Chapter I: Part 1

Transcriber’s Notes:

Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

Additional Transcriber’s Notes are at the end.

* * * * *

VOLUME IV, No. 2. FEBRUARY, 1914

THE DELINQUENT

(FORMERLY THE REVIEW)

A MONTHLY PERIODICAL, PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL PRISONERS’ AID
ASSOCIATION AT 135 EAST 15th STREET, NEW YORK CITY.

THIS COPY TEN CENTS. ONE DOLLAR A YEAR

T. F. Garver, President.
Wm. M. R. French, Vice President.
O. F. Lewis, Secretary, Treasurer and Editor The Delinquent.
Edward Fielding, Chairman Ex. Committee.
F. Emory Lyon, Member Ex. Committee.
W. G. McLaren, Member Ex. Committee.
A. H. Votaw, Member Ex. Committee.
E. A. Fredenhagen, Member Ex. Committee.
Joseph P. Byers, Member Ex. Committee.
R. B. McCord, Member Ex. Committee.

Entered as second-class mail matter at New York.

KATHERINE BEMENT DAVIS New York City’s Commissioner of Correction

BY MARY GARRETT HAYES

[Reprinted from the Jamestown, N. Y., Post]

It is significant of the liberalizing sentiment which is the outgrowth of the sixty years or more of campaigning which the suffragists have carried on in New York State and all over the country, not for the vote alone, but for the recognition of women as co-workers with men in the affairs of the world, that a woman is for the first time in history a member of the cabinet of the Mayor of New York City, and is at the head of one of the most important departments of municipal administration.

Dr. Katherine Bement Davis, the new Commissioner of Correction, is a good suffragist--her family for some generations have been supporters of the cause of women--and she is a firm believer in her sex as well as a splendid monument herself of feminine achievement. The New Year opens most promisingly with such a woman to inspire hope and courage and higher ideals in the wayward of this great city.

Buffalo claims the honor of being the birth place of Dr. Davis, who was the oldest of five children. She was graduated from the Rochester High School, however. Being naturally a student and a thinker, she felt that she must have a broader education. Funds were rather scarce at home and needs many, so the ambitious young girl set to work and taught school until she had earned enough to go to college. She is now one of Vassar’s most honored alumnae. Her career there was brief for she completed her course in two years, graduating with flying colors and winning Phi Beta Kappa honors.

The following year Dr. Davis--she was Miss Davis then--spent at Columbia University, studying the chemistry of foods, and the knowledge that she acquired was promptly put into practice in a most telling manner.

John Boyd Thatcher, one of the prime movers in the Committee of Arrangements for the World’s Fair in Chicago, was eager to have a woman establish and manage a workingman’s model home. He appealed to Miss Davis, who agreed to take charge of the matter. She built the house and settled a workingman and his family in it. She looked after every detail of the house-keeping herself, did the cooking and fed the family on what she believed to be an ideal diet for their needs, the most healthful and strength-building. They were pledged to eat nothing away from home. Each day the diet was posted for the benefit of visitors. That family was taught scientific house-keeping in such an approved fashion that the model home proved a most instructive and valuable feature of the fair.

Next Miss Davis became the head of the College Settlement in Philadelphia, and was one of the charter members of the Civic Club. It was not long before she was running for membership in the School Board, but at that time Philadelphia had not accepted school suffrage. She was beaten by an Italian saloon-keeper. An amusing fact which gives some idea of how much a woman of her calibre was really needed in that City of Brotherly Love, was that when the vote was counted, it was found that her precinct had polled seven more votes than it was entitled to.

Somewhat later Miss Davis held the first woman’s fellowship in the University of Chicago, and there she took her Doctor’s degree in political economy. She then went abroad, as European fellow of the New England Association for the Higher Education of Women, and took advanced work in Political Economy and Sociology, in Berlin and Vienna.

Then in January, 1900, Dr. Davis took up her duties as Superintendent of the Bedford Reformatory. Even before the buildings were completed she moved in, started the machinery going and by May, 1901, was ready to welcome and care for wayward girls and women entrusted to her charge to open up to them a new existence of hope and efficiency.

After eight busy years at Bedford, Dr. Davis took a five months’ leave of absence, and went to Europe. She spent some time in Sicily and was at Syracuse at the time of the Messina earthquake. Here just as in her own country, she found a real need for her fine broad sympathies and splendid executive ability. The people were overcome by the terrible disaster. They did not know what to do, and there seemed to be nothing to do with. Four thousand refugees had been brought to Syracuse and Dr. Davis promptly took the situation in hand. A woman was found who could speak English, and with her for an interpreter, Dr. Davis, in what seemed an almost miraculous way, succeeded in getting money, materials for clothing--many of the survivors were literally naked--also other necessities, and meeting the situation most valiantly.

Buildings as well as people she commandeered into service. A little chapel was turned into a dressmaker’s establishment and here the women were set to work making clothes. Somewhere else shoe-makers were gathered together, busily making shoes for the bare-footed fugitives. Other men were set to work at road making; one of their constructions is still known as the Davis Road. Red Cross aid arrived and Dr. Davis was made chief dispenser of it. In the first six weeks, she spent $15,000, but she did not pauperize the people; instead she encouraged them to help themselves, set them to work and paid them off regularly every week. It was that wisely directed, properly compensated work, that saved those poor people and gave them a new grip on life.

All sorts of people needed assistance. The Archbishop of Syracuse gave up his palace for a hospital and a convalescent home was established for those of the upper classes. The men, many of them, were so shaken by the calamity that they would frequently give way to fits of hysterics, and more than once on such an occasion, Dr. Davis took a man by the shoulders and shook him into self-control. At one time a basket, full of rescued babies, was brought in to her--twelve in all--but the bottom one was dead.

For her splendid work at this time, Dr. Davis was much honored. The King of Italy gave her a medal. The Pope of his own accord summoned her to an interview, and gave her his blessing. The Italian Red Cross Society bestowed a medal upon her, as did the American Red Cross, through President Taft.

When the Sicilian earthquake victims were in a position to help themselves, Dr. Davis returned home, and quietly resumed her duties as mother, confidant and friend of the inmates of the Bedford reformatory. She has proved herself to be an all-around friend to those in her charge and has entered heartily into all sorts of activities, in pleasures as well as in work; she has been known to get up plays, drill the actors, paint the scenery, train the orchestra, then go out and receive the guests and make a speech. During the thirteen years of her service there, she has lost but two days by illness, and that was a sore throat.

The International Prison Congress at its meeting in 1910 elected Dr. Davis the chief of a section. In a space of twenty years, she was the only woman appointed to such a position; she was also the first woman to preside over the public meeting. She was also appointed a member of the Committee which showed the Congress over this country.

Vassar, too, has been delighted to honor this graduate who has lived up so wonderfully to the ideals of her alma mater, and the four thousand alumnae have chosen her as one of the twelve members of the Provisional Alumnae Council.

New York City is indeed fortunate in having at the head of its Department of Correction a woman who has proved herself to be a modern penologist, of the most humanitarian order, and has shown such splendid knowledge of how best to make her sympathy and understanding help the inmates of our prisons; how to individualize the cases and make the punishment fit the criminal rather than the crime; to substitute hope and courage for despair, and to help the unfortunate to amount to something worth while after all.

Surely it is a step forward in civilization, when a woman is chosen to an important position like this commissionership, not because she is a woman, but because it is felt that she is the right person for the place.

CHILD PLAY AND CHILD CRIME

[The following important article, from the New York Times of February 15, brings some of the results of a year’s Study of New York juvenile crime, as related to the recreation problem.]

The relation of play to juvenile crime is coming to be more and more recognized by the student of juvenile delinquency and the discerning social worker. But the problem has not been studied intensively. The facts which show how the most celebrated gangster in New York City can get his start playing kick-the-can or baseball in the city streets have only but been regarded in a general way.

For the past year Edward Barrows, special investigator for the People’s Institute, has been making a study of the evolution of the crime of children from a purely legal fact to a moral evil, and his report on the year’s work represents not only general conclusions but an intensive study of 193 individual cases of juvenile arrest.

Mr. Barrows has lived for about three years in the middle west side of Manhattan, which is popularly called the Hell’s Kitchen district. He was not known as a social worker or an investigator, but as a free lance newspaper man and a good fellow generally. He has studied juvenile delinquency in the courts, in the streets and the homes, and has been an actual member of numerous boys’ gangs. The hundreds of adults and children with whom Mr. Barrows became intimate are still without an inkling as to his identity. In summing up his report, Mr. Barrows says:

I became aware several years ago that the child life of the New
York tenement neighborhoods is a world apart. The middle west side
was chosen for investigation, both because it stands high among New
York districts for its juvenile crime record, and because it is a
relatively old neighborhood, representing the condition toward which
the newer congested neighborhoods are developing.

In the middle west side the child life is organized--yes, definitely
and somewhat elaborately organized--into what amounts to a defensive
secret league, with tens of thousands of members. This league is
made up of small gang units, which are sometimes federated for brief
periods, which war on each other, but are united against the common
enemy--against the law and its agents, who are aliens, and generally
against the adult community as such. This condition means that no
investigator who is known as an investigator can find his facts.
Still less can an “uplifter” find his facts or do his work if he is
known as an “uplifter.”

Twelve thousand children are arrested annually in New York. These are
not exceptional children, and they are not a special problem. Rather,
they are typical children. They are mere exhibits drawn from the mass
of those children who live in the congested neighborhoods, a small
proportion of the children who have done the same things and have not
been caught.

These children are not sub-normal, and they come from homes which are
typical of whole enormous population districts. They are arrested for
the only thing a child can do on the street, and they have no place
but the street in which to do anything. These children represent the
child population of half or more of the tenement districts of New
York City.

I made an intensive study of 193 out of the 12,000 arrests for the
past year--all of them typical cases. All these arrests fall within
the middle west side region. They were made on the following direct
charges:

Assault, attempt at burglary, begging, bonfires, burglary, disorderly
conduct, destruction of property, fighting, playing football on
the streets, gambling, intoxication, jumping on cars, kicking the
garbage can, loitering, picking pockets, pitching pennies, playing
ball, playing with water pistol, putting out lights, selling papers,
playing shinney, shooting craps, snowballing, stealing, subway
disturbances, throwing stones, trespass, truancy.

It is clear at the very start that the punishment, as far as the law
goes, has little relation to the alleged crimes as listed above. The
same section of the Penal Code punishes baseball and burglary, and
both of these acts are punishable under several other sections of
the Penal Code. Frequently the arrest brings out a series of acts,
committed in previous days or weeks, which bear little relation to
the direct cause of the arrest. We find cases of children arrested
for playing ball, but whose story in court reveals stealing, assault
and burglary. Again, we find a child rearrested under three or four
different sections of the Penal Code for the same repeated act, be
it the kicking of a garbage can or assault and battery. We find in
the court records the most indiscriminate blending of arrest and
punishment for innocent play with arrest and punishment for deviltry
or perverse crime of a serious nature.

To make the case specific rather than general, a few typical
instances may be given:

John C. was arrested for creating a disturbance. This is a nuisance
and, from the standpoint of the adult, a moral offense in a crowded
city. Special inquiry developed that John C. was one of a number of
boys who gathered in front of a tenement home late one evening and
sang in chorus. Incidentally only one of the several malefactors was
caught.

Charles C. was arrested for violating Penal Code Section 675,
relating to disorderly conduct and committing nuisance. His act
consisted in throwing a baseball on a public street.

William C., arrested for disorderly conduct, was charged with playing
football on the street. The record showed that he was an athletic
enthusiast, and there was no other football field but the street. In
contrast with this fact, it should be mentioned that the New York
Board of Education maintains an elaborate and costly organization for
encouraging the athletic spirit among boys.

George C. was arrested for throwing stones. The record showed that
George C. had been one of a group engaging in a street fight, the
street fight being a typical form of vigorous play among children of
this district.

Thomas C. was arrested for throwing stones. He had thrown a stone
in revenge and with murderous intent at an unsuspecting enemy. His
motive was wholly different from that of George C., but they were
classified together in law.

The figures in the Children’s Courts are of almost no value as
showing the quantity of law-breaking, innocent or otherwise, on the
part of the city’s children. Nathan A., for instance, was arrested
for crap-shooting. There was no other arrest. Similarly with Joseph
B., William C. was arrested for playing baseball, and the rest of his
team are not mentioned. George C. was arrested for fighting with no
mention of his fellow-combatant or combatants.

The acts which lead children to arrest are nearly always games. They
are games which are against the law only because they are played
on the street, and games which through their nature involve an
infraction of the penal code. In the first class we find baseball,
football, jackstones, singing, and marbles. In the second we find
stealing, fighting, destruction of property, and similar violations
of the code of social procedure.

But the point which is overlooked by the law, and in a large measure
by the law enforcer, is that both these forms of play are to the
child merely or mainly play, representing a perfectly normal childish
instinct which has, in many of the cases of arrest, been distorted
through a morbid street environment.

The following is an analysis of 170 of the cases here being
considered:

Total arrests for moral but illegal play:
Bonfires 19
Disorderly conduct (shouting and harmless disturbances) 13
Football 4
Baseball 22
Snowballing 2
Throwing various missiles 24
--
Total 84

Total arrests for immoral and illegal play:
Assault 8
Disorderly conduct 6
Burglary 12
Putting out street lights 2
Stealing 42
Throwing various missiles 16
--
Total 86

The attitude of the law with reference to the innocent class of
acts leading to arrest is suggested by the wording of the charges
preferred against various children:

Charged with annoying and interfering with others and endangering
their safety and property by playing with a hard ball on a public
street.

Charged with playing game called baseball on the public street,
thereby interfering with free use by persons of that street.

Charged with another ... with playing on the sidewalk of the public
street a game called pitching pennies, thereby obstructing the
sidewalk and interfering and annoying persons on the public street.

Charged with another boy with obstructing the sidewalk while playing
a game called pitching pennies. (Note that while in the previous case
the boy was charged with pitching pennies and thereby obstructing the
sidewalk, in this case he is charged with obstructing the sidewalk
while pitching pennies.)

Charged with playing a game called craps on the public street to the
annoyance of persons thereon. (Note that this arrest also was for
obstructing the street and not for gambling.)

The law deals with the child from one standpoint only--the annoyance
he causes the adult passerby, and the store windows he breaks.

You can see why the moral aspects of the deeds for which children are
arrested must generally be hazy to the little wrong-doers themselves.
Gambling is a case in point. Public opinion classes gambling as a
vice and a crime ranking with theft and sexual immorality. Yet the
tenement streets of New York are infested with adult and juvenile
gamblers, who gamble usually through shooting crap or pitching
pennies. Street gambling is hardly less common than baseball or any
of the other street games. The unwritten law of the streets has
sanctioned gambling for many child-generations, until gambling has
lost all moral significance to the children of New York. As for the
law, we have seen how it adds to the confusion of moral values.
The law treats crap shooting as being identical in terms both of
punishment and of why the punishment is given, with chalk games, or
ring-around-the-rosy, or kick-the-can. The arrests for gambling and
for chalk games alike are treated as cases of street obstruction.

But strangely enough, one offense is particularly singled out in law
to be prohibited on the streets. This offense is baseball. Baseball
is no sin and the children know it. They merely know that they will
be arrested if they play baseball. They know that if they are going
to play ball they must send out pickets to announce the coming of the
policeman.

So much for the innocent group of child offenses. The vicious group
includes the many organized games which have been developed by street
conditions. They involve acts which the children know to be immoral,
but which gang standards allow.

An example of this type of child crime is the widely popular sport
of gang stealing. Gang stealing is recognized as a sport and game by
unknown thousands of children in New York.

A band of boys, from three to six or seven in number, will go from
tenement to tenement on Saturday evenings, taking orders from the
housewives for fruits, vegetables, groceries, light hardware and
clothing, just as though they were delivery clerks. When they think
they have a sufficient number of orders they go out on the street and
by a series of organized raids secure the goods which the housewives
have ordered.

These goods are sold on a regularly established scale of prices,
which in most parts of the city is arbitrary, with no relation to the
market value of the stolen articles. After the boys have their money
they retire to their “hang-out,” where the money is divided into
equal parts and the possessors shoot craps until one of them has it
all. This boy divides the winnings into two parts, one of which he
spends in treating the other members of the gang. The other half he
is permitted to keep and spends for himself.

This is a regularly organized form of amusement, which has existed to
the writer’s personal knowledge for a decade or more on the middle
west side. As far as the boys themselves are concerned, it is a game
and nothing more. The crimes committed are incidental to the game.
The elements the boys are striving for are the dramatic adventure in
obtaining stolen goods, the excitement of gambling, which to them is
no crime, and the physical joys of the soda water, cigarettes, motion
picture shows, etc., which follow the game.

These boys start out to seek adventure, excitement, and a “treat.”
Unguided and irresponsible, and with a tradition of lawlessness based
upon the hostile indifference of their elders, they have gone after
their ends without regard to consequences, with the result that
before their game is over they will have obtained money under false
pretenses, committed larceny, and gambled; for any one of which acts
they are criminally liable. Yet punishment for any one of these acts
leaves the zest for adventure, the lust of gambling, and the tastes
for sweets and cigarettes as strong as ever.

A child is arrested for burglary and is tried on the specific charge
of “entering an inhabited dwelling in the night season with intent
to commit a felony.” Yet this may have been simply an unguided
expression of the child’s dramatic play instinct. The boys may have
organized into a gang of robbers and may, for the game of the thing
only, have committed the burglary. Thus there was no criminal intent
on the part of the marauders.

Gang fighting, another common and serious offense, is a product of
the complex gang organization which is the basis of all boy life in
the streets of New York. It has its sources either in gang rivalry or
in the infliction of a wrong by one gang upon another, which results
in a long series of retaliatory fights, sometimes extending through
many months. From being simply physical contests between gang and
gang, these fights often become neighborhood feuds in which small
boys are maimed and on rare occasions killed outright, windows are
broken, and all kinds of neighborhood outrages are perpetrated.

There is a great distinction between these organized gang fights and
the smaller misunderstandings which result in fights between two
small boys. Gang fights are a part of the traditional play life of
the New York boys. Except among the older boys they are carried out
in the spirit of play, and the theft, destruction of property, and
mayhem which accompany them are regarded as incidental.

When we trace back to their source even the fights for revenge, we
generally find a play motive there also. Two years ago the small boys
on West Fiftieth Street and West Fifty-third Street, near Eleventh
Avenue, were celebrating election night with bonfires on their
respective streets. The Fiftieth Street boys had more material than
the Fifty-third Street boys. When the Fifty-third Street boys ran
out of material they raided Fiftieth Street, extinguished all the
bonfires, routed the celebrants, and triumphantly carried the bonfire
material to their own street.

This was the beginning of a feud which lasted over a year between the
denizens of the two streets, during which time a score of boys were
jailed, a number seriously maimed, and hundreds of dollars’ worth of
property destroyed. Yet, despite the number of arrests on the charge
of fighting, disorderly conduct and destruction of property, the feud
itself continued unabated, until a compromise was arrived at by the
boy leaders themselves.

This feud was a typical instance of the play spirit expressing itself
through rivalry, without any attempt to check it as such. Of the
thirty or forty boys who were arrested as a direct outcome of these
fights, not one but was arrested as an individual criminal without
reference to the motive of his wrong doing. The result was that after
his arrest the boy responded to the same motive as promptly as if he
had never been arrested. Again we are brought to the serious question
of whether or not all this destruction to property and morals
could not have been avoided had there been proper facilities and a
leadership to have turned the spirit of rivalry into legitimate play
channels.

A summary of the record of Mr. Barrow’s 193 cases shows that 188 of them, or all but nine, can be traced directly to a play motive, normal or perverted. Of the nine, two were acts of personal revenge and seven showed an economic motive.

According to Mr. Barrows these 193 cases did not include a single one where mental deficiency was the predominant cause. He says:

To conclude, child crime in New York is built on play--wholesome,
educational play--which the law treats as crime and which street
conditions gradually pervert until innocent play becomes moral crime.

Child crime begins with the attempt to play on streets in violation
of law, and in forbidden places under conditions of trespassing. The
first arrest is normally a punishment for the attempt to play, and to
play in ways which are intrinsically good.

This condition presses on the child life of all the tenement
districts of New York City. It is a uniformly operating cause which
results in a fairly uniform method of resistance on the part of the
children. Not only are the statutory crimes of fighting and stealing
regarded as play by the children, but the more innocent kinds of
play, like baseball, are in law regarded as crimes and are so
punishable.

This is not, on the one hand, a defect of child character, nor on the
other hand a mere stupidity of law, but is a real condition, inherent
in the fact that the street, with its traffic, and the street front,
with its stores and windows, are the only playground of 95 per cent.
or more of the city’s children.

The result is a fundamental schism between the child community and
the adult community. The child community is a nuisance. The adult
community is a tyrant. Neither is to blame. Our laws, our court
procedure and our probation system, imperfect though they be, are
not to blame. The blame rests with the city which has not provided
play space and which does not intelligently use even the little play
space that is provided. Juvenile crime is a play problem not only in
the sense that play is an alternative to crime--a cure for crime: but
in a more specific sense, namely, in the streets of New York, under
present conditions, play is crime and crime is play.

And play is crime all over New York, not merely in the middle west
side. The city’s total juvenile crime rate is growing.

What is to be done about it? Provide outlets. Consider specifically
that west side district. The remedies are at hand. For instance:

Public school buildings in the middle west side are used to as small
an extent of their capacity as is the case in the city at large. This
means a 40 per cent. non-use or more.

There is a large recreation pier at West Fiftieth Street, where the
activities could be multiplied.

The DeWitt Clinton Park, at Fifty-ninth Street and the North River,
is unused during the evenings and very inadequately used during the
day. It is one of the finest playgrounds in the world.

There are at least ten city blocks in the middle west side which
could if the city government desired it, be devoted to playground
uses for at least several hours of every day. Apparatus would not be
needed, and the only supervision required would be police supervision.

SHOULD JUDGES GO TO JAIL?

[The idea is not so revolutionary as it might be. Recently Mr. T. M. Osborne tried a week’s self-incarceration at Auburn Prison, New York. As a result the general public, reading of his experiences, has a knowledge to-day of the more common methods of prison administration than it would have learned, or have been willing to learn in any other way. Now the Boston (Mass.) Globe comes along with a more radical suggestion, which we herewith summarize.]

“One advocate of the practice of making judges investigate the prisons, an ex-magistrate of New York City, made the assertion that ‘every judge ought to be sentenced to 30 days in jail before he is permitted to send a prisoner there.’

“‘What does an ordinary judge know of prison? What method can he have of judging a proper punishment for an offender, if he does not know what the punishment is like?’ asks this authority.

“The policy of imposing upon judges the obligation of a personal acquaintance with the conditions of the institutions to which they sentence defendants is not to be lightly condemned as impractical or inexpedient. Judges to-day depend primarily for such information as they require upon those whose public duty it is to oversee the prisons, and the courts are also governed by the law in committing prisoners.

“It might be expedient to give judges a wider discretion in disposing of persons convicted of crime, and then require them to make sufficient investigation of every public institution to enable them to use their discretion wisely.

“The average judge is a man of keen perception, and if he has been long on the bench, he has acquired in his experience an accurate conception of the criminal mind, and an idea of how it may be most effectively influenced.

“Doubtless if one of the judges of the Superior Court passed a few days at any one of the penal or corrective institutions of the State, he could see things that had escaped the notice of those who have grown familiar with conditions, either by association or by brief visits. Some very valuable suggestions for improvement might result.

“We have many investigators who are concerned with the boy and man in confinement. The Board of Parole, a new commission, was created for the purpose of securing to the deserving a conditional release from prison.

“The Executive Council, when passing on the question of pardon, goes carefully into the prisoner’s past, the circumstances of the crime for which he was sentenced, his conduct in prison, and then weighs the chances of his becoming a law-abiding and industrious member of the community if liberated. Few men so released have again offended.

“It is logical that if the body authorized to grant a pardon is so zealous in the interest of the prisoner and the community alike, the judicial authority who fixes the penalty and indicates the institution of punishment in specific instances should be equally well informed of the possible consequences of the sentence to the prisoner. The administration of strict justice might be aided by a more intimate acquaintance with the character of our jails on the part of the judges.”

THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND PAROLE LAW IN INDIANA

AMOS W. BUTLER, SECRETARY BOARD OF STATE CHARITIES

For the crimes of treason and of murder in the first degree, the sentence in this State is either death or life imprisonment. For persons convicted of felony for the third time (habitual criminals) and those found guilty of murder in the second degree or of rape upon a child under ten years of age, the punishment is life imprisonment. All other persons convicted of felony are subject to the provisions of the indeterminate sentence and parole law of 1897 and its amendments. This law applies to men over 16 years of age and women over 17. While it is called “indeterminate,” it is in reality limited by the minimum and maximum terms prescribed by statute for specified crimes.

The law is in force in the State Prison at Michigan City, the Reformatory at Jeffersonville and the Woman’s Prison at Indianapolis. In the Woman’s Prison the parole board includes the superintendent and the physician in addition to the board of trustees; in the State Prison and Reformatory it is made up of the members of the board of trustees only. The parole boards are “prohibited from entertaining any other form of application or petition for the release upon parole or absolute discharge of any prisoner” than the application of the prisoner himself. They may parole prisoners who have served their minimum term and are believed capable of becoming law-abiding citizens. In granting paroles, the boards take into consideration not only the applicant’s record as a prisoner, but his ability to maintain himself if free and the sentiment of the community from which he came. The boards are allowed a wide latitude in granting paroles and in withdrawing paroled prisoners from liberty. All their acts are guided by what they believe to be the best welfare both of the prisoner and of society.

Ordinarily paroled prisoners remain under supervision for at least one year. This is an adopted rule and not a requirement of law. They are visited frequently by the parole agents and are required to report regularly. No one is permitted to leave the institution until a place of employment has been found for him.

Sixteen years’ experience shows that out of every 100 prisoners, 57 fulfill their obligations and are discharged from supervision, 26 violate their parole, 2 die, the sentence of 6 expires during the parole period and they are automatically discharged; the remaining 9 are under supervision at a given time, reporting regularly.

The percentage of parole violators varies but little in the three institutions: 765 out of 2,916, or 26.2 per cent. at the State Prison; 1,198 out of 4,670, or 25.6 per cent. at the Reformatory; 61 out of 213, or 28.6 per cent. at the Woman’s Prison.

The financial report of the paroled prisoners makes an interesting showing. Their earnings during the time they reported, up to September 30, 1913, amounted to $2,142,253.31; expenses, $1,774,672.42; savings, $367,580.89. In other words, these men and women, instead of costing the State an average of $172.00 a year each (the average per capita cost of maintenance in the two State prisons and the reformatory for the year 1913), have been released under supervision and have earned their own living and at the time they ceased reporting had on hand or due them savings averaging nearly $50.00 each. This is not regarded as the most important result of the system, but it certainly is a highly valuable feature.

Taking up the institutions separately, the records show that the State Prison has paroled 2,916 men since the law went into effect, of whom 1,688 have been discharged, the sentence of 134 expired during the parole period, 515 violated their parole and were returned to prison, 250 parole violators are at large, 51 died and 278 are reporting. Their financial reports indicate earnings amounting to $823,136.69; expenses, $629,800.69; savings, $193,336.00.

The Reformatory Reports 4,670 men paroled, of whom 2,666 have been discharged, the sentence of 295 expired during the parole period, 609 violated their parole and were returned to prison, 589 parole violators are at large, 78 died and 433 are reporting. Their financial reports indicate earnings amounting to $1,315,642.76; expenses, $1,143,078.54; savings, $172,564.22.

The Woman’s Prison reports 213 women paroled, of whom 105 have been discharged, the sentence of 23 expired during the parole period, 35 violated their parole and were returned to prison, 26 parole violators are at large, 7 died and 17 are reporting. Their financial reports indicate earnings amounting to $3,473.86; expenses, $1,793.19; savings, $1,680.67.

STATE INSTITUTION FARMS IN NEW YORK[1]

BY H. B. WINTERS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE

The State of New York now owns 41 farms. Twenty of these are connected with the charitable institutions, 14 with the State hospitals and 7 with the prisons.

The total area of these farms is 22,981 acres, divided as follows:

Charitable institutions 9,690 acres
State hospitals 10,587 acres
Prisons 2,704 acres

The acreage _per capita_ of population, which is a very important item, is as follows:

Charitable farms .81 acres
Hospital farms .29 acres
Prison farms .45 acres

The total farm investment is $2,331,285.00. The total profits for the year ending September 30, 1912, were $305,006. The total profits for the year ending September 30, 1910, were $202,826. This shows a gain of $102,180 in 1912 over 1910.

The rate of profit made by the farms as a whole, in the year ending September 30, 1912, was 13.1 per cent. The rate of profit made by all the farms for the year ending September 30, 1910, was 9.4 per cent. The greatest rate of profit made by any form increased from 23.2 per cent. to 37.5 per cent. during this period.

The State has 30 profitable farms and 2 farms that are losing money. It should be noted that the 2 farms which were losing money two years ago are now making a profit. One of the farms that lost money last year is a new place, which is not yet under good headway; the other farm is considering moving to a new location.

These figures are certainly very gratifying and they prove that farming at our institutions is very profitable to the State of New York. This splendid increase shows what interest in farm work has done. It shows that this land is a most valuable investment to the State of New York, both from a financial standpoint and for the general good of the inmates of the institutions.

We read that only forty per cent. of the consumers’ dollar goes to the farmer. On institution farms this is not true. Our people are stirred up from one end of the country to the other on account of co-operation. Our institution farm work is the best possible type of co-operation. We hear our farmers complain of overproduction. On the carefully run institution farm this is practically overcome.

Various cold storage laws have been passed to protect our people. If the institution farms produce their own food, the cold storage problem is reduced to its minimum. I am unable to secure in Albany for my own table as good vegetables as I eat at the different institution farms.

While the above may be, and is, gratifying, I cannot resist pointing out to you some of the opportunities that are ahead of us. _We are still buying $258,711.00 worth of milk per year._ The freight and dealers’ profit on this milk is certainly $50,000. If we should take up all the items purchased by our institutions that could be produced on their own farms, it would total a very large sum.

I believe that a great prison like Auburn should have its own farm, and it should be conveniently located. The quality of food would be greatly improved, and I feel perfectly sure that out of that great body of 1,500 prisoners I could select enough men who could be trusted to do the work on this farm under reasonable supervision. The farm would be an ornament to that part of the country, a profit to the State and of great benefit to the prisoners.

There is a serious problem ahead of us in regard to institutions, or institution sites already purchased, that are not making satisfactory progress. I refer to the State Training School for Boys at Yorktown Heights; Wingdale Prison Site, Wingdale; Mohansic State Hospital, Yorktown; Letchworth Village, Thiells, and the State Industrial Farm Colony at Stormville. There should be a decided effort to develop these institutions along proper lines. Some of us have heard a great deal against these properties that is not true. It is high time that the different officials interested in these institutions co-operate in order that they may be finished as rapidly as possible.

If any of the above sites are not suitable for institutions, they certainly would make excellent colony farms. By colony farms, I mean a farm that is separated from the main institution by a greater or less distance, a farm where we may send inmates as a reward of merit, where they can live the simple life of a comfortable farmer.

These colonies should be provided with good plumbing, sufficient heat, electric lights and all comforts of up-to-date country life. They are not necessarily expensive, and farms of this sort are found in many cases to be more than self-supporting.

The possibilities in farm work are very large. Two years ago the garden products at the Ward’s Island State Hospital for the Insane amounted to $17,299. The profits were $9,360. The profit, after deducting 5 per cent. on the investment of $83,809, was $5,170.

Then we thought the high water mark was reached, but this year Ward’s Island’s garden products amount to $18,867; the profit was $14,219; the profit, after deducting 5 per cent. on the investment, was $10,211. Last year Ward’s Island made a profit of 17.7 per cent. on land valued at $1,289 per acre. What Ward’s Island is doing can be repeated on many institution farms.

The ideal institution farm in the future will grow its own vegetables and fruit, canning enough for winter use; it will raise its own pork, make its own sausage and smoke its own ham and bacon. It will produce its milk, butter, eggs, poultry, veal and a large part of its beef.

This home production will not only furnish fresher and better food, but will save large amounts of money in freight, cost of handling, and dealers’ profits.

Institution farms should be large enough to use improved machinery, properly rotate crops so as to add fertility to the soil, and unlock fertility that is already in the land. These farms will then become more fertile year by year, and therefore more profitable.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Read at New York State Conference of Charities and Corrections, Buffalo, Nov. 1913.

THE OFFICIAL AND THE PRISONER

(Here is an article from “Good Words,” the prison monthly from the Federal Prison at Atlanta. It gives an anonymous prisoner’s views on a vital subject.)

Inmates of prisons may be regarded as a composite man, for in any collection of human beings, from a family to a nation, there is the larger man, which organizes itself in human form--with head, trunk, limbs, and organs. One group represents the brains, another the physical powers; the stomach is figured by the purveyors of food, and these analogies may be followed indefinitely; they are not fanciful, but actual. He is all here, but is prevented from functioning freely. His reaction against this repression of free action--a repression far more physical than mental--gives unnatural energy to the faculties and tends to lead into certain special channels, such as the falsity of human justice, the overpowering desire to be at liberty; emotions of resentment, resignation, hope, despair, impulses for antagonism or of good-will toward others; moods or irony, cynicism, and even humor; good or evil preoccupation of all kinds. In this way large reservoirs of human force are collected, which can get no relief from expression, and therefore corrode and distort the mind.

But prisoners at that are no different clay from other folks. They are, if anything, different in that they are more sensitive, more sympathetic, more appreciative, and more trustful, once their confidence is gained, than the average person. They love the world and wish it well. The average prisoner--even the “old timer” serving a third or fourth sentence--will advise against a life of crime with all the earnestness and logic he is capable of commanding. But the prisoner, with his good qualities, has his faults--many of them. He is always looking for the best of it, and, from his standpoint, why shouldn’t he get it? He is a convict (the word is not pleasant to hear). It carries a stigma of shame and disgrace. It is lasting. He is declared unfit to live among his people; his movements are restricted; he cannot move or speak without the consent of an official; he is stripped of his citizenship; his home a narrow cell; he is helpless; has lost all--everything a man values in this world. The prisoner knows this full well. To him the best of it is the worst that the free man can imagine.

This is the body corporate and the proposition the man or men charged with the care, keeping and discipline of prisoners have to contend with. The problems to be solved are difficult, and a gigantic task confronts the warden of any penitentiary. While the power of most wardens is as nearly absolute as mortal power can be, it is necessary, if he is expected to accomplish anything. The demands of his position are great--greater than any other person in the whole community. Upon his say-so depends the hope or despair of the prisoners, but we are convinced that the average warden is anxious for the uplift, and untiring in promoting the welfare of the men under him.

A great honor is due the prison official who voluntarily treats the prisoner with justice and mercy, whose radius of human action is circumscribed only by the book of regulations. Harsh traditional usages are gradually being eliminated and there are but few who new persist in delaying the realization of advanced ideas in the handling of law-breakers. But no intelligent reform of abuses can be effected until they have been authoritatively acknowledged, and the remedies necessary to relieve and cure evils understood. Improvement is slow, and gross anachronisms are found side by side with advanced conditions. Prisoners often distrust their officials when the latter’s only fault may be the oath and obligation to obey regulations long out of date. The prisoner sees the better way and, as a rule, will not listen to reason. The official knows it too, but is not free to walk in it. From this condition of affairs comes that great antagonism between the prisoner and the officials which exists in all prisons. The warden to do good must bridge the gulf which separates the prisoner and himself. He must be the example and precept of right. He will not delay action until all difficulties are removed, but is prompt to seize every opportunity as it offers itself. He walks where others creep, and sees the end where others grope. While sedulous to avoid favoritism, he takes into consideration the “personal equation” of each man, and gives him the interpretation of the law best suited to the case as it may be. In his system of discipline, there is as little as possible of the merely mechanical and whatever may be allowable of individual consideration. This is not more human than expedient; for most of the men are quick to perceive the proper means to deserve good treatment, and, instead of sinking into lethargy and indifference, are aroused to do what in them lies to meet the warden half-way. Frequently, though, regardless of the work of such officials, in this great human body, there are developed ideas unfair, and we will find prisoners who will resist all efforts of the officials in this direction. They do not mean to, but the world has treated them badly, and they cannot help it. Kindness is winning them, though, where cruelty would never affect them.

Punishment and abuse may stir and arouse a man so that he will fight with a desperation born of despair, but more often he sinks into a state of mind, sullen, revengeful and heartless--a condition fatal to reformation, and dangerous to Society. Method, discipline, authority, are fine things and will accomplish much, but with a prisoner you can not force his soul against itself. You must lead him up and out of himself; you can not curse him into a better man. The supreme object of imprisonment should be to inspire the prisoner to do his best when more than his best is needed.

The fight to extirpate the old system is steadily going on, and will eventually succeed. The evils of the contract-labor system are already becoming known, and it will be blotted out of existence, and when that system has become a thing of the past, an immense step in all other features of jail amelioration will have been taken. The next step will involve the entire principle of prison punishments as a deterrent of crime and a means of making better men of prisoners. The State will then not take revenge upon the criminal, will not annihilate his self-respect or crush out whatever manhood he has in him.

PAROLE WORK IN PENNSYLVANIA

BY ALBERT H. VOTAW, SECRETARY, THE PENNSYLVANIA PRISON SOCIETY

In the year 1909, the legislature enacted our first law providing for the indeterminate sentence and for the parole of prisoners at the expiration of their minimum sentence. The minimum sentence was not to exceed one fourth of the maximum, and the privilege of parole was to be granted according to the decision of the board of inspectors who were constituted the board of parole.

In the year 1911, the legislature amended this act because of the objections of several judges in the State who were not ready to endorse the 1909 law. The length of sentence is now at the option of the court. The judges are to impose both a maximum and a minimum sentence with no restriction except the maximum is not to exceed the maximum time now imposed by law for any offence. A sentence may read “Maximum, 25 years; minimum, 24 years”; or “Maximum, 25 years; minimum, one year.”

In 1913 the privilege of parole was extended to all confined in the penitentiaries of the State, who were sentenced prior to July, 1911, provided they had served one third of the sentence imposed. Under the operation of this act, several hundred prisoners in the State prisons were entitled to parole provided they could comply with the conditions of the board of parole. These conditions, as a rule, include good behavior while in prison, suitable employment and a sponsor.

Some editors in the State have rather severely criticised what they have termed a general jail delivery. A few of those released have violated the terms of their parole and have been returned to the penitentiary. These instances are widely published, thus creating in the minds of some who are not thoroughly cognizant of all the facts in the case that a lot of desperadoes are being turned loose in the community.

Close observation of the statistics seem to show that about eighty-five to ninety of the paroled men make good. Of those who return the number who have again committed crime is a very small percentage. A man who is out on parole is liable to be returned for intemperance, idleness or failure to report. If we may estimate the number who have returned as fifteen per cent. of the entire number released on parole, a comparatively small number of this percentage are brought back on account of actual crimes committed. It is too early to decide with reference to the four or five hundred recently paroled. But a comparison with our general experience during the last three years would indicate that not more than two or three out of a hundred will be brought back on account of crime.

Probably the community is not in as much danger from the paroled men as from those who are regularly dismissed after serving their full time. It must not be forgotten that many hundreds of prisoners every year are released from the penitentiaries and from the county jails who have served the full sentence imposed by the court. Whatever their state of mind or of morals, their time is up and they go forth without any restraints such as assist the paroled prisoner to lead a life of rectitude. The prison authorities are often quite well convinced that a prisoner is far from “healed,” but there is no recourse. The authorities of a hospital would receive just condemnation if they allowed a patient to be discharged who was uncured of his typhoid fever or of his small pox, but the officers of a penitentiary often turn loose a scoundrel to prey upon the community simply because the time of confinement deemed right by the lawmakers and by the court has expired.

The men who make application for the privilege of parole are carefully studied. That some mistakes have been made is readily admitted. With larger experience these errors may largely be eliminated. The work is a growth and the efficient officers who are giving careful study to the practical workings of the matter are confident of higher results than they have hitherto attained.