in re Opinion of the Justices

Decision Date03 May 1912
Citation211 Mass. 605,98 N.E. 334
PartiesIn re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
OPINION

The following is the order of the House of Representatives, finally adopted April 17, 1912:

'Ordered that the opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court be required upon the following important question of law: Would the provisions of House Bill No. 833, entitled 'An act relative to the marking of goods made in penal institution,' be constitutional and legal if enacted into law?
'Ordered that copies of the said bill be sent to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court.'

The proposed act is as follows:

'An act relative to the marking of goods made in penal institutions.

'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

'Section 1. All goods, wares and merchandise made by convict labor in any prison, reformatory or jail in this or any other state in which convict labor is employed and imported, brought or introduced in the state of Massachusetts shall, before being exposed for sale, be branded, labeled or marked as hereinafter provided, and shall not be exposed for sale in any place within this state without such brand, label or mark.

'Sec 2. The brand, label or mark hereby required shall contain the words 'convictmade' followed by the year and the name of the prison, reformatory or jail in which it was made, in plain English lettering of the style known as primer Roman capitals. The brand, label or mark shall in all cases where the nature of the article will permit, be placed upon the same, and only where such branding or marking is impossible shall a label be used, and where a label is used it shall be in the form of a paper tag, which shall be attached by wire to each article where the nature of the article will permit, and placed securely upon the box, crate or other convering in which said goods, wares or merchandise may be packed, shipped or exposed for sale. Such brand, mark or label shall be placed upon the outside of and upon the most conspicuous part of the finished article, crate or covering.

'Sec. 3. It shall not be lawful for any person or persons dealing in this state in any such convict-made goods, wares or merchandise, knowingly to have the same in his or her or their possession for purpose of sale or to offer the same for sale without the brand, label or mark required by this act, or to remove, conceal or deface such brand, mark or label.

'Sec. 4. Any person violating the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars nor less than fifty dollars, or be imprisoned for a term not exceeding twelve months or by both fine and imprisonment.

'Sec. 5. This act shall not apply to goods, wares and merchandise used by the commonwealth, or by any county or municipality therein, or by any public institution.

'Sec. 6. This act shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen.'

To the Honorable the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

We, the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, respectfully answer as follows the question propounded by the order of April 17, 1912, a copy of which is hereto annexed.

The bill, entitled 'An act relative to the marking of goods made in penal institutions,' requires in express and unqualified terms that all goods, wares and merchandise made by convict labor in a penal institution in this or any other state, before being offered for sale in this commonwealth, shall be branded, labeled or marked in such a way as to indicate conspicuously the source of their manufacture. Compliance with its terms is enforced by heavy penalties. The bill applies in unmistakable language to interstate commerce. It describes specifically the manufactures made in 'any other state * * * imported, brought or introduced in the state of Massachusetts.' The purpose of the bill is directly to affect interstate commerce. Its aim in this respect is emphasized by certain provisions of section 2, which obviously apply to shipments in the original package. Its terms, if complied with, would compel the branding, labeling or marking of every convict-made article brought into the commonwealth for sale in ordinary trade.

The general principle is that under the Constitution of the United States no state can pass any law which impairs or restricts in any degree the freedom of interstate commerce. Many illustrations of its scope may be found in instances of efforts to require inspection, license to sell, registration to transport or identification by color. It has been applied to a great variety of articles, some of which, such as intoxicating liquors, had been declared by the policy of the particular state as harmful to the public safety, health and order. It has been repeatedly declared that the domain of interstate commerce is within the exclusive control of Congress and that no state under the guise of regulation restriction or otherwise, can impose any direct burden upon it. This principle is subject to the limitation that laws passed by the several states in the exercise of the police power, general in their design and valid in their nature, will not be void because incidentally, and not primarily, they may affect interstate commerce. The bounds of the police power...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Amos Bird Co. v. Thompson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 24 Junio 1921
    ... ... Congress had exercised its authority in this matter, at least ... in so far as the public health was concerned, for in the ... opinion it is said: ... ' ... * * * In the present case the articles in question were ... imported from a foreign country. They are subject to ... L.R.A. 490, 68 Am.St.Rep. 736 ... The ... same consideration, evidently, controlled the court in In ... re Opinion of the Justices, 211 Mass. 605, 607, 98 N.E ... 334, 336 (Ann. Cas. 1913B, 815), for the court points out: ... ' * ... * * It is a restriction upon the ... ...
  • Com. v. Moore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 26 Febrero 1913
    ...COUNSEL D. V. McIsaac, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the Commonwealth. W. F. Kimball and E. W. Bancroft, both of Boston, for defendant. OPINION C.J. The defendant is charged with a violation of St. 1912, c. 248, § 1, which is as follows: 'Carcasses of neat cattle, sheep or swine slaught......
  • Commonwealth v. Moore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 26 Febrero 1913
  • Roland M. Baker Co. v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 27 Febrero 1913
    ...Suffolk.February 27, 1913 COUNSEL Southard & Parker, of Boston, for plaintiff. Warner, Warner & Stackpole, of Boston, for defendants. OPINION J. This case seems to have been dealt with, both at the trial and at the argument in this court, largely as if the plaintiff's rights depended upon t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT