of the expense of purchasing the land and erecting the buildings, also
the same proportionate share of the net expense of conducting the
institution, or of the amount left when receipts are deducted from the
expenditures. It is to be hoped that at some time the receipts may
exceed the expenditures. In that event we suppose the balance will be
credited pro rata to each county, though the Act is silent on this
point.
In addition every county will pay transportation, care and maintenance
of its own inmates. No inmates, nothing to pay on this head.
It will require an expert in institutional management and in
bookkeeping to determine just what items should be charged to care and
maintenance, and to general expenses. What difference will it make?
Simply this. Some counties naturally will send a smaller proportionate
number of inmates than others. A few counties may have but one or
two inmates during the year. Each county will receive two bills for
payment. One will be for its share of overhead expenses. The other will
cover the cost of maintaining the prisoners sent from said county. If
certain charges which might be debited to care and maintenance are
charged against overhead or general expenses, then the auditor of the
county sending few or no prisoners will justly protest a system of
bookkeeping which charges to general expenses what ought to be charged
to care and maintenance. Questions will arise quite difficult to
decide, hence, there should be some regulations adopted of universal
application to the nine institutions.
Discretionary Power of the Court.
According to this Act, the Court “_may_, in its discretion, sentence”
a convicted offender to the county jail, to the Industrial Farm, or to
any penal institution legally entitled to receive convicts. We repose
much confidence in the judiciary of this State. But we trust that they
will agree to send all convicts, sentenced from forty days to two
years, or to whatever time they think it advisable to send them to the
State Prisons, to these Industrial Farms. They may exercise an option
below twenty days, depending on the proximity of said farm. Allegheny
County sends hundreds of prisoners, sentenced for ten days and less,
about ten miles away to the Industrial Farm. Philadelphia transports
likewise a large number of short termers about fifteen miles to the
House of Correction on its farm of several hundred acres. The State of
Indiana makes its obligatory to send all convicted of misdemeanors, who
are sentenced to sixty days or more, to the State Industrial Farm. The
option of the Court may be exercised when the sentence is less than
sixty days.
In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania there is no team work with
reference to the place where convicts may be incarcerated. Some
counties, especially the smaller ones, have an understanding that all
prisoners sentenced to one year or more should be dispatched to the
penitentiary. In other counties a person may serve a sentence of
twenty years in the county prison. How would this schedule work?
Ten days or less County Jail
Ten to twenty days, Either County Jail or the Industrial Farm
Twenty days to two years The Industrial Farm
Two to three years, Either the Industrial Farm or the Penitentiary
Three years and over The State Penitentiary
Of course it is understood that lads and lasses may be sent to Glen
Mills, Sleighton Farm or Morganza; and that older boys may be sentenced
to the Reformatory at Huntingdon.
Possible Objections.
Some county officials may point with pride to their prison, perhaps
rather recently constructed, with admirable sanitary features, and
affording some opportunity for employment. What is to become of such
plants? We know of no county prison in the State whose facilities would
be equivalent to the advantages afforded by the farm. Some prison will
be needed at every county seat as a place of detention. Portions of
the real estate may sometimes be sold for a handsome sum, or used for
some other public purpose. We know of very few county prisons for whose
construction we entertain much respect. Most of these jails need entire
renovation. Some of the newer type resemble cages for animals--a type
of building we condemn.
The latest ward constructed in the Philadelphia County Prison at
Holmesburg embodies some of the best features of modern prison
construction. We should regret to have this disused. The latest
cell-block at the Allegheny County Workhouse is a model of its kind.
And the new dining room at this institution is admirable from every
point of view. Our private suggestion is that the Trustees of the
Second District, in which five counties are comprised including
Allegheny, shall arrange to take over this Penal Farm, or the Allegheny
County Workhouse, and constitute it as the Industrial Farm for this
District. The buildings and the land are already there, and an
efficient institution conducted now on the lines enumerated in the Act
establishing these Industrial Farms. The other counties of the District
have been for some time sending their convicts to this workhouse,
paying Allegheny County a per diem rate for each prisoner sent from
their respective counties.
We wish we could devise a satisfactory scheme for the consolidation
of the counties of the First District in which Philadelphia County is
located.
Do we dare to suggest the pooling of the interests of the House of
Correction and the County Prison at Holmesburg so that the two prisons
may be combined under the same management, thus making the Correctional
Farm available for both institutions? Can more land be secured, or
reclaimed from the marshes of the Delaware?
In the State of Indiana the general expenses and the overhead expenses
are paid by the State. The counties pay 55 cents daily therefore for
each convict sent. It is justly argued that as all indictments charge
the offender with violating the peace and dignity of the State, the
State should assume responsibility for its own protection. In the Act
now under consideration, it is provided distinctly that the various
counties of each District are to be responsible for the expenses on
some pro rata basis. The taxpayers of the State will pay the bills
whether paid by State or counties. We believe on consideration there
will be some advantage derived from the financial policy as proposed
in this bill. It will undoubtedly happen that some farms under more
expert management will tend to become self-supporting or to reduce the
overhead expense to a small figure.
The counties of such a District will be subject to comparatively slight
taxation for the support of the prison. Information will promptly
spread to the other Districts, so that the Trustees will seek that kind
of an administrator who can show the best results. Friendly emulation
should work no evil. There is one cautionary word. Some administrator,
who has more ambition to make a good financial showing than to adopt
reformatory measures, may be tempted to exploit the men under his
charge to their detriment. A superintendent should be chosen, not
only for business ability but also to inspire the inmates with higher
ideals of life. He will get the best out of his men by allowing certain
privileges and compensation for faithful effort. Any other sort of
manager should be removed.
Rules and Regulations.
The regulations of each one of the Industrial Farms are to be framed
by the Trustees of said farm. It is specifically provided that the
duties of the officers, the clothing and treatment of the inmates, the
penalties for insubordination, the government of the Inebriate Home,
shall be prescribed by the Trustees.
We believe it will be found advisable for the Trustees of these various
institutions to meet and formulate some general regulations. We advise
that the Act be amended so that meetings may be held at least once each
year. In fact, several meetings should be held prior to the operation
of these farms in order that the same principle may obtain in regard
to their management. Each Local Board should have ample leeway to
make rules according to the particular needs and environment of the
individual farms, but it is very essential that a uniform policy should
be adopted with regard to certain features.
1. Industries. Care should be taken that the specific industries should
not be duplicated. For instance, soap-making should be assigned to
one of the institutions, not on a large scale by all of them. Certain
manufactures may be more economically conducted where water power may
be readily obtained.
2. Clothing. We trust no form of degrading conspicuous dress may be
found at any institution. It is possible for some Board to require the
stripes which have been generally discontinued.
3. Penalties. Section 10 prescribes that the superintendent shall
punish a refractory prisoner by close confinement and a diet of bread
and water only, “or in such manner as the rules and regulations ...
may prescribe.” We submit that corporal punishment of any description
should be abolished. It would be possible for some Board of Trustees
to sanction the whipping post or the hose treatment--penalties
which belong to a barbaric age. We suggest that the Trustees limit
punishments to confinement, restricted diet, deprivation of privileges
and reasonable fines, and if such measures prove unavailing the culprit
should be remanded to the county jail.
4. Bookkeeping. Uniformity is highly desirable. The greatest care
should be taken to discriminate as to what expenses belong to the
general upkeep of the institution and to the care and maintenance of
the prisoners. The estimate of the charges to each county is to be
based upon such discrimination.
Uniformity in a few other matters may be desirable, but care should be
taken not to hamper the individual Boards by general rules about petty
affairs.
Conclusion.
We have dwelt to some extent upon the possible defects of this law
which, however, has admirable features. In any achievement, involving
as many changes as are contemplated in this Act, there will be
difficulties encountered. At first we were inclined to see lions in
the way, but when we see the effect of the conversion of compulsory
idleness into productive efficiency, we may conclude that the
difficulties are not insurmountable.
We trust that some Board may soon take action and inaugurate this
work, which is one of the greatest reformatory movements known in the
penological annals of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We very much
hope that next season may find at least one of these institutions in
actual operation.
Appointment of Trustees.
The following list shows the counties composing each district, and the
names of the Trustees so far as we have learned of their appointment:--
FIRST DISTRICT
Philadelphia, George F. Holmes
Chester, David M. Golder
Bucks, Watson Davis
Delaware
Montgomery, Roy A. Hatfield
SECOND DISTRICT
Allegheny
Armstrong
Lawrence
Beaver, Edwin L. Johnson
Butler
THIRD DISTRICT
York, John D. Jenkins
Cumberland, A. E. Sieber
Northumberland, Fred. R. Dornsife
Lebanon
Adams
Perry, Allen B. Thompson
Dauphin
Lancaster
FOURTH DISTRICT
Washington, Thomas Hill
Fayette, Logan Rush
Indiana, W. B. Wagner
Cambria, T. Stanton Davis
Westmoreland, George W. Deeds
Greene, George Moore
Somerset, Joseph B. Miller
Clearfield, H. H. Spencer
Bedford, Thomas C. Bradley
FIFTH DISTRICT
Centre, Isaac Miller
Huntingdon, Josiah C. Hall
Franklin, Ross S. Gordon
Mifflin, Geo. W. Dunmire
Blair, Robert F. Bankert
Fulton
Juniata, W. A. Kinzer
Snyder, Henry Bowersox
SIXTH DISTRICT
Erie, Josiah F. Rogan
Mercer, A. W. Beil
Clarion. Frank McCall
Warren, E. M. Lowe
Elk, W. M. Thomas
Crawford, M. G. Beatty
Venango, Pressley H. Culbertson
Forest, J. C. Scowden
McKean, O. S. Gahagan
Jefferson, Harvey L. Grube
SEVENTH DISTRICT
Potter
Cameron, John W. Lewis
Lycoming, Joseph H. Nicely
Montour, James Ryan
Sullivan, Charles W. Warren
Tioga, James Crawford
Clinton, James L. Kemmerer
Columbia, Charles E. Welliver
Union, William Ruhl
EIGHTH DISTRICT
Bradford, Charles L. Crandall
Wayne, Earl Rockwell
Monroe, Thomas Shiffer
Wyoming, H. W. Place
Susquehanna, F. H. Ball
Pike, E. J. Darragh
Carbon, Thos. B. Craig
Lackawanna, John Von Bergen
NINTH DISTRICT
Berks, J. Calvin Herbine
Schuylkill, B. J. Smith
Lehigh, Oscar L. Henninger
Northampton, Elmer P. Peifer
Luzerne, R. A. Beisel
PAYMENT OF COSTS AND FINES BY INSTALMENTS.
Act No. 111, approved by the Governor, May 17, 1917, grants permission
to any Court or sentencing authority to dismiss any person held for
non-payment of fines and costs on condition of agreeing to pay said
charges by instalments.
In previous publications of this Society, it has been shown that the
practice in the 67 counties of the Commonwealth is far from uniform.
The law of 1836, except for first offenders, is still in force, which
prescribes that when a fine is $15.00 or less the defendant may be
detained 30 days in prison; if the fine is more than $15.00, the term
of imprisonment is 90 days. Comparatively few counties observed this
regulation. Many counties detained the prisoner as many days as there
were dollars in the fine.
Some counties have already profited by availing themselves of the
privilege of Act No. 111. In one county the sum of $2600.00 had been
collected in fines on the instalment plan in less than three months.
Formerly the county collected nothing, and in addition maintained the
prisoner who was detained in idleness. If the prisoner thus detained
could do any service to the county in the line of road-making or
other useful employment, his detention would be considered sensible.
To present him with board and lodging for a hundred days with no
employment, because he owes the county a hundred dollars, is an
absurdity.
The privilege of paying the fine and costs in instalments ought to
inure to the benefit of all parties concerned.
EMPLOYMENT OF PRISONERS ON COUNTY OR ALMSHOUSE FARMS.
Act No. 337, approved by the Governor, July 17, 1917, authorizes the
employment of convicts at the county jails “at agricultural labor on
any county or almshouse farm of the county ... by the poor authorities
of such county under the direction of the warden.” Section 2 of the
Act releases the warden from liability in case of the escape of said
convicts while thus employed, if due care has been exercised.
The beauty of this Act consists in the fact that it can be immediately
put into execution. No formal meeting of Boards is necessary to
consider the matter. No expense is required for buildings and
land. This enactment is exactly in line with Act No. 359, Laws of
Pennsylvania, 1915, providing for the employment of prisoners at
road-making. The law of 1915 provides for the payment of wages to
those thus employed and forbids the wearing of stripes. We infer that
no conspicuous degrading dress is to be worn. We hope that under the
present Act, no degrading costume will be imposed upon the workers and
that some compensation shall be given.
Already the counties are reaping benefit from this recent enactment.
But with next season we believe many of the counties will avail
themselves of the opportunities afforded by this Act. Some counties
have taken immediate action. The following reports have been received
showing what has been accomplished. However, in several of these
counties the Court had previously to the passage of this legislation
granted special parole to certain prisoners in order that they might
be employed on farms. The passage of this law, however, will make it
vastly easier to place the men on farms. The machinery of parole is
sometimes a little cumbersome.
County. Employed.
Berks Ten men employed three times weekly.
Cambria A number of prisoners on farms and roads.
Delaware Fourteen men on farm.
Lehigh Twelve men paroled to farmers.
Luzerne Not allowed by Court to county prisoners. City
prisoners work on almshouse farms.
Montgomery Six to ten men every day.
Westmoreland Twenty-five working on jail farm.
Schuylkill They have employed ten men on county farm.
Fourteen other counties are considering the proposition with intent to
begin operations in the spring of 1918.
Montgomery County pays a wage of 65 cents per day.
Berks County estimates that the prison has saved $900 the first season.
Fayette County. Men work on roads and farms. Wages daily, 25 cents. It
is estimated that the county saves many thousand dollars annually by
working the convicts on the roads.
Some further details of what has been accomplished in the way of
producing supplies for the prisons may be found in the Report of the
Wardens’ meeting at Glen Mills.
About half of the counties of the State have a prison population per
diem of fifteen or less, possibly the majority of these detained for
trial; hence, the farming proposition has little interest for them.
This law will be extremely beneficial to the prisons wherever it is
properly applied. Calculate, if you please, what the labor of ten men
on any well managed farm will produce. Nothing whatever is said in the
law as to the distribution of the produce. The crop may be divided on
some equitable basis with the poor authorities. It may all go to the
prison on some terms to be agreed upon. What cannot be used at the
time may be canned for use in the winter. We suppose in some cases
the surplus may be sold, or exchanged for other necessities of the
institution.
The law at least may be commended for brevity and for the absence of
any restraining features. Credit must be given to the State Board
of Charities for proposing and at once securing the passage of this
economic measure. The law is to be in force during the continuance of
the present war.
We trust the law will be amended so that the prisoners may be allowed
to work on land leased or donated for such purpose. There are some
large counties where there is no land available for this laudable
purpose. The bill introduced by Mr. Walker of Philadelphia contained
such a provision and also a clause explicitly stating that the surplus
of products may be sold at the best prices obtainable.
COMMISSION TO PROPOSE A REVISED SYSTEM OF PRISON MANAGEMENT.
Act No. 409 provides “That the Governor is hereby duly authorized to
appoint a commission of five persons, two of whom shall be learned
in the law, and at least one of whom shall be an active official of
a correctional institution within this Commonwealth, to investigate
prison systems and the organization and management of correctional
institutions within this Commonwealth and elsewhere; to recommend such
revision of the existing prison system within this Commonwealth, and
the laws pertaining to the establishment, maintenance and regulation of
State and county correctional institutions within this Commonwealth,
as it shall deem wise, and to report the same to the General Assembly
at the session of 1919.” Another section of the Act provides for the
appropriation of the sum of Five Thousand Dollars in order to meet the
necessary expenses of this commission, incurred in the performance of
their duties.
The Commission has been appointed and has already begun the work of
investigation. Two of the members attended the sessions of the American
Prison Association at New Orleans and by interviews with penological
experts, both administrators and students, derived valuable suggestions
in regard to the special features of penal management which should
be carefully studied in other States. The Commission aims to proceed
with great caution, being aware that what may have been successful in
some States may be unsuited to conditions in other States. While its
members have authorized no statement of its aims for publication, it
may be safely stated that there is no desire to effect a revolution in
our present system, but to modify and add to the present regulations
so as to attain the highest efficiency consistent with right and
justice. The Commission is unanimous in the belief that employment
must be found for all prisoners in the State and county prisons. There
are some conflicting elements with regard to the question of prison
labor, and it will be the aim of the Commission to devise some system
of employment which may as far as possible be helpful to the prisoner,
when he is discharged, which may teach him self-respect, and the
duties and responsibilities of citizenship, and which may reduce the
administrative expenses to a minimum, even to the extent of making
our penal institutions self-supporting. To accomplish this desirable
purpose, the law of 1913 providing for the manufacture of articles for
State-use must be greatly strengthened; and the establishment of two or
three industries for the manufacture of articles or the production of
material for State-Account must be seriously considered. We are aware
that the relations of prison labor to other labor must be thoughtfully
and considerately observed so that the interests of all parties may be
conserved. We submit that when several thousand men are thrown out of
employment or are detained in idleness, the entire community sustains a
loss. On this subject the Commission will welcome any suggestions from
officials or any persons interested in this important matter.
The Commission is composed as follows:
Fletcher W. Stites, Chairman, Crozer Building, Philadelphia. (Attorney
and Member of the Assembly of 1917).
A. E. Jones, Attorney, Uniontown, Pa.
Mrs. Martha P. Falconer, Superintendent Girls’ House of Refuge, Darling
P. O., Pa.
Louis N. Robinson, Professor of Economics, Swarthmore College, Pa.
Albert H. Votaw, Secretary The Pennsylvania Prison Society,
Philadelphia.
STATE-USE SYSTEM.
Several bills were introduced in the late Assembly designed to
strengthen the Act of 1915 in regard to the manufacture of articles
by prisoners for the use of the public institutions, but we regret to
report that, save the reference of these bills to committees, no action
was taken.
We admit some friction in getting the various public institutions in
any State to agree to purchase prison-made articles, yet in those
States where such system has been in use for some years, there is
little tendency to take a backward step. Unless there is a provision
that public institutions shall, whenever practicable, procure their
supplies from the Prison Labor Commission, little progress can be made.
Everybody agrees that prisoners ought to be put to work, and that it is
a shame to detain them in utter idleness, but when it comes to using
the products of their industry, there is reluctance and a feeling that
the other fellow may use such goods.
We are glad to report that the Prison Labor Commission of Pennsylvania
has made a beginning, yet up to this time the output is far below the
capacity of the available workers. At the Huntingdon Reformatory, the
license tags for automobiles to the number of one million are being
made, a decidedly economical arrangement for the State. Brushes, mops
and brooms are made at the Western Penitentiary and at the Eastern
Penitentiary a shoe factory has been initiated, and also knit goods
are made in this institution. We believe that a business of a million
dollars yearly may be built up in this State with prison-made goods,
and in order to make this worth while, the State should make ample
provision for the administration of this proposition. No State has been
successful in establishing the State-Use system which did not make it
obligatory upon the public institutions to patronize the industries
established by the State. It goes without saying that the quality
of the goods or articles made in these penal institutions must be
satisfactory.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
The Acting Committee gave hearty support to the bill for the abolition
of Capital Punishment, and deeply regret that this relic of a barbarous
revengeful age is to be continued in this Commonwealth.