conditions could be improved. But the jury occasionally in its zeal
magnifies a possible wrong or views some punitive feature out of its
proper prospective. The discipline for a body of untried prisoners,
some of whom may prove to be dangerous criminals, must not be squared
by the discipline meted out to convicts who remain year after year in
the same institution. You deal with one set as with people you know,
the others present unknown dangerous proclivities. The tendency is to
treat a body of transients with a stricter set of regulations. Just how
far the principles of “The New Penology” have entered the precincts of
Philadelphia County Prison, we are not prepared to discuss. There is
a medium ground in all things and in prison management, probably the
safest plan is to take the middle course. Compared with the “Tombs,”
the New York County prison for those detained for trial, the prison at
Moyamensing compares very favorably. The advantages, the employments,
the general discipline of the New York Convict prisons at Blackwell’s
and Riker’s Islands are perhaps in the main superior to our convict
prison. The regulations for those held for trial should be as mild
and reasonable as is consistent with safety and the convenience of
the accused person. While they are not yet convicts, many of them are
well-known recidivists, more or less dangerous, some are entirely
unknown and need watchful care, so that any system founded on uniform
treatment for all is liable to criticism. A system which combines
moderate restraint with exactly the right proportion of reasonable
freedom presents a problem which a novice can no more readily solve
than an ignoramus the elements of an eclipse.
Down at Moyamensing they have the buildings and the space for the
detention of the untried prisoners, and we have little doubt but
that the manager and the court officials, if they were to meet for a
conference, could unite in the adoption of regulations which would
be satisfactory to all parties concerned. It is to the city’s direct
interest to make use of the facilities already possessed. We are
inclined to the belief that the construction of a new prison for the
untried may be an economic blunder.
SCHUYLKILL COUNTY.
We learn that ten men have been working on the county farm.
This county for some years has been allowing men who were fined to be
released on condition of making payments on instalments. In 1916 they
collected from this source the sum of $2,081.14. If these men and women
had been maintained in prison in accordance with the old law of 1836,
their board and maintenance would have cost the taxpayers $4,025.38.
Hence by the new arrangement a snug profit to the county of $6,106.52.
They were pioneers in the rational treatment of those who were fined.
Here they believe in the principle of parole and put it into practice.
Number on parole and probation over 16 years of age 154
Number on parole and probation under 16 years of age 124
Some failures reported, the majority being juveniles arrested for
truancy, etc.
They still continue their antiquated toilet arrangements. The closets
are flushed by dumping therein water from buckets. The water is readily
obtainable from spigots, so that the inconvenience is reduced to some
extent, yet this system is justly condemned.
Trusties keep the Court House and the grounds in good order. Some are
employed in making carpets and knitting socks.
Except murderers in the second degree, practically all county convicts
are detained in the county prison. They have room for them in the old
bastile, so why send them to the penitentiary on per diem charges?
The prisoners are turned absolutely loose one hour each day in the
prison yard.
General Efficiency the same as the previous year, but on account of the
farm work we estimate the grade at 70 per cent.
WESTMORELAND COUNTY.
Here is a county prison reporting for the year 1916 an average daily
number of inmates of 58. And yet they could send 12 men to work at
road-making in a prison camp, and 10 men to work on the county farm.
The employment record is a vast improvement over the report of the
previous year when a few at domestic employments about the jail
were the only inmates at work. It is thought that next season the
agricultural operations will be increased.
The Directors ought to contrive at once to improve the cooking
arrangements or, better still, to construct an entirely new culinary
department.
They eat at tables in the corridors. We believe that it would be well
for wardens generally to adopt this method. The cells are more readily
kept clean, and the appearance has a civilized effect.
There are no sheets and pillows, a lack which some philanthropic
organization might supply. They have plenty of time to do laundry work.
On account of the new opportunities for employment, we cheerfully
revise our estimate of the Efficiency from 53 to 65 per cent.
YORK COUNTY.
No official visit has been paid to the prison at York since the last
report. We have learned that conditions are generally unchanged. If
this be true, there is much ground for complaint.
There is no employment except that a few assist in domestic service at
the prison.
The food supplied is utterly inadequate. A few weeks ago the bill of
fare for one week consisted of bread and coffee served twice a day for
the seven days and a ration of soup with meat and vegetables was served
twice during the week. On one other day three potatoes were dealt out
to each prisoner. A certain amount of molasses is given out each week.
No prison in the United States or Canada has such scanty fare. The
prisoners are allowed to supplement their fare by purchasing supplies
from a dealer who calls almost every morning, but the majority of them
are penniless. Their friends, if they have any, may bring provision.
The sheriff receives forty-five cents a day for providing this meagre
fare. Again and again we have called the attention of the good people
of York County to these disgraceful conditions. One hundred and thirty
years ago in the prisons of Philadelphia, each prisoner was furnished
with water and a half loaf of bread every day. Those who had money
could buy additional supplies; others must beg and depend upon friends.
The York Prison has maintained a similar system to the present day.
There has been no progress. The sheriff follows in the line of his
predecessors. The authorities, under whom this iniquitous system has
been allowed to continue, are the responsible parties. If the fare at
other prisons, where a sufficient quantity is served, costs from 12
cents to 16 cents per day, the fare at York County prison costs barely
10 cents per day. Possibly the sheriff finds the business profitable,
but that has little to do with the matter. The system is wrong. Any
plan whereby the superintendent of any prison derives his profit from
boarding the inmates is liable to abuse. The only remedy is to change
the system. Act 171, Laws of Pennsylvania 1909, provides that all
counties having a population between 150,000 and 250,000 must have
a warden who purchases supplies by contract. Such a warden may be
appointed in counties having less than a population of 150,000. The
remedy lies with the citizens of York County. A number of prisons in
counties having less than a population of 150,000 are controlled by
either a warden or sheriff who serves for a salary and purchases food
by contract. In such prisons, the conditions are always better than
under the fee system. Grade 40 per cent.
* * * * *
Later. As we are going to press, we learn that proceedings are being
brought before the court in York County with a view of making some
wholesome changes. This Society endorses the efforts of the good
citizens of York to remove an evil which has too long been a reproach
to that community.
BEQUESTS
We gratefully acknowledge the receipt of the following bequests which
we received in 1917:
Estate of Joshua L. Baily $5,000.00
Estate of Henry A. Rogers 952.50
THE WARDENS’ MEETING AT GLEN MILLS AND SLEIGHTON FARM, OCTOBER 4-5,
1917.
REPORTED BY FLORENCE BAYARD KANE.
In view of the fact that some important penal legislation was enacted
by the General Assembly of 1917, it seemed wise to call a conference of
wardens, inspectors and commissioners to consider the effect of this
legislation and how it might be put into practice.
Hence a call for such a conference, issued by The Pennsylvania Prison
Society and by the Prison Reform League of Pennsylvania, was sent to
county commissioners and prison officials in the eastern and central
parts of the Commonwealth. Mrs. Martha P. Falconer, superintendent of
the Girls’ School at Sleighton Farm, very kindly offered to entertain
the members of the Conference at this institution on the afternoon and
night of October 4th, and Mr. F. H. Nibecker, superintendent of the
Boys’ Department at Glen Mills, cordially agreed to take care of the
company on the 5th inst.
Responses from those invited indicated much interest, and the
attendance fully justified our expectations.
Nine wardens were present from the county prisons of Easton, Ebensburg,
Harrisburg, Hollidaysburg, Lancaster, Media, Norristown, West Chester
and Wilkes-Barre. Seventeen Inspectors were in attendance representing
the counties of Berks, Blair, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lehigh,
Lancaster and Montgomery. The counties of Bucks, Chester, Columbia and
York were represented by one or more of their Commissioners.
The State Board of Charities was represented by Mr. Louis Wolf, a
member of that body, and by Wm. McGarry, an agent of the Board.
Judge J. F. Hause, of West Chester, graced the occasion with his
presence.
Miss Florence Bayard Kane, of the Prison Reform League, and John Way
and Albert H. Votaw, of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, were present.
Robert Dunning Dripps, Esq., Secretary Public Charities Association,
was present on the evening of the 4th inst.
Most of the company arrived about noon at Sleighton Farm and were soon
doing ample justice to a bountiful lunch provided by the efficient
helpers of Mrs. Falconer. After an inspection of the buildings and
grounds and noting the excellent work of the girls on the Farm and the
fifty-acre kitchen garden the company assembled in the commodious
audience room to consider the objects of the meeting.
Secretary Votaw called the meeting to order and served thereafter
informally as Chairman. He said he was convinced that persons engaged
in the same sort of work often were the gainers by comparing their
views and experiences. As a teacher he had learned to value the
opportunities afforded by the Teachers’ Institutes. Not that he
always adopted new methods proposed, for he learned that the personal
equation must be considered and that all persons were not adapted
to use identical methods. What would succeed with one might result
in failure with another. At the same time, there was inspiration
and much profit from such conferences. He ventured to say that the
county prisons in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were all diverse in
their administration. There was lack of team work. While it was not
recommended that all should follow exactly the same form of management,
there was undoubtedly much to be gained by comparison of methods and
results.
This meeting, however, was called particularly to consider recent
legislation. The following letter from Governor Brumbaugh, addressed to
E. M. Wistar, President of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, was read:
“MR. EDWARD M. WISTAR,
Philadelphia, Pa.
_My Dear Mr. Wistar_:
I have the letter of Mr. Votaw, calling my attention to a meeting to
be held at Darlington, Pa., October 4th and 5th.
The purpose of the meeting, as I understand it, is to ascertain
in what way recent legislation affecting prison labor may be
most practically and effectively applied to conditions in this
Commonwealth. I am heartily in favor of the wise employment of the
prisoners in our penal institutions, and steadfastly favored and
approved all legislation having that end in view.
I consider, therefore, this conference most opportune, and trust that
its deliberations may result in practical guidance of great moment to
Pennsylvania.
It may be of interest to you to know that we are now planning to
utilize such of our prison labor as we can in connection with the
Highway Department, not only because we believe this is right as
a fundamental principle, but because in this emergency it will
release other labor for national service without impairing the road
construction program of the Commonwealth.
I wish your convention great success, and beg to be
Very truly yours,
M. G. BRUMBAUGH.”
The wardens were first asked to relate their experience with regard to
the recent law allowing the wardens or superintendents of prisons to
release the inmates for work on land belonging to the county or state.
Warden George W. Allen, of Media, being called upon, told the
Conference that he had been employing from seven to fourteen men on
the county farm since early in the spring, even before the Act had
received executive sanction. At his request Judge Isaac Johnson had, as
privileged under the law granting parole to county prisoners, paroled
certain selected inmates for this purpose. None of the prisoners had
violated their parole nor attempted to escape. They were taken in a van
every morning to their work with one guard, and had worked faithfully
and with pleasure. They had cultivated about 20 acres of land. The
entire cost of the venture was about $1100.00, a sum which the results
had fully justified. The expense had been equally shared with the Poor
Directors and also the proceeds. They had raised cabbage, soup beans,
lima beans, carrots, turnips, potatoes, beets, tomatoes and other
produce. What was not used at once by the prisoners was dried, canned
or stored for winter use. No wages was paid to the men. The result had
been satisfactory to all parties concerned.
Dr. J. K. Weaver, Prison Inspector, of Norristown, informed the
assembly that nineteen men had been sent to the Poor Farm, whose
officials had taken charge of them and had provided them with food
and lodging. There had been no difficulty whatever in maintaining
discipline. The men had worked well and with enjoyment. A few
privileges were allowed, such as swimming in the river when the day’s
work was done, and no one had attempted to escape. They were paid 60c.
a day for their work, payable at the time of their release. One man
earned $52.80.
Warden Lemuel Roberts, of the Norristown Prison, informed the meeting
that this employment of prisoners in Montgomery County had been
initiated by presenting a petition to the Court to parole a few
selected men to work on this Farm. The Court consented to parole three
men for this purpose, and the experiment was so completely successful
that the number thus paroled was gradually increased to nineteen. He
was convinced that the payment of 60c. per day had served a double
purpose in giving the men an incentive and a reward for good conduct
and also in enabling them to go forth with a little cash to pay their
expenses while searching for further employment. Without money and
without friends, very often released convicts resort to crime for their
maintenance.
Warden John F. Clower, of West Chester, stated that the County Home
had refused to employ prisoners for the reason that they had already
an abundant supply of labor from their own inmates. They had bought
from the Farm supplies of vegetables at a lower rate than in the open
market. For winter use they had canned 400 jars of tomatoes and a large
quantity of sauerkraut.
Five of the inmates had been paroled to neighboring farmers, for whose
labor the prison had received $25.00 per month, the prisoner receiving
no large share. In this prison the men are almost all employed
constantly at work in making carpets, caning chairs and weaving cloth
for their clothing. In 1917 they had sold products amounting to $5,387.
A small allowance, about 19c. weekly, is paid to the prisoners.
Mr. Thomas J. Fretz, an Inspector of Lehigh County, stated that a
number of prisoners had been paroled directly to farmers. It was
stipulated that the men should receive the prevailing customary wage
for this work and that this sum should be paid to the families of the
paroled men, or given to them on their discharge. In some instances
wages sufficient to pay certain costs had been deducted from the amount
paid to the prisoner.
Mr. Edward Taenzer, Inspector of Berks County, informed the meeting
that this season they had employed prisoners on their County Farm, and
that the experiment had been a decided success from every point of
view. Two years ago an effort had been made to employ the prisoners
on this land, and this proposition had been heartily approved by
the Inspectors, the County Commissioners, the Directors of the Poor
and the local press. The Solicitors of the Boards, however, held
that such action was illegal, admitting that work on roads was the
only employment allowed to prisoners except behind the bars. Since
the beginning of the great war Mr. Taenzer and others renewed their
efforts to find employment for the prisoners on farms, meeting with
formidable opposition, but since the legal bar was removed by recent
legislation the prisoners have been hard at work, giving satisfaction
to all concerned. The selected men are taken by conveyance to the Farm
and work for eight hours daily. They have produced from four to five
hundred bushels of potatoes and a like proportion of other vegetables.
Just now they are working on the drainage project. The Poor Directors
provide the midday meal, and it is expected that hereafter they may
provide for the necessary supervision. The men receive no pay for their
labor, but esteem it a great privilege thus to be employed.
Secretary Votaw stated that the consensus of opinion was evidently
favorable to the employment of county prisoners on farms as far as
possible. He invited Agent McGarry, of the State Board of Charities, to
comment on the attitude of this Board on this subject. Mr. McGarry said
that the Board had for many years advocated such employment and that
the emergency created by the war had made such legislation possible.
The Acting Chairman then called the attention of the conference to Act.
No. 399, which received the approval of the Governor on the 20th of
July, 1917. The law had practically been unheralded, but its execution
would revolutionize conditions in all the counties of the State.
The Act provides for the division of the State into nine Districts,
containing from five to ten counties, in each of which Districts there
shall be established an institution to which all convicts, sentenced
to a term of ten days or more, may be sent. It seemed to be formulated
with a view to the general betterment of the prisoners confined in the
county jails. The fact that there was no clause making it compulsory to
send prisoners to such institution was regarded as a weak feature.
General discussion followed. There were many present who had not seen
the law, or even heard thereof. There was a general opinion that this
law should be carefully considered before the conference should come to
a settled conclusion.
Secretary Votaw hoped that at least one of the nine Districts would
give the experiment a fair trial. It was evident that existing
conditions in the county jails would have to be changed, and the
officials ought to be warned that some action must be taken. Was there
any better proposition to be considered? Since the Allegheny penal
farm already contained five or six hundred acres, and since most of
the adjoining counties were already sending many of their prisoners
there, paying at rate of 50c. daily per prisoner, he suggested that
the District in which this workhouse was situated might readily
convert this institution into one of these Industrial Farms. While
at this institution to which convicts from Pittsburgh are sent,
it seems possible to put ten-day, and even five-day, prisoners to
some profitable work, it would be poor economy to transport ten-day
prisoners from the more distant counties to said District Farm.
Mr. McGarry raised a question as to the disposal of existing jail
properties.
Secretary Votaw said that they would be still needed for short termers
and persons awaiting trial, but that portions of such jail property
might be profitably disposed of. Very often the county jail stood
on rather valuable real estate which might sometimes be sold for
sufficient to meet the county’s quota on the new District Institution.
To illustrate that existing prisons must still be used as places of
detention, it was shown during the meetings that at the recent visits
of Secretary Votaw in his capacity of Official Visitor, one third of
the inmates in thirteen of the larger counties were being detained for
trial. It is to be hoped that the problem of furnishing employment to
the untried prisoners may be found.
Mr. Louis Wolf was inclined on first reading of the bill to think that
it would prove impracticable.
It was explained that this Act might have imperfections, but that it
was really the only solution of the problem of employment for prisoners
as far as conditions existed in this Commonwealth. If the products
of convict labor are not allowed to be sold in the market some other
way must be devised to set these idle people to work. In these times
of dire stress, not an ounce of energy should be lost. Our Government
needs the labor of every man, good or bad, in order to increase the
production of food supplies, and for manufacturing purposes. Wherever
the farming proposition for prisoners had been fairly tried there was
no indication of receding. Reports from most places where prisoners
were employed in agricultural pursuits were enthusiastic. In the
State of Massachusetts misdemeanants are generally sent to Bridgwater
Industrial Farm where, under efficient management, several hundred
acres of land, thought to be almost worthless, have been reclaimed,
and now are returning a large yield of fruits, vegetables and grain
crops. In the State of Indiana within the last three years a farm of
about 1200 acres has been purchased by the State, to which now all
misdemeanants sentenced to a term of sixty days or more in the county
prisons are to be sent. It is at the option of the Court whether those
sentenced for shorter terms shall be sentenced to this farm prison.
Eventually it is thought this farm will be entirely self-supporting.
There were many escapes the first year, but since a law has been
enacted making it a penal offence to escape or to endeavor to escape
the number of fugitives has greatly decreased. The proposition is not
new and is being tried out with greater or less success.
Inspector W. B. Meetch, of Dauphin County, said that the prison at
Harrisburg just now had a population of 207, of whom 53 were sentenced
to a term of sixty days or more. These men might be available for farm
work, but the Court is averse to the principle of parole. However,
he was inclined to believe that the privileges of free men should be
denied to the wrongdoer in order that there might be some contrast
between the condition of the law-breaker and the man who was observant
of the rules of justice. He would exercise great caution in reference
to presenting them with the opportunities to escape. Men were sent to
prison to be punished.
It was pointed out that the modern idea did not wholly discard the
element of punishment in the treatment of criminals, but, for the
benefit both of society and the individual, placed extreme emphasis
on efforts to reform the wrongdoer and furnish him with incentives to
become a useful member of the community instead of a perpetual menace.
There is the publicity of a trial, the confinement to certain limits
whether behind walls or within other definite limits, the restraint of
a discipline to which a free man is not subject. This is regarded as
sufficient punishment in these days. We have discarded the stocks, the
pillory, cropped hair and the striped suit. The disgrace is sufficient
without these barbaric accompaniments. In the effort to treat the
criminal as a human being very much like the rest of us, since we all
acknowledge that we have sinned, modern methods have found the best
remedy for the restoration of the prisoner. If we treat him as an
outcast, he will remain an outcast who will harry the community to the
end of his days. Above all, cease to detain him in idleness, which is
the worst remedy for immorality of any sort.
Warden Wm. A. McIlhenny, of Harrisburg, stated that there was no land
owned by Dauphin County which was available for the employment of his
prisoners. The county farm was limited in size and was cared for by the
regular inmates of the County Poorhouse. He had no doubt that if the
law allowed prisoners to work on other than county land, some kindly
disposed land owners would freely grant land for such purpose.
THE WORK ON SLEIGHTON FARM.