OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
.
622
Weotion 2. Any person, fim, partnership,
or corporat1011dlhh ahg.l viol&u? any
aions of t&&i Act mhfdl be -uilt of a
taiabmaor, an4 upon aonvictlon them02 6bhp Lbe
tjunldmd * film of not law3 than Twenty-film
‘0llm-e (*!!$
5) nor uom than Two Wundre4 Dollam (4209)
for the fire+ offense md not lees than Fift Dollars
($50) ziormore than FL.e Rwdred Dollars ($508) for
each uuboequ8nt offen8e.14
:.Aheld in our Opinion So. 0-m that2
m Wison 6y8tea annot 5ell in lk3azsits primon
lzsaqlfaeture4
.goo4o,VDFOO or -80 to any
firm or S~%tion except that rNah prison IltadEzd
pociameyk eoldtiotbeS*te areubdlvleloasthermf
orto prbllafnetitutionowmdormanqadendcoa-
tl-Oll8&
T the state or uny uub4ltidont.h@mof.*
It nu1 be n&ed tdmt Artlole ll3771-1prohibits the sale
of *m goods, wares or
pri4oaler6 or WfMtcuy
vieiors in cl0 oxemp~ hrra the operation of the Act
gxiod4raanufaauredby out of State aonvlet8 or prlamwe in puwl
or rofolnatoryinetitutlone.
:bot of Congrese, June 19, 1929, 49 U.C.C., 8 60 psarides
~~pwta5foUomr
to the mm4 extent end in the 84ma rtenrmrtar3thon&-4uah
~oo&iwarea, iindimrchandieehad been maxmfactured pro-
duesd, or mined in such State or Totitory, end e1& not
be cxezspttherefrm by reason of being introduced in the ori-
!;inelpackago or otharwiee.*t
111the case of Yhitfleld v. Ohio, 297 U. 5., 431, the United
~,L:~cL:jup-m court.had bcfol-eit the ipeotfon of tileconsitution-
dity of the above quoted at.stu%eati un Ohio etututc r&i& gohibl-
'AC the de on the open markit in the Stats of Chlo ;'ood.n,
w%r~e or
zrmrciadieen6nufncturedor .&ned wholly or in part in nny otlmr
State bj oosndcto or pricorrsra except cor,victeor prisor.em on
arole or prowtson. It was cortonded that thfsOh%0 4tiza2 wa6
fn confllot rriththe intemtate cot-EWCC clausa of the Constitution.
It wee also contended tbt the Ohio statute ~5 in conflict with
the I.&h tuaandsmntin that it d.iscriminetad those s -wed
egeir.cct
in the sale of ootton shirts znfiin favor of !.nkroMtecto ofT 'hio
enga&$odin a like co~llln& It ~736,%~rt?srcortoridei!
tkt tlm Act
Of Coq.7~6 was nOt & Vtd.id e%XWCis8 Of the poW3r Of COngrOSs t.0
regul&a intemtata ocanewe. All of the foreGoing contention.6 mnoro
overrule4by the Supreme Am-t and the Court held that tha States
had *thepower to prohibct cktes on thr open ,wkat of cnnvLct-wde
-0ods shipp3d in frm ot?mr state4. Cee~alaa mlp & collar
8o. v. IlJAnoi5 Central 4eLlroad Caqany, 39 .
lil~ofthe fOre~Oi;ng,ftia ow opltllonthatprioorl-
ma46 goods, wares or merdae wnufactumd bv convIcta or prison-
om in Ml or refoEimtory L-lstitutions cnltoicb of t?A.s
Z’tatc cmrat
bo J-wUE y soldtithinthe State of Taxes.
2:sare enalosiqgherewith aopies of ow OpFnions Noa. O-
7160an4 0-7l&X au requa6tod.
Ey
. C, Davvio,Jr.
&uistant
J!l:dja
lhlClOiSUXYlU