Whitfield v. State
| Decision Date | 18 February 1935 |
| Parties | WHITFIELD v. STATE. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Asa H Whitfield was convicted in the municipal court of Cleveland of unlawfully selling convict-made goods, and he brings error.-[Editorial Statement.]
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court .
Section 2228-1, General Code, prohibiting the sale on the open market in this state of convict-made goods from another state, is not violation of either the State or Federal Constitution.
Malcolm E. Molner and Morton M. Stotter, both of Cleveland, for plaintiff in error.
Ezra Z. Shapiro, Director of Law, Michael A. Picciano, and Stephen S. Gobozy, all of Cleveland, for the State.
Plaintiff in error, Asa H. Whitfield, who was defendant in the municipal court of Cleveland, was convicted upon an affidavit which charged that he unlawfully sold convict-made goods, in violation of section 2228-1, General Code of Ohio. Error proceedings were instituted in this court seeking the reversal of said conviction. The charge was incorporated in an affidavit in the following form:
‘ Before me, Paul DeGrandis, Deputy Clerk of the Municipal Court of the City of Cleveland, personally came R. C. Kissack who being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith, that on or about the 2nd day of October, A. D. 1934, at the City of Cleveland in said County of Cuyahoga, one Asa H. Whitfield did unlawfully sell on the open market, certain goods, wares or merchandise, to-wit; one dozen Chambray men's work shirts, which said merchandise was manufactured in whole or in part by convicts or prisoners at Wetumpka Prison in the State of Alabama; said prisoners so manufacturing said articles at the time of manufacturing same not being on parole or probation.’
A demurrer was filed on the ground that the law on which said affidavit is based is unconstitutional. The demurrer was overruled by the trial court.
Section 2228-1, General Code, provides that: ‘ After January 19, 1934, no goods, wares or merchandise, manufactured or mined wholly or in part in any other state by convicts or prisoners, except convicts or prisoners on parole or probation, shall be sold on the open market in this state.’
Section 2228-2, General Code, provides: ‘ Whoever violates any of the provisions of the next preceding section shall be fined not less than twenty-five nor more than fifty dollars for the first offense and not less than fifty nor more than two hundred dollars for each subsequent offense.’ (Effective January 19, 1934.)
An agreed statement of facts was submitted to the trial judge, which reads as follows: ‘ That on the 2d day of October, A. D. 1934, the defendant, Asa H. Whitfield, of Montgomery, Ala., as agent for the state of Alabama, sold to R. C. Kissack, in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, on the open market, to wit, at the Cleveland Hotel, one dozen Chambray men's work shirts for the consideration of $5.25; that said shirts were manufactured in whole by prisoners, confined in Wetumpka Prison in the State of Alabama; that said prisoners at the time of manufacturing said shirts were not on parole or probation; that said shirts were shipped in to the city of Cleveland, Ohio, via United States Parcel Post from Wetumpka Prison, State of Alabama, to be sold on the open market, in said city of Cleveland, Ohio; that said goods were sold in the original package, as shipped by interstate commerce into the state of Ohio; that there is nothing harmful, injurious or deleterious about the goods sold.’
It is further stipulated: ‘ That on the 2d day of October, A. D. 1934, the defendant, Asa H. Whitfield, of Montgomery, Ala., as agent for the state of Alabama sold to R. C. Kissack, in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, on the open market, to wit, at the Hotel Cleveland, six dozen men's work shirts, for the consideration of $31.50; that the said shirts were not then delivered to the said R. C. Kissack, but the defendant, Asa H. Whitfield, agreed to ship same to the residence of R. C. Kissack which is in Lakewood, Ohio, via Railway Express, from Wetumpka Prison, in the State of Alabama; that the said shirts have been manufactured in whole by prisoners confined in Wetumpka Prison in the State of Alabama; that said prisoners at the time they manufactured said shirts, were not on parole or probation; that said goods were sold in the original package as shipped, by interstate commerce into the state of Ohio; that there is nothing harmful, injurious or deleterious about the goods sold.’
Plaintiff in error relies mainly upon the contention that the judgment rendered by the trial court is contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and that section 2228-1, General Code, is likewise contrary to the Constitution of the United States, in that it violates article XIV, section 1, of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, and also article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Federal Constitution.
Article XIV, section I, of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, reads, in part, as follows:
Article I, section 8, Clause 3, denominated ‘ Interstate Commerce Clause,’ reads as follows: ‘ The Congress shall have Power * * * (3) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.’
It is urged that section 2228-1, General Code, when it provides that ‘ goods, wares or merchandise, manufactured or mined wholly or in part in any other state by convicts or prisoners,’ shall be excluded from the open market in the state of Ohio, abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, in that it deprives a citizen of the United States, who has merchandise made by convicts of another state, from competing with convict-made goods in the state of Ohio.
It is further urged that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution vests sole authority to regulate commerce among the several states in the Congress of the United States, and that the state of Ohio, by virtue of said section 2228-1, attempts to regulate interstate commerce between itself and other states of the Union.
It is insisted that the power to regulate interstate commerce granted by the Constitution to Congress is exclusive in its character, so as to preclude the states from exercising such right or power. It is likewise insisted that Congress has the power not only to authorize the importation between the states, but also has power to authorize importers to sell, and that the state of Ohio therefore has no power to impose a law which in any way hinders or prohibits the free flow of commerce among the states.
Since Congress has the right to authorize the importation between the states, it also has the power to authorize the importers to sell. The state of Ohio, therefore, it is contended, has no power to impose a law which in any way prohibits the free flow of commerce between the states.
In its final analysis the question presented to us may be summarized as follows: Granting that it is within the exclusive power of Congress to authorize the importation of goods and merchandise of other states into the state of Ohio, to what extent, if any, is the state of Ohio possessed of power to regulate the sale of goods that have been so imported from another state?
Section 2228-1, General Code, was enacted in accordance with the spirit of article II, section 41, of the Constitution of the state of Ohio, which reads as follows: ‘ Laws shall be passed providing for the occupation and employment of prisoners sentenced to the several penal institutions and reformatories in the state; and no person in any such penal institution or reformatory while under under sentence thereto, shall be required or allowed to work at any trade, industry or occupation, wherein or whereby his work, or the product or profit of his work, shall be sold farmed out, contracted or given away; and goods made by persons under sentence to any penal institution or reformatory without the State of Ohio, and such goods made within the State of Ohio, excepting those disposed of to the state or any political sub-division thereof or to any public institution owned, managed or controlled by the state or any political sub-division thereof, shall not be sold within this state unless the same are conspicuously marked ‘ prison made.’ Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the passage of laws providing that convicts may work for, and that the products of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitfield v. State
...49 Ohio App. 530197 N.E. 605WHITFIELDv.STATE.Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.Feb. 18, Asa H. Whitfield was convicted in the municipal court of Cleveland of unlawfully selling convict-made goods, and he brings error.-[Editorial Statement.] Affirmed. Petition in err......