nine Industrial Farms.)
AGRICULTURAL PRISON LABOR.
HARRY R. CAMPBELL.
An article prepared for the County Commissioners’ Convention,
Pittsburgh, August 7, 1918.
Agricultural prison labor is strongly advocated by prison authorities
and has been in general use in the penal institutions of Pennsylvania
for many years. The movement for outdoor work for prisoners has
grown rapidly, and as a result, the Pennsylvania legislature, at its
1917 session, extended the scope of agricultural work for prisoners,
and authorized by an Act approved July 17, 1917, the employment of
prisoners, undergoing sentence in county jails, on county or poor farms.
There is no greater curse than idleness. An unemployed prisoner is a
future menace to society, and no effort should be spared to keep him
busy--to impress upon him the dignity and necessity of work, and to
make him know that he is stronger physically and better morally if he
is regularly employed.
Prison labor should be approached with a desire to help the prisoner
and restore him to society cured of his criminal ailment. If the only
purpose in the minds of the authorities is to make a profit for their
district, they are in grave danger of reverting to the old convict
labor system, which at best was only a modified form of slavery.
Agricultural prison labor offers the opportunity of a direct profit
to the district, and places the prisoner in an environment peculiarly
adapted to his own physical and mental betterment. I am informed that
it is used with great success in several counties, including Delaware,
Montgomery, Chester, Berks, Lehigh, Beaver, Bucks, Cambria, Fayette and
Westmoreland.
Another important measure enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature and
approved July 20, 1917, requires the erection of an Industrial Farm,
Workhouse and Reformatory in each of nine districts created by the Act.
Each institution is to be built and managed by a Board of Trustees,
consisting of one County Commissioner from each county in the district,
appointed by the President Judge of the proper Court.
* * * * *
It is the purpose of the institution to keep all persons employed
about the farm and buildings, in growing all kinds of farm produce,
raising live stock and in manufacturing supplies for its own use, or
for the use of the several counties in the district, or any public or
charitable institution owned or managed by any of the district counties.
Prisoners may also be employed in the making of brick, tile, and
concrete, or other road building supplies for the use of the several
counties. All material manufactured shall be sold at prices fixed
by the Trustees, preference being given in the sale to the counties
comprising the district, and to the cities, boroughs and townships
therein.
The cost of the site, buildings and additions thereto, and all fixed
overhead charges are to be paid by the counties comprising the
district, in ratio to their population. All moneys received from the
sale of produce or manufactured articles or supplies shall be credited
to the overhead expenses.
This, in brief, is a digest of the law which is designed to inaugurate
agricultural prison labor on a large scale in Pennsylvania.
The Trustees were promptly appointed by the Courts of the State. The
Fourth district, organized in March with the election of Mr. George
W. Deeds, of Westmoreland County, as president. This board has been
actively engaged in inspecting proposed sites, a number of which have
been offered, but no selection has, as yet, been made.
* * * * *
Another phase of prison labor that must be taken into full
consideration in the establishment of industrial farms, is the
attitude of the Courts in reference to the parole law now in effect.
If the Judges believe that the ends of justice are best served by
paroling convicts, rather than committing them to some institution,
the necessary capacity of the proposed buildings would be materially
affected. In most of the counties but little has been done toward a
general use of the parole law, but in a few of them the Courts are
evidently giving it a trial.
The parole law is regarded with especial favor in Washington County,
where the Courts have at the present time, 672 prisoners under parole.
Every one of this number is employed in the county and must report
monthly to the parole officer, who is also the Court’s employment
agent, and who places every paroled prisoner in a job suitable to his
ability and inclination.
This might be called another phase of prison labor, as industry is one
of the conditions of the parole, and the labor is done by the paroled
prisoners for their own profit and advancement--with freedom to enjoy
their homes and pursue their own inclinations after working hours. So
far has the system been carried, that the Court House, once cleaned
entirely by prison labor, is now necessarily cared for by a paid force
of men outside the draft age. You may better understand why the Court
is going to this apparent extreme, when you know that practically every
industry in Washington County is engaged in war work, and that these
paroled men are placed on farms, and in mines, mills and factories,
where they are helping win the war, though only a small percentage of
them are American citizens and very few are native born.
About 90 per cent. of these men are faithfully complying with all
the conditions of their paroles, 95 per cent. are paying in monthly
installments, the fine and costs imposed upon them by the Court,
and less than five per cent. are proving themselves unworthy of the
confidence reposed in them.
Clearfield County has 10 paroled prisoners; Clinton, 25; Indiana 40;
Lycoming, 8; Lehigh, 104; Center, 6; McKean, 47; Butler, 35; and
Somerset, 64. It is doubtful if the entire number in all the other
counties in the State would equal the number paroled in Washington
County.
Montgomery County has taken a unique step in the employment of prison
labor and uses the 80 inmates of its county jail in knitting socks, on
knitting machines, for the Red Cross. Many other counties employ their
prisoners, in their jails, in useful occupations.
Agricultural prison labor has been tried out in many States with
gratifying success. Down in Alabama there are 325 men at work on State
farms, where they raised 2300 bushels of wheat last year, which is an
excellent record for a section where wheat is not supposed to grow.
Convicts down there are also worked in the Alabama coal mines, and
are producing 4500 tons of coal daily. Their farm prison labor is not
satisfactory, but in the mines it is pronounced superior to free labor.
Nebraska is using agricultural prison labor in a small way outside
State institutions and is meeting with splendid success. Maryland is
having the same experience with about 75 convicts who are helping to
relieve the farm labor shortage. Georgia’s male convicts are employed
on the public roads, and the women prisoners are now engaged in light
farm work.
Michigan is farming 4000 acres, but still found sufficient prison labor
to help the farmers with their harvest last year. Wisconsin has about
100 prison labor farmers and is of the opinion that their work is as
productive as free labor.
New Hampshire objects to agricultural prison labor because it gives
the prisoners no winter employment, and continuous work is regarded
as desirable. Mississippi is meeting with good success on her State
controlled farms, but the law does not permit the use of prison labor
except at State institutions.
Massachusetts is utilizing prison labor on farms, to relieve the
scarcity of farm labor caused by the war, successfully employing about
100 for that purpose. They regard convict labor, properly directed, as
efficient as free labor.
Vermont believes that its present experience justifies a more extended
use of agricultural prison labor.
Kansas uses its prison labor mostly in prison coal mines, but is
diverting some of its convicts to help the farmers during the war. Six
hundred convicts are employed in Florida on State owned farms. They are
meeting with great success and their prison labor is in considerable
demand. Tennessee has a number of convicts employed in agricultural
labor. The men have gained in health and earned a profit for the State.
Connecticut uses her prison labor on roads and farms. They think it
is better and more efficient than available free farm labor, and the
farmers of the State are well satisfied with the results obtained.
Minnesota uses prison labor on roads, and is conducting State
agricultural farms with success. Nevada uses prison labor to harvest
crops on shares. They report the cost disappointing and think their
best results are obtained with agricultural prison labor on State
farms. Virginia uses its prison labor for grinding agricultural lime
for fertilizer. The State employs about 250 convicts on its own farm,
in agricultural work, and finds the work beneficial to the prisoner as
well as to the State.
Illinois is making a special effort to utilize its prison labor, not
only to relieve the scarcity of farm workers, but to help in all other
war industries. About 100 men have been paroled especially for farm
labor, and 350 are successfully employed in factories where equipment
for the government is being manufactured.
The great war has brought forth one outstanding fact in
criminology--no matter what his instincts may be in times of peace,
the convict is a patriot, according to his lights, in time of war, and
in all my investigations, covering practically every eastern, southern
and middle western State, I have not learned of a single prisoner who
violated a parole given him to engage in work that would help win the
war.
Iowa is operating nearly 3000 acres by agricultural prison labor, and
is making a wonderful success, not only from a financial viewpoint but
also in fitting the convicts to regain their place in society.
Indiana has done wonders with prison labor along agricultural lines,
having established one large Industrial Farm for misdemeanants. In
addition, the State is utilizing its prisoners to a considerable
extent to relieve the scarcity of farm labor caused by the war. About
100 convicts built sidings to coal mines to get out fuel for the war.
At the time of a disastrous flood they worked day and night, without
guards, saving by their efforts thousands of dollars worth of private
property. They were also successfully used at the time of a severe
tornado, recovering the lost, and clearing away the debris. Indiana
does not favor the use of prison labor on public roads.
North Carolina is working 500 prisoners on State owned farms with
excellent success, and in addition is helping out the farmers to some
extent. The State also employs about 100 men on the highways, but
believes road work by prison labor is good for the roads but bad for
the men.
New York thinks that every available prisoner should be employed, but
because of constitutional limitation cannot use its convicts on private
farms. Practically every penitentiary and county jail in the State
is employing its prisoners either at gardening or farm work on State
or county owned or leased farms. Food production has been materially
increased by these concerted efforts towards agricultural products,
and the prisoners themselves are benefited by the outdoor work. Prison
labor is also extensively used on the public roads.
A notable example of the successful employment of agricultural prison
labor, that is coming into more than local prominence, is in our own
State of Pennsylvania, where Warden Francies is working wonders with
his advanced methods at the new penitentiary at Bellefonte.
WASHINGTON, PA., August 7, 1918.
THE FINANCIAL ARGUMENT FOR A COUNTY PRISON FARM.
It will be generally granted that useful employment in the open air
will be beneficial, but let us also consider the financial side of
the proposition. It will be remembered that the General Assembly of
1917 passed a bill providing for the establishment of nine Industrial
Farms, to which convicts usually sent to the county jails may be
sent for discipline and employment. I am indebted to Mr. Harry J.
Campbell, of Washington, Pa., for some statistics from nine counties
in the southwestern part of the Commonwealth, constituting one of the
Districts in which an Industrial Prison was to be located. In order
to determine whether such a Prison Farm would be remunerative, Mr.
Campbell collected the statistics from these nine counties which afford
fairly conclusive proof of the economy of the proposition.
These nine counties in 1917 sent:--
179 prisoners to the Allegheny Co. Workhouse at a cost of $20,869
532 “ “ “ Western Penitentiary “ “ “ “ 102,401
313 “ “ “ Morganza (Boys & Girls) “ “ “ “ 60,267
122 “ “ “ Huntingdon Reformatory “ “ “ “ 13,742
409 “ “ “ County Prison “ “ “ “ 81,381
---- --------
1555 “ “ “ various prisons at a total cost of $278,660
If a Prison Farm were established, they would send none to the
Allegheny County Workhouse.
It is estimated they would send to this farm one-fourth of those sent
to the Penitentiary.
They would send to the Farm one-tenth of those sent to Morganza.
Likewise, one-third of the number sent to the Reformatory (some have
estimated the number to be one-half).
The number of prisoners held for trial at the County Jail varies from
one-tenth to one-half of the whole number imprisoned. However, we will
estimate those convicted at one-half of the number. Hence, to this
Penal Agricultural Institution a minimum number of 587 may be sent,
according to the last available statistics.
The funds available for such Institution may be computed as follows:--
Money heretofore paid to the Allegheny County Workhouse $20,869
One-fourth the cost of prisoners at the Western Penitentiary 25,600
One-tenth the cost of prisoners at Morganza 6,026
One-third the cost of prisoners at Huntingdon Reformatory 4,580
At the County prisons there are certain overhead expenses
which must be taken into account. Estimating that one-half
the number in the County Jails would be removed to
the District Farm, and that the cost of maintenance
amounts to 50c daily for each prisoner, the saving would
amount to 30,782
-------
Total estimated sum available for the District Farm in one
year from nine counties $87,857
Let us be entirely fair in our estimate. The 587 prisoners
are expected to earn a large part of their maintenance;
but should we estimate the net cost of maintenance at 25c
daily per prisoner, the cost amounts to 53,563
-------
Balance $34,294
This balance would go far toward meeting the expense of purchasing
and stocking the farm and providing the temporary buildings which
may be constructed by the prisoners themselves. The saving to these
counties in two or three years would suffice to purchase and equip the
plant, and with efficient management, the Penal Farm ought soon to
be self-supporting--a result not only satisfactory to taxpayers but,
what is far more important, in the highest degree beneficial to the
delinquent in whose restoration the community is vitally interested.
These facts have been gleaned from a study of nine counties, but it
must be remembered that the bill now before the General Assembly
provides for the establishment of such an Institution by almost double
the number of counties, hence it is apparent that within two or three
years the entire expense of the farm and its equipment will be returned
to the managers and with self-support practically assured, the future
expense of caring for such delinquents will be reduced to a minimum or
will entirely vanish.
A. V. H.
STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC CHARITIES AND PRISON LABOR.
We gladly present the following facts which have been gleaned from
interviews with Edward Wilson, Esq., one of the agents of this Board.
So far as prison labor is involved, the Board of Public Charities has
been deeply interested in developing the possibilities of an Act which
on their initiative was passed and approved in 1917. This allows the
employment of prisoners on lands belonging to any county.
In 1915 Judge Isaac Johnson, in Delaware County began a system of
employing prisoners which the Board desires to extend. In the year
1918, the receipts from the crops produced by the labor of prisoners
amounted to $14,000, in addition to a large amount of vegetable
products consumed at the prison. The net profit is near $7000. Report
comes that Berks County will be able to supply the prison with
vegetables for the winter. Northampton County employed fifteen to
twenty prisoners on a small farm recently purchased. Dauphin County had
a few prisoners at work on the almshouse farm. In Montgomery County
from fifteen to twenty prisoners have been employed on the Poor farm.
In Columbia County seven Italians are engaged in operating a war garden
which it is said has been very profitable. In one or two counties with
large population, there is no land available for such purpose. Mr.
Wilson states that little or nothing has been accomplished in this
direction in those counties whose jail population is small. At one time
in the year 1918, there were 13 counties without a prisoner. In some
counties prisoners have worked on the roads. A few counties have been
willing for selected prisoners to be paroled to farmers.
Mr. Wilson is inclined to the belief that in some of our counties, the
prevailing type of prisoner is too vicious to be allowed the freedom
which belongs to the cultivation of the soil. From observations
elsewhere we are inclined to the belief that the vilest man or woman,
unless defective in mentality, will respond when treated with kindness
and made to feel that he or she is trusted. Granted, however, that it
may be considered unwise to send all prisoners without reservation
to work on the farm, under the system proposed by the Commission to
investigate Prison Systems, and whose Report to the General Assembly is
found elsewhere in this number of the Journal, all the State Industrial
Prison Farms are to foster some industry or industries aside from the
horticultural and agricultural employments. On these farms there will
be found opportunity for the employment of all prisoners, whatever may
be their character or temperament.
Last year in a casual inspection of the prison at Wilkes-Barre, the
secretary announced that he considered 46 out of the 75 prisoners would
be available for an Industrial Farm. Mr. Wilson after a very careful
study of the situation concluded that 11 could be sent to work on the
outside. Now something depends on the viewpoint. If the State should
own an Industrial Farm fully equipped for the permanent accommodation
of prisoners with diverse industries, Mr. Wilson probably would add
materially to the number which might be sentenced to the penal farm
instead of to the county prison affording so little opportunity for
continuous profitable labor. The secretary consents to some reduction
of his estimates, if real employment with some remuneration can be
supplied at the county jail. The tendency of this practical age is to
give regular employment to all those whom we for a time exclude from
community freedom, and to place over them officials who will direct
these industries.
HOME OF INDUSTRY.
This Institution which we allowed some 30 years ago to pass beyond our
control, perhaps to its advantage, has just issued a Report of its work
for the year 1918. There was some honest difference of opinion in 1890
as to the value of this enterprise, but we believe the principal reason
for the abandonment of the project by The Pennsylvania Prison Society
was the lion in the way in the shape of a financial bugaboo.
During the last year this institution cared for 275 men, keeping
them on an average of 32 days for each man. Their industries have
contributed $9,422 toward its own support.
We have always thought that the institution should be removed to a
farm. In 1917 some of the men did work on land which they secured
and the results were very favorable. In 1918 they entered upon the
same work with high expectations, but from a variety of causes the
agricultural operations have not been prosperous. Labor went elsewhere.
We hope for better results next year.
We recommend this Home as worthy of continued support.
MILITARY DISCIPLINE AND PUNISHMENTS.
The Committee on Public Information acting under the authority of the
United States Government have from time to time published and issued
pamphlets giving some extremely valuable facts and explanations with
regard to the Great War and dealing with its causes and results. Not
the least valuable among these circulars is No. 113, issued March,
1918, and devoted to “German Militarism and its German Critics.” This
handbook contains forty pages and is compiled from sources which the
Government regards as sufficiently reliable to justify extensive
circulation. It may be obtained by any one who will send request,
and refer to it by title, from the Committee on Public Information,
Washington, D. C.
From this document we quote a few instances of brutality which have
been presented by credible witnesses:--
1. “A Polish recruit was maltreated so fearfully by an officer
that he finally hanged himself. The officer induced the soldiers
to certify that they had seen nothing.
2. “An officer struck a sick recruit repeatedly on the chest so
that he screamed with pain and soon thereafter died in a hospital.
4. “Soldiers were struck in the face during instruction....
Witness saw hundreds of times helmets pressed down and the bands
which held them under the chin pulled so that the soldiers grew
red in the face. Alsatians and Lorrainers particularly were
maltreated and frequently called ‘French Skulls’ and worse. The
officers warned the men against complaining, promising worse
treatment if they dared to report these outrages.
5. “During the maneuvers no day passed without brutality....
Boxing of ears, blows, even with the sword and riding-whip, were
daily occurrences.... Complaints were omitted for fear of the
consequences.”
Enough. In the circular it is stated that at a certain military trial
in Germany, held in 1914, 922 men from all parts of Germany had
signified their willingness to give testimony and were ready to report
some 30,000 separate instances of brutal treatment of soldiers.
Hence it seems apparent that the spirit of dominant militarism is
arrogant, ferocious, brutal. It harks back to the time of medieval
tortures. By the circulation of Tract No. 113, the Government of the
United States has indicated its abhorrence and utter condemnation of
such cruel and inhuman methods of enforcing discipline. Naturally we
expected that our army officials would not for a moment countenance
such arbitrary and tyrannical treatment of offenders.
When we take into consideration the inexperience of this nation with
large armies, there is cause for congratulation that the instances of
cruelty and unwarranted severity have been proportionately so few. And
yet there have been some instances of pitiless malevolence inflicted
upon a class of offenders who least deserve it. We are aware of the
penalties for disobedience to orders which naturally belong to a
military system. In accordance with the military code, disobedience is
a heinous crime. So when the officials were confronted with refusal to
obey orders, even though the offenders were of the highest character,
the mind of the militarist could view the offense from only one angle.
We are referring to the treatment accorded to some--not all--of the
“conscientious objectors.” They constituted an exceedingly small
proportion of the American Army which at the time the armistice was
signed numbered 3,665,000. The number altogether of those conscripted
whose religious convictions forbade them to use carnal weapons was
about 3,900--less than one-ninth of one per cent. of the vast American
Army.[3] Of these 1,300 accepted non-combatant service and 1,500 were
allowed to be employed on farms or to aid France and Belgium in the
work of reconstruction of their ruined homes and devastated lands.
Our latest advices inform that 527 of these “conscientious objectors”
have been court-martialed and sent to the Military Prison at Fort
Leavenworth. A majority of these belong to religious bodies whose
creeds are opposed to war. These men were not hunting for trouble.
Conscription brought them from their peaceful homes and from their
farms where they were so much needed to aid in increasing the food
supply of the nation. They were living inoffensively and were brought
into difficulties by no overt act. It is not our intention to uphold
or combat their interpretation of “The Sermon on the Mount.” They were
men who were regarded as useful, upright members of the communities
where they resided. Some of them belonged to bodies whose members
have been foremost in every philanthropic effort for the last two
centuries. We may attach no special virtue to works of superogation,
yet we venture to suggest that men and women who in times of peace have
been foremost in honest industrial pursuits, who have been prominent
in all movements to advance the best interests of the community, who
have devoted their time and their means lavishly to social betterment,
should in time of war be entitled to some consideration on account of
their past services in the uplift of humanity. Between the ages of 21
and 31, less than one to every 36,000 were found who claimed immunity
from military service on account of their creed, and as many of these
accepted some form of non-combatant service, the number absolutely
refusing to comply with any military command was less than one out of
60,000 conscripts. Would it not have been wiser to allow these men
to continue their lawful avocations on the farm, in the shop, in the
mills, than to support them in idleness, to detail a special force to
guard them, and to ruin their health by harsh treatment?
The Hofers case is an authentic instance of an infliction of tortures
by methods which acknowledge no obligation outside of military
authority. Jacob Wipf and the three Hofer brothers were members
of the Huttrian sect, a small body residing in California, “They
believed, with an intense conviction, that their duty to their God
utterly precluded any submission to military command.... It must be
remembered that this was no degenerate whim, nor yet the stubbornness
of criminals--it was the highest spiritual conviction of deeply
religious men.” They refused to wear the uniform. A mere outline of
the penalties will suffice. Thrown into the “Hole,” 30 feet below
the base of the building at the level of the sea. Murky atmosphere.
Stripped to underwear. Handcuffed to an iron bar so that their feet
barely reached the floor. Remained strung up for 36 hours. No food;
one glass of water. Repeatedly beaten with clubs. Then for five days
exempted from “hanging up,” but confined without food, or sufficient
clothing. The authorities were finally broken, not these God-fearing
men. It seems like a tale from the “Book of Martyrs,” not an event in a
civilized nation. They were released from the dungeon broken in health,
afflicted with scurvy, and after suffering a lot of petty persecutions,
were transferred to another prison in a colder climate. Here they
were placed in “Solitary,” with diet of bread and water, strung up
for nine hours a day, forced to sleep on the floor. The cold draughts
had a natural effect. When it was learned that they were ill, they
were removed to a hospital where two of them died in a few days from
pneumonia. The surviving brother, though scarcely able to walk, was
mercifully released to accompany the dead bodies of the two brothers
to their homes. Military vengeance was satiated. It is incredible to
believe that such methods in this enlightened age are used.
From the New York World, we note the following instances of treatment
accorded to “objectors” at Camp Funston. Sleeping on bare floor. No
food all day. Kicked repeatedly. Beaten with rifle butts, pricked with
bayonets, dragged over filth, choked till they are breathless, placed
under a cold shower at midnight, clothes and all, hung temporarily by
the neck, some rendered insane for the time. It is hard to realize
that such things could happen in America. Do we not speak of civilized
warfare? Does war necessarily make fiends of men prematurely? It is a
pleasure to report that the officers at Camp Funston responsible for
these outrages were either dismissed or removed to a different field.
The larger proportion of those imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth belong to
the peace-loving, inoffensive, industrious Mennonites. Take the case
of the Amish Mennonites. Last summer 45 of these quiet people were
sentenced to life imprisonment for refusing to obey the orders of their
inferiors in many points of view except that of military rank. This
sentence was commuted to an imprisonment of 25 years. Twenty-seven of
the same sect were sentenced from 10 to 20 years each for a similar
offence. Virtually in every one of these 72 cases, the crimes consisted
in a refusal to don uniforms. Most of them have longer sentences than
are usually dispensed for manslaughter.
The length of these sentences and also of many other sentences
pronounced upon others who have broken the regulations of the military
code has been made the special object of investigation by Congress.
The excuse that some of these excessively long sentences were military
bluff for the deterrent effect and were never intended to be carried
out in full is irrational. If such statement is correct, our system
of military court procedure ought to be overhauled and renovated. We
are not contending that offenders should go unpunished, we are merely
insisting that the penalties prescribed shall be commensurate with the
offense, and shall be consistent with modern jurisprudence.
Let us be thankful that the instances of cruelty and preposterous
punishments have been so few. Grant that some of the reported instances
are a species of brutal hazing, that some few bone-headed young
officials “drest in some brief authority,” with an overweening sense
of their importance, have taken a narrow view of military discipline,
still there have been sufficient complaints to elicit the following
editorial in the sober Public Ledger of Philadelphia.
TORTURE FOR MILITARY PRISONERS?
“If any branch of the Government’s military activities calls
for an instant and searching investigation, it is certainly the
treatment accorded the “conscientious objectors” in the military
prisons to which they have been sent by court-martial. Even if
half the allegations contained in the complaints concerning the
prisoners of this type, at Governor’s Island, New York, and
at Fort Leavenworth, are true, the conditions demand instant
correction and those responsible therefor summary punishment.
“In times of war severity of treatment, within the limits of
humanity, is to be expected by those who refuse to fulfill
their obligations to the nation; but the term ‘severity of
treatment’ is an euphemism when used to describe the experiences
of conscientious objectors, shackled, unclothed, for hours to
cell doors, kept for days in dark cells, and forced for weeks to
subsist under physical conditions which the law would not permit
in the case of animals. If these charges are substantiated, and
the outraged sense of justice of the nation demands that they be
either substantiated or disproved, then the drastic revision of
military law and practice is an imperative duty of Congress which
it dare not ignore or neglect.
“There is abundant reason to believe, in the severity of the
sentences permitted to be imposed by army courts-martial, that
there is lacking in the military mind that sense of fitness and
of humanity which is in accordance with the age in which we live.
The United States cannot with clean hands ask the nations with
which it is allied in the war to humanize the laws of war while
it tolerates inhumanity in the enforcement of its own military
regulations at home. Recalcitrant soldiers offer a difficult
problem, of course; but the fact is a greater reason for dealing
with such offenders with tact and, above all, with humanity.
Torture has no place in the penology of the day, and least of all
in the service which prides itself on its patriotism.”
The Acting Committee of The Pennsylvania Society, having been informed
of some instances of punishment which seemed to resemble soulless
European autocratic methods, sent the following remonstrance to
Secretary Baker:--
“The Pennsylvania Prison Society learns with astonishment and
a profound sense of sorrow of the brutal methods of punishment
employed in some of our Federal Prisons upon military
offenders--especially upon so-called “Conscientious Objectors”
whose only offense is a consistent adherence to their sense of
duty. The studied attempt to break the spirit of prisoners at
Fort Leavenworth and elsewhere by unspeakable cruelty suggests
the practices of a barbaric past rather than those of a civilized
and enlightened people. Granting that a Nation must at times deal
firmly with political offenders, can any crime ever justify the
employment of cruel and inhumane treatment? If such barbarous
punishment has the sanction of law, then an outraged sense of
justice demands the immediate revision of our Military Code.”
The following note was received, which indicates that the War
Department at Washington has taken measures to relieve the harsh
conditions.
“FEBRUARY 6, 1919.
“... The War Department immediately upon having conditions at
the Disciplinary Barracks called to its attention, instituted an
investigation. The report of that investigation disclosed the
fact that the trouble at Leavenworth was due, not at all to the
administration of the prison, but to the regulations which were
ill-adapted to the unusual type of prisoner that the Selective
Service Act brought to military prisons. The Secretary at once
made some appropriate modifications of those regulations and has
called a conference to consider further changes in disciplinary
regulations, not only to meet this unusual condition but to bring
the Army’s disciplinary methods up to the most modern penological
standards, in case they shall be found to be deficient. The
conference will also consider ways of meeting the immediate
emergency of the overcrowding of disciplinary barracks due to the
increased size of the Army during the war. The conference will
come to its conclusions in the near future and you may be assured
that action leading out of its conclusions will be promptly
taken.”
“Very truly,
“F. P. KEPPEL,
“_Third Assistant Secretary_.”
Confidential orders, recently made known, of the War Department,
issued in October, 1918, prescribed that those conscripts, refusing
on account of conscientious scruples to perform military service,
should not be treated as traitors or as guilty of rank insubordination.
The Government thus in some form recognized the validity of their
scruples. As a rule such persons were entirely segregated from the
other men. For a time solitary confinement was discontinued, but we
regret to report that at the military prison at Leavenworth some 25 of
these objectors have recently been remanded to cellular isolation. One
of these men has for some time been engaged in Christian work under
the auspices of the Y. M. C. A. Very recently he received a visit
from a gentleman in whose office he had often been a visitor, but his
mind seemed a blank, as he did not appear to recognize his visitor
who called to offer services. This mode of punishment was having its
logical effect.
We fully endorse the attitude of the U. S. Government as indicated in
its Official Bulletin, No. 113, page 5:--“Accustomed as these leaders
have been for many years to universal military service, to a large
standing army, ... to marked class distinctions, they have absorbed,
and are now wedded to, certain notions which to us, who have grown
up under very different conditions, seem like worship of constituted
authority and the unwarranted surrender of individual responsibility.
The gradual development of these very notions has brought about an
inordinate influence of the military group in public affairs.”
We rejoice that our Government so clearly sets forth the evils of a
military authority, the spirit of which is so manifestly opposed to the
genius of our free institutions.
On behalf of the Editorial Committee,
J. F. OHL,
FLORENCE BAYARD KANE,
ALBERT H. VOTAW.
PRISON EXPERIENCES.
Within the last few years the general public has been informed of the
real life of the convict by intelligent observers who have suffered a
few days of incarceration in order to gain an insight into the actual
effects of imprisonment. The accounts were interesting and instructive,
but we now have another opportunity to acquire knowledge of prison
conditions from some intelligent and conscientious persons who have
been imprisoned without resorting to a fake process in order to have
such experience. We refer to a class of offenders who from religious
scruples and in some cases for other reasons have disobeyed the
military requirements. We hold no brief for these offenders, but the
observations of some of these persons are a decided contribution to the
science of penology. Making due allowance for hasty conclusions arrived
at from a brief period of incarceration, and also after insufficient
opportunity to grasp the subject in its entirety, nevertheless, the
facts related, and the arguments and deductions derived from their
experiences should appeal to all who have interest in the reformation
of criminals.
Rev. Evan Thomas, a young man of deep religious conviction, and of a
keen sense of injustice, has recently published in _The Survey_ some
details of prison life in the Federal Prison at Leavenworth, Kansas.
We quote some portions of his article.
“The burden of prison life as I experienced it, however, was not the
physical hardships but the unspeakable moral filth and vice to which
one is constantly exposed. I could not have believed many of the things
I heard and witnessed at Fort Leavenworth had they been reported to me
before going there. No sexual vice or moral depravity is too low for
some of the men confined there. The Disciplinary Barracks have been
called the ‘cess pool for the dregs of the army.’ But many a fine young
soldier whose only offense was to overstay his leave or be the helpless
victim of the antiquated military law in this country, has found his
way among the ‘dregs’ of the army; and as for the others, the great
majority are the products of our reform schools, orphan asylums and
jails. These men are indiscriminately grouped together in the prison.
It is true that there are two so-called honor wings for prisoners
in the Disciplinary Barracks, but I was never able to discover just
what was necessary to be assigned to these wings. The information
generally given me by other prisoners was that it was necessary to do
‘some hand-shaking’ first. As a matter of fact, as nearly as I was
able to learn, the power lay very largely in the hands of a group of
prisoners, who through clever politics and the holding of certain
important jobs in the executive office and elsewhere, were able to
control things to a large extent. I was told that even in these honor
wings moral conditions were bad, but in the other wings where men were
indiscriminately alloted, it often happened that diseased men were
assigned to the same cells with others who had to share the same toilet
facilities. The sixth wing, composed of eight tiers of open cells, each
of which contains three double-decked cots and six occupants, is known
as the ‘mad-house’ by the prisoners. Any thoughtful reading, writing or
study in this wing is next to impossible. Before going into solitary
confinement as a protect against the severe treatment accorded to such
conscientious objectors as refused to work, I spent one day in this
wing and the thought of ‘solitary’ lost much of its dread for me.
“It is certainly possible for the man of wide interests or strong
character to live in such surroundings without any great degree of
moral harm to himself, but for the young, the weak, the very immature,
such conditions are nothing short of ruinous. The conversation is
confined largely to sex, ‘booze’ and the personal daring of the
prisoners. No crime is too terrible and no feat too desperate for most
of these men in their talk. The menace of this sort of thing to those
whose interests are almost entirely within the prison walls is the
most insidious and destructive thing imaginable. Yet no real effort
is made by the authorities to group the prisoners so that at least
some of the men could be spared a great deal of temptation. Much more
serious is the fact that the prison life itself is not calculated to
give a man any interests but those of the basest sort. Self-government
is practically unknown at Fort Leavenworth except in the honor wings,
where I believe the occupants are allowed to elect their own orderlies.
“At the Disciplinary Barracks there is a department of psychiatry which
takes a very careful record of every prisoner’s history and this record
is faithfully verified by the authorities through letters and other
means of information. But once this record is completed and on the
files, apparently everything has been done that is required. So far as
I was able to observe, at least, no really constructive efforts were
made to relieve the conditions in the wings which I have spoken of,
where a man of refined sensibilities is often quartered in the same
double-decked bunk with a degenerate or a moral pervert.
“THE FAILURE OF PUNISHMENT.
“The condition of affairs which I have been attempting to describe
is greatly aggravated by the fact that the idea of punishment and
discipline reigns supreme in the prison. Much is said in the rules and
regulations about the aim of the institution being to improve every
prisoner and turn each man out a better and more useful individual than
when he came in. That is one of the standing jokes of the prisoners
and not without reason, for one has only to read the book of rules
itself to see that the military tradition of punishment and discipline
is the medicine which is expected to work this great transformation.
But unfortunately most of the occupants of a military prison are there
because of their failure or refusal to accept this military tradition.
They are there because they are weak, mentally and morally, or too
independent for the army or because they object to it on principle.
“So far as I have had experience in life I have yet to observe anything
more absolutely negative in its purpose and effects than this method
of discipline. The prisoner who has the distinction of having been
longest at Fort Leavenworth, had only two more days of his sentence to
complete when a guard called him a vile name, and utterly regardless of
the inevitable consequences this prisoner knocked the guard down with
a brick. He has since received several extensions of sentence because
of other defiant acts. The ball and chain, solitary confinement and
all the other repressive measures of the prison system have some way
not succeeded as yet in turning this man out of prison a ‘better man
than when he came in.’ There unquestionably is a criminal element in
prison that is a menace to society, but depraved or vicious as some
of these men may be, there is yet some good in every one of them and
possibilities of truly chivalrous conduct in all of them when properly
treated. But the ball and chain, the iron rule, the cursing and foul
threats by guards do not seem to bring out the good side of these men.
“Not long before I was released two men were caught fighting in the
corridor of the wing near my cell. These two men were not equally
guilty. To go into the details of the case would require more space
than I have, but the point I wish to bring out is that they both were
at once taken to the executive officer of the prison and in ten minutes
were back, sentenced alike, to ten days in the ‘hole’ on bread and
water. The great object of such prison punishment is to break a man,
make him humble, meek and obedient. When this is done the process of
making a man of the prisoner seems to be considered completed. A guard
once told me while I was in solitary that when he chained a man up
backwards as punishment for talking in solitary, as used to be done, he
was generally kind-hearted enough to let the man down if he repented
and asked for it in the ‘right spirit,’ but if the man was too ‘damned
proud to show how much it hurt him he would let him take his medicine.’
I mention this because to my mind it is typical of the punishment and
discipline idea of the prison. Actually what happens in this process of
breaking is that the prisoner in the great majority of cases is shoved
still further down the scale of degradation and lack of self-respect.
He becomes either flabby or vicious. This is especially true of such
criminal types as need the helpful, sympathetic and human advice and
correction of trained men above everything else.
“It is my belief that at the bottom of all that I have been trying to
tell, lies not the dishonesty or cruelty of individual officials but
a state of mind shared largely by us all, even prisoners themselves
oftentimes, viz., the idea that the convict is something apart,
something taboo, a person who has forfeited all the rights of normal
human beings, and with this idea goes that of punishment, the ingrained
belief that the only way to deal with viciousness or wrong-doing is to
keep the big stick constantly at hand. This certainly is the theory
of our prisons if one is to judge from the products of our reform
schools and jails whom I met at Fort Leavenworth. These men very
largely had grown up with no other idea of life than that of the big
stick. Put one of these prisoners in authority over others and in the
majority of cases he can be more dictatorial and cruel than any guard.
The supposition is that to make this outcast--the prisoner--bow to
authority will make a man of him.
“Prison reform is no easy matter. It must be the work of devoted and
expertly trained men and women. Sentimentalism can play no part in it
and certainly discipline, properly understood, will always have its
place, but it will be discipline in which mutual responsibility, human
sympathy and understanding will replace autocracy and indifference to
the individual and personal element at stake. It is, perhaps, only
fair to say that with the arrival of Major Adler at Fort Leavenworth
at the beginning of this year certain very important reforms have been
started. But it is going to be a long, uphill fight which will require
the enlightened support of the public if prisons are ever to cease
being a degrading influence in the prisoner’s life to say nothing of
becoming the constructive help that they should be and can be.”
PROHIBITION AND ARRESTS.
HARRY M. CHALFANT.
... We have a detailed report of the number of arrests in Detroit
during the last eight months of license as compared with the first
eight months under prohibition. Detroit became dry May 1, 1918, and
this report covers the two periods of eight months each, preceding and
following that date. It is issued by George H. Walters, deputy police
commissioner. Detroit is the largest city in the world to experiment
with prohibition, it having close to 1,000,000 people.
We have grouped kindred offenses to secure brevity. The first column
shows the number of arrests during the wet period and the second column
shows arrests for the same offenses during the dry regime. In the third
column we have worked out the percentage of reduction. Under the dry
period there were 1511 arrests for violation of the prohibition law
and 550 convictions resulted. These are omitted from the list because,
obviously, no comparison on this offense could be made. The following
figures tell their own story:
NUMBER OF ARRESTS.
Under Under Percentage
license. prohibition. reduction.
28,156 10,543 64
It is worthy of note that these results are not materially different
from what happened in the cities of Denver and Seattle, which became
dry January 1, 1916. They afford a hint of what may be possible, at
least to a degree, in Philadelphia after the 1st of next July.
PHILADELPHIA, February 20, 1919.
HONORARY MEMBERS.
Maud Ballington Booth (1909) New York City.
Judge Ben B. Lindsey (1909) Denver, Colo.
[4]Frederick Howard Wines (1909)
Judge McKenzie Cleland (1909) Chicago, Ill.
[4]Gen. R. Brinkerhoff
Z. R. Brockway (1909) Elmira, N. Y.
[4]Prof. Charles Richmond Henderson (1910)
Dr. Hastings H. Hart (1914) New York City.
[4]James A. Leonard (1914)
Timothy Nicholson (1915) Richmond, Ind.
Amos W. Butler (1915) Indianapolis, Ind.
LIFE MEMBERS.
[4]Ashmead, Henry B., [4]Lewis, Howard W.,
[4]Bailey, Joel J., Lewis, Mrs. Sarah A.,
[4]Baily, Joshua L., Longstreth, W. W.,
[4]Bartol, B. H., [4]Love, Alfred H.,
[4]Benson, E. N., [4]Lytle, John J.,
[4]Bergdoll, Louis, [4]Maginnis, Edw. I.,
[4]Betts, Richard K., [4]Manderson, James,
Bonham, Eleanor M., [4]Milne, Caleb J.,
[4]Bonsall, E. H., [4]McAllister, Jas. W.,
[4]Brooke, F. M., [4]Nicholson, Robert P.,
[4]Brown, Alexander, [4]Osborne, Hon. F. W.,
[4]Brown, T. Wistar, Patterson, Robert,
Brush, C. H., [4]Pennock, George,
Buckley, Daniel, [4]Perot, Joseph,
Carter, John E., Perot, T. Morris, Jr.,
[4]Cattell, Henry S., Pooley, Fred. J.,
[4]Childs, George W., [4]Potter, Thomas,
Cochran, Miss Mary N., Jr., [4]Powers, Thomas H.,
Coles, Miss Mary, [4]Price, Thomas W.,
[4]Collins, Alfred M., Randolph, Miss Anna,
Coxe, Eckley B., Jr., Rhoads, Joseph R.,
[4]Downing, Richard H., [4]Roach, Joseph H.,
[4]Dreer, Edw. G., [4]Saul, Rev. James,
Dreer, Ferd. J., Jr., [4]Santee, Charles,
[4]Douredore, B. L., [4]Seybert, Henry,
[4]Duhring, D. D., Rev. H. L., [4]Sharpless, Townsend,
Duncan, John A., [4]Steedman, Rosa,
[4]Elkinton, Joseph S., Stephens, Emily J. I., M. D.,
Elwyn, Alfred, [4]Stokes, Wm. C.,
[4]Elwyn, Mrs. Helen M., [4]Sulzberger, David,
[4]Fotterall, Stephen G., [4]Thomas, Geo. C.,
Frazer, Dr. John, Thompson, Emma L.,
Frazier, W. W., [4]Tracey, Charles A.,
[4]Goodwin, M. H., [4]Townsend, Henry T.,
Grigg, Mary S., Tyler, W. Graham,
[4]Hall, George W., Votaw, Albert H.,
Harrison, Alfred C., [4]Waln, L. Morris,
Harrison, Chas. C., [4]Walk, Jas. W., M. D.,
[4]Hockley, Thomas, Warren, E. Burgess,
Ingram, Wm. S., [4]Watson, Jas. V.,
[4]Jeans, Joshua T., Way, John,
Jenks, John Story, [4]Weightman, William,
[4]Jones, Mary T., [4]Weston, Harry,
[4]Jordan, John, Jr., Wetherell, William Henry,
[4]Justice, W. W., Whelen, Emily,
[4]Kinke, J., [4]Whelen, Mary S.,
[4]Knight, Reeve L., [4]Williams, Henry J.,
[4]Laing, Anna T., [4]Williamson, I. V.,
[4]Laing, Henry M., [4]Willits, Jeremiah,
Lea, M. Carey, [4]Willits, Jeremiah, Jr.,
[4]Leaming, J. Fisher, Wistar, Edward M.,
Leeds, Deborah C., Wood, Walter.
[4]Lewis, F. Mortimer,
ANNUAL MEMBERS.
Adger, Miss Willian, Kaufman, John G.,
Allen, Clara Hodges, Kehler, Dr. B. Frank,
Allen, H. Percival, Keith, Elsie Wister,
Arrison, Anna D., Kennedy, Harry,
Ashton, Tabor, Koelle, William,
Baggs, Nicholas, Capt., Lamartine, Rev. Phillip,
Baily, Albert L., Landis, Dr. H. R. M.,
Baird, John E., Latimer, Emilie T.,
Baldwin, Harriet H., Latimer, George A.,
Barakat, Layyah, Latimer, Rebecca P.,
Barnes, Rev. R. Heber, Latimer, Rev. Thomas,
Bartram, T. E., Leeds, Austin C.,
Beiswenger, Paul F., Lewis, William Draper,
Beiswenger, Rev. F., Longshore, Frank H.,
Belfield, T. Broom, Lovett, Louisa D.,
Biddle, Miss Christine W., Lowry, Wm. C.,
Biddle, Mrs. Clement M., McCord, Rufus,
Biddle, William, McFedries, Miss Annie.
Boggs, Samuel R., Magee, George W.,
Bok, Mrs. Mary Louise, Maier, Paul D. I.,
Booth, Henry D., Mallery, Otto T.,
Borden, G. W., Marshall, Bertha K. C.,
Bowers, Virginia R., Martin, Hon. J. Willis,
Bradford, Miss Annie, Mayer, Mrs. Henry C.,
Brewer, Franklin N., Mellor, Alfred,
Brink, Fred Swarts, Miller, Isaac P.,
Brinton, Joseph Hill, Miller, Mrs. Benj.,
Brown, Ellis, Y., Minnich, Rev. M. Reed,
Browning, Mrs. G. G., Montgomery, Henry S.,
Buckley, Mrs. Edward S., Morris, Anna Wharton,
Burnham, George, Jr., Morris, C. Christopher,
Butterworth, Elizabeth W., Morris, Marriott C.,
Butz, J. Treichler, M. D., Morris, William,
Byers, Joseph P., Mullowney, John J., M. D.,
Canby, W. Marriott, Murphy, William T.,
Carpenter, Mrs. E. Payson, Newkirk, John B.,
Cassell, Henry C., Newlin, Sarah,
Chichester, S. E., Nichols, Carroll B.,
Clark, Frederic L., Niles, Henry C.,
Clark, E. W., Obermayer, Leon J.,
Coale, Thomas E., Oetinger, Albert,
Coburn, George A., Ohl, Rev. J. F,
Collins, Henry H., Paisley, Harry E.,
Collins, Henry H., Jr., Palmer, T. Chalkley,
Colton, Mrs. Mary R., Pancoast, Linda H.,
Colton, Mrs. S. W., Jr., Park, Richard G.,
Comfort, Henry W., Patterson, T. H. Hoge,
Conard, C. Wilfred, Perot, Mary William,
Cope, Mrs. Edward, Platt, Miss L. N.,
Cope, Mrs. Eliza M., Purves, G. Colesbury,
Cope, Miss Margaret, Rakestraw, Frederick A.,
Daniel, C. A., Randolph, Mrs. Evan,
de Benedetto, Rev. A., Reeves, Francis B.,
De Haven, Miss Clara B., Reilly, Anna L.,
De Haven, Miss Sarah Cole, Rhoads, William E.,
deLong, Mary Ella, Richardson, Charles,
Develin, James Aylward, Roberts, Charles C.,
Dewees, J. H., Roberts, Owen J.,
Dewees, Watson W., Robinson, Anthony W.,
d’Invilliers, Charles E., Robinson, Louis N.,
Disston, Albert H., Rosengarten, Joseph G.,
Disston, Jennie C., Roser, William,
Drexel, Mary S. Irick, Rouse, Wm. M.,
Dripps, Robert Dunning, Schaeffer, Paul N.,
Ecroyd, Charles E., Schoch, Mrs. Parke,
Edmonds, Franklin S., Schwarz, G. A.,
Elkinton, Joseph, Scott, Norris J.,
Emlen, Samuel, Scull, E. Marshall,
Emlen, Miss Dorothea, Senft, Rev. F. H.,
Fernberger, Henry, Shoemaker, Comly B.,
Fisher, Geo. Harrison, Simmington, Charles C.,
Fleisher, Samuel S., Snellenburg, Samuel,
Fleisher, Moyer, Starr, Miss Rhoda,
Frick, Esther, Steele, Joseph M.,
Funk, Lawson C., Stewart, Henry C.,
Galenbeck, Louis C., Stone, Mrs. Virginia G.,
Garges, Anna K., Tatum, Joseph W.,
Garrett, Elizabeth N., Thesen, Oluf,
Gerhard, Luther, Thomas, Mrs. George C.,
Gerhard, Arthur H., Tomkins, Rev. Floyd W.,
Gerhard, Mrs. Arthur H., Turner, Mrs. Charles P.,
Gillingham, Anna H., Vaux, Miss Meta,
Graff, Charles F., Wallace, Mrs. C. Jaquins,
Greene, Sallie H., Walton, Harrison,
Haines, Dr. H. I., Warren, William C.,
Haines, Henry E., Wentz, Catharine A.,
Haines, Robert B., Jr., Wetherell, George S.,
Hallowell, William S., Wetherell, Mary S.,
Haney, Rein G., Wetherill, Rev. Francis Macomb,
Harding, Miss M. W., White, Elias H.,
Harris, Rev. J. Andrews, White, Elizabeth W.,
Harris, Mrs. J. Campbell, Wilkins, George W.,
Harris, J. Linn, Williams, Charles,
Hastings, Charles P., Williams, Ellis D.,
Heller, Clyde A., Williams, Henry S.,
Henderson, George R., Wilson, James L.,
Hill, Miss Elizabeth A., Wing, Asa S.,
Hodge, Mrs. Lydia B. Penrose, Wood, H. Wellington,
Hoffman, Jacob, Yarnall, William S.,
Howe, Mrs. Mary W. F., Yarrow, George R.,
Hutton, George S., Yarrow, Mrs. George R.,
Jenkins, Theodore F., Ziegler, J. W.
Kane, Miss Florence Bayard,
INDEX.
PAGE
Acting Committee, report of, 7
Agricultural Prison Labor, 60
Annual Meeting, minutes of, 5
Board of Public Charities and Prison Labor, 67
Commission to Investigate Penal Systems, 19
Committee on Delinquency, act providing for, 47
Committees, standing, 4
County Prisons, 33
Financial Argument for Prison Farms, 65
General Agent, report of, 16
Home of Industry, 68
Industrial Farms, act providing for, 54
Members, lists of, 81
Military Discipline and Punishments, 69
Obituaries, 14
Officers, list of, 3
Official Visitors, Page 2 of cover
Parole Work, Eastern Penitentiary, 17
Penal Systems, report of Commission, 19
Prison Experiences, 76
Probation and Parole, 39
Prohibition, effect of, on arrests, 80
Treasurer, report of, 15
The Pennsylvania Prison Society was founded under the name
“Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons,”
May 8, 1787.
It was incorporated under same name April 6, 1833.
The objects named in the Charter were three:
1. Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons.
2. Improvement of Prison Discipline.
3. Relief of Discharged Prisoners.
By order of the Court, the corporate title was changed January 27,
1886, to “THE PENNSYLVANIA PRISON SOCIETY.”
* * * * *
Copies of this JOURNAL will be forwarded on request to any address
without charge.
Financial contributions are needed to carry on the work of this Society.
All correspondence and contributions should be addressed to The
Pennsylvania Prison Society at 119 South Fourth Street, Philadelphia,
Pa.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Approved and proposed by the Commission on Penal Systems.
[2] Approved and proposed by the Commission on Penal Systems.
[3] Information taken from Major W. S. Kellog’s “The Conscientious
Objector,” 1919.
[4] Deceased.
[Transcriber’s Note:
Dialect, obsolete and alternative spellings were left unchanged.
Printing errors, such as backwards or upside down letters, were
corrected; duplicate words were deleted; missing punctuation was added.]