Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

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