Chapter V: Act 314: empowers the State Highway Commissioner to arrange with the (2)

The same rate of wages is to be paid to the prisoners, subject to the necessary deduction for maintenance.

This means that the goods purchased by the United States from the prisons shall be made by labor which is on a par with outside labor.

No goods are to be purchased by the Government from “any private person or companies using the labor” of convicts. Thus the Government utters its protest against any form of “contract labor.”

The Acting Committee of The Pennsylvania Prison Society has urged the early passage of this bill.

A FEAST OF REASON AND A FLOW OF SOUL.

Within the last two years, in the Empire State, some prison officials and students of penology have occasionally met for an informal conference on methods of penal management. No reporters attend, they have no Secretary, there are no restrictive features, the discussions are frank, free and open. They have been held at some one of the institutions, and so the visitors have opportunity to observe from the inside the methods and employments of the prison where the meetings may be held.

Those who attend these conferences are the guests of the institution which is visited. They have been held at the Elmira Reformatory, at Great Meadow, at Blackwell’s Island and possibly at one or two other prisons.

Last summer it was the good fortune of the Secretary to have the privilege of attending the meeting held at Great Meadow at Comstock, N. Y. Perhaps there were fifty ladies and gentlemen in attendance, among whom were Jas. M. Carter, Superintendent of Prisons for the State of New York; Warden Trombly, of Danemora; William George, founder of the school which bears his name; ex-Warden Geo. W. Kirchwey, O. F. Lewis, Secretary of the New York Prison Association; Miss Katherine B. Davis, Commissioner of Parole and Probation, New York City, and various officials connected with the New York City prisons and other penal institutions of the State.

Arriving at Comstock the guests were met by our genial host, Warden Homer, whose conveyances soon brought us to the Administration Building. There were excursions about the big farm and the various buildings. Bounteous meals were served under a tent on the grounds of the shady lawn. The ladies were lodged in the administration building. It was at one time supposed that the gentlemen would occupy cells in the regular prison department, but for some reason this very interesting proposition was relinquished, and a garage was converted into an airy dormitory for the accommodation of the gentlemen. Prisoners brought iron bedsteads and bedding and nothing was omitted for the comfort of the guests. A shower bath was improvised, and in the morning the barber and the shoe polisher appeared with all the proper accoutrements.

The guests arrived on Friday morning and departed the next afternoon. There were three informal meetings, at which a variety of penological subjects were both lightly and profoundly discussed. Proceedings are not to be published, hence there is no feeling of restraint.

The writer trusts he will not violate the confidence of his friends if he may refer to one or two points in the discussion.

One of the prisoners on the farm--by the way an ex-member of the New York State Legislature--addressed the company in emphatic recommendation of The Honor System as employed by Warden Homer. He stated that the prisoners there did not care for any extension of the self-government plan. He was sure that Warden Homer could govern them better than they could govern themselves. They were as comfortable as any persons restrained within limits could be supposed to be. They knew they could get a “square deal” from Warden Homer, and they did not care to shift the responsibility of government to any other shoulders.

An enthusiastic supporter of the self-government system was rather inclined to look with disfavor on a benevolent despotism, such as the system now in vogue at Great Meadow. The persons so governed lost initiative and the power of thinking for themselves. They had no opportunity of profiting by their own mistakes. They became mere puppets, and were not learning the practical lessons which would fit them for the life outside.

The company listened with interest to an expert dietitian who spoke of the crude and ragged methods of preparing food in the penal institutions. Sufficient food was provided as a rule, but it was ruined in the preparation.

Mentally, morally, socially and gastronomically, we may state, the meeting was a success.

Last October we enjoyed a similar conference at Sleighton Farm, Pa., and we know of no reason why the experiment may not be repeated in this commonwealth.

The Secretary is willing to suggest that there are in Pennsylvania several country clubs where such a conference would be welcomed. He is willing to mention The Reformatory at Huntingdon with its splendid farm, the beautiful campus of the School at Morganza, the Workhouse at Holmesburg and Hoboken, and the magnificent State Prison Farm at Bellefonte. Perhaps Warden John Francies would prefer to receive us when his institution is nearer completion.

When the invitation comes from any of the institutions mentioned, there will be a response.

A. H. V.

UTILIZATION OF PRISON LABOR.

BY H. H. HART

(Suggestions to West Virginia)

With the tremendous demand for war supplies in addition to the ordinary demand for domestic uses; with the cessation of immigration which for 150 years has poured a steady stream of fresh laborers into the United States; and with the immediate diversion of a million men, and perhaps four or five millions, to the trade of war, we are confronted with a scarcity of labor which compels us to utilize every available worker to the limit of his reasonable capacity.

Able-bodied men, working under skilled direction and thorough system, without loss of time from drink, strikes or voluntary holidays, ought to earn more than their board and clothes. In the present state of the labor market it is possible for prisoners, under proper circumstances, to earn two dollars per day. In Vermont prisoners from the common jail are earning two dollars per day on the adjacent farms. In Windham county, Connecticut, prisoners are actually earning $2.50 per day at common labor, and at Wilmington, Delaware, short-term prisoners are earning $1.20 per day....

In those counties where the jail prisoners are not employed, we would suggest the adoption of the Vermont plan under which the jailer finds employment for individual prisoners with a nearby farmer who pays for their labor at the ordinary rate for free labor. The prisoner sleeps at the jail and has his breakfast and supper there--two good hearty meals. He goes out in the morning, carrying a dinner bucket, and returns at night. If the distance is too great the farmer sends for him by team or automobile. If the prisoner fails to make good or tries to run away, the farmer notifies the sheriff promptly, who sends a deputy sheriff after him. The reports from Vermont, Connecticut, Delaware and Wisconsin, where this plan prevails, show very few escapes. No guard is necessary, as the farmer looks after the prisoners, and thus the overhead charges are done away with.

Thomas J. Tynan, of the Colorado State Penitentiary, wrote recently as follows: “We are now doing work to the value of $2.50 per day by prisoners on the highway at a cost to the taxpayers of the State not to exceed 40 cents per day. The State could well afford to pay a little wage besides the good time allowance.”

The difference between the old system and the new system lies chiefly in the manner of dealing with the prisoners. Under the new plan an appeal is made to the prisoner’s honor and good will. After being tested within the walls, he is permitted to join a company of workers outside the wall on his promise of good work and good behavior, and on his promise not to run away. The prisoners work without chains, and the guards in many cases carry no firearms. Testimony comes from Ohio, from Oregon, from Colorado, from Wisconsin, from Connecticut and from Canada that prisoners--even low-grade prisoners and negroes--respond surprisingly to this treatment; that escapes are few, and that there is a great improvement in the industry and efficiency of the prisoners.

The incentive to the prisoners to make good is partly an increased allowance for good time; partly, in some States, a small cash wage; partly the desire of the prisoners for the freer life outside the walls, and partly a response to the confidence shown in them by their officers.

Success in employing prisoners on the roads by modern methods depends first upon finding a road manager who is interested in his men and believes in the possibility of exciting their interest and loyalty for the work. It depends, second, upon creating such living and working conditions as will keep the men fit for a good day’s work. That means good food, good cooking, comfortable sleeping quarters, opportunity for proper recreation, good laundry work and bathing facilities, and, above all, the treatment of the prisoners by their officers as reasonable human beings.

The plan of roadside camps, portable cages, chain gangs, ignorant and cruel guards armed with shotguns and discretionary power will not secure cheerful and efficient work.

THE INDIANA PENAL FARM.

[This article, by Henry A. Montgomery, Staff Correspondent of the _Detroit News_, was incited by the plan of Detroit to build a large and expensive House of Correction. What other communities or States are doing will be told by Mr. Montgomery.]

GREENCASTLE, IND., March 13.--“Reform them? No, you don’t reform them. You can’t change a man’s real nature. But lots of them are not naturally bad. We get the alcohol out of their systems, give them all they can eat, make them keep regular hours and do a man’s work, and the good in them has a chance to show itself.”

That is the way Charles E. Talkington, superintendent of the Indiana State Farm, defined reformation.

The farm is situated in some of the most beautiful farming country in western Indiana, about midway between Indianapolis and Terre Haute. The site selected for the colony is particularly well adapted to the needs of a penal institution, being rich in its deposits of limestone, having plenty of tillable soil and considerable timber. The beautiful hills and deep ravines lend the tract beauty and make it possible for the landscape gardener with little effort to make it look like the estate of a wealthy landowner. Although general farming is engaged in, the products of the garden form so great a share of the subsistence of the men that this has developed into one of the most important features of the work. When present plans have been realized there will be at least 160 acres devoted exclusively to gardening.

It’s an unusual sight that one encounters on arriving at the top of the long hill where is built the little village, the home of the 700 social misfits. Two rows of long, squat frame buildings form the “street” of this strange town. Nobody would guess from the appearance of the buildings what they were intended for. They resemble the Billy Sunday tabernacle type of structure. There is nothing attractive about them, but they are temporary quarters and they are serving their purpose well.

The first of these buildings is the office and sleeping apartments of the officers. It is here that the prisoner is first taken. His history is recorded, he is subjected to a medical examination, his clothes are fumigated and stored away for his use when he is released, and he is given a bath, shave and haircut, and a suit of clothes. The clothes consist of the heavy working jacket and trousers, underclothing and corduroy cap.

The first interview with the prisoner is considered important. The assistant superintendent gives him detailed instructions as to his own conduct and tells him with great care about the theories that are being worked out. The number of men who, immediately following this talk, are placed on their honor and given as much freedom as it is possible to give is remarkable. Few of them violate the trust.

Often the man sent to the farm for six months walks forth from the office, strolls over to the recreation room to await his work assignment and never feels for one minute the influence of restraint, except, perhaps, the realization that in the watch towers placed at various points of vantage about the farm there is stationed a man--a fellow prisoner--whose duty it is to notify headquarters if any prisoner starts to leave the grounds.

The prisoner eats in a dining room and sleeps in a dormitory which are kept spotlessly clean, and there is neither bar on the window nor lock on the door. Each dormitory is occupied by about 200 men, and one officer is all that is needed to maintain order.

“We do not say our plan is perfect,” said Superintendent Talkington, “nor do we make any great claims about our ability to reform a man during the short time he is here. But we do say this is the best manner yet devised for handling them. We take a man from the gutter, and at least make it possible for him to improve. We give him health, and direction enough to get him into some employment at which he can earn his living. Although we refuse to put forth any claims about how much good we do for the man, we at least know that we do not injure him. And that is more than can be said for any jail or prison. We aren’t running any school for crime here. We do know that. _We also know that we can make this institution self-supporting and a means of revenue for the State._ What more can you ask?

“The wide-open policy of freedom, I believe, has been carried to the extreme here. Although the great majority of men can be handled and trusted in absolute freedom, there are, in a population of 700 men, some who can never be given liberty. There is need for not more than 50 cells. Any farm colony ought to have them even if the cells are never used. Even so, we are getting along very nicely without them, and it shows to what great extent this policy can be carried successfully.

“We never had even punishment cells until a few days ago when four were completed. We aren’t going to have to use them much, either. Confinement on bread and water is the only form of punishment permitted in this colony--no flogging, no dungeons, no ball and chain, no stripes.

“We have prisoners living down on the lower end of the farm working under a prisoner-foreman. We see them only when we are making the weekly round of inspection.”

One could not help but feel, in discussion with Mr. Talkington, that one was listening to a practical man who is anything but the dreamer or idealist usually found advocating so revolutionary a plan as the one on which the superintendent is working. He made no claims to super-knowledge in the handling of men. He had no illusions about the matter. He knew the faults of the plan and he knew the virtues. When he undertook the present work, his only assets were his experience as a farmer and school teacher.

“I feel,” said Mr. Talkington, “that your officials, before spending more than a million dollars on the old type of prison, should see this farm and the one at Guelph, Ont. I’m confident they would change their plans. This may be a new thing in this country, but it is not untried in the old. The most famous of the European farm colonies is the one at Witzwil, Switzerland. It has solved all the problems of handling men, it pays thousands of dollars annually into the treasury of the canton Berne and there has been no trouble experienced in competition with free labor.

“The farm colony has come to America to stay, and I hope Detroit won’t take any action which will postpone for perhaps half a century an improvement they are entitled to now.”

One of the bad features of Indiana’s temporary arrangement is the lack of opportunity to segregate prisoners into classes or groups. The dormitories are too large and the facilities for recreation are very limited.

“The men should be divided into smaller groups,” said the superintendent, “and I believe the recreation room should be a part of the dormitory. I would not place more than 25 to 50 men in each group. That would give a chance to segregate the youths from the older men and permit keeping apart the more dangerous type from the man who is here on some comparatively trifling charge.

“Another of our greatest needs is the establishment of industries to supplement the work on the farm. We are going to get these. There should be a furniture factory, a canning factory, brick yard or other suitable industries where the men can be worked when weather conditions are bad or outside work slack.”

The greatest factor in the maintaining of discipline is the use of the honor system. There are good jobs on the farm and bad ones. And the good jobs go to the men who have the best records and have shown their ability to take positions of responsibility.

“You can’t tell me that you can run any prison with any such sort of discipline,” a prison superintendent recently told me. “There are some men who must be strung up and there are some who must be spanked. If we didn’t resort to extreme methods at times we would have a riot on our hands all the time.”

The best answer to this is found in the record of the Indiana farm. There hasn’t been a strike or a serious riot since the institution was founded. There are no guards standing or sitting around idle. The guards are working foremen who perform as much actual labor as any prisoner. The employed guards have guns in their pocket, but the guns are never used and some of them aren’t even loaded.

There is a provision in the State law of Indiana which permits the drafting from the penitentiaries of trusties to take jobs as foremen, sentinels and lookouts. Of course, this probably could not be done in Detroit, because the house of correction is a city institution. But in Indiana it assists materially in keeping down the payroll. It makes this difference--the farm colony at Occoquan, Va., has a payroll of about $5000 a month; the Indiana institution gets along with $1700. And the two institutions are very much alike.--From _The Delinquent_, March, 1917.

[A]THE CRIMINAL CODE OF PENNSYLVANIA.

WILLIAM E. MIKELL, MEMBER OF STATE COMMISSION TO REVISE THE CRIMINAL CODE.

Perhaps, in the true sense of the term, there is no criminal “code” in Pennsylvania. The whole body of the criminal law has never been reduced to a written code in this state in the sense in which this has been done in some of the States of the Union in which jurisdictions there are no crimes except those specifically prescribed. * * *

At the common law, crimes were classified as felonies and misdemeanors. Without going into nice historical questions we can fairly say that the term “felony” was applied to the more heinous crimes, “misdemeanors” to the more venial ones. In the statutory law of both England and of this country these terms have in general been similarly employed. In the Pennsylvania code the legislature has in the majority of cases in defining each crime designated the crime a felony or a misdemeanor; and following the general principle of the common law, affixed the stigma of “felony” to the graver crimes. Viewing the code, however, as a whole, there is an utter lack of principle in the grading of crimes as felonies or misdemeanors, either according to the moral heinousness of the offense, or the severity of the punishment.

Bigamy, with its attendant disgrace and illegitimacy, is a misdemeanor, while embezzlement by a servant is a felony. For a clerk or agent to embezzle--by the code called larceny--is a felony; for a banker, trustee or guardian to embezzle, is only a misdemeanor. * * *

Administering a narcotic with intent to commit larceny, is felony; assault and battery endangering the life of an infant, is a misdemeanor. Blackmailing is only a misdemeanor, while receiving stolen goods is a felony. If one in the heat of a fight, intending to disable or maim his antagonist, should cut him ever so slightly, he is guilty of a felony, but, if he “on purpose, and of malice aforethought by lying in wait, shall unlawfully cut out the tongue, put out an eye, cut off the nose * * * or cut off any limb” of his victim, he commits only a misdemeanor. Also if he “voluntarily, maliciously and of purpose bite off the * * * limb or member of another,” he is guilty of a misdemeanor. Truly, there must have been giants in those days. The effect of these two sections is to make it a graver offense to attempt mayhem and fail, than to succeed.

The Grading of Penalties.

The work of the commissioners who framed the Code of 1860 shows an utter lack of any consistent theory not only of grading the crimes as felonies and misdemeanors, but also in grading the punishment fixed for the various crimes. It may not be easy to do this in all cases. Persons may intelligently differ as to whether perjury should be more seriously punished than assault and battery, and whether larceny or bigamy be deserving of the greater penalty. But it is difficult to see why embezzlement by a consignee or factor should be punished with five years’ imprisonment and embezzlement by a person transporting the goods to the factor should be punished by one year’s imprisonment. * * *

Under the Act of 1860, having in possession tools for the counterfeiting of copper coin is punished by six years’ imprisonment, while by the next section the punishment for actually making counterfeit copper coin is only three years, though it cannot be made without the tools to make it. * * *

The distinction just mentioned is, however, no stranger than that made by the code between a councilman on the one hand and a judge on the other, in the provisions against bribery. Section 48 of the Act of 1860 provides that if any judge * * * shall accept a bribe, he shall be fined not more than $1000 and be imprisoned for not more than five years. But by Section 8 of the Act of 1874, a councilman who accepts a bribe may be fined $10,000, ten times as much as a judge, and be imprisoned the same number of years--five years. The statute also provides that the councilman shall be incapable of holding any place of profit or trust in this Commonwealth thereafter. But the convicted judge is placed under no such disability.

Relations of Fine to Imprisonment.

In the case of almost every crime denounced by the code fine and imprisonment are associated. In most cases the penalty provided is fine and imprisonment, in some it is fine or imprisonment. In a few cases imprisonment alone without a fine is prescribed, and in a few others it is a fine alone without imprisonment. We seek in vain for any principle on which the fine is omitted, where it is omitted; or for a principle on which it is inflicted in addition to imprisonment in some cases, and as an alternative to imprisonment in others. Thus the penalty for exhibiting indecent pictures on a wall in a public place is a fine of $300, but no imprisonment, while by the same act the drawing of such pictures on the same wall carries a fine of $500 and one year’s imprisonment. Manslaughter carries a fine of $1000 as well as imprisonment for twelve years, but train robbery and murder in the second degree involve no fine, but fifteen and twenty years in prison respectively. It cannot be the length of the imprisonment that does away with the fine in this latter case, for the crime of aiding in kidnapping may be punished with twenty-five years in prison, but also has a fine of $5000.

More striking still, perhaps, is the lack of any relation between the amount of the fine and the length of the imprisonment provided in the code. In the case of some crimes the fine is small and the imprisonment short, as in blasphemy, which is punished by a fine of $100 and three months in prison, extortion and embracery punished with $500 and one year. In a few the fine is large and the imprisonment long, as in accepting bribes by councilmen, $10,000 and five years, and malicious injury to railroads, $10,000 and ten years. But in others the fine is small while the imprisonment is long and in others the fine large and the imprisonment short.

Incomplete Crimes.

It is a general principle of criminal jurisprudence that “incomplete crimes,” as they are called, such as attempt, and conspiracy to commit a crime, should not be punished as severely as the full, completed crime. It was on this principle that at common law an attempt to commit even the gravest felony, such as murder, was only a misdemeanor. Other codes maintain this principle. * * *

The Pennsylvania code has no general section on attempts, but in a haphazard manner, in providing for some crimes, provides for the attempt to commit the same, and in some cases has no provision for such attempts. A study of those cases in which provision for punishing the attempt is made, shows an entire absence of any theory or principle in assessing the punishment. Thus the penalty for the attempt to commit arson is the same as for the crime of arson itself; for the attempt to commit robbery, the same as for the completed robbery; but the attempt to commit murder is not punished with the same penalty as murder, viz.: death, or twenty years’ imprisonment, but by seven years’ imprisonment only.

Instances of Lack of Co-ordination in Drafting.

Two strikers separately determine to wreck a passenger train: one removes a rail from the road over which a train is scheduled to pass; another cuts the telegraph wire to prevent the train dispatcher from stopping the train from running into a wreck. The first striker would come within the terms of Section 7 of the Act of 1911 and could be sentenced to pay a fine of $10,000 and suffer imprisonment for ten years; the second man would come within the terms of Section 147 of the Act of 1860 and could not be fined more than $500 or imprisoned more than twelve months. * * *

If the executor made way with a horse belonging to the estate, his maximum imprisonment would be still two years; but if the butler made way with another horse he might receive ten years as a penalty. If a mule would serve the butler’s purpose as well as a horse he had better take the mule, for then he could not be sentenced for more than three years; if the mule were not swift enough, however, he might choose an automobile, for the maximum imprisonment for stealing an automobile is the same as that for larceny of the mule, being less than one-third of that for larceny of a horse.

If the driver of a public “coachee” by “wanton and furious driving or racing” unintentionally breaks a chicken’s leg he may be punished by five years’ imprisonment, the same punishment provided for attempted rape, for mayhem, for counterfeiting, and for robbery; but if the driver of a taxicab is guilty of the same assault on a member of the feathered tribe he is not even indictable. If the driver of this “coachee,” while so driving, should accidentally inflict the slightest personal injury on another, he would be liable to greater punishment than if he deliberately stabbed that other with intent to maim him, or wilfully and maliciously exploded dynamite under him, thus doing him serious bodily harm. This violates one of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, viz., that crimes of negligence are not so grave as crimes done with deliberate intent, a principle recognized in other parts of the code in providing for murder and involuntary manslaughter. * * *

The writer has attempted to point out in this paper some of the more glaring and interesting defects in the code. He has by no means exhausted them. There is a great need for a complete revision of the code. It is a jumble of inconsistent theories; a great many sections are badly drawn, others are obsolete; many are inconsistent, many are in conflict; there is much overlapping due to different acts having been passed at different times covering in part the same subject matter, so that it cannot be told whether a given crime should be punished under one section or another prescribing a different punishment.

* * * * *

Governor Brumbaugh has appointed the following on the Commission to revise the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth: Edwin M. Abbott, Chairman, Philadelphia; Wm. E. Mikell, Secretary, Philadelphia; George C. Bradshaw, Pittsburgh; Clarence E. Coughlin, Wilkes-Barre; Rex N. Mitchell, Punxsutawney.

FOOTNOTES:

[A] From an article by Mr. Mikell in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, January, 1917. The article clearly indicates the urgent need of revision of our criminal code.

AMERICAN PRISON ASSOCIATION.

ATTENDANCE.

The meetings of the American Prison Association in 1917 were held in New Orleans, November 19-23. Outside of the State of Louisiana, the registration of delegates and attenders amounted to 261, of whom seven were from Canada, one from Mexico, one from Cuba and one from Guatemala. One hundred and thirty-seven registered from Louisiana. Outside of this State, Massachusetts enrolled the largest number, thirty-two being accredited to the Bay State. Then followed New York, with twenty-nine, and Pennsylvania was third with twenty-two, of whom nine were Official Delegates. It must not be forgotten that there were many attenders at these meetings who had not received appointment as Official Delegates, but who were active and welcome participators in the discussions. In 1916 and 1917, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been well represented, but for several years previous the attendance from the Keystone State had, from a numerical point of view, been rather insignificant.

THE PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS.

Dr. David C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Indiana Reformatory at Jeffersonville, ably officiated as presiding officer of the various sessions of the Association. He is evidently a believer in strict discipline administered by the officials who are legally appointed as the guardians of the offender, yet no one who visits the institution over which he presides, would assert that the regulations are harsh or unreasonable. His view of the Honor System would not involve government by the inmates.

“In prison management there have developed two colossal evils. One was peculiar to the past and the other in a measure characterizes the present. Most of the evils that are associated with prison work have come from these two roots. They are antipodal as east and west. They are cruelty and sentimentality. As the first was the child of ignorance, the second springs from half knowledge and is not the less reprehensible. True reform will come, not by a softening and relaxation in prison discipline, not by imputing to criminals qualities which their whole activities have proven them to lack and the very absence of which is the cause of their incarceration, not by making their pathway smoother and easier, nor yet by touching it with the magic of romance. If a little of the leaven of common sense were allowed to permeate the situation it seems to me that the clouds in our pathway would lift somewhat.

“Of course cruelty, the other bête-noir, is only named to be condemned, and thanks to our even half-knowledge it has no place in modern prisons except in isolated spots. But I doubt if ever cruelty was any more cruel than a regime which threatens to become popular today. It seems to me that prisons should be run for the purpose of training men for sane living. If that is true, then they should in fact train these men for sane living.

“A modern prison should be a beehive of industrial activity and should be _more than self-supporting_. Indeed, men should be able to serve their sentences and earn enough overtime money during their terms to support their dependents--in part at least. A trade should be taught when practicable, but even more important than a trade is the idea of inculcating industrious habits. It is not a misfortune for men to have to labor, but it is a blessing both for them and for us.

“Discipline should be strict but not arbitrary. The rules should be based on experience and should be obviously sound.

“Punishment has a place in prison, but it should be logical; should, as far as possible, flow as a natural consequence from the transgression according to the pedagogical rule of Spencer.

“The industrial training should be correlated with the didactic instruction and the prison library. The three should form the tripartite educative force of the institution.”

THE HONOR SYSTEM.

As was naturally to be expected, the so-called Honor System received a large share of attention, especially in the Wardens’ meetings. The Wardens generally are opposed to that feature of the Honor System which involves placing the discipline to any great extent in the hands of the convicts. The experiments of Mr. Osborne at Auburn, Sing Sing and Portsmouth are regarded as sporadic efforts largely affected by the personality of a masterful, though sentimental, empiricist. Men who have never governed themselves should not be elected to govern one another. Mr. Erskine, of Connecticut, argued that it was wrong to base any system on emotional appeal. “Twenty per cent. of the men in prison are entirely bad and vicious; 20 per cent. would wield a good influence if they had the opportunity, and the remaining 60 per cent. could be swayed by either the good or the bad element.”

On the other hand it was stoutly contended that the prison was the proper place for men to learn to govern themselves. Necessarily they were confined to a limited area, and still subject to watchful care by big-hearted, efficient advisers. Let them learn that discipline in life is an essential feature of any community. Let them learn this lesson by personal experimentation. Thus they may recover some sense of self-respect. They will rejoin the outer world with some measure of responsibility. They will return to freedom with a different understanding of life.

Dr. Bernard Glueck, director of the psychological clinic at Sing Sing, asserted that in general prison officials, through limitations to their work, were not fully qualified to pass judgment on the subject, and had not availed themselves of opportunities to carry out a comprehensive system of self-government. He stated that such a system had proven to be distinctly successful at Preston, California, and asked Mr. Calvin Derrick, the founder of the School of Industry at Preston, to present some account of this institution.

Mr. Derrick informed the Association that this California school has developed its honor system to the point where 250 of the boys were sent to the Sacramento fair alone, traveling through the country 250 miles, and returning without the loss of a single one. The boys have a complete republic system of government, and conduct all of the work of the school. A football team plays regular school and college teams of the State, traveling without supervision.

It appeared to some of us who listened with intense interest to these discussions that the difference in sentiment was rather one of degree than of principle. Wherever any privileges are allowed and wherever the trusty system is permitted, there is involved some measure of self-government. One warden permits the prisoners to mingle together on the base ball field. These men are on their honor. Another warden might say that he would allow his prisoners to play and observe games and leave the regulation of their conduct while on the field to the men themselves. They are still on their honor and doubtless are aware that their regulation of conduct must meet the approval of the warden. Suppose we allow the men to impose penalties for minor delinquencies. The warden still exercises his judgment on the punishment awarded. The warden governs. The men may have more or less privileges, but they are granted by the warden. It resolves itself into a question as to how far such privileges may be granted. And no two wardens in the world will agree precisely on this point.

For the last twenty years the trend has been getting away from the brutality of the former systems, from the petty rules, from degrading and humiliating treatment, and the avowed object of confinement has been reiterated again and again to aim at reformation. We admit that some wardens are more successful than others in accomplishing desired results, and yet we must not expect them to adopt an entirely uniform program. We must make due allowance for the personal equation involved, for the individuality of the ruling authority. The warden who claims that his system is perfect, and that he has nothing more to learn, is recommended for removal.

CLINICAL WORK.

Dr. Bernard Glueck exhibited a number of charts showing much that was deeply interesting in regard to the mentality, environment and parentage of the criminals sent to Sing Sing.

“Sing Sing is being reorganized and rebuilt to receive all of the criminals of New York for examination immediately after they have been convicted. We are trying to get at the man behind the crime rather than the crime itself. Two facts are very evident from our work. The social fact is that 66 per cent. of the prisoners we have received are previous offenders. The medical fact is that 59 per cent. of the prisoners can be classified for mental diseases or mental deviation; and thousands of this class can be treated and cured by means of vocational training and other modern prison methods.

“Sing Sing is being remodeled so that we can devote as much as four months to an intensive study of each prisoner who enters the institution. From this examination we can learn which men should be sent to the insane hospitals, which to the intensive vocational schools, and can outline the most effective method of treatment necessary to prepare the men for the future.

“The indeterminate sentence is essential to the proper working out of our plans, and the criminal courts of the State are working in harmony with this idea. Most offenders can be restored to a normal life and good citizenship after they have finished a term under proper treatment, and criminal judges in New York city tell us that fewer men come before them for a second time since we have adopted the present methods.

“It is the aim of the prison to turn the men into citizens with an understanding. They are allowed many liberties, and are made to take an active part in community life in prison. They have their own social organization, a system of self-government, including even a charitable society. In their charity work they aid prisoners who are leaving the prison, make it possible for poor people to visit imprisoned relatives, send the bodies of prisoners home for burial, and many other things of that nature.”

PRISONERS AND THE WAR.

Some problems arising as a direct result of the war received serious attention. There was the question of additional food production by prison labor; whether paroled men shall enter the army or navy; and whether conditional pardons may be granted, contingent upon military service.

Some delegates asserted that a general restlessness was noticed among most prisoners. Many of them are exceedingly anxious to get into the war, and in some States prisoners are being paroled so that they may enter the army or navy. Prison officials know that many of their wards are fit for military service just as well as they are aware that other prisoners are unfit. After prolonged discussion of the subject, the Wardens’ Association unanimously adopted the following resolution:

“Resolved, That the Wardens’ Association of the American Prison Association suggest to and request of the President of the United States the modification of paragraph 849 of the Regulations of the Army and paragraph 3686 of the Articles for the Government of the Navy of the United States so as to permit the enlistment in the military and naval forces of the United States of men who, in the judgment of the proper military and naval authorities, are physically, mentally and morally qualified, despite the fact that such persons may have been convicted of the offenses set forth in the regulations and articles above referred to and imprisoned therefor, upon their being duly and honorably paroled or discharged from such imprisonment.”

At Guelph, Ontario, the great prison has been practically depopulated. The prisoners have gone to war, and the institution has been taken over as a hospital for convalescents returned from the scenes of war. The Superintendent, Dr. J. T. Gilmour, declared that it is only a step from prisoner to patriot.

“We have learned a great deal about prisoners during the three years we have been in war. We have learned that the prisoner’s sense of patriotism is not dead because he is behind the bars; that he is just as anxious to serve his country as the man who is not being punished, and if given an opportunity the chances are that he will make a good soldier. It has come to my notice that men have exchanged prison uniforms for army uniforms in three hours after their discharge from prison.”

He made the further statement that thousands of men had been released from Canadian prisons to permit them to serve in the army, and thousands of others were “doing their bit” by making hospital supplies during their imprisonment.

PRISONERS CONDEMNED TO SLAVERY.

In at least two Southern States, the infamous lease system, whereby prisoners are leased for an annual stipend to work in the mines or in the turpentine forests or in other work, prevails. Isadore Shapiro, a member of the Legislature from Alabama, and President of the Committee on Prisons, vigorously lambasted the government of Alabama for tolerating and continuing such venal disgrace. The Alabama legislature had made an effort to abolish the lease system but the governor had interposed so as to prolong the infamy. The prisoners could profitably and healthfully be put to work on the State farms but instead they are offered for sale to the highest bidder, and employed in mills, coal mines, lumber and turpentine camps. All of the women prisoners in one county were leased recently for the term of two years at the rate of fifteen cents a day. Mr. Shapiro produced a leather strap six feet long and an inch and a half wide with which prisoners are flogged.

Recently in the State of Florida 598 prisoners were leased at an average of $360 per head by the year. It is a fact that most prisoners who work in the turpentine industry are so broken down in health after a few years that for the remainder of their days they are unfit for any manual employment. Of course it is granted that this work must be done, but we insist that it must be done under humane regulations. We have yet to learn of any leasing corporation or individual that has treated his serfs with merciful consideration. Georgia, after a long fight, has entirely repudiated the system.

The Association, while insisting that employment should be given to prisoners, unanimously adopted a resolution condemning in the strongest terms a system whereby men and women are sold into bondage in order to enhance the revenue of the State.

THE INDETERMINATE SYSTEM.

There is no longer any debate about the Indeterminate Sentence. The principle is written upon the statutes of nearly every State of the Union, tho in a debilitated and illogical form in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Amos W. Butler, Secretary Board of Charities in Indiana, in an address delivered in one of the churches declared that we had brought very little understanding to bear upon our treatment of criminals until recent years. He compared our knowledge of smallpox, yellow fever and other diseases with crime and concluded that we made as many blunders in considering the offender as we formerly made in our attitude toward these mysterious and dreaded diseases.

“Prisons are the visible signs of our failures. It is now within the power of man to abolish many diseases from the earth, and so with crime. Criminals are not sent to prison for punishment, as many seem to believe, but prisons exist for the confinement of prisoners for the safety of society and for the reform of the man or woman there. They should, if possible, be reformed and returned to society.”

The speaker favored the indeterminate sentence. He said you would not send a diphtheria patient to the hospital for a definite time, say two or three weeks. Complications might appear and more time may be required to effect a cure. The same is true of criminals. They should be sent there until reformed, until fit to be returned.

Indiana has an indeterminate sentence law and in the past twenty years 11,000 men and women have been released under that law. Seventy-five per cent. of them succeeded, or made good. Prisoners there have earned about $3,000,000 for themselves.

The absolutely indeterminate sentence is not yet in vogue in any State. A criminal under such a sentence would be sent to prison as to a hospital to remain till cured of his malady. Perhaps, in some cases he would be subject to some detention as a deterrent to others contemplating entering upon a criminal career. Specialists would determine when he was ready to enter the community. We may at some time adopt such a system when there are enough men and women having the skill and training necessary to pass on the mental and moral characteristics of such patients.

Perhaps the best form of sentence is by statutes which fix the time for any given offense. The time for arson, for instance, may be placed from two to twenty years. It is the function of the judge or jury to determine whether the accused is guilty. If found guilty, the defendant is placed in care of a judicious board of control who will release the criminal at such time as they may deem best for him and the community.

Judge Willis, of St. Paul, said that no physician would send a patient to a hospital for a specified number of days or weeks, yet this very thing is done daily by judges who send mentally and morally sick men and women to jail. “A doctor would not presume to predict just how many days it would take to cure a disease, but a judge daily uses his prerogative as a diagnostician in sending morally diseased people to jail, although the records of trials show that no two judges think alike in the matter. * * * Society no longer tolerates vengeance in the criminal code. The desire of intelligent people of today is to restore the criminal to a place in society--an honorable place--and not only to restore him, but to make him a more valuable member of society than he was before his incarceration.”

NATIONAL PRISONERS’ AID ASSOCIATION.

This body is an auxiliary of the main organization. Two sessions were held at which various phases of the work were earnestly discussed.

The address of the President, Rev. James Parsons, of Minneapolis, presented a summary of what has been accomplished, and also some cogent reasons for the existence and maintenance of organizations having constantly in view the rehabilitation of those who have violated law. This address is given in another part of the JOURNAL.

Rev. Charles Parsons, of Des Moines, called attention to the increase of crime in time of war. “A celebrated doctor declared that soon after the beginning of the war there was an abnormal increase of crime in Germany. * * * Juvenile delinquency increased 34 per cent. in Great Britain when the teachers were enlisted, supplies cut down, evening schools closed and pupils between eleven and thirteen years of age went to work, while a half million of the younger children had little care. The increase of crime was so alarming, the authorities had to take special measures of prevention. * * * Our American training camps probably are the best supervised from a moral standpoint of any in the world. More effort has been made to keep them decent and free from vice than in any other period of human history. Yet with all this precaution, it is impossible to eliminate all the evils connected with life in the camp.”

Col. Sedgwick Rice, Commandant U. S. Military Prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, said he had received instructions from the war department to prepare for a large increase in the prison population, but up to this time he was glad to state no great increase was manifest. Many of the deserters had left some branch of the service in order to join some other branch, not realizing that such an act constituted desertion.

Wallace Gilpatrick described the operation of the Christie House, N. Y., of which he has been superintendent since 1905. Their work is not limited to the young men out of prison, as they give help to all young men in trouble from whatever cause. “The matter of employment, vital as it is, is not always the first matter to be considered when a boy arrives at the house. Our first aim is to have him understand that he is among friends. We make him feel at home and we ask few questions. After he has recovered from his first feeling of strangeness, we provide him with a good meal, and clean linen, perhaps, a complete suit of clothing. When he sees other young men coming in from their work and engaged in games such as chess, checkers, billiards, and when he has had an invitation to participate in the fun, he begins to realize that he has gotten into a pretty good sort of place.” The superintendent had in the last twelve years made the acquaintance of about three thousand men who had availed themselves of the hospitality of Christie House. It had been impossible to follow their careers but he knew personally that 25 per cent. of them were making good. He was sure that many more had been successful who had not kept in touch with the House.

Albert H. Votaw, of Philadelphia, was elected President of this Association for the year 1918, and Geo. B. Newcomb, Bismarck, N. D., Secretary.

STATE PENAL FARM AT ANGOLA.

The day before the meetings closed Governor Pleasant, of Louisiana, in an address to the Association gave the members a warm invitation to make a visit to the 18,000 acre prison farm of the State, at Angola, about 130 miles from New Orleans. On Saturday about fifty members of the Association availed themselves of this privilege. The railroad ran up the rich valley of the Mississippi through cane fields, cypress swamps and timbered country adorned with tropical vegetation and scenery to Angola where we received a warm welcome. At the Administration Building on the lawn, tables loaded with provisions were placed to which soon our company was doing full justice. It was explained that practically every article of the food was a product of the farm and was such as was supplied to the convicts with exception of the roast turkey, a few of which were kept on the place and which had been slaughtered for our delectation. Even the fish caught in the great river adjacent to the plantation may have belonged to the farm by some riparian right. There was some white bread which was not made from wheat flour native to Louisiana. Automobiles conveyed the party over the huge plantation affording full opportunity to examine the rude temporary barracks where the prisoners are kept. The men eat at mess tables and the food seemed to be ample and to be well prepared according to the culinary arrangements usually found in penal institutions. We saw much to admire and some things to condemn.

1. We did not approve of armed trusties stationed to guard the men while at work in the fields.

2. We hope at no distant day to hear that striped clothing is tabooed.

3. We were unanimous in condemning the system of punishing with the lash. One northern warden, not a sentimentalist either, offered to come down at his own expense and inaugurate a new system of penalties in which no corporal punishment should be allowed.