The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Delinquent (Vol. IV, No. 1), January, 1914
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Delinquent (Vol. IV, No. 1), January, 1914

Author: Various

Publisher: National Prisoners' Aid Association

Release date: April 4, 2017 [eBook #54486]
                Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Larry B. Harrison, Turgut Dincer and the Online
        Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
        book was produced from images made available by the
        HathiTrust Digital Library.)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE DELINQUENT (VOL. IV, NO. 1), JANUARY, 1914 ***
T



  VOLUME IV, No. 1.       JANUARY, 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.




WHY DELAWARE USE THE WHIPPING POST[A]

BY CHARLES R. MILLER, GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE

  [Delaware has received in recent months national
  attention because a member of Congress asked in Congress
  whether the use of the whipping post in Delaware cannot
  be declared contrary to the provisions of the national
  constitution. To flog prisoners seems to most people a
  relic of barbarism. Is it justified? Do you agree with
  the Governor of Delaware?]


Delaware has whipped criminals of certain types since 1656, and
will continue to whip them until the statutes under which corporal
punishment is indicted shall be repealed.

Congress cannot, and certainly will not, interfere in the exercise
of proper authority under the law, and as the whipping post is an
integral part of the criminal law of Delaware every law officer must
consent to its use regardless of any personal views he may have in the
matter. Hysterical women, weak men, bullies, cranks and blackguards
in all parts of the country have written to me demanding that I set
aside the law and prohibit whippings for crime in Delaware. These good
souls give no heed to the fact that the whippings are quite as legal in
Delaware as imprisonment. Their demands amount to anarchy, so far as
law enforcement goes. They cry, “Down with the law!” without knowing
whereof they speak.

I want every criminal, every sharper and every moral leper to know that
if he comes to Delaware and violates the law he will not only serve
a long term in our none too comfortable jails, but that he will be
whipped in public on his bare back before he enters his cell. I wish
this fact could be spread to the uttermost corners of the country.

Delaware wants no undesirable citizen. This State offers nothing but
the whip and the workhouse for the gunmen, white slavers, panders,
highwaymen and common thieves which people the underworld of some of
our larger cities and who seem to get a certain amount of applause for
their more daring performances from the same type of people who demand
that I shall set aside a fundamental law of my State and defy the
decrees of our High Court.

[A] From several newspapers.

Delaware houses one-half of her population in the city of Wilmington.
All the rest of the State is strictly rural. Our people are of the
soil. They are typical farmers—plain, wholesome, God-fearing people
who obey the law and who punish crime with severity. We have neither
the means nor the machinery with which to patrol our rural districts
with armed officers. It follows, then, that we must have laws carrying
severe penalties and rigidly enforce them.

Half the people in Delaware south of Wilmington never lock their doors
at night, window fasteners are uncommon, and thought of burglars is
totally absent from the minds of our people. Once in a long while some
half-drunken loon will enter a house at night. When he is not kicked
out as a mere intruder he is locked up, tried, convicted and whipped
according to law, and then locked up long enough to think it over
himself and to deter all others from a like offense.

Those who criticise the whipping post adversely overlook the fact that
Delaware is the broad highway between four chief American cities.

Our unthinking critics include those who do not know that time or
the loss of time means nothing at all to a very large proportion of
our population. A day, or a week, or a month, more or less, costs a
low-grade negro nothing at all in opportunity or in money. The native
negroes of Delaware know their place and make no trouble. They are far
above the average in habits and in intelligence, but we have a floating
negro population which is definitely bad, and we must safeguard our
people, white and black, against those who come from all parts of the
Shore country to the canneries, work a few weeks or months and then
pass on, only to give place to another lot just as bad, or even worse.

The negro with city habits is a worse proposition than the farm trained
hand, who is usually law-abiding and useful. Delaware can handle her
own negroes with little or no force, but the passing throng of bad
men needs attention, and they file by with eyes front on the whipping
posts. Cells mean nothing at all to such men, white or black.

Delaware is absolutely free from all forms of white slavery. This
particular form of crime is punished here without recourse to the
Mann Act or aid from the Federal authorities. Did the whipping post do
naught else but keep cadets out of Delaware it proves its eternal value
here. In every other State in the Union in which there is a large city
the white slave problem comes up with a degree of regularity. The same
people who condemn the whipping post wring their hands and wonder what
to do about the cadets and their wretched victims. Delaware answers,
“Whip the cadet!”

Years ago a gang of desperadoes undertook to rob a Wilmington bank.
They tunneled under the building, and would have carried off $500,000
in negotiable securities but for the suspicions of an alert watchman.
They were arrested, and on trial paid one attorney a very large fee
solely to the end that they might be saved from the public whipping.
The late great Chief Justice Lore sentenced them to long terms in
prison and to the utmost limit of the law as to pillory and lashes.

There has never been a bank robbery attempted in Delaware from that day
to this by professional burglars. These men were bank robbers of the
first grade; the same men who managed one of the sensational robberies
in New York—the Metropolitan Bank, I think. That type of criminal never
considers Delaware now for a second.

A prison term means nothing at all to him, but he would never dare show
his face in his usual haunts after the lash fell on his bare back in a
Delaware jail.

All prison reformers and all humanitarians agree that the object of
all punishment is to prevent crime—remotely to cure the criminal.
We are not discussing the cure of criminals. We are discussing the
whipping post per se, and I submit that the whipping post has prevented
two of the most terrible of all crimes short of murder—white slavery
and burglary. There is a grave doubt in my mind if there has been a
single burglary in Delaware within twenty years committed by a man who
was entirely sane and wholly sober, and I do not recall any second
offenders.

It will not be seriously questioned that society has a right to protect
itself. If the whipping post proves to be a perpetual and potential
protector against the burglar, the highwayman and the cadet, why cry
down its effectiveness? New York had an epidemic of gunmen; Chicago had
an epidemic of highwaymen; Boston and Philadelphia made war on cadets.
Delaware simply painted her whipping posts and multiplied school houses.

Within recent weeks, in Philadelphia, Judge Norris S. Barratt declared
from the bench that nothing except a thoroughly good whipping at a
public post would serve to adequately punish a wife beater before him.
This learned jurist is intimately familiar with social and political
conditions in Delaware and, before the Sons of Delaware, most ably
defended the whipping post as an aid to crime prevention.

Solitary confinement has been proved a failure. It rots out the
prisoner, destroys all ambition, and when his hour of freedom comes
he is without initiative, without occupation and without hope. Trades
are now taught these men, but day after day they are “lined up” as
professionals, and their lives become a misery to them.

Now I repeat that the basic idea of punishment has to do with the
protection of society against the criminal. It would be a little beyond
me to explain the psychological effect of a public whipping upon the
mind of a professional criminal, but of course I had ideas. The fact
remains, however, that the mere prospect of such a whipping keeps men
out of Delaware who would not hesitate a second to “shoot up” a dance
hall in New York or Chicago.

It is a fact of common knowledge that ship masters of undoubted
courage, of tested and proved valor, are as timid as little children
when ashore; that firemen who never give a thought to personal peril
at a conflagration, bawl and make an awful to-do about having a tooth
filled. Frank Gotch, the wrestler, who could tear an ordinary man apart
with his hands, bows with absolute submission, I am told, to the will
of Mrs. Gotch.

Doubtless the men of science, the psychologists, have a definite name
for this phenomenon of the mind. I do not know this word, but I do
know that burglars and highwaymen who would brave the police force of
Philadelphia or any other large city will not even consider a “job” in
Delaware and that these men when asked why, invariably reply that they
will take no chance of the whipping post. It may be a display of vanity
more than fear. I do not quite know.

I have no quarrel with those who want to reform prisons, but I am a
most earnest advocate of any and every method that prevents crime, and
this the whipping post does to a marked degree.

The sense of shame that follows a public whipping is quite a different
matter from the innermost feelings of the same man flogged in privacy.
In the underworld, where there exist strata of preferment just as there
are social equations in organized society, a man who has done “a bit”
of long duration lives in a degree of reflected glory. A yeggman who
has served ten or twelve years in Cherry Hill, Sing Sing, Joliet or any
one of the other notorious prisons has a certain standing among his
fellows in crime. But it is a curious yet certain fact that the man
who is whipped in public loses caste at once and forever. It seems to
be that in having been sentenced to be whipped, the scene in the court
room, the display in the jailyard and the final flogging—all produce a
profound and a lasting mental shock.

This is not true when a mere warder calls a man out of his cell, beats
him and then throws him in a dark hole. This performance is followed by
mere resentment. The victim of this system, and the prisoner is very
often a victim, merely promises himself to kill the warder if he ever
has a chance, or some like foolish threat. Not so when a High Court, a
Chief Justice, amid scenes of dignity and decorum, orders the whipping.
It is the effect upon the mind of the man whipped and the result of the
whipping upon the minds of other criminals that count. It is purely
psychic but it is none the less effective.

None of the men whipped in Delaware is punished to the point that very
great physical torture follows. Such a lashing would create a martyr
of a criminal, and this must be avoided.

Criminals of the type that hold up trains, raid banks and rob
Government buildings are jealous of their reputations in the
underworld. Once whipped they become objects of derision and contempt
in their own circles. Some of these men are inordinately vain. It is
quite likely that this vanity, affectation or love of even doubtful
glory deters them from invading Delaware and daring the post.

Notice how the arrest of a notorious yeggman is always followed by
accurate reports of his record. Study these records and you will seldom
see that the prisoner was whipped in Delaware. It is idle to assume
that these men are afraid to come to Delaware because we have police,
a militia and all the other agencies for the enforcement of law. These
are common to all communities. They are not in any degree afraid of
the physical punishment involved in a Delaware whipping. Many of them
in friendly boxing bouts are more thoroughly beaten up every few days
while exercising. It is the preliminaries, the mental picture of the
trial, the solemnity of the sentence, the ignominy of the performance,
and, last of all, the contempt, ridicule and humiliation at the hands
of their consorts, male and female, that produce the result first on
the individual whipped, and ultimately upon all of his kind.

If there was nothing to it but a mere flogging by a prison warder
of doubtful authority; simply one man in brief authority beating up
another man but temporarily in his keeping, there would be, could be,
no such result, and the whipping of criminals would probably degenerate
into revolting performances with attending scandals. The Delaware
system precludes any such possibility.

The women of the nation lead in all humanitarian work as they should.
In every large city in the United States, except Wilmington, Delaware,
some brute is sent to jail every day or so for wife beating. Chicago
has had to establish a Court of Domestic Relations for the almost
exclusive benefit of women who have been whipped by beasts who swore to
love and honor them. Delaware will never need any such court so long as
the whipping post is so near the court house and in such great favor
with our judiciary. There is no Judge sitting in Delaware who does not
strongly favor the last for wife beaters.

Some of our good friends who call themselves penologists,
philanthropists, humanitarians and prison reformers overlook one all
important matter in their crusades. This essential is the prevention of
crime. Without discussion I will agree to everything that any of them
propose for the health and education and reformation of a criminal, but
I still insist that he is best off when he is kept from crime.

The people of Delaware are not barbarians. In education, in culture, in
true charity and in man’s love for man the people of Delaware rank with
the best in the land and in patriotism second to none. It is absurd to
attempt the indictment of a people of a sovereign State. Delaware has a
proud place in the history of the country and is prepared to meet every
proper issue as it arises and Congressmen from the wilds of Montana
will do well to study the practical results following legislation in
Delaware before asking for Federal interference in a purely State
matter.

Let every professional criminal in all the world know that Delaware is
no field for his operation; that crime here means public whippings on
the bare back, the ultimate of public disgrace, absolute enforcement of
the law and Delaware will be well served. Other States may toy with the
criminal; experiment with crime and multiply the police, but Delaware
will continue to prevent crime and thus save the criminal from himself
and protect the public from the criminal.

There is no considerable sentiment against the whipping post in
Delaware.




TROUBLES OF THE TEXAS PRISON SYSTEM

BY TOM FINTY, JR.

  [This is the second and concluding article by Mr. Finty.
  The first article appeared in the December, 1913,
  Delinquent. Mr. Finty’s two articles are an especially
  interesting statement.]


In the foregoing I have attempted to outline the situation of the Texas
prison system, to show how a burden of loss and debt has followed
marked financial prosperity, and to indicate why the public is puzzled
over the situation. I shall now endeavor to outline the causes of this
condition, my statement being based not merely upon the conclusions
of the investigating committee of 1913, but also largely upon the
testimony taken by the committee, which testimony I heard and reported.
This statement necessarily will include something of a review of
provisions of the prison reform act of 1910, of criticisms of the same,
and of the revisions which the Legislature recently tried to make.

When the prison reform act of 1910 took effect on January 20, 1911, and
Governor Colquitt appointed his prison commissioners, the system was
clear of debt except as to a small sum in current bills for supplies
just received and on hand. There was also outstanding $100,000 of bonds
secured by a direct lien on the Texas State Railroad. These bonds are
still outstanding, and they are not taken into account in any of the
statements hereinafter made.

The prison population when the new law took effect was 3,578. Of
this number 1,046 were hired out; 831 were working on share farms (a
modification of the hiring-out system), and 1,701 were employed upon
State account, 586 of these within or near the walls, and 1,115 upon
the State farms.

The acreage cultivated on the State farms was 18,097; on share farms
25,363, and on contract farms 18,680; total 62,140.

The prison population on September 30, 1913, was 3,926, all of which
force is employed on State account, 733 of the prisoners being in or
near Rusk and Huntsville prisons and 2,965 on State plantations. These
plantations now include certain rented lands, adjoining the lands
owned by the State. The prison population is classified as follows:
White 1,244, blacks 1,919, mulattoes 335, Mexicans 405 and Indians 3.
The number includes 92 females, 7 of them white, and 85 black.

The acreage cultivated by the 2,965 prisoners on State farms in 1913
was 36,993, as compared with 62,140 acres cultivated by 2,807 persons
at the time the new law took effect.

The reports of the prison commissioners and of chartered accountants
show that in the two years next following the date the act of 1910 took
effect the prison system’s losses from operation were $722,773.41; that
debts aggregating $1,528,458.04 accrued, and that $310,000 appropriated
from the public treasury had been expended.

Marked difference of opinion as to the cause of this fiscal situation
exists. Obviously, the debt is due in part to the operating losses, and
both the debt and the losses were in part caused by lack of operating
capital.

A part of the debt represents outlay for improvements and equipment
necessary to provide housing and employment for the convicts withdrawn
from the hiring-out system. A part of it, as already suggested,
represents lack of operating capital.

When a large proportion of the convict population was hired out, the
men who hired the convicts furnished the land, mules, implements and
houses. When the State withdrew the convicts from hire, it had to
provide all of these things.

When the convicts were hired out, their wages were paid to the State
monthly, regardless of the profits or losses of the contractors. This
income furnished an operating capital for the prison system as a whole.
It was a substantial income: the State received $31 a month for each
first-class convict, making a large profit after it had paid for food
and clothing and for guarding. When the convicts were withdrawn from
hire, this steady and dependable income stopped. Expenditures continued
steadily throughout the year; the bulk of the receipts came at the end
of the crop year, and, of course, the income was as uncertain as is the
weather and the crops.

Thus, much of the indebtedness is explained. However, the wisdom of
the commissioners in abolishing the contract system almost three years
before they were required by law to do so has been questioned. It has
been asserted that if they had permitted the contracts to continue
during the three years, receiving the income therefrom, they would have
been prepared to enter upon a complete State account system with much
better chance for it to succeed. It should be noted, however, for what
it may be worth, that some of the contractors said they did not want
to keep the convicts under the conditions as to hours of labor, etc.
imposed by the act of 1910.

In considering losses from operation of the prison system, it is
readily seen that expenses were increased by requirements of the new
law. The investigating committee says that $379,791.73 was thus added
to the expense account during the first two years. These requirements
were:

  1. That 10 cents a day should be paid to each convict who
  had earned a diminution of sentence by good behavior.
  The commissioners advocated a repeal or modification of
  this provision. It is almost generally admitted that the
  provision in its present form is not only too sweeping,
  but also that it fails of its purpose. It has had little,
  if any, effect in the way of encouraging good conduct.
  Evidently, however, this negative result is due not so
  much to the fact that the per diem was paid as it is
  to the fact that the per diem has not been paid. After
  the system became involved in debt, and the $310,000
  appropriation above mentioned was exhausted, no further
  payment of per diem was made, except as convicts were
  discharged.

  2. That convicts should be paid for overtime. The
  comment upon the per diem item applies to this all the
  way through. Most of the overtime has gone to cooks,
  waiters and flunkers. Suspension of per diem and overtime
  payments has caused much dissatisfaction among the
  convicts.

  3. That certain new offices should be created, teachers
  be provided, and that the salaries of guards should be
  increased.


  4. That better provision should be made for female
  convicts.

  5. That all new convicts should be brought to Huntsville
  prison before being assigned to other parts of the
  system. The commissioners recommended the repeal of this
  provision, because, they said, medical examination could
  be made at the farms as well as at Huntsville. They never
  seemed to understand the purposes of the requirement,
  which was, briefly, to assign the convicts to proper
  industries, to prevent sending to outside work men who
  were likely to attempt escape or to foment mutiny, and
  to secure to all prisoners some training in prison
  discipline. This purpose being misunderstood, prisoners
  are sent to the farms on the next train leaving after
  their arrival at Huntsville prison.

  6. That discharged convicts should be furnished a
  railroad ticket to any point in the State, instead, as
  formerly, to the place where convicted. The commissioners
  recommended the repeal of this provision.

  7. That the State should bear the expense of sending the
  corpses of convicts to their kinspeople upon request.
  Repeal of this also was recommended.

There were two other matters upon which the commissioners were not
in agreement. The first was the requirement of the law that convicts
should not be worked more than ten hours a day, this limit to include
the time spent going to and from work. The second was the abolition of
whipping. This latter was not required by the law, but was enforced by
executive order.

Commissioners Tittle and Brahan attributed the losses from operation
largely to the fact that the convict population upon the whole was
not performing a reasonable amount of labor, as was indicated by the
falling off in acreage cultivated. This condition they ascribed largely
to the statutory limitation upon the hours of labor, and, further, to
the fact that the most effective means of punishment (whipping) had
been interdicted by executive order. The farm managers and sergeants,
and, in fact, very nearly every officer of the system, supported them
in these views.

Chairman Cabell denied the truth of their deductions as to the
abolition of whipping, and he asserted that in his opinion these other
officers exaggerated the influence of the limitation upon the hours of
labor.

Certain of the new officers of the system who testified before the
investigating committee said that most of the officers and guards,
having been trained under the old order, were not in sympathy with the
new law nor with its purposes. This suggestion was reinforced by the
testimony of such officers, as is indicated in the foregoing.

The circumstances attending the abolition of whipping ought also to
be considered. The prison act of 1910 did not prohibit whipping. It
limited it and provided safeguards against abuses. Many of the officers
of the system were not in sympathy with such limitations. In the
early summer of 1912, Chairman Cabell moved that the use of the “bat”
should be discontinued and prohibited. His motion was defeated by the
votes of Commissioners Tittle and Brahan. Thereupon, Governor Colquitt
ordered the commission to adopt Chairman Cabell’s motion. It did so,
unanimously.

It was generally known throughout the system that practically every
officer thereof believed it impossible to control convicts or to make
them work unless the threat of whipping hung over them. Yet the first
news of the change in punishment methods went out through the press
during a political campaign. In many parts of the prison system, so the
investigation disclosed, the convicts got their first information of
the change from new prisoners. The effect was bad. Convicts reasoned
that the authority of officers directly in charge was negligible; that
these officers had said they could not control convicts or make them
work without the “bat,” and, therefore, since the bat has been taken
away, they could safely decline to work.

The reluctance of these prison officers to shape their course to the
new requirements, I believe, was based upon sincere conviction. The
influence of their attitude upon results can only be conjectured. In
this connection it ought to be stated that these officers asserted
that whipping was less inhuman than the substitutes provided. These
substitutes were chaining-up and dark-celling. The former consists of
fettering the convict’s wrists at the end of chains suspended from
above at such height as to cause him to stand erect, but flat-footed,
with his arms extended as high as they will go. There have been some
complaints that convicts have been chained so high as to require them
to stand tip-toe. The possibilities in the use of the dark-cell were
illustrated in the Harlem farm tragedy.

A part of the prison system’s losses from operation were admittedly due
to the following named causes:

  1. Heavy damage to cane crop of 1911 by freeze.

  2. Damage to cane and other crops in 1912 by drouth.

  3. Burning of certain shops in Rusk and Huntsville
  prisons, the losses aggregating $286,931. Neither the
  indebtedness nor operating account were affected to the
  full amount of this loss, for only about $60,000 was
  expended in replacements. But both indebtedness and
  operating loss were further swelled, to an unmeasured
  extent, by reason of the interruption and disorganization
  of industries; for a time there was no work for many of
  the convicts to do.

There was also evidence in the investigation to show that the plan
of organization was imperfect. For one thing, the commissioners were
serving under the statute, with their terms limited to two years, and
they were therefore subject to removal in the event of change in the
office of governor. Also, under this law, they were serving in the dual
capacity of directors and executive officials. The system, therefore,
had three heads of co-equal authority. Much of the testimony indicated
that this system did not work well. The men who wrote the prison bill
in 1910 did not originally intend to provide such a system, but at the
last moment they changed their bill in response to an eloquent plea in
behalf of the “commission form of government.”

When the present Legislature met in special session in July, 1913,
prohibition was still an active issue. Moreover, there were rumors
that Governor Colquitt and former Governor Campbell would contest
for a seat in the United States Senate in 1916, or earlier should an
opportunity arise. Notwithstanding these difficulties or diversions,
the Legislature, upon the whole, seemed sincerely desirous of providing
a solution of the prison system problem. There was, however, no
leadership upon the subject which any considerable number of the
members seemed willing to follow. Indeed, the leaders were not in
agreement. Most of the members confessed their ignorance of the
subject, but in this situation many of them offered remedies of their
own devising. Pride of authority flourished. It had become quite the
style to advocate “humanitarianism;” accordingly many impracticable
propositions were advanced. Most of these were rejected; some found
their way into the bill finally passed.

This bill provided that the members of the prison commission should
hold office for six years, their terms lapping; that they should be
paid $1,200 a year each, and should not be required to give all of
their time to the service. In other words they were to act as a board
of directors. They were authorized to appoint a general manager, and
were not limited to the State to find one. This general manager was
to receive not more than $6,000 a year, and to have full authority to
employ and remove all other officers and employees of the system. The
bill also modified most of the provisions of the act of 1910 which had
been criticized; the limitation upon the hours of labor was slightly
modified, and the per diem requirement was repealed. The provision
of the law authorizing whipping within limitations and with certain
safeguards was permitted to stand.

These features were in line with the recommendations of Governor
Colquitt, but he vetoed the bill because of other provisions. One of
the objectionable features, this in lieu of the per diem requirement,
was an elaborate scheme for profit-sharing as between the State and the
prisoners. Many members of the Legislature and many citizens as well,
thought it ludicrous to embark upon a system of profit-sharing at a
time when there were no profits to be shared, and to bind the State
to stand all losses while sharing the profits of prosperous years. My
personal opinion is that the scheme, in the circumstances and in its
detail, was chimerical.

Subsequent to the adjournment of the special session, as I have
heretofore stated, a new prison commission was appointed, this time
for six years’ terms under the constitution. W. O. Murray, a successful
merchant of Floresville, is the chairman. He served fourteen years in
both branches of the Legislature, devoting himself, as chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations, to the fiscal affairs of the State,
and he resigned from the Senate to become the chief officer of the
prison system. The second new member is C. J. Bass of Terrell, also a
successful merchant. The third new member appointed is W. O. Stamps,
a well-to-do farmer and saw mill man of Upshur county. Mr. Stamps
served two terms in the Texas Legislature and was a member of the
special committee which investigated the prison system in 1909. He is
not exercising the functions of the office to which he was appointed,
for the reason that Commissioner Tittle claims title to the place, and
has been sustained in this contention by a district judge. The prison
organization therefore will remain incomplete until the court of last
resort has passed upon the case.

The new board is assisted by an appropriation of $1,350,860.27 to
pay debts, half of it not to become available until September 1,
1914. It will not clear up all of the indebtedness. The total amount
appropriated to the prison system since the act of 1910 became
effective is $2,210,860.27.

The indebtedness has increased since January 1, 1913, if payments made
out of appropriations from the State treasury are not considered, but
a fair statement of present indebtedness or of losses from operation
in 1913 cannot be made until the farm products of 1913 have been sold.
Cane is harvested during the early winter.

It is known, however, at this time that the crops of 1913 have not
turned out well and that the results of the year’s operations will show
on the wrong side of the ledger. Nevertheless, it is inevitable that a
large sum must be expended to plant and cultivate a new crop in 1914,
the returns from which will not be received until late in the year.

The losses have been increased through damage to the plantations
through the recent floods of the Brazos River. It is estimated that
such damage will amount to $500,000. The indebtedness, however, has
been reduced in effect through a recent opinion of the Attorney
General, holding that the law authorizing per diem payments to convicts
is unconstitutional. The Prison System owed the convicts quite a large
sum of money upon account of per diem, and this indebtedness has in
effect been wiped off the books through the Attorney General’s opinion.

In this situation, it is believed that Governor Colquitt will again
convene the Legislature in special session in January to further deal
with the problem.

In my opinion, the chief needs of the prison system are a plan of
organization of the sort which the Legislature sought to provide in
its recent act; abandonment of the big plantation scheme, and adequate
operating capital. Many penologists coming to Texas from other states
have praised the big plantation scheme; the idea of working prisoners
in the open air and under “God’s sunshine,” rather than in shops,
appeals to them. A more intimate knowledge of the plantation system
might convince these persons that its alleged excellences are largely
moonshine. It should be remembered, for one thing, that most men in
Texas, whether in shops, stores or offices, get more open air and God’s
sunshine than do persons engaged in similar pursuits in more northerly
latitudes. I believed that the big plantation system was bad even when
it was financially profitable, or seemingly so. It has now ceased even
to be profitable. Heretofore, few people agreed with my criticism of
this system. There have been converts; yet, I am frank to say that not
a very great number of persons are in agreement with me. Many now are
opposed to operating the plantations now owned by the State, but most
of these would have the State buy other large farms in a different
section, abandoning the growing of sugar-cane.

Practically all of the able-bodied convicts of the prison system
have been put to work on the plantations regardless of their former
occupations and regardless of their inclination to flee or to foment
trouble. The four big plantations are situated in the valley of
the lower Brazos River, in a wooded country which invites escapes.
Consequently, it is necessary to have a veritable army of officers and
guards. The pay-roll is enormous, although individual compensation is
small. Because the compensation is small there is a constant shift in
the guard personnel. As a rule most of the guards are unfit for the
service. This assertion is supported by the testimony of a number of
the officers of the system. Yet the convicts are directly and wholly
in the charge of these guards the greater part of the time, sometimes
being miles away from headquarters and officers.

The plantations are in a rainy country; the heaviest work of the year,
cane harvesting, is done at a season when the weather generally is
inclement. It is true that free labor encounters the same conditions,
but it is practicable for free labor to go to shelter, while
impracticable to move large forces of convicts expeditiously. Moreover,
free labor, as its name implies, is free to lay off when it so desires;
prisoners, as the word implies, cannot do this.

The Rusk and Huntsville prisons have cells in which usually one, and
not more than two convicts, are kept. But only 16 per cent. of the
total number of convicts are in these prisons. All others are on the
plantations. The act of 1910 called for fireproof cell buildings on
the plantations, but it did not provide funds wherewith to build them.
Moreover, the prison commissioners, like their predecessors in office,
deemed it impracticable and unnecessary to provide such buildings.
Accordingly the new buildings which they have erected are of the old
type, plus some improvements. These farm prison buildings are good of
their kind, but the kind is bad.

They are wooden dormitory buildings. In each dormitory a large number
of convicts are housed, sometimes more than 100. They commingle and
converse freely within certain hours. Among the convicts in every
camp there are agitators, “congressmen” their fellows call them. The
conditions are such as to permit, if not indeed, to invite, immoral
practices, conspiracy and mutiny.

The efforts to employ practically all the able-bodied convicts on the
farms, to cultivate a large acreage, and to meet the varying demands
for labor—this latter necessitating frequent transfer of convicts from
plantation to plantation, and from shops to the farms—has practically
defeated efforts at classification of prisoners as was required by the
act of 1910.

I do not see much hope for the Texas prison system unless provision
shall be made for a business like organization; unless there shall be
substituted for the plantation system a line of industries which will
admit of the convicts being under the actual control of competent and
suitable officers instead of incompetent and poorly paid guards, nor
unless adequate operating capital shall be provided.

In view, however, of the experiences here detailed, I am fearful that
before such reforms shall be enacted the people will grow weary of
footing the bills and will permit a restoration of the contract or
lease system, possibly in disguise. The present situation is not unlike
that of 1870 when the lease system was adopted.




THE PRISON SHIP “SUCCESS”


There is now being exhibited along the Atlantic coast the oldest and
strangest craft afloat in the world to-day. This is the old British
convict ship “Success,” now the only survivor of the “Ocean Hells,” as
the ships of England’s fleet of felon transports were called in the
first half of the last century.

Built in 1790, at Moulmain, by the old pagoda “looking eastwards to the
sea,” the “Success” is now 123 years old. No ship of anything like her
great age to-day is seaworthy, yet this old hulk under her own sail
has succeeded in crossing the Atlantic, her time of 96 days, however,
creating no new record.

Massively built throughout of solid Burman teak, the “Success” was
first launched as an armed East India merchantsman with beautiful brass
guns bristling from her sides and fitted handsomely for the reception
of princes, nabobs and the wealthy traders of the Orient, whose goods,
spices, aromatic teas, ivories, jewels and other costly luxuries she
carried over the seven seas to the ends of the earth. Her tonnage is
589, and she is 135 feet long and 29 feet beam. Her solid sides are 2
feet 6 inches thick at the bilge, and her keelson is a solid teak baulk
of tremendous thickness, with sister keelsons little less massive.
Her square cut stern and quarter galleries stamp her at once with the
hall-mark of antiquity, and her bluff bow shows that she could never
have distinguished herself for a high rate of speed.

Yet pains were taken to make her trim and smart, and fit to hold
a leading place among her sister ships of the Anglo-Indian fleet.
Remnants of great gilded scrolls upon a rich blue ground have been
brought to light, on scratching away the super-imposed coating.
The quarter galleries, too, were originally decorated with massive
and artistic carvings. Escutcheons can easily be traced at regular
intervals from stem to stern, and the fo’c’sle head, raised high aloft
forward, bears at its extremity a symbol of innocence and beautiful
womanhood in the original figurehead of exquisite design—a strangely
inappropriate emblem in the days when crime-stained convicts in
clanking chains put to flight all thoughts of innocence and beauty.

Broken only by an occasional conflict with a pirate craft, the
“Success” had an honored life on the ocean until 1802, when she was
first chartered by the British Government to transport to Australia
the overflow of the home jails, the unfortunate wretches who at that
time were sentenced to from seven years to the term of natural life for
offenses that would now be considered trivial and petty, warranting at
most but a small fine.

Some of the greatest writers of the 19th century devoted their pens
to horror-compelling descriptions of the voyages of the felon-fleet,
of which the “Success” was in her day the commodore or principal
devil-ship. “The Convict Ship” described by Clark Russell in his novel
of that title is in every detail an exact picture of the “Success” as
she is to-day, unchanged after all her years, nothing being omitted
but her human freight and their suffering from the cruelties and
barbarities perpetuated upon them. In “Moondyne,” too, John Boyle
O’Reilly described at first hand the “Hugomont,” a sister ship to this
ocean hell, with a faithfulness which anyone on visiting her must
realize.

The human cargoes on these convict ships died off like rotten sheep.
Here is an extract from an official record of the maiden trip of the
“Success” as a convict ship. Dr. White, the colonial surgeon, reported:—

  “... of 939 males,” he says, in 1802, “sent out by the
  last ships, ‘Success,’ ‘Scarborough’ and ‘Neptune,’ 251
  died on board, and 50 have died since landing, the number
  of sick this day is 450, and many who are reckoned as not
  sick have barely strength to attend to themselves.”

In a further portion of his report, describing his first boarding
of the “Success,” Dr. White said that he found dead bodies still in
irons—nearly all convicts made the full voyage, often lasting nine
months, heavily ironed—below amongst the crowds of the living. Here is
his own words:—

  “A greater number of them were lying some half, and
  others quite naked, without bed or bedding, unable to
  turn or help themselves. The smell was so offensive I
  could hardly bear it. Some of these unhappy people died
  after the ship came into the harbor before they could be
  taken on shore. Part of these had been thrown into the
  harbor and their dead bodies cast upon the shore, and
  were seen lying naked upon the rocks. The misery I saw
  amongst them is inexpressible.”

Engaged in this hideous trade, the “Success” continued to serve until
1851, in which year she was permanently stationed as a receiving prison
in Hobson’s Bay, Australia.

Cells, strong and gloomy, were constructed on the ’tween and lower
decks, and in these the most desperate criminals that England and
Australia could produce were “accommodated.” The lower deck was devoted
to the very worst type of convicts, and only prisoners of the better
class confined in the ’tween deck cells. “Refractory” prisoners were
immured throughout the long days and nights in the noisome dungeons in
the dark depths of the lower hold, and were never allowed on shore on
any pretext. Their only exercise and opportunity of enjoying a breath
of fresh air was restricted to one hour in every twenty-four, when
they were marched from stem to stern upon deck. The exceptionally high
bulkwarks prevented them seeing aught but the strip of blue Australia
sky directly overhead; the white-winged gulls, as they glided over
the vessel, seemed to mock the prisoners in their heavy chains. From
long confinement in the dark cells the eyesight of the convicts was
generally ruined.

The corner cells on either side of the lower deck are the dreaded
“Black Holes,” in which prisoners who had been guilty of some breach of
discipline or fractious conduct were punished by solitary confinement
lasting from one to one hundred days. These small and tapering
torture-chambers measure only two feet eight inches across. The doors
fit as tight as valves and close with a “swish,” excluding all air
except what can filter through the perforated iron plate that was
placed over the bars above the door, in order to make the hole as dark
and oppressive as possible. A stout iron ring is fastened knee high in
the shelving back of the cell, and through this ring the right wrist
of the prisoner was passed, and then handcuffed to the left hand; the
consequence was that he was thus prevented from standing upright or
lying down, but was obliged to stoop or lean against the shelving side
of the vessel as it rolled to and fro on the restless waters of the
bay. Starved, beaten and abused as they were, the wonder is that so
many of even the prisoners were able to endure punishment as they did.

In 1857 the disclosures that had been made of the brutal and inhuman
treatment meted out to prisoners created a fierce outcry in Australia,
amounting almost to revolt against the English Government, and resulted
in the abandonment of the hulk system. For some years later—from 1860
to 1868 the “Success” was used as a women’s prison; then she became
successively a reformatory ship and ammunition store, and later all the
prison hulks were ordered to be sold on the express condition that they
were to be broken up, and their associations lost to the recollection
of the residents of Melbourne. By a clerical error, however, that
condition did not appear upon the terms of sale of the “Success.” Hence
she became the only British convict ship afloat. It was not until
1890, however, that she appeared before the public as an exhibition
ship. In 1892 a gang of Sydney, N. S. W., residents stealthily boarded
her to revenge themselves for the outrage on their pride caused by
the exhibition of their ancestors, and all the figures were mutilated
beyond repair. The figures were replaced, but in order to make their
work more certain she was again attacked, scuttled and sunk in Sydney
Harbor, but after the lapse of some years and at enormous expense her
owners raised her, and since then she has been on exhibition not only
in the Antipodean colonies, but has circumnavigated Great Britain and
Ireland twice, and been shown five times in London. Her visitors have
numbered over 15,000,000 people, and have included the King of England,
the Prince of Wales, the Prince and Princess Henry of Battenburg,
and other members of the royal family, the German Emperor, Captain
Dreyfus of Devil’s Island, Lord Charles Beresford, the late Mr. W. E.
Gladstone, and other “notabilities.”

In 1912 she attempted what was perhaps the greatest feat in all her
remarkable career—that was, to make the passage across the Atlantic
under her own sail, unaccompanied by tug or steamer. The shipping world
was aghast when the voyage was projected. “Impossible,” said every man
that ever sailed the seas in ships, “that this century and a quarter
old hulk could brave the spring hurricanes of the western Ocean!”
Lloyds refused her insurance, the British Government refused her
clearance and sea-captain after sea-captain refused her command, but
finally a stout old skipper, Captain John Scott, and a gallant crew of
adventurous souls under the command of Captain D. H. Smith, the owner,
hoisted sail and took her out of Glasson Dock on the very day that the
ill-fated “Titanic” sailed from the port of Southhampton. For 96 days
she battled bravely, her staunch old hull defying the crashing gales
and mountainous seas and at length made port in Boston Harbor with a
crew, worn out and half starved but bravely triumphant, to the applause
of press and public, who likened the splendid feat to the epoch-making
voyage of Christopher Columbus.

Since then the “Success” has exhibited in Boston, Providence, New York,
Asbury Park, Philadelphia and is now being shown in southern seaports.




PROGRESS IN MASSACHUSETTS

BY WARREN F. SPALDING

  Secretary, Massachusetts Prison Association, and Member
  State Parole Board


The legislation actually enacted during 1913 constituted but a
small part of the progress made in prison reform. A combination of
circumstances caused a reference to the next Legislature of many
measures which had the hearty approval of the leaders in both branches.
The reorganization of the prison commission, late in session, led to
the postponement. It was felt that the new board should pass definitely
upon the proposed legislation.

Governor Foss outlined in messages to the Legislature a program for
prison reform, the spirit of which is likely to be the basis of future
Legislation. The most important of his recommendations is that the
State assume the control and administration of all the county prisons,
on the ground that crime is against the State and not against counties,
and that the care of criminals is a function of the State. This would
make it possible to classify both prisons and prisoners.

If the prisons are to remain in the control of the State, he
recommended that all the long-term men be gathered in a few of them,
and that schools which should give both mental and manual training be
established, at the expense of and under the control of the State,
making the reformation of such men the definite purpose of imprisonment.

The State prison buildings are old, and the construction of a new
prison has been under consideration for several years. To the mind
of the Governor no steps in this direction should be taken until the
entire felon population of the State has been studied, with a view to
the construction of buildings which will provide for the classification
of such offenders, and the establishment of a system of grading and
separation of men who need different methods of treatment. This may
involve the use of the modern part of the present prison for the
worst men, and the construction of new buildings elsewhere, for other
classes, with ample facilities for outdoor work for those who can be
trusted. The Concord reformatory, built originally for a State prison,
and well adapted for it, could be used for the State prison. If that
should be done, it would be possible to have a new reformatory, built
to fit reformatory work. The buildings of the reformatory at Sherborn
are wholly unfit for such an institution, and the construction of
smaller buildings on the reformatory plan is one of the possibilities.

It is expected that the prison commission will report upon these
matters to the next Legislature.

Of completed legislation, the most important measure passed in
several years is the law establishing a board of parole. Heretofore
the prisoners in the State prison and the two reformatories have
been paroled by the prison commission. The work has been done in a
mechanical way, solely on the basis of the conduct of the prisoner,
his fitness to return to the community receiving little if any
consideration. Comparatively little attention was given to the
supervision on paroled prisoners, so long as they did not commit new
crimes.

The new parole board is required to see all prisoners who are to be
paroled, and is making fitness for free life the main consideration in
releasing. Its members are paid for their work and can therefore give
to it all the time needed. When the work is fully in hand, it will have
information covering the entire history of every prisoner, enabling
it to pass intelligently upon the case. The prison commission, which
has the supervision of paroled prisoners, is changing its methods, and
eventually will know the whereabouts and conduct of every individual.

The requirement that men shall become fit to be released is likely to
lead to changes in the prison system, as it is manifestly unfair to
require men to improve in confinement unless the State provides the
means for improvement, and makes that the first purpose in dealing with
them.

The treatment of criminal drunkenness has attracted much attention
recently. There is general dissatisfaction with present methods—short
sentences for punishment—and a feeling that “drunks” should be
separated from other offenders. On the recommendation of the Governor,
a commission was created to study the whole subject of drunkenness and
its present treatment.

In 1911 a law was passed, authorizing the establishment of departments
for “defective delinquents,” with a view to segregating those offenders
whose crimes were due to mental inferiority. No appropriation was
made however, and nothing could be done. The Governor recommended
the erection of buildings at the State farm, and at the reformatory
for women, but the Legislature, instead, authorized the Governor and
council to lease buildings for the purpose. Though the new jail at
Fall River, never opened, is not specified, it seems plain that the
intention was to use that. It is doubtful however if it will be found
suitable.

An important change was made in the law authorizing a suspension of
sentence in cases of minor offenders who have been sentenced to pay
fines. The old law permitted this, but many judges used the power in
comparatively few cases. The new law compels courts to put fine cases
on probation, giving the offender time to pay, unless it is believed
that he will default. It is expected that this will greatly reduce the
number of commitments for non-payment of fines.




COMMISSIONER RANDALL’S REPORT

  [When the man that people like to speak of as “Frank”
  Randall went to Massachusetts from Minnesota as chairman
  of the Massachusetts Prison Commission it was expected
  that he would be “frank.” Here is a summary, from the
  Boston Herald of parts of Mr. Randall’s first annual
  message.]


In an interview given the first of the year by Frank L. Randall, the
new chairman of the Massachusetts Prison Commission, he made several
suggestions for the improvement of the penal system of Massachusetts.

In his six months’ service he has been taking stock of the situation.
While he has found many things that warrant the pride the State
has in her penal institutions, he has found also not a few serious
problems of which the general public know little or nothing. He pays
high tribute to the sheriffs and others engaged in the penological
work of the State. But he discusses a large number of suggestions as
to the supervision of the prison industries of the commonwealth, the
indeterminate sentence, the trying out of applicants for employment as
guards and in other capacities, the pardoning influence of the wardens
and superintendents, and especially as to the very large number of
persons on parole, of whom the State has lost track altogether.

“Did you know,” he asks, “that in this State there are 1,056 persons
from the State reformatory, 217 from the State prison and more than 200
from the woman’s prison who ought to be making regular monthly reports
to the proper authorities but of whom the State knows little or nothing?

“This is a very serious situation. According to the records all these
persons were paroled. The terms of the parole in each and every
case was a regular report every month, that the prison officials,
representative of the power and supervision of the State, might know
exactly the situation of each convicted person who has been liberated
upon obligation to keep the State informed of his movements.

“Some of these persons have never rendered a single report. Others have
reported for a time, and then ceased to trouble themselves about the
matter. In very many cases their whereabouts is unknown.

“Now the sentences of these persons have not expired. They are still
nominally in the charge of the State, which has granted them their
liberty upon conditions. There ought not to be a single such case.
In no instance should the State be ignorant of the whereabouts of a
prisoner unless he is a fugitive from justice. These persons may not
be classed as fugitives, and their sentences have not expired, yet the
State has no trace of them.

“This situation certainly shows a flaw in our system and a serious one.

“I am strongly of the opinion that the prison industries of the State
ought to be differently managed.

“Our boards now are primarily concerned with the welfare of the
prisoners, and properly so. The welfare of the inmate of a penal
institution must come first. But there is a service to the State which
he is rendering, and it is the part of business efficiency to make that
service as large and of as good quality as possible.

“The industries of the penal institutions of the State are not managed
in a business way. Here are hundreds of workers making thousands of
dollars’ worth of goods, and no one who is expert in business affairs
is held responsible for the administration of this industrial system.
The wardens and the superintendents look after these details as one
of their duties. But neither they nor any other official can devote
the time and attention to these industries which they ought to have
in order that the State may get from them the largest return and the
workers themselves derive from them the greatest benefit for themselves.

“The one officer who now gives all his time to the concerns of the
penal system is the chairman of the board, and he has a multitude
of matters to occupy every moment. There ought to be some person
of commercial ability, a trained business man, who should give his
whole time to the dollars and cents of the penal establishment of the
State. Let the commissioner give his attention predominantly to the
humanitarian side of the work. But let us have a trained expert who
shall develop new industries, improve the system of marketing the
product, and look in general after the business side of the prisons
just as the superintendent looks after these matters in any private
enterprise. It will pay the State to consider this matter.”

As he proceeded in his discussion of these problems it became more and
more evident that to the commissioner prison service ought to be a life
work, a professional occupation, to which men should give their lives,
just as they go into law or medicine, and that this should be the case
with the guards as well as with the wardens and the heads of the penal
system of States. This appeared in his discussion of the warden’s
influence on the granting of pardons.

“I myself got caught by my ignorance of one of the kinks in the
laws of the country some years ago,” he said. “It was this way. Out
in Minnesota there was an Indian boy in prison who was dying of
tuberculosis. I investigated his case, saw the proper parties, and went
to the executive with a plea for pardon that the lad might go where
there was a chance for the recovery of his health. I had the influence
of senators and prominent men. And at the last minute I found that I
could not get anything done because my name appeared upon the petition.

“You see, it is assumed that it is not wise for the guard or the
warden to be in any way friendly with his prisoners and at the same
time to have influence for the securing of pardons. He might try to
use his influence for the advantage of his favorites, and give them
their liberty, not because they were ready for it, but out of personal
reasons. That was the old thinking on the subject.

“But the new thinking is better. If you have the right kind of warden
there will be no danger of the abuse of any such power. He will be
so sincere a friend of each and every prisoner that he will not use
his influence to free a man until he is sure the convict is ready to
return to society with safety to himself and to his fellowmen. When you
have that kind of warden his opinion will be the very best that it is
possible to have.

“The same point applies in the case of the guard. The old theory is
that the guard must not talk with a prisoner except on matters of
discipline. He might become interested in a prisoner and that would
be bad for discipline. The new and better idea is that we should have
guards who mean to make penology a serious professional occupation,
a life career, and then their attitude toward a prisoner changes
entirely, and the danger of favoritism disappears.

“In most cases when a man applies for a place as guard we look him over
and tell him to put on a uniform if he bears scrutiny. He may pass
some simple tests in a civil service examination. But what about his
temperamental fitness for the responsibility of the care of prisoners?
That is, perhaps, the most important qualification. As it is, we have
no means of determining it.

“I wish we might have some sort of central agency for the trying out
of prospective guards. When they have made good and manifested a
disposition seriously to study and practice the science of penology
then they become very valuable to the State. Men who go into the
occupation as a makeshift are expensive to the State in the long run.
If we could test him in practice the credentials a man would bring from
that central clearing house would be the best possible guarantee of
fitness.

“The science of penology in this country has advanced with very rapid
strides. But the art of penology has not kept pace with it. And the
reason is suggested in what I have said. There are too few who mean to
make penology a real career. What we need is the type of man who can
see the possibilities of service to the State in his kind of work.

“Another matter which has been already a subject of study with me here
in Massachusetts is the practice we have of mixing in our institutions
two classes who ought to be kept apart. We have the workhouse cases and
the prison cases. The former will include probably the older and the
more confirmed offenders, many who are less hopeful of reformation, the
careless and the professionally delinquent. They come and go and come
back again quite as a matter of course.

“But very many of the prison cases will be younger persons convicted of
more serious offences. They will include many who can be appealed to,
that are not confirmed in crime, who will respond to influence of the
proper sort.

“Now, it is not good policy to mix these cases. The one class comprises
many who are glad to be fed and lodged and sheltered by the State. The
others must not be permitted to learn to think of themselves as thus,
subjects of the State’s care.

“I would have these men sentenced indeterminately, not to be released
until it is evident that they are ready for liberty. They must be
treated as individual cases and adjustments must be made in each
instance. I would place their release in the discretion of certain
officials who may be presumed to be best prepared to say whether or not
they are ready for release.”

In general Mr. Randall referred to the need of the removal of the work
of prison officials from all political and partisan influences and
control. He named the State of Ohio as a community which has lately
taken a very advanced step in penal legislation. The State of Illinois
was referred to as an example of precisely the opposite sort. The
commissioner told of his experiences in attending the annual meetings
of the prison workers of the country, when year after year there will
appear different sets of officials from the same city or State. “How
can there be any real progress, or any development of the art of
penology, when there is so little tenure of office?” he asked with a
smile.

“This country,” he added, “is regarded all over the world as a great
laboratory where all sorts of theories have a chance to be tried out.
This is because of our federal system. The United States has nothing to
do except with a few federal prisons. Each State of the forty-eight has
its own penal institutions. Thus, as you go about the country you may
see almost every sort of plan, the most advanced and the most belated,
in operation. For that reason deputations from foreign countries
are sent here often for observation and study. Massachusetts ranks
high, and deservedly so, although there are many opportunities for
improvement.

“One thing that must be remembered is this, that it is almost
impossible to tell in advance how a plan is going to work. It may be
wrought out with great care. But we have human nature to deal with,
and exceptions to rules occur pretty frequently. Often a seemingly
unimportant provision may prove very valuable. Then it must receive
the place of importance that it deserves, and be adapted to varying
conditions everywhere. And often what has seemed to be important will
turn out to be of very subordinate consequence.”

VERMONT’S STATE PRISON IN “THE HONOR SYSTEM LINE”

  [The Boston Globe has recently published the following
  article. Warden Lovell of Windsor seems to be running
  Sheriff Tracy a close second.]


Wilson S. Lovell, the superintendent of the Vermont State Prison at
Windsor, has advanced ideas concerning the management of convicts.

“When I can’t treat them like human beings,” he says, “I’ll give up the
job.”

Certainly his prisoners have privileges not generally accorded
elsewhere to offenders against the law who are serving sentences.

They are permitted to keep razors and to shave themselves.

If an occupant of the electrically lighted cells doesn’t like the
white-wash on the walls, he can replace it with a paint of cheerful red
or any other color which does not offend his artistic eye.

Many of the men, who have nearly served out their terms, work about the
town under a keeper and on the prison farm. For the work about town
they receive approximately 50 cents a day for their own personal use.

The prison cows are driven out to pasture, some distance from the
institution, but there is nothing in the garb or manner of the persons
who drive them to suggest that they are convicts, but nevertheless they
are. They are allowed to go unattended—in a word are trusted—put on
honor.

The women inmates, who do all the housework of the prison with the
exception of the cooking, which is done by the men, have unprecedented
liberties.

They are allowed all over the place.

One can see them of a morning carrying baskets of clothes to the
clothes-yard outside the walls.

They gather raspberries and strawberries in the prison garden, which is
unsurrounded by any barrier.

In the afternoon, when their work is done, they are at liberty to read,
crochet or sew in their rooms, which are all in a separate building,
and quite as airy and well furnished as those of the officials.

Supt. Lowell indulges them in automobiling, evenings, taking them
out three or four at a time, and when there is a band concert on the
village green they may be seen sitting on the benches of the lawn
facing the street, attended by the prison matron.

Either there is something in the old saying “honor among thieves,” or
else, being treated so well, the prisoners have no desire to try to
escape from their “happy home.” At any rate they seem well content,
look well fed and well kept and are a credit to the “humane treatment.”

Within the last two years there have been none on the sick list in the
prison hospital.

Before the advent of Mr. Lovell the prisoners filed in line to the
yard three times a day, summer and winter, and received their bowls of
soup or plates of hash through a slide which extended outside from the
kitchen. Each one would then go to his cell and eat his portion. They
now have a large dining room with long tables running the length of the
room. Here they are fed upon “the fat of the land.”

There is a splendid vegetable garden in the rear of the prison—the
pride of Supt. Lovell’s heart. Such large, juicy, red tomatoes, rows
of string beans, cucumbers, lettuce and watermelons, beets, squashes,
cabbages, and below a field of sweet corn! All of these vegetables are
used for the prisoners; nothing is sold outside.

They are allowed from three to four ounces of meat a day. They eat
molasses on their bread on week days, great glass jugs of it being
placed at intervals on the long tables; but on Sunday they are given
butter. On holidays, Christmas and Thanksgiving, etc., they have quite
as good a dinner as any one, a turkey and “all the fixings.”

The men of the prison are mostly engaged in making shirts. There is a
long, well-lighted workshop, two stories high. The shop is exceedingly
well equipped with electric lights, electric fans, electric flat-irons,
sewing machines and cutting machines.

At the rear of each man’s chair is a pail of water, a cake of soap, and
on the back of his chair a towel. Under the long work tables, suspended
by hooks, are small mirrors—the personal property of some of the vainer
fellows. So the toilet is not neglected, but scrupulously attended to
at the sound of the bell at noon, and at 5:30 in the afternoon.

The men have a ten-hour day, beginning at 7:30 in the morning, taking a
half-hour off at noon, and finishing at 5:30 P. M.

They seem interested in their work—looking up with good-natured smiles
at the curious visitor.

The men also make their own wearing apparel, everything but shoes and
stockings. This work is done in the State workroom. Here they also
repair their shoes and darn their socks. They also use the room as a
barber shop, but the old fashioned ideas of the shaven poll are done
away with and the prisoner has just an ordinary haircut.

An interesting feature is the store of the prison. In it are the
various specimens of the handiwork of the prisoners. These are for
sale, and comprise watch chains, charms, and hat pins in onyx, carved
wooden boxes, strange wooden birds with spotted wings, and worsted mats.

One of the prisoners, who never took a drawing or painting lesson in
his life, has painted a picture of the River Dorderecht, Holland. It is
well drawn, and the coloring is extremely good for an amateur.

There is a chapel in connection with the prison, and here, on Sunday
mornings at 9 o’clock, service is held, and visitors are welcome. The
choir is composed of some of the prisoners. The women are excluded from
the service, having one of their own in the afternoon, to which the
public is not invited.

Mr. Ford, the white-haired chaplain, calls the men “my boys,” and he
certainly seems to have a wonderful influence over them.

Evenings they sit in their cells reading by electric light, or engaged
in making various things to sell, for which, when sold, they receive
the money. At about 8 P. M. the guard, carrying a lighted torch,
proceeds along the tiers in the men’s section and stops at each cell
to give the occupant light. They are allowed to smoke a pipe, and the
tobacco is furnished by the prison authorities.

An unusual privilege is an opportunity to procure little outside
luxuries with any money which they may have earned. Every Wednesday the
warden or the chaplain makes the rounds of the cells and inquires of
each one what he would like to have purchased. In this way they acquire
many little comforts which they otherwise would not have.




LEGISLATION IN KANSAS

BY J. T. HOWE

Secretary State Board of Control.


The last Kansas Legislature made few changes in the laws regulating the
treatment and government of prisoners in the several prisons. The State
has always endeavored to treat its prisoners as humanely as possible,
and but few laws were ever passed relative to this because the prisons
are under a board that has authority to make all necessary rules for
governing these institutions.

The principal changes made by the last Legislature were in the scope of
the several boards. The penal institutions, namely, the Penitentiary,
Boy’s Reformatory, Boy’s Industrial School and Girl’s Industrial School
were placed under the Board of Corrections. The Schools for the Deaf
and Blind were placed under the control of the Board of Administration
which has charge of all the State Schools. The Board of Control has
charge of the charitable institutions, namely, asylums, State Orphans’
Home and has supervision over all private hospitals, home-finding
societies and charitable institutions in the State.

The two important laws passed were the parole law and the payment of
wages to prisoners. The new parole law permits the judge to parole any
person except in certain cases, before he or she has been committed to
an institution. The law best explains itself.

“Any person convicted of any felony, except murder, forcible rape,
arson, or robbery, such convictions being for a first offense and
imprisonment in the penitentiary, Kansas State Reformatory, or
Industrial Schools for Boys and the Industrial School for Girls, the
court before whom the conviction was made may parole such person either
before or after sentence has been pronounced, if the court is satisfied
that if permitted to go at large he would not again violate the law. He
may be permitted to remain at large until such parole has terminated,
provided that the court shall have no power to parole any person after
he has been delivered to any of these institutions.”

This is considered one of the best laws passed regulating paroles.

The bill providing for the payment of wages to convicts provides that
the Board of Corrections may allow a prisoner not less than $.10 nor
more than $.25 each day for work done, over and above the day’s task
as assigned. This money is to be sent to the family of the prisoner,
which is dependent upon him for their care and keep. If the prisoner
have no family, the money can accumulate until the expiration of the
prisoner’s term and is then given to him. He may draw at any time
from such fund for his personal needs so long as he does not use it
improperly. This law does not fulfill its purpose. Its weakness is that
in the average prison, a convict is assigned about all the work he
can do and has but little time for extra work, owing to his physical
condition. A better plan proposed would be for the State to allow to
the prisoner a specified sum for each day at work, or for the county
from which the prisoner comes to pay the family a certain monthly sum,
paying such sum as may be agreed upon by the county commissioners.
By the old method, the Board allowed them $.033 per day. For certain
offenses the prisoners are fined and the fine is paid from this fund.
The payment of a wage or the providing of some plan of caring for the
needy families is a growing question, and so far Kansas has found no
satisfactory method, but this question will probably be taken up by the
next Legislature.

Another law passed was that permitting the county commissioners,
in counties having over 35,000 population, to appoint a matron for
the county jails. This has often been done, but was never legally
authorized until the last Legislature.

Taking the Kansas laws as a whole, they seem to be adequate to meet the
present prison conditions. The State law places all these institutions
under the Board who have exclusive control in their management and in
adopting of rules and regulations necessary to their government. The
only question is the proper method of dealing with the families of the
convicts. There has been little complaint regarding the treatment of
the prisoners and there will be but few changes in the laws until some
demand is made.




BOOK REVIEW

  _Manual for Probation Officers in New York State. State
  Probation Commission._ Albany 1913, J. B. Lyon Co. Free.


The State Probation Commission should be sincerely congratulated upon
this most valuable manual. Although it is technically limited to New
York State, its usefulness will extend far beyond those limits. Its
principal merit lies probably in the fact that it is a well-indexed,
complete compilation of all the laws pertaining to probation in that
State. The presentation of the material in its analyzed form is an
invaluable addition. The laws are cited both in statutory and in
chronological order. Separate chapters are devoted to the discussion
of the provisions pertaining to the appointment and compensation of
probation officers; of court procedure and practice; of the duties,
powers and methods of such officers. Facsimiles of the forms of
records used, are also taken up in a separate chapter, similarly the
history and functions of the Commission. In the appendix, among other
interesting material, there is also a statistical statement of the
growth of the application of probation in the State.

In a book so full of merit as to opportuneness, thoroughness and
analytical qualities a few suggestions are perhaps even more
justifiable than in a work of fundamental weaknesses. It would seem,
for example, that a chapter presenting the most important phases
of the work in a continuous story-like form, comprehensible to the
ordinary layman, would have increased considerably the reading circle
of the book, and made it available as propaganda material. In the
statistical appendix several improvements could be made. In Table 1,
for example, the totals for any year of all persons are not indicated;
in Tables 2, and especially 3, the development by years is not clearly
presented; in Table 3 it would be very interesting to show the change
in the relative percentages of “improved,” etc. The gaps in the tables
are not satisfactorily explained, and in Table 6, giving the number
of probation officers holding appointments, the totalling of the
individual years is a decided statistical fallacy. Such faults are,
however, of vanishing importance, compared with the immense usefulness
of the work.

The manual may be had by all interested persons on application to the
State Probation Commission, at the Capitol, Albany. N. Y. P. K.




EVENTS IN BRIEF

  [Under this heading will appear each month numerous
  paragraphs of general interest, relating to the prison
  field and the treatment of the delinquent.]


_The Disgraceful Jails of Iowa._—Rev. Charles Parsons, of the Iowa
Society for the Friendless, is on the warpath. He says that “the jails
of Iowa have been condemned and relegated to the junk pile many times,
and yet they go on doing business at the old stand in the same old way,
as if they were the most scientific institutions possible.

“I have spent enough time in the jails of our State during the past
five years to almost entitle me to membership in the jail fraternity.
If the jail has anything to be said to its credit, I have been unable
to find it, though I have searched diligently for it in most of the
jails within our borders.”

“One step in the program for betterment would be to avoid imprisonment
through inability to pay a fine, but give the opportunity to pay the
fine upon installments. This plan would save the culprit his employment
if he has any. It would save his family humiliation and disgrace and
help to save his self-respect.

“Another step in the line of progress would be to parole all offenders
where the penalty is less than 30 days. If they fail to make a right
use of the parole, give a work-house sentence.

“A third step in the program for progress would be the establishment of
district custodial farms with work-house facilities for all prisoners
serving 30 days or more. These district institutions must and should be
under the management of the State.

“Farming, gardening and diversified industries should be followed most
suited to the location of the institution, but such industries must be
used which are most easily acquired. That the labor of short term men
can be profitably utilized in such institutions has been demonstrated
in a number of instances.

“The work-house of Minneapolis is a financial success with men whose
average terms is only 17-1/2 days.

“That such labor can be used outside of prison walls with perfect
safety is shown by the success of the prison camp which has been in
operation for several months past, at Ames, and the hay pressing gangs
that have been working from Fort Madison.

“During 1912, 3,739 inmates passed through the Minneapolis work-house.
All the men worked in the open without walls, yet during the year there
was only one escape.”


_Warden Scott of New Hampshire Retires._—Many are the caustic
criticisms directed at the Governor of New Hampshire, who recently
removed Warden H. K. W. Scott of the State prison, and who appointed in
his place a man of no equal prison experience. Warden Scott held office
from 1905, and has served under five governors of the State, receiving
his appointment from Governor McLane.

The Concord Evening Monitor has published a large number of scathing
criticisms from the State press on the action of the Governor in
removing Warden Scott.

Warden Scott, during his connection with the institution, has abolished
the striped suit, lock step, downcast eye, dark cell and corporal
punishment, which were practiced before his coming, and has instituted
a night school. Instead of a candle each man now has an electric
light in his cell, a grade system has been established and during the
last summer a prison baseball league was organized, in order that the
inmates might have outdoor exercise. Four teams were in the league and
games were played Saturday afternoons.

During the last session of the Legislature Warden Scott worked for the
passage of an act to provide for pecuniary assistance of prisoners and
their families, whereby a certain per cent. of their earnings is laid
aside. The warden had submitted to the Governor and council a plan for
the carrying out of this act, which went into effect September 1, but
as yet no action has been taken.

Charges preferred against him by Rev. Claudius Byrne, a former chaplain
of the prison, were investigated by Legislative committees and proved
groundless.

Warden Scott says that for the present he will remain in Concord, N.
H., as his two sons are attending school.


_Sterilization Law Unconstitutional in New Jersey._—Upon the grounds
that she was denied the equal protection of the laws to which, under
the constitution of the United States, every person is entitled,
the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in an opinion by Justice Garrison,
has set aside the order of the Board of Examiners of feeble minded,
criminals, Epileptics and other defectives providing for the operation
of salpingetomy upon Alice Smith, an inmate of the State Village for
Epileptics.

In reaching this conclusion, Justice Garrison holds that without
regard to the power of the State to subject its citizens to surgical
operations that shall render procreation by them impossible, the
statute creating the Sterilization Commission is invalid because it
denied to the victims of the law the constitutional protection to which
they are entitled.

In the syllabus of the opinion Justice Garrison holds that the
artificial regulation of the welfare of society by means of surgical
operations for the prevention of procreation, being based upon
the suppression of the personal liberty of individuals, must be
accomplished, if at all, by a statute that does not deny to the persons
thus injuriously affected the equal protection of the laws guaranteed
by the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States.

Commenting on this decision, the Springfield Republican says
editorially:

It is constitutional to sterilize defectives and criminals in the
State of Washington, but it is unconstitutional to sterilize them in
New Jersey. The United States Supreme Court will have to settle the
question finally. To the lay mind it would seem that, if the State has
power to break a man’s neck by hanging, or to kill him by electricity,
it would have the lesser power to subject him to a surgical operation,
not in the least dangerous to life or limb, for the protection of
society. The question of constitutionality aside, it is to be observed
that sterilization involves various social questions whose seriousness
should compel caution on the part of Legislatures in authorizing its
practice in public institutions. It cannot be said that the problem
has yet been completely thought out and all the consequences fully
considered. A recent article in a medical journal by one of the
foremost advocates of sterilization was notable for the physician’s
frank admission that the objections to the operation, in their broadest
significance, were very weighty. An operation that leaves the subject
physically as fit as ever for the sex relationship, yet eliminates the
danger of the conception of children, would have very deplorable moral
and social results if it should become in the least common. It is a
question that may easily involve large classes of people outside of
prisons and asylums for the feeble-minded.


_Farm Work in Minnesota._—From the near northwest comes the tale that
twenty-five convicts are to be sent to the State lands near Walker,
Minn., from the State penitentiary at Stillwater, to begin a system
of intensive State farming and land reclamation, according to plans
announced by the State Board of Control, which is compelled to find
employment for more than two hundred men after January 1.

The new laws prevent the prison from taking contracts, and the shoe
contract will accordingly be dropped.

The announcement of the new plan was made after the board had bought
160 acres adjoining the prison farm at Stillwater. This land will be
farmed.

The board has other land adjoining State institutions and owns a large
tract near the State sanatorium at Walker. The men prisoners will be
sent there to clear the land and put in crops. Only the prisoners with
best records will be sent to the farms. If the first detachment makes a
success of the venture others will be sent out.


_Alumni Day at a Reform School._—It does happen! This was what occurred
at the Lyman School for Boys, Westboro, Massachusetts, on November 15,
1913.

The trustees of the School, Superintendent E. L. Coffeen, and
Superintendent of the Parole Department, Walter A. Wheeler, sent
letters to all of the 144 boys who have become twenty-one years of age
the past year, inviting them to a dinner and celebration in their honor
at the school. About one fourth of them attended, and as many more sent
letters of regret, containing remarks of warm appreciation. Some of the
boys were in the Army and Navy; others had moved out of the State. For
any one of the boys to attend, meant the sacrificing of a day’s work
and the cost of carfare.

The program included a football game between the present inmates and
an outside team, a reunion of boys with old officers and teachers, an
inspection of the new features of the school, which they had not seen
in the last five or six years, and finally a banquet.

The usual speeches were made by the trustees, superintendents and
invited guests, but the feature was the voluntary address in behalf of
the boys made by one of their number. After thanking those present for
what the school training and the friendly oversight of the parole board
had done for him, he pledged the old boy’s interests in doing whatever
they could to help the younger brothers “make good” when released from
the school.

It is intended to have a Home Coming Celebration every year, of which
this was the successful experiment.


_After Forty-Three Years._—Pardoned after forty-three years—the best
years of his life—in a State penitentiary! Seeing the new world for the
first time at sixty-six—such is the experience of John Taborn, pardoned
by Governor Cox, of Ohio! Why, it’s like coming to life again after
half a century of death, says the Bay City (Mich.) Times.

When Taborn entered the State prison at Columbus in 1870, Grant was
President. The telephone was unknown; electric lights were not dreamed
of; there were not electric cars; skyscrapers in the largest cities
were four or five-story buildings; Edison had not conceived the
phonograph, while flying machines and wireless telegraphy were the
dreams of madmen. The United States navy consisted of a few iron-clad
and many wooden ships.

When he was pardoned, Taborn was taken about Columbus by Warden Thomas’
secretary to see that he was not confused by the traffic and injured.
He gazed in awe at the electric cars; he got lost in the revolving door
of an office building, the height of which astonished him; he enjoyed
his first ride in an elevator; he smoked a good cigar, but was puzzled
by the safety matches, which would not ignite when scratched on his
trouser leg; he heard a phonograph and talked over the telephone for
the first time in his life.

Despite his sixty-six years, Taborn is active and has keen sight,
reading without glasses. In the prison he learned three trades—that of
machinist, shoe-maker and molding—and plans to begin his last span of
life as a machinist.

When he left the prison he had about $100. The prisoners took up a
collection and gave him $30; the State turned over $20 and Taborn had
about $50 himself. He was placed upon an electric car for a trip to
Delaware, O., from which town he was sentenced for killing a man during
a quarrel. Then he will go to his old home in Cass County, Michigan,
and later to Hillsboro, N. C., where employment awaits him.


_Social Surveys of Delinquency and Vice._—The Russell Sage Foundation
Library publishes the following useful summary:

  _Chicago._ Vice commission. Social evil in Chicago; a
  study of existing conditions, with recommendations. 399
  p. Chicago, the Commission, 1911. (50 cents)

  This report may be obtained through the American
  vigilance association, 156 Fifth Ave., N. Y.

  _Cincinnati_ (Ohio). Bureau of municipal research. (The)
  Juvenile court of Hamilton county. Cincinnati, O. The
  Bureau, 1912. (2 cents).

  _Elmira_ (N. Y ). Women’s league for good government.
  Vice conditions in Elmira. 76 p. Elmira. The League, 1913.

  _Hartford_ (Conn.) Vice commission. Report, July, 1913.
  90 p. Hartford, Conn. Woman suffrage association, 1913.
 (25 cents)

  _Kneeland_, G. J. Commercialized prostitution in New York
  City. 334 p. N. Y. Century Co., 1913. ($1.30 net)

  _Minneapolis._ Vice commission. Report. 134 p.
  Minneapolis, Byron and Hillard, 1911. (40 cents)

  _New York_ (City). Committee of fourteen for the
  suppression of the Raines law hotels. Social evil in New
  York City; a study of law enforcement by the Research
  committee. 268 p. N. Y. Kellogg, 1910. (Out of print)

  _Philadelphia._ Vice commission. Report. Philadelphia,
  The Commission. (40 cents)

  This report may be obtained through the American
  vigilance association, 156 Fifth Ave., N. Y.

  _Portland_ (Oregon). Vice commission. Report, January,
  1912. 216 p. Portland, The Commission, 1912. (Out of
  print)

  _Potter_, Z. I. Delinquency, in Russell Sage Foundation,
  Department of surveys and exhibits. (The) Newburgh
  survey, 1913. Also in Russell Sage Foundation. Department
  of surveys and exhibits. (The) Topeka improvement survey,
  1914. (in preparation)

  _Seligman_, E. R. A., ed. Social evil, with special
  references to conditions existing in the City of New
  York: a report prepared in 1902 under the direction of
  the Committee of fifteen. 303 p. N. Y. Putnam, 1912, c
  1902-12. ($1.75 net)

  _Syracuse_ (N. Y.). Moral survey committee. Report on
  the social evil. Syracuse, N. Y. Moral survey committee,
  1913. (40 cents)


_The State Use Problem in New Jersey._—The Newark News has a plain and
clear statement of the difficulty. New Jersey is finding in going over
from the contract system to the State use plan.

The State Economy and Efficiency Commission is to-day investigating
State prison conditions. The problems before it should concern every
tax-payer, not to mention those who are interested in the great problem
of prison reform. The need for their investigation was indicated
yesterday by the report of the prison inspectors.

The prison of this State is operated under the law of 1814 as it has
been amended from time to time. Its operation is based upon an obsolete
idea of prisons and their purpose: the idea that prisons are places of
confinement under the control of a keeper whose business is, as his
title implies, to _keep_ the prisoners.

To secure revenue for the State, and incidentally, to preserve the
mental and bodily health of the prisoners, provision was made for
hiring out their labor and for this purpose a supervisor was appointed.
The State wards then fell under the jurisdiction of the keeper
and supervisor, whose duties were regulated by statutes requiring
interpretation by the courts.

Then a Board of Inspectors was appointed to see to it that the keeper
kept the prisoners and that the supervisor kept the contracts for their
labor; but the board has neither authority nor responsibility. Finally,
a Labor Commission was appointed to devise a scheme for carrying out
the State-use system of keeping the prisoners busy; an undertaking that
it has proved unable, so far, to carry out.

Two years ago the Legislature decided to put an end to the exploitation
of prison labor as fast as the existing contracts expired. The
contracts bring the State a revenue of practically $100,000 a year,
two-fifths of the cost of running the prison. By abolishing the
contracts, the State forfeits this revenue without decreasing the
expense of the prison.

Employment for the prisoners must be found, and the State is committed
to the principle of employing them for State use, and, at the same
time, of providing healthful employment under the honor system in the
hope that it will prove reformatory as well as physically and mentally
beneficial.

Immediately two difficulties arise. One is due to the fact that
the State law divides without clearly defining authority and
responsibility. The attorney-general has decided that the keeper is
responsible for keeping the prisoners, and the keeper demands that
whether they are kept in the Trenton prison, at the State road camps
or farm, they shall be attended by a greater number of guards than the
inspectors think either necessary or for their moral good. There is
here a question of expense, of the extension of outside work, of the
moral effect of modern prison methods.

The inspectors are hampered, also, in the expansion of the State farm
and road making experiments by the supervisor, who is responsible
for keeping the contracts for prison labor; for the supervisor may
requisition as many of the prisoners as he wishes for contract proviso
of the law, of course; and the keeper must deliver them.

The second difficulty is that existing plans for their work offer
employment for only a small percentage of the prisoners. At the
expiration of the contracts—very soon—the great majority will be forced
into idleness unless the contracts are temporarily extended. To meet
this situation, the inspectors confess they have already broken the law
in order to keep the prisoners at work.

No plan has been devised, no equipment has been installed, for
furnishing labor to this great majority of prisoners. For this there
are several reasons, none greater, perhaps, than the fact that the
Trenton prison is not fitted for this employment unless the congestion
there can be relieved very materially. It might be necessary to make
provision elsewhere for two-thirds of those now confined there.

The Legislature has failed to make appropriations for installing a
plant where the prisoners can make articles used by the State because
no definite plan has been presented to it upon which agreement could
be reached. The working out of the transformation of prison methods
contemplated by the law of 1911 must be evolutionary. It will take
time, and, meanwhile, contracts, it would seem, must be temporarily
extended, regrettable as it is. What is needed, first and foremost,
however, is a clear definition and concentration of authority and
responsibility.


_The First Woman Commissioner of Correction. New York City._—Miss
Katherine B. Davis, formerly superintendent of the New York State
Reformatory for Women at Bedford, took office on January 1, 1913, in
New York City as Corrections Commissioner. She has thus been appointed
by Mayor Mitchell as the director of the Tombs, the penitentiary,
workhouse, three branch workhouses, the Brooklyn city prison, the
Queen’s County jail, and a number of district prisons—enough of a
task even for Miss Davis’s recognized ability. She also has the
construction to attend to of the city reformatory for misdemeanants.
She has associated with her as deputy commissioner, Burdette G. Lewis,
a “social worker at City Hall.” Heartiest congratulations are being
extended to the new heads of the Department of Correction. The readers
of the “Delinquent” know Miss Davis well already.

“Was it as big as my fist?” asked the judge, concerning a stone which
was responsible for a broken window.

“It ban bigger,” replied the Swedish witness.

“Was it as large as my two fists?”

“It ban bigger.”

“Was it as big as my head?”

“It ban about as long,” said the imperturbable Swede, “but not so
thick.”

STATEMENT OF THE OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, ETC. of THE DELINQUENT.
Published monthly at New York, N. Y., required by the Act of August
24th, 1912.

           NAME OF                                       POST OFFICE ADDRESS

  Editor, O. F. Lewis,                               135 East 15th St., New York City.

  Managing Editor, O. F. Lewis,                        ”   ”     ”       ”   ”    ”

  Business Manager, O. F. Lewis,                       ”   ”     ”       ”   ”    ”

  Publisher, The National Prisoners’ Aid Association,  ”   ”     ”       ”   ”    ”

  Owners,     ”     ”         ”       ”      ”         ”   ”     ”       ”   ”    ”


There are no bondholders, mortgagees, or other security holders.

  O. F. LEWIS, Editor and Business Manager.

  Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of September, 1913.

  CHARLES D. IMMEN, JR., Notary Public No. 2. New York County.

  My Commission expires March 31, 1914.




*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE DELINQUENT (VOL. IV, NO. 1), JANUARY, 1914 ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.