convict-made goods " ? Then, if a person wants to buy them, he is at perfect liberty to buy them. That is all the regulation in the State of Missouri means — that convict-made goods shall be branded convict made. They believe that that would protect them against an influx of convict-made goods. Now, some such regulation as that kind is all that is intended. There is no disposition on the part of the people who favor this bill to prevent the shipping of these goods into other States. . All we ask is that we be permitted to regulate them after they come to our State. Mr. Denison. Are there any States that forbid the sale of convict- made goods? Mr. BooHEE. That would be unconstitutional. We could not for- bid the sale of them. I think that would be clearly wroiig. Mr. Smith. You can forbid the shipment of them, can you not? Mr. BooHEE. I doubt that very much, whether you could forbid the shipment of them or not. Mr. Denison. The State government does forbid the sale on the open market of convict-made goods, does it not? Mr. BooHEE. No, sir. It might, of its own convict-made goods. Mr. Denison. That is what I am talking about. Mr. BooHEE. I do not think it could forbid the sale of convict- made goods from any other State. Mr. Denison. Let me ask you. You say it could forbid the sale of its own convict-made goods ? Mr. BooHEE. I would not say positively, but my opinion is that it could do that. Mr. Denison. Suppose the State of Missouri should pass a State law, if this bill is passed, providing that any goods that come in from any other State that are convict-made goods could not be sold within that State. Could it do that ? Mr. BooHEB. Oh, yes; I do not think you could prohibit the im- portation and sale of convict-made goods from other States. Mr. Denison. I am merely presenting a hypothetical case. If the State itself can pass a law forbidding the sale of its own convict- made goods, and if we pass this law, that subjects convict-made goods of other States to the same regulations as those inside of the State, would not that prevent the sale in that State of convict-made goods of those States ? 6 CONVICT-LABOE BILL, Mr. BooHEE. I think that if the State was to pass a law of that character it would simply be unconstitutional, so far as goods made outside of that State are concerned. I am not sure that that kind of a law could be passed and enforced in the States. I never thought along that line. Mr. Denison. I thought I would get your judgment. Mr. Cooper. Now, Judge, while you are speaking on that, is it not a fact that some of the States do have that law ? Mr. BooHEE. Well, I do not know of one that has it. What law do you mean ? Mr. Cooper. Suppose there is a law prohibiting the manufacture of convict-made goods in the States Mr. BooHEE. I do not think the law goes that far. I think it is this: They have stopped the contract-labor system and are making goods for the State that the State uses. Is not that as far as the law goes ? I think it is. , Mr. Cooper. It prohibits the sale of them, does it not ? Mr. BooHER. It does not prohibit the sale, because they are not made for sale. Mr. CooPEE. If they can not manufacture them, how are they going to sell them ? Mr. BooHEE. The State forbids them to be manufactured. I think> there is quite a difference between forbidding the manufacture of goods and prohibiting their sale. Mr. Cooper. Ohio has that law. Mr. BooHER. Well, Missouri has that law for making their State goods for the reformatories and all the State institutions. They manufacture goods. Mr. Denison. May I ask you this question? What do you under- stand by the meaning of this phrase, " Subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory ? " Mr. BooHEE, Is that in the bill ? Mr. Denison. Yes, sir. Mr. BooHER. Well, I think just what it means exactly. That- is what I am trying to impress upon you, that these goods, after they arrive in the State, shall be subject to the laws of the State govern- ing convict-made goods. That is what it means. Mr. Denison. Do you regard this bill, as it is framed now. as a matter that concerns transportation at all ? Mr. BooHBR. No, sir. Mr. Denison. What do you think about the right of Congress to legislate on a subject of that kind? Mr. BoOHEE. Because it is interstate commerce. Mr. Denison. It is not the sjibject of interstate commerce, if it does not have anything to do with transportation. Mr. BooHEE. It does not affect transportation. It affects the goods themselves when they come from one State into another, and it is not designed to regulate in any way transportation. Mr. CoopEE. In other words, then. Judge, you believe that this bill would leave it open to the States to pass such laws as they saw fit regulating the sale of convict-made goods ? Mr. BooHEE. Yes, sir ; and if the State did not see fit to make any law on the subject, it would not do any harm in that State. Mr. CooPEE. That is the purpose of this bill ? CONVICT-LABOK BILL. 7 Mr. BooHEE. That is the sole purpose of this bill, to permit the States to legislate, if they want to. If they do not want to, they' can get all the convict-made goods that they want. Mr. Denison. Now, Judge, there is no penalty provided in the bill, is there? Mr. BooHEE. No, sir. Mr. Denison. What would be the result if they violated it? Mr. BooHEE. They would not violate this law. They would vio- late the State law, because you have given the States the right to make the law. It would be the State law that would govern them. Mr. Nolan. There is no authority conferred on Congress to enforce it. It is conferring power on the State; it confers the right upon the State to legislate on the question of convict-labor goods from other States, the same as they legislate on their own, and if there is a penalty attached to it, it will be attached by the States, and not by Congress. Mr. Denison. Now, then, do you not think that a law which would attempt to confer upon the authorities of one State the right to deal wih interstate commerce would be unconstitutional? Mr. BooHEE. No, sir ; we are not dealing with interstate commerce. After it comes within the borders of that State it ceases to have the character as interstate commerce that would be controlled by the Constitution. Mr. Denison. Why is this legislation necessary, then ? Mr. BooHEE. You are giving the State that power. Mr. Denison. If that is true, then, Judge, why is this legislation necessary ? Mr. BooHEE. Because the State can not prevent the sale of these goods in any State, and they can not prevent the shipment of them. All they are asking is that after they are shipped into their State they come within the jurisdiction of the laws of that State on the subject. Mr. Denison. That is, of prison-made goods? Mr. BooHEE. Yes, sir ; of prison-made goods. Mr. CooPEK. Judge, have they not got the power to do that now ? Mr. BooHEE. No ; they do not think they have. Mr. CooPEE. This law does not confer upon them any other power ? Mr. BooHEE. Well, it does; it says that they shall be subject to the laws of that State. Mr. Cooper. By what authority can we grant them that power to establish laws in their own State? Mr. BooHEE. We are not giving the State the right to make its own laws. Mr. CooPEK. Have they not that right now, to enact their own laws? Mr. BooHER. Well, we can enact our own laws, and make them apply to our own manufactured products, but we do not think we can interfere, once they have come under the right of interstate com- merce. Mr. CooPEE. You just got through telling us they did not interfere with interstate commerce at all. Mr. BooHEE. I did not say so. You gentlemen misunderstood me. I said that after they got into the State they ceased to have that interstate commerce character, so that Congress could control them. 8 CONVICT-LABOE BILL. Mr. Cooper. And the State has no jurisdiction over them until tifajey do get into the State. Mr. BooHEE. The Constitution expressly prohibits the States from imterf erring with the commerce of other States, but it would mot be held an interference after they got inside of the State. That would not be held by the courts to be an interference with goods shipped from another State. Mr. Cooper. Not after they once get into the State. Mr. BooHER. It has been thought so by the people who advocate the passage of this bill and who have investigated this bill. Mr. Denison. I am in favor of the principle of preventing com- petition between free labor and convict labor, and if we can pass any law that will do that I want to do it. I am merely asking these questions so as to get at the form of this law. Now, let me ask you if this bill is in the same form as the other bills that have been here- tofore considered by other Congresses? Mr. BooHEH. Yes; except this bill adds "or reformatory." That is the only difference between the bills as they have been introduced. Mr. Denison. Did none of the other bills ever attempt to fix any penalty for the transportation of these goods ? Mr. BooHER. Oh, no. I would think that you could do that under these circumstances. Mr. Van Dyke. It is my understanding of this bill that anything shipped from one State into another in original packages — of course, they can not prevent the interstate shipment, but after it gets into a State and is broken up and redistributed to the retail trade, then it comes under the jurisdiction of the State laws, and if the State laws prohibit the sale within the boundaries of that State of convict- made goods, that practically means the exclusion of any convict- made goods from the borders of that State. Mr. BooHEE. Yes; if they undertake to prohibit that, it would; but I do not think you could prohibit that. Mr. Van Dyke. You can not prohibit the sale of convict-made goods within the borders of the State ? Mr. Smith. The shipment ? Mr. Van Dyke. I do not mean the shipment. Mr. BooHER. Let me read you this. That question is thoroughly answered in this report. Let me read it to you : While the right to sell an article of interstate commerce in the original paclmge, in the absence of congressional legislation regulating the subject, is thus guaranteed by repeated decisions of the Supreme Court and it is compe- tent for Congress by appropriate legislation to subject this right to State con- trol has been fully illustrated by the history and adjudication of the Wilson Act of August 8, 1890, dealing with another subject of interstate commerce along lines identical with those involved in this bill. The Wilson Act vcas as follows : " That all fermented, distilled, or other intoxicating liquors or liquids trans- ported into any State or Territory, or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage, shall, upon arrival in such State or Territory, be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the exer- cise of its police powers to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquors or liquids had been produced in such State or Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise." Mr. Watson. That is the Wilson Act ? Mr. BooHEE. That is the Wilson Act; yes. Now I am going to read on further. CONVICT-LABOE BILL. 9 As is well known, this act was \iolently assaileii on the ground of Its un- constitutionality, in that, as alleged. Congress had delegated its ■ authority over an admitted subject of interstate commerce to the State legislatures. But its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of In re Rahrer (140 U. S., 545), wherein Chief Justice Fuller declared: "No reason is perceived why, if Congress chooses to provide that certain designated subjects of Interstate commerce shall be governed by a rule which divests them of that character at an earlier period of time than would other-' wise be the case, it is not within its competency to do so." Now, Judge Fuller said he could see no reason why this law should not be passed. The Wilson Act .was almost identical in spirit. In fact, Mr. Slayden tells me he based his first bill he introduced oh this subject on the Wilson Act. Mr. Smith. Judge, is there any difference between intoxicating liquor and prison-made goods? Mr. BooHEH. Not as an article of interstate commerce. Mr. Smith. It may be controlled by police regulations ? Mr. BooHEE. So would this be controlled by police regulations. Mr. Smith. One might be harmful and another not. Mr. BooHEE. If it is harmful, or if the State law declares it harmful ? Mr. Denison. An article of commerce might be harmful. Mr. BooHEE. Oh, whether or not liquor is harmful is a question I would not want to decide. Let each gentleman decide that for himself. . Mr. Nolan. It is the source of a great deal of revenue to the Government. Mr. BooHEE. Now, I do not care to occupy any more time of the committee. I would like to have them consider this matter well. I think it is clearly in the interest not only of the laboring men of this country, but it is clearly in the interest of the small manu- facturer. Before I introduced this bill the first time I had a petition signed by every manufacturer in my district, asking that a bill of this character be introduced. I know of one institution that was manufacturing — and was employing some 50 women or girls in manufacturing cheaper articles of clothing, and the convict-made clothing of that character was sold so cheap in Missouri that it drove them out of business; they just simply closed up. It ruined the saddle industry ; it ruined the harness industry in my State. Mr. Smith. Was that in the interest of the consumer? Mr. Boohbe. No; it was not in the interest of the consumer, be- cause you threw these people that had employment out of employ- ment. Their labor was all they had to live on. I do not know just exactly how to answer my friend there on that. Sometimes we legis- late when we think we are legislating in the interest of the consumer, and sometimes we legislate when we have our qualms of conscience, thinking it is against them. It is very hard to determine, in my judgment, just when the consumer is hit. I think he is hit oftener than anybody else, but we are all consumers in the end. Mr. Smith. Are you in favor of preventing the importation into the United States of prison-made goods? Mr. Booher. I do not think prison-made goods ought to be im- ported into the United States, if you want my opinion about it. Mr. Van DrKE. Primarily this bill is a direct hit against contract labor, is it not? 10 COXVICT-LABOE BILL. Mr. BooHEii. Yes, sir. Mr. Van Dyke. Prison contract labor ? Mr. BooHER. Yes, sir. Mr. Van Dyke. I want to ask this for my information. Under the provisions of this act it would give to any State which does not make prison goods of any kind or character the right to exclude from the boundaries of their State any other prison-made goods ? Mr. BooHEE. I do not think this bill goes that far. It is to regu- late the sale of the goods when they get within the States. Mr. Van Dyke. Suppose they have a regulation within the State prohibiting the sale of convict-made goods? Mr. BooHER. That question was asked before. I do not know whether a State could prohibit their sale; I do not know whether they could or not. Now, every article of interstate commerce, when it gets within the State, my idea has always been that we could regu- late but not prohibit. Mr. Smith. Judge, up in Michigan we have had a very interesting question that awakened a good deal of interest around, and that was to prohibit the sale of prison-made goods, except to permit them to make such goods as might be used by the State in its institutions. Mr. BooHER. Yes. Mr. Smith. But to prohibit the sale of those goods in competition with other goods manufactured by free labor. I will not say that a law was passed, but it occurs to me that by some rule or regulation they have limited it to the manufacture of sisal. Mr. BooHEE. That is, in their own penitentiary ? Mi-. Smith. In their own pententiaries. Mr. BooHER. We have done that. Mr. Smith. They do not permit them to manufacture anything else that would come in competition with their own manufactures? Mr. BooHER. No, sir. Mr. Smith. Then, if they prohibit the manufacture of one thing they could prohibit the manufacture of all of them, could they not? Mr. BooHER. They do within their own State. I admit that. Mr. Smith. But you make a distinction between prohibiting them from manufacturing them and prohibiting the sale of them? Mr. BooHER. Of goods manufactured in other States. Mr. Smith. Well, this is manufactured in their own State. Mr. BooHEE. I think in their own State you can prohibit the sale of them. You need not make a law on that. You can prohibit the manufacture, and that prohibits the sale. Mr. Smith. So that if the State prohibited the sale of prison-made goods within its own borders, of course the shipment of anything under this bill would place it in the same condition as prison-made goods, subject them to the same laws? Mr. BooHEE. Well, as I said a while ago, I would not want to be held to an opinion on that. Here is where I see the difference. One is made within the State and subject to the rules and regulations of the State from the beginning. The other is an article of interstate com- merce. Mr. Smith. It could be shipped in and be subject to that very same law that prohibits them? Mr. BooHEE. I do not know but what a State would have to make a law especially touching those importations. That would be my CnXVICT-],ABOE BILL. JJ' idea. Take the Wilson case. That was prohibiting the importation' ot nquor into dry territory. Mr. Smith. Is" not the Webb law up in the Supreme Court now, and still undecided; that same question? Mr. BooHER. No, no. The Wilson bill has been held to be con- stitutional. Mr. Smith. They have taken the Webb law up there too, hav& they not, to decide the same question? Mr. BooHEE. Oh, yes; thw all go up there. Mr. Nolan. The Webb-Kenyon law prohibited the shipment of liquor into dry territory. The Wilson law permitted it, but subjected It. after getting into that territory, to the laws of the different States. Mr. Cooper, May I ask one more question? You say the States have the power to enact laws prohibiting the sale of 'convic-made goods ? Mr. BooHEK. Yes, sir. J Mr. Cooper. Then you say you doubt whether this bill would give the States the power to prohibit the sale of goods that have beeil shipped in interstate commerce. What is the object of the bill, then,' if it dees not give them that power? Mr. BooHER. I doubt very much whether the State could pass a law prohibiting the sale of these goods made in another State and shipped into that State. Mr. CoopSR. What is the object of this bill, then, if it will not give them that power? Mr. Nolan. I think the idea of the people that are in favor of this rheasure is that the people generally will refuse to purchase convict- made goods, if so designated as to make it plain to the purchaser that he is purchasing convict-made goods. Mr. Cooper. That is not answering my question. Mr. BooHER. Well, get down to the question. Mr. NoLAx. You wanted to know what the effect of this bill was. Mr. Cooper. He says he doubts whether this bill would prohibit the sale of convict-made goods in the State when they are shipped into that State by interstate commerce. Then, if he doubts that, why does he want this bill passed ? Mr. Nolan. Because it has been held by court decisions that a, State has no right to regulate the conditions under which convict- made goods of another State shall be sold. Mr. Cooper. That is what this bill provides for — that the States shall regjilate it. Mr. Nolan. This gives them the right to say that they must be labeled " convict-made goods." Mr. CooPEK. It does not say anything about labeling here. Mr. BooHBK. The State has got to do that. Mr. Nolan. If the State wants to do that, it is all right. My opin- ion is that they can prohibit it; although I am not a lawyer, my opinion is that they can absolutely prohibit the sale in the State of convict-made goods. Mr. Cooper. His judgment is that they can not. Mr. Booher. I did not say that. I have very serious doubts about it. Mr. Watson. If you will permit me. Judge Booher. I inay be able to help some of these gentlemen who have not been over this matter 12 CONVICT-LAIJOR BILL. before. We had this question before the committee in the last Con- gress, and, as I understand the matter, the practical object sought to be accomplished by this bill is this: In 1890 Congress passed the Wilson Act dealing with intoxicating liquors, the provisions of the act being that upon the arrival of intoxicating liquors within any State, that upon its arrival at State lines, although it was the legiti- mate subject of interstate commerce, it became subject to the local police law of the State. Now, the object of the Wilson bill was this. Prior to its enactment State legislation leveled at the introduction of intoxicating liquors was ineffective by reason of the long-standing rule of the Supreme Court holding that when once an article of commerce had become the subject of interstate commerce and started on its journey from one State to another that its character as interstate commerce continued with it and remained a part of it not only until it had crossed the borders of a State but had gone into the interior of that State ; and beyond it that it retained its character as interstate commerce until it had been delivered to the consignee in the State, and beyond even that, as Judge Marshall said in the Maryland case, and in other notable decisions, it retained its character as interstate commerce until the consignee had either broken the package in which it came or had sold it, and in one of those earlier decisions Chief Justice Marshall said, I think with great force, that the impprter of such goods not only had the right to receive them in the original package and to break that original package, but he had a right to sell them, be- cause if he did not have the right to sell them the goods were of no value, and consequently he liad the right to sell in the original package. Now, that was the state of the law up to 1890 when the Wilson Act was passed by Congress. No State could forbid the shipment of an article in interstate commerce into its borders ; no State could forbid the delivery of such an article to the consignee ; no State could forbid the right of the consignee to sell them after he got them. Mr. Denison. In the original package, you mean ? Mr. Watson. In the original package. That was the law in 1890 when the Wilson Act was passed by Congress. Now, the Wilson Act sought, as you will see on its face, to shorten the period in which an article of interstate commerce should enjoy its constitutional pro- tection as such. It sought to subject' it to local laws immediately upon its crossing the State boundary line. That was the object of the Wilson law, as is obvious on its face, and when that bill went to the Supreme Court for consideration the Supreme Court said that Congress could not subject it to local law at the State boundary, and that so much of that bill as undertook to do that was surplusage, but it could subject it to local law upon the delivery to the consigHee Mr. BooHBE. Now, Judge, right there, the Wilson bill dealt solely with intoxicating hquor, while this bill deals solely with convict- made goods. There is no difference. Mr. Watson. Now, Judge, on that subject, if an article be an arti- cle ot interstate commerce, if it be a proper article of interstate com- merce, it does not make any difference whether it is liquid or solid If it IS a proper and legitimate subject of interstate commerce the law applicable to it is the same. CONVICT-LABOK BILL. 13 Mr. BooHER. My idea in making that statement to you was that the holding would consequently be the same on this bill as it was on the Wilson bill, because it deals with a specific thing, and it does not make any difference in the law. Mr. Watson. I think you are right on that. Mr. Smith had in his mind right now, what distinction you made on this matter be- tween intoxicating liquors and convict-made goods. As far as this particular bill is concerned, I do not think there is- any distinction. If you once admit intoxicating liquor at all as a proper article of interstate commerce, the protection of the commerce clause of the Constitution applies to it. If you once admit convict-made goods into interstate commerce as a proper subject of interstate commerce, the commerce clause of the Constitution would apply to it. In practice^ gentlemen, what Judge Booher is after in this legisla- tion is exactly what Messrs. Webb and Kenyon were after in their bill dealing with intoxicating liquor. The decision of the Supreme Court having largely defeated the purpose for which the Wilson Act was passed, Messrs. Webb and Kenyon took advantage of the de- liverance of Judge Fuller in that case which construed- the Wilson bill, in which he said, as we have just heard from Judge Booher, that there seemed to be no reason why Congress, which regulated interstate commerce, could not fix a period at which this protecting care of the article of commerce should not cease earlier than it other- wise would cease. In other words, that goods, under the protection of the commerce clause, could go into a State and be delivered to the consignee, and be sold by the consignee in the original package, but if Congress chose to take occasion to say that its protecting care would not extend that far, but would subject these goods to local police law upon their delivery to the consignee within a State, he saw no reason why Congress did not have that power. The effect of Judge Fuller's decision was that he thought that there was a zone in which, in the absence of congressional action, the commerce clause of the Constitution protected importations into a State from local laws, but that by positive and affirmative action Congress could say that it would withhold a portion of its protec- tion, and that at a certain point earlier than otherwise would hap- penj Congress would withdraw its authority. In this bill Judge Booher does not want to try to prevent the importation of convict- made goods from one State into another. He does not think that he can do that. Mr. BooHEB. That is my honest opinion about it. Mr. Watson. But 'he does think that if Congress chooses, it can say in its wisdom that convict-made goods, when they cross the State line, shall be released of congressional protection at an earlier period than they would in the absence of congressional legislation^ He seeks in this bill to ask Congress to lift its hand wheni these goods are de- livered to the. consignee, in a State, and not regulate any further; ' not that he should not have the right to sell^ but that the local State law can step in aaid say whether or-not he shall have the right to sell. That is the only legal question. . Mr. BooHEE. Now, there is an answer I want to make to my friend up there to a question he asked me a, while ago, if the States did not have the right to do that now. I find another statement in this J.4 COA'VICT-LABOK BILL. report that will answer that a little more fully thap I did. I think it will satisfy you, Mr. Cooper, that the State has not now any I right under the Constitution to pass that law : , . Some states whose convicts are permitted to manufacture only for State anil ■cliaritable institutions, have sought to protect themselves by law against the sale of convict goods from without. Among those which have at various times sought to regulate or restrict the traffic in goods of this character are California, Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Oregon, Oklaihoma, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maine. But these restrictions have iailed, either wholly or In part, in consequence of the inability of the States, binder our system of Government, to regulate their commerce with other jStateg. Congress alone has this power in our Government. This is from the report of this committee filed in the Sixty-third ' Congress, and cites the constitutional provisions and the authority- of the Supreme Court sustaining it. It is a very full report, gentle- men, and each one of you ought to get that and read it. I have nothing further to say. I am very much obliged to you. ,■ The Acting Chairman. Let me suggest to the members of the com- mittee that it might be advisable to allow the witness to conclude without interruption, and we will expedite matters. .■ Mr. BooHEE. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad Judge Watson inter- rupted me, because he went so thoroughly into this when he wrote this report, that he knows all about it and is posted on the decisions oi the court. r Mr. Denison. I wanted to ask Judge Watson'^ opinion on this one question, because I value it very highly. If one of the States, or a number of them, passed laws forbidding the sale in that State or on the open market of convict-niade goods-— — ' Mr. Watson. You mean the retail sale? ' Mr. Denison. Yes; and by that I mean the sale to the public as distinguished from sale to its own institutions. If the State should pass such a law as that, and Congress passes this law, do you think, then, that it would be impossible to ship convict-made goods into another State for sale at all? t Mr. Watson. No, sir ; I do not think it would prevent the importa- tion of convict-made goods. I do not think it is intended to do that. Mr. BooHEE. That is not the intent of it. ■ Mr. Denison. Of course, it would not prevent the importation, but it would prevent the sale after they got there. : Mr. Watson. -Preventing the sale is not the object of it, but to pre- vent the right of the consignee to sell in the original package. The object of this bill is to tear off the original package protection. That is about all it seeks to accomplish. The consignee, under the present ■law, can sell in the original package, but under this law Congress Tiridertakes to allow the States to say that he shall not sell. They may deliver them, but the power of sale is destroyed. Now, Judge Booher has stated that he sees no reason why that should not be done, ;and the court, in the case of In re Eahrer, agrees with him. That is the last deliverance of the Supreme Court of the United States on* •this particular subject. I am here to tell you that if that is abso- lutely sound, and when that report was completed it was the last deliverance of the highest court on the siibject; certainly, if that is sound, this thing follows as a necessary consequence. ; Mr. Denison. Has that decision of Judge Fuller been followed in any other case? CONVICT-LABOK BILL. 15 Mr. Watson. It has not been called in question specifically. There have been several decisions of the court since then on related matters. There has been no adverse criticism of it, and, as it stands now, it is the last deliverance of the court on that particular subject. STATEMENT OF MR. RALPH W. WHEELOCK, MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF CONTROL OF MINNESOTA. The Acting Chairman. State your name and whom you represent. Mr. Wheelock. Ralph W. Wheelock, member of the State Board of Control of Minnesota. I simply want to make a preliminary state- ment to Mr. Reed's remarks. We are not here in any sense opposing the proposed bill. We are here to get all the possible light on it, with reference to its application to our prison industries, which are unique. I am going to ask Warden C. S. Reed, of the State penitentiary, to review briefly the operation of our industries, and possibly may ask permission to make a few remarks following his statement, which will take as little time as possible. I want the committee to under- stand that we are not opposing this bill in any way, shape, or man- ner, but are here for information. I have the honor to introduce Mr. C. S. Reed, warden of the prison at Stillwater. STATEMENT OF MR. C. S. REED, WARDEN OF THE STATE PRISON OF MINNESOTA, STILLWATER, MINN. The Acting Chairman. Give your name to the stenographer. Mr. Reed. C. S. Reed, warden of the State Prison of Minnesota. Gentlemen, as Mr. Wheelock has said, our institution is unique in that at the last session of the legislature it required no appropria- tion for its maintenance. I believe we all agree that men in prison should be employed, and casting about for employment for the men in the prison in the State of Minnesota we have established the twine plant and the farm-machinery industry. : The State law also pro- hibits us from manufacturing anything in the State prison that is manufactured within the State. The State! of Minnesota uses, in round numbers, between eighteen and twenty million pounds of twine a year. Last year we manufactured 22,000,000 pounds, and are manufacturing the same amount practically this year,. with about fifteen to sixteen thousand machines. The State law also specifies that we must sell to the farmers of the State of Minnesota and keep in reserve a certain amount, so that all the farmers within the State of Minnesota may have twine. Last year we did a two-mi Uion-and- .a-quarter-doUar business, and we paid to the inmates of the institu- tion in round numbers $80,000 in wages. This money goes to their families or is at their disposition. They may spend this money as they see fit under the direction of the warden. The great majority of this money goes directly to their families or those dependent upon them. The average wages of those men are from 15 cents up to $1.25 a day. Each of those industries, when a man is assigned to that industry, pa^s back into the support fund Y5 cents a day for that man. We have bJOO men, in round numbers, employed in the three industries. Last yes&r those three industries paid back into the support fund over 16 CONVICT-LABOE BILL. $126,000. We made a profit last year,. a net profit on the two indus- tries, of over $350,000, a net profit over and above all overheaxJ charges of the entire institution. There had been appropriations formerly of $287,000. That was returned to the State treasury, into what is known as the revolving fund. I know of no worse punish- ment for a nian than to be placed in prison in idleness. There is not a man in prison in the State of Minnesota that is able to work but who is worked every day and is paid wages every day. They are not like some States— money fines. That money is theirs, at their disposal. If a man's wife comes into the prison to-day, if he so de- sires he can make out a transfer. That comes to the warden, who O. K.'s it, and the money is paid directly to the wife right at that time. We have our schools; we have our religious services; we havie our Chautauqua Circle; we have our correspondence course. Over 150 men are taking correspondence courses. Mr. SuMNERs. Mr. Chairman, I do not like to interrupt the gen- tleman,, bub I am very busy to-day, and I would like 1» get him down to his position on this bill. Mr. Nolan. I think we ought to have his statement, because these matters are matters that come up very considerably. Mr. SuMNERS. I withdraw my objection. Mr. Reed. I might say that we have no contract system within the State of Minnesota, and all of our goods are labeled " prison-made goods." Every bale of twine, every machine that goes out from that institution has the label on it. We consider that an asset. I might go ahead with the schools briefly. Every man that is- not up to and into the fourth grade in school must go to school. The superintend- ent of our school is the superint«ndent of the city schools. Our offi- cers and inmates are teachers. We have our Chautauqua circle. As to the matter of prices, the farmers on 16,000,000 pounds of twine last year made a net saving of over $330,000i In the matter of the bill, as Mr. Wheelock says, we are not here to oppose it. We are here to inform you gentlemen of what we are attempting to do. We are attempting to have the men leave the prison better than when they came in. As L take it, the enforcement of law is to make men better, and I know of no way to restore a man's self-respect so quickly as to put a few dollars in his pocket. I thank you. Mr. Houston. Have you any data or information showing what percentage of your population was sent to your penitentiary as com- pared with other States? Mr. Reed. The population as per population' of the State ? Mr. Houston. Yes, sir. Mr. R:ebd. No ; I have no data. We have a population of two mil- lion and a half in the State, in round numbers, perhaps, and we have a population in prison of 1,026, including men and' women— 33 women. Mr. Houston. You do not know how that compares with other States? Mr. Reed. Well, I think it is just about an average. Mr. Smith, The prison made a large profit on that twine? Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. Mr. Smith. Whfet was the difference between your price and *he price on the market? r CONVICT-LABOB BILL. 17 Mr. Eeed. From 1^ to 2 cents, and we only compete with the trust. Mr. Cooper. You sell your prison goods outside the State? Mr. Eeed. Yes, sir; we sell in North and South Dakota, Iowa» Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Mr. Smith. What is the average price for the sale of your sisal? Mr. Eeed. Our price last year was 7 cents a bale and 64 cents in carload lots. Mr. Van Dtke. Your sale in outside States is simply to take care of what excess you have on hand? Mr. Eeed. Yes, sir. Mr. Houston. Do you sell at the same price outside of the State as you do inside? Mr. Eeed. Yes, sir; just the same. Mr. Houston. The goods are marked convict-made goods? Mr. Eeed. Yes, sir. The twine is put up in bags of 50 pounds, and is stencilled " prison made twine — 50 pounds." Mr. Smith. At 6^ cents, Mr. Warden, how much profit was there to the .State in the sale of that twine over the cost of making it ? Mr. Eeed. About three-quarters to 1 cent a pound. Mr. Van Dyke. You stated that you paid for wages from 15 cents to $1.25 a day. That does not include the 75 cents deducted for expenses ? Mr. Eeed. No, sir. Mr. Van Dtke. That would make it from 90 cents to $2 a day? Mr. Eeed. Yes, sir. When we place a man in an industry, the in- dustry pays over to the support fund 75 cents for each man that comes in, and pays him wages besides. For instance, in the farm-machinery department, we do practically all piecework. In the foundry we know about what a man should do,- and he gets so much a mold, so at 2 cents a mold or 2^ cents a mold some of those men make as high as $1.10, or $1.15, or $1.20. Mr. Van Dyke. Now, if a man does not make enough money at his labor within the prison, the State pays for the support of his family out of this revolving fund, does it not? Mr. Eeed. Yes, sir. We have what is known as the State aid law. If a man sentenced to prison, leaving a family or wife and children behind, that matter is immediately investigated when the man comes in, and all those questions are investigated, and the State of Minne- sota provides for the family and children during that man's in- carceration in the event that he is not able to earn a proper wage. Only a few months ago a man came in and informed me that he had a wife and seven children that were in destitute circumstances. I immediately had an agent go out and investigate, and found that this woman was living in a little shack, and that some of the children were in bed at noon time to keep warm. There was no fuel and no. provisions in the house. I immediately notified the agent to buy coal and provisions right then and there,. and to supply that house with the necessities of life before he left there, which he did. Now, in every case where the man is not able to earn a sufficient and proper wage in the prison, under the State law the State board of control takes care of the women and children while the bread- winner is away. 24050—16 2 18 CONVICT-LABOR BILL. Mr. Van Dyke. One further question. Do you employ any out- side labor in your prisons ? Mr. Eeed. We employ in all about 180 men, a great many foremen, ■expert mechanics, pattern makers, and all those men are union men. Mr. Van Dyke. Do they work on a union scale of wages ? Mr. Keed. Yes, sir; and union hours, and I might say that our in- stitution and the labor organizations of the State of Minnesota have worked very harmoniously. _ . a o Mr. Smith. Is there any machinery manufacturing in your State? Mr. Reed. We manufacture the self-binder, the corn harvester, and a transport truck, and there are none of those manufactured. Mr. Cooper. Mr. Reed, I would like to ask you one more question. If this bill passes it would merely stop you from selling the prod- ucts of your convict labor outside of the State, would it not? Mr. Reed. It might, if the State so legislated. Mr. Cooper. If it is a benefit to the State, as you seem to think it is, they would not legislate against you, would they ? Mr. Reed. I do not know. That is a question. Mr. Cooper. Now, what would be the effect on the employment of your convicts if you were prohibited from selling outside of your State? Mr. Reed. Many of the men would have to be taken off the indus- tries where we are now employing them. Mr. Cooper. How many? Mr. Reed. Possibly a third. Mr. Cooper. A third ? Mr. Reed. Yes. Mr. Cooper. You do not sell a third of your products outside of the /State, do you? Mr. Reed. Well, perhaps possibly not quite so much as a third. Mr. Cooper. Really it would not be such a great hardship, then, if you were allowed to manufacture and sell in your own State, would it? Mr. Reed. We are employing 600 men in the two industries, and if we were to pull off 200 men it would be quite Mr. Cooper. Could you not find anything else for those men to do ? Mr. Reed. Under the law — a short, time ago, for your information we thought of establishing another industry — ^the Wtton industry-^ cut blank buttons. We found a little plant away down along the Mississippi River. Just four weeks ago we installed a machine with the idea of making wire fences, and we were informed that there was no such fencing made within the State of Minnesota. After investigating very, very carefully we found that a fencing was be- ing manufactured, and that was done away with. It is a hard mat- ter, you understand, to find some industry that would be suitable in, a prison that is not already being manufactured within the State. Mr. Keating. Have you tried working them on the roads? Mr. Reed. We have not in the State of Minnesota. I formerly came from the State of Washington, and we used them in the State of Washington. Mr. Smith. To advantage and profit? Mr. Reed. That is questionable. Most all the work was crushing rock. CONVICT-LABOE BILL. 19 Mr. Cooper. Did I understand you to say that organized labor in you State favors this? Mr. Reed. I said we have gotten along beautifully. There is no opposition. Mr. Nolan. How long have you been warden of the Stillwater Prison ? Mr. Reed. A year and a half. Mr. Nolan. I asked the question because I was under the impres- sion that when we had our case in the Senate a while back there was some other man. ' Mr. Reed. I succeeded Warden Wilf er a year and seven months ago. Mr. Nolan. You protect the manufacturer and the worker entirely in the State of Minnesota by not coming into competition with the products of free labor of your State, do you ? Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. Mr. Nolan. Is that a State law ? Mr. Reed. That is a State law. Mr. Nolan. Do you sell in the States that you have enumerated here the excess product? Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. Mr. Nolan. Now, you made the statement, warden, that you have 180 foremen and skilled workmen working in conjunction with the free men. Mr. Reed. You misunderstood me. That includes guards, cap- tains, deputies, clerks, and all. The skilled labor consists possibly of 50 to 60 men ; that is, foremen and tradesmen. The other men are men who would be turnkeys and guards and overseers on the farm. We have a large farm of 740 acres that we farm, and we have a large dairy of 90 cows, and those industries require men. The skilled labor consists of molders, patternmakers, machinists, and mechanics — ex- pert men, possibly 50 to 60. Mr. Nolan. How many molders have you got — free men — working in the foundry? Mr. Reed. There are seven men in the foundry — free men — six or seven; seven men. Mr. Nolan. Did you attempt within the last year and a halt or so to extend that plant and hire any more molders— free men? Mr. Reed. No, sir. Mr. Nolan. Did you have any controversy with the molders there, working in the penitentiary, about extending your operations? Mr. Reed. No, sir. , „ „ Mr. Nolan. Now, Warden, could you employ all of your prisoners safely, without any great trouble, on the articles that you manu- facture now and confine your sales exclusively to the State of Mm- nfesota? ^ , , 1 • J.I.- Mr. Reed. We could not. You mean by taking over other in- dustries, or on the same industries we have ? Mr. Nolan. The same industries? Mr. Reed. No, sir; we could not. Mr. Nolan. The same industries. . Mr Reed No; simply because, as I said a few minutes ago, under the law it is a very hard matter for us to find an industry that would 20 CONVICT-LABOE BILL. be suitable for prisons, without coming into conflict with the State law. Mr. Nolan. If you took away the work of those 50 or 60 skilled ■workers, and transferred that over to the convicts, that would reduce the number to less than 200, possibly 140 or 150? Mr. Eeed. We need those 50 or 60 men as instructors. Another thing. In the machinery department, in the machine business, we are teaching trades; we are doing manual trades. We do not keep a man at one fixed job all the time. We train a man from one thing on to another, so that when he goes out he has something at which lie can make a livelihood. Mr. Nolan. Is it not a fact that after a man has been working in ithese industries for a long time he becomes an expert worlanan ? Mr. Eeed. To a certain extent, yet it is not wisdom, as we see it, to employ convicts as foremen. We very much prefer, and experience has taught us that we get very much better results by having free- labor foremen. Mr. Nolan. For instance, instructors. Have you got some of your prisoners now apportioned off and engaged as instructors to the new anen ? Mr. Eeed. In the mechanics ? Mr. Nolan. In the mechanics. Mr. Eeed. No, sir. Mr. Nolan. None at all? Mr. Eeed. Not that I recall at the present time ; no, sir. Mr. Nolan. Is it not possible for them to be utilized in that way, without giving them the title of foremen ? Mr. Eeed. That might be, but that is a matter of policy. Mr. Nolan. I believe that is all. Mr. Smith. Is the sale of prison-made goods from outside your State permitted in your State? Mr. Eeed. Yes, sir. Mr. Smith. And do you find any competition from that source? Mr. Eeed. Oh, yes, sir. Wisconsin twine is sold within our State. Mr. Smith. Do you manufacture enough twine for the use of vour State? ^ Mr. Eeed. Yes, sir ; and more. Mr. Houston. You say you do not engage in the manufacture of lany article that is manufactured in your State. Now, under the law •of the State of Minnesota, if a manufacturing establishment should legin to manufacture any article that you are now making, would ;you be compelled to stop it? . Mr. Eeed. No, sir ; not under the law at the time we established the industry. Mr. Houston. That is a point I want to get at. For instance, no •other institution manufacturing twine could come up now and cause :you to stop manufacturing twine ? Mr. Eeed. No, sir. Mr. Wheelock. In our relation to this question we realize, when we get down to this purely logical and practical question, we appear to be at a slight disadvantage, but the fundamental proposition in view out in our State was just this: Minnesota has set the mark in *he line of progressive prison management, and we are proud of it. OONVICT-LABOE BILL. 21 Our prison-made goods go out with the label that they are prison made, and we are proud of it. The principle we are working out is the reform end of it, by making these men become self-respecting to a certain extent and to feel that they are earning something to be able to repay their debt to society and to support their families from their earnings. Furthermore, we are protecting society by keeping their families off the street and the children out of the public institutions. Again, our institution supplies the only competition which the International Harvester Trust has in that entire group of Western States. Our goods go into the States of Nebraska, both the Dakotas, Wisconsin, and Iowa. We give a square deal to all the users of our products. We have one price. An agent of an Interna- tional Harvester farm machine of any kind can compel us to sell him twine ; that is to say, we have no right to refuse to sell him twine. He takes our twine and uses it to promote the sale of his own ma- chinery to the disparagement of our machinery, which holds its own in the market. I make that point simply to show that the union labor employed by the Harvester people, wherever they may have their plant, have that degree of protection even against our convict labor. But our argument for it would be above and beyond all that, and that is the example that Minnesota has set in the conduct of all its institutions. We have 18 institutions, having 10,000 to 12,000 people — ^^crippled children, insane, and tubercular — and we are spending more money than any other State in the Union in the care of these children. We clothe them, feed them, doctor them, and bury them if they have no friends when they die, and the example we are setting ought to be valued by every State in this country, particularly the management of their prisons, in my humble judgment. I have been very familiar with this work for the last 15 years, although I have only been on the board three years, and have been a student, more or less, of this question. Mr. Nolan. Do you think that the fact that the farmers of the Dakotas and Nebraska and those other States are in favor of pur- chasing your article would be sufficient to prevent adverse legislation in your State ? Mr. Wheelock. There would be a latent strength there, but there would have to be an organized movement. Selfish interests are al- ways watching legislation, and the next move would be the passage of an act against our industry. Mr. Nolan. Do you not know there is nothing latent about the farmer? Mr. Wheelock. I do not know. The farmer has to be considered to a certain extent, but he needs some prodding, even in our State. Mr. Nolan. If you feel that he has been in the clutches of the International Harvester Trust for so long and has had this oppor- tunity to be released from it, don't you think he would do every- thing he could to stay released from it ? Mr. Wheelock. I think he would respond very quickly, but those people are on the job every minute. Mr. Smith. How does the price of your machinery compare with the machinery of the International Harvester Co. ? Mr. Eeed. From $12.50 to $30 cheaper. 22 CONVICT-LABOB BILL. Mr. Smith. On what kind of machinery ? Mr. Wheelock. On the 6-foot bindet it would be $12.50. Mr. Smith. Do you not manufacture some machinery that costs less than $25? Mr. Wheelock. I say it is that much cheaper than the Interna- tional. On the 6-foot binder it would be $12.50. I refer to our price on binders. Mr. Smith. You only manufacture, then, of course, the high- priced machinery. You do not manufacture any plows or hoes? Mr. Reed. Rakes are the cheapest thing we manufacture. Mr. Smith. What do you do for the prisoner when you discharge him? Do you pay him anything? Mr. Wheelock. Nothing except what he has earned, whatever he has accumulated, and $25 in addition. Mr. Smith. And a new suit of clothes? Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. " The Acting Chairman. Do you have a signed contract of any kind? Mr. Wheelock. The merchants agree to take so many machines on certain terms, and we make the same deal with the individual farmers. The individual farmers can come right to our institutions there and get the same price. Mr. Smith. Do you make contracts ? Mr. Wheelock. No. That- is all I have to offer. I will be glad to answer any further questions. The Chairman. Are there any other gentlemen who want to be heard ? Mr. Nolan. I would like to have it made clear. Does the State board of control in control of the State penitentiary of Minnesota feel that this bill, if passed by Congress, would prove greatly detri- mental to this industry out there? Mr. Wheelock. We have the apprehension that it would result in legislation that would cripple us if it tied us up to the boundaries of our own State. We would have no leeway, as we do now, to use the outside territory to work off the surplus. Mr. Nolan. Well, the State does protect its own citizens against competition from any products of the State penitentiary? Mr. Wheelock. Oh, yes. I say that is the illogical thing in our position here. I am admitting all that. Mr. Denison. Do you sell twine and machinery in other States where the same stuff is manufactured? Mr. Wheelock. Oh,. yes; we sell in Missouri, and they sell in our State. Mr. Denison. So you are doing in other States what you will not do in your own State? Mr. Wheelock. Of course, we are not legislating against any other States. Mr. Denison. Do you approve of that provision of the law, Mr. Wheelock, which forbids your competing with manuf actiirers in vour own State? ^ Mr. Wheelock. Well, I dp not go quite that far myself, but that was absolutely necessary before we could get started. I would be willing to obviate that to a certain extent. CONVICT-LABOE BILL. 23 Mr. A7an Dyke. I think we could answer that in this way, that the State of Minnesota has absolutely no objection to having any other convict-made goods from any other States shipped into the State and competing with these that you have got and competing with anything that is shipped within the State? Mr. Wheelock. Oh, certainly. Mr. Van Dtkb. All you ask is the reciprocal right to ship your convict-made goods out into another State and compete with theirs, is it not? Mr. Wheelock. That is all, and I think that if there was some amendment or some provision there that would single out contract convict labor, which is an outrage on civilization wherever it is applied, all these objections would be waived not only by our own State but other States that are operating along the same lines. Mr. SuMNEES. You would not object to every State having the right to say whether it wants these goods sold or not, would youl Mr. Wheelock. No; we do not object to that. Mr. SuMNEES. That is all this bill does. Mr. Wheelock. I say we are here to get information as to just what it did do. I was very much enlightened by the statement of Judge Booher and you gentlemen. In fact, we would cooperate with Wisconsin, with Nebraska, or with the Dakotas if they wanted to establish an institution similar to ours, waiving all possible profits aside. Profit is- the last thing the board of control thinks about in the operation of that institution, and when we go up against the legislature with a demand for direct appropriation to support it they say : " Here, you have had all this opportunity. Why don't you take care of yourselves ? " Mr. Smith. You are not in favor of contracts with prisons ? Mr. Wheelock. They are absolutely indefensible from any point of view. No individual has the right to make a profit on the labor of those poor men. I am largely in sympathy with the labor organi- zations on that question. Mr. Nolan. The question of contract labor goes away beyond the union end of it. It affects unorganized labor as well. Mr. Wheelock. It affects everybody. Mr. Smith. You have an indeterminate sentence ? Mr. Wheelock. Yes, sir; and a parole system, under which every man except a lifer has the possibility of cutting his time by good behavior. Mr. Smith. The lifer has a chance after 20 years? Mr. Wheelock. If he can get the pardon board to commute his sentence. We have to provide work for every paroled man, and do not parole a man if we do not get a position for him. We have a dozen paroled men in our institution holding responsible positions. Mr. Smith. They are becoming as efficient as they can? Mr. Wheelock. We endeavor to make them able to support them- selves, so that when they go out they will be able to stay out. The weakness of prison operation has been that they go around m a circle, and when they go out come right back. , „ ^, , , ^ ^, Mr. Smith. Tell us about your schools, Mr. Wheelock. Do they take great interest in the schools? Mr. Wheelock. Oh, yes ; quite a number of them. 24 Mr. Smith. What are the principal subjects? What are you teach^ ing there ? , i. • Mr. Wheelock. Just the ordinary branches, such as they have in the city schools up to the eighth grade, and, as Mr. Eeed says, cor- respondence courses and business courses besides, he tells me — book- keeping, shorthand, and typewriting— the whole purpose being to equip these fnen, especially the young men who go out after four or five years of -service to go into the world and work their way. At the present time I have a man who has served time for embezzlement whq was a deputy auditor in one of our counties, and he was ashamed td go back home, and we are paying him $2,750 a year as chief clerk m the prison. We have a bank clerk there who has served a little timd for robbing a country bank. He did not want to go back home, and he brought his family to Stillwater and he is holding a responsible position. Mr. Denison. Is Mr. Adam Bede from Minnesota ? Mr. Wheelock. Yes, sir; he makes his home there. Adam Bede and I are friends ; bred in the same office, in fact, in Ohio. He is lec- turing over there. He does not spend much time in the State. I thank you, gentlemen, very much for your courtesy. The Chairman. If there are no further witnesses, I think the comi mittee would better go into executive session. (The committee thereupon went into executive session.) o HV8923.A67I"6""'""""-"'^'^ ^Smmmm.t'''''^^''""^^ "e'ore the C 3 1924 002 434 417 ..... Cornell University Library HV8923.A61916 Convict-labor biil.Hearings before the C 3 1924 002 434 417 'J "N