[This address, which we print in large part, was read by Mr. Sonsteby
at the recent Rhode Island state conference of charities and
correction. It seems an excellent statement from the standpoint of
organized labor.
The Review will be glad to print authoritative statements from other
persons holding other views on the prison labor problem.--EDITOR.]
In speaking to the subject of labor’s attitude toward convict labor, I
speak from the standpoint of organized union labor, and through it to
the free labor of our country.
I speak particularly for the United Garment Workers of America, a union
whose membership is largely composed of women and girls, and which is
subjected to more competition with convict labor than almost any other
union or trade.
Organized labor has taken a positive stand and has an attitude toward
convict labor. That attitude is practically no different from the
attitude of other citizens who have given the subject careful thought
and who are not financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the
labor of convicts.
I have found whenever labor men, manufacturers, sociologists and other
financially disinterested people have discussed the question there has
been an almost unanimity of opinion.
The attitude of free labor toward convict labor finds expression only
through the means afforded by the labor unions. Unorganized free labor
is what the name implies, and has no authorized person to speak for
it. Organized labor’s attitude toward convict labor is, therefore, the
only one capable of being crystalized and expressed.
Free labor is unalterably opposed to convict labor as it is commonly
understood to-day, viz.: The competition of the products of convict
labor with that of free labor on the open market. Free labor favors
prison labor for the purpose of keeping prisoners employed, training
them for their duties as citizens when they are released, and making
products for the state and the state institutions.
Speaking before a subcommittee of the committee on labor, in the house
of representatives, in March, 1910, Mr. Thomas F. Tracey, representing
the American federation of labor, said, in part: “The labor
organizations of this country, as typified by the American federation
of labor, have not, are not, and should never help in the advocacy of
anything that would put prisoners in idleness. We want those who are
the outcasts of society, and who are confined in prisons to be allowed
to do work--such work as will be beneficial to them; but we do not
believe that, when these men are confined in prisons, instead of their
labor being put in the direction of either grinding out dividends for
stockholders of concerns of this kind (prison contractors), or making
profits for the state, their efforts should be rather in the direction
of educating them and reforming them to lead better lives.”
The foregoing sentiment represents the altruistic attitude of the
American labor movement.
What reason is there for an expression of labor’s attitude? People who
have a selfish purpose to serve have directly and by innuendo charged
labor unions with selfishly endeavoring to keep all prisoners in
idleness, so that no products from convict labor would be manufactured.
Organized labor has never been guilty of such an endeavor, and its
attitude has been intentionally and insistently misrepresented by those
who knew better.
That the inmates of penal and reformatory institutions must have
employment if the object of their confinement is to be attained, is
admitted by all. That this employment will, in some degree, compete
with free labor, is also true. That at the present time this employment
of convict labor does compete with free labor, and compete in a
demoralizing way with it, is recognized by all who are informed. People
who do not come in contact with prison labor or the products of prison
labor, do not realize what the competition of the convict labor means.
Organized labor believes that the employment of convict labor should be
so diversified that the burden will be equally distributed among all
free labor, and reduced to such a minimum that the members of no trade
or occupation can justly complain.
The two dominant ideas in prison management heretofore have been simply
retribution and economy. The possibility of reforming convicts who are
within prison walls--reforming them by useful, educative labor--is
a comparatively new idea, and not accepted by all those in charge
of convicts. Organized labor believes in reforming the convicts and
returning them as soon as possible to society, mentally and morally
sound and willing and able to take their places in the rank of
wage earners. It costs money to train morals or to do educational
or reformatory work. It takes effort, time, money, and interest to
diversify employment among convicts so as to render such employment
educative and beneficial to the convicts, and, at the same time, not
unfair to free labor.
The desire on the part of many managers and prison officials to make
penal and reformatory institutions self supporting is one of the causes
for their failure up to the present time to arrive at a successful
solution of the convict labor question. Another reason for the failure
to successfully solve the question has been the fast disappearing
but still remaining spoils system in politics, which gives to the
local merchants contracts to supply the needs of the state and state
institutions. The usual form of prison labor is not reformative.
The problems to which all right thinking people should apply themselves
is to adopt or evolve some system of employment that is fair to free
labor, and then endeavor to have such a system uniform throughout
the United States. Until some uniform system of disposing of the
products of convicts is adopted, there should be a federal law enacted
providing that each state shall have the right to regulate the sale of
prison-made goods within its own borders. Such a bill, has been pending
for a number of years in the congress of the United States. Each state
should dispose of, within its own borders, the products of its own
penal institutions.
The systems in vogue in our penal institutions at the present time are
commonly known as:
1. Contract labor (indoors).
2. Contract labor (outdoors).
3. Piece-price plan.
4. Lease system (outdoors).
5. State account: products sold on open market.
6. State account: for state use.
Of these, the contract labor and lease systems have been universally
condemned. At the present time, each state has its own system, or lack
of system of handling the convict labor question. Each state endeavors
to avoid competition with free labor in its own particular state. To
do this, many contracts provide that the product shall not be sold
within the state where it is made, and as a result the free labor in
all the states is subject to about the same competition because of this
interstate commerce in prison-made goods.
The farming out and disposing of the labor of convicts by contracts
to private persons or corporations, is the most pernicious form of
competition to which free labor is subjected. The piece-price plan and
state-account, when the product is disposed of on the open market,
either to favored persons or corporations, or without regard to market
conditions or prevailing market price, is not much better. All of these
systems except the state account plan, where the product is used by
the state or state institutions, tend toward the concentrating of the
productions into a few trades. The concentrating of prison-made goods
into a few trades is bitterly opposed by free labor. Such products
are sold in the open market at less than the market prices, and this
unfair, cruel competition drives free manufacturers out of business,
free workmen out of employment, and puts a penalty on the wage-earner
who keeps out of prison.
The old systems of labor have been tried, have been weighed in the
balance and found wanting. The story of graft and corruption of prison
officials who have had anything to do with contracts for prison labor
under any system, except the state account plan, where the products
are used by the state, or in the state institutions, has aroused
almost every state in our Union. The reports of state investigating
committees and of committees appointed by civic organizations, are such
as to be almost unbelievable. The abuses, the atrocities, the crimes
that are committed in the use of convict labor, have brought down the
condemnation of all right thinking citizens, and created a demand for a
system of labor that will not be subject to those conditions.
In the movement for better conditions, organized labor takes a stand
in the front rank. Of all of the systems of work that have been used
in the various penal institutions the one most successful is the
state account system by which the labor of the convicts is used for
the state, and the products for the state institutions. This system
eliminates nearly all incentive to bribery of prison officials, the
exploitation of convict labor and the opposition to the parole laws.
Under it the whole people get whatever benefits may be derived from the
labor of the prisoners of the state.
Organized labor is on record as favoring this system. When the prison
officials recognize that the profits of the prisoners’ labor belongs to
the state, that the state is more interested in reforming the prisoner
than making a profit on him, such officials thereupon become much
better officials for the state as a whole.
The efforts of the prison officials are thereafter directed toward
curing our morally sick men and women, and new and various methods are
tried. In this connection I might mention the experiment as reported
in the press of September 30, of this year, of Ray Baker, warden of
the Nevada state penitentiary, who, in company with three unarmed
assistants, took fifty-two convicts, many of them life termers, to
attend a theatrical performance. Every convict was upon honor, and not
one violated his word.
How many of our prison officials will hold up their hands in holy
horror at such unconventional conduct on the part of the warden?
Slavery and involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime
is forbidden in the United States by the thirteenth amendment to the
constitution. It is by this amendment that the state has any right in
the labor of convicts. That right, I think, should only exist when
the convict labors for the state or its institutions. Where the state
through its courts has no power, as punishment for crime, to sentence a
convict to labor for private persons, it should have no right to do so
directly by contracts with private persons providing for the labor or
the product of the labor of the convicts.
Under the plan organized labor favors, the convicts are always under
the control of the state and its authorized officials. They may be
shifted from one form of work to another as the needs of the state or
the health and training of the convicts require.
Every convict who has no trade and is capable of learning one should be
taught one most suitable for him. Not in a haphazard, spasmodic way,
but in a way that will make him an efficient, intelligent mechanic,
retaining skill, and able to follow the trade when he is released.
In the arrangement of employment for the prisoners the state should
endeavor to supply itself with everything necessary in its various
institutions. Convicts should be employed as nearly as possible at the
work they are accustomed to, especially if they are skilled mechanics,
in order that they should not lose their skill. A large proportion of
the convicts are men accustomed to outdoor life, either on farms or
other outdoor labor; many of them are convicted of crimes in no way
violent or due to vicious or violent dispositions.
To confine men of this kind in cells and compel them to work in shops
is to endanger their health, break them down physically, and return
them to society not only morally sick, but also physically and mentally
sick.
The death rate from tuberculosis is much higher in prisons than
outside. In some prisons the conditions are such that a sentence of
five years or more means almost invariably another case of tuberculosis
and death.
The danger to the public from the clothing and other products made by
these tuberculosis infected convicts is so great that if the public
only knew the facts, prompt remedial legislation would be forced. The
states are spending millions of dollars annually to eliminate or reduce
the great “white plague,” yet at the same time they are maintaining
also at public expense some of the worst causes. These convicts are
returned to society about every five years, and the product of their
labor is in every state in the Union. Is it not better and cheaper to
prevent tuberculosis by wiping out one of its most prolific causes than
to let it continue to spread pain, misery and death, among our people
who have committed no crime?
As large an amount of outdoor work as possible should be provided. A
large farm should be operated, on which not only necessary foodstuffs
be raised, but a flour mill for the grinding of flour and all other
necessary plants for the turning of the different raw products into
the finished articles needed in the various institutions. The making
of roads is needed in almost every state, and is an ideal occupation
for convicts. After providing for the needs of the state and state
institutions the surplus labor could be used in this way. Only those
convicts should be put to work on the roads who have been convicted of
minor offenses, and can be trusted without ball and chain and armed
guards. In this day of speedy communications by telegraph, telephone
and wireless, the old restraints are very much less needed.
At the present time none of the prisons of the country are
self-supporting. All of these penal institutions are a burden on
taxpayers of this country. All free workmen are taxpayers of the state,
either directly or indirectly. It is unfair that any one part of the
taxpayers should be discriminated against by the state. Concentrating
the labor of prisoners in an institution into a few trades forces the
free labor in those trades to enter into competition with the state.
The selling of convict labor products on the open market in competition
with free labor, at any price, throws free taxpayers, into ruthless
competition with the state. Using convict labor to furnish the needs of
the state and state institutions not only removes the state from the
market for free labor, but also permits free manufacturers to meet each
other in fair, free competition. They are then all equal as to labor
costs, no products of slave labor being thrown at any price on the open
market.
Organized labor asks no special privileges in this matter, but wants
simply that each free laborer be treated the same as every other
free man; that he pay only his just share of the tax necessary to
the maintenance of the state and its penal institutions; that he be
subjected to only his fair share of the competition incident to the
manufacture of any product within the penal institutions; that a system
of employment be inaugurated and maintained in the penal institutions
of the country that will educate and reform the convicts; that the
products of all convict labor should be used entirely by the state and
institutions of the state, where the convict is incarcerated; that the
labor of the convicts should be so diversified that the burden will
fall as equally as possible on all free labor within the state; that
the exploitation of convicts or their labor or the products of their
labor for the benefit of individuals be not permitted in any form;
that a rate of compensation be allowed for the product of convicts
based upon the labor costs outside prisons, and that, after deducting
from the earnings of the convicts the cost of maintenance and other
proper and necessary costs, the balance should be used either for the
dependent family of the convict, the reimbursement of those who have
been injured or suffered through the crime, of the convict, or kept for
the use of the convict and given to him when he is released; that when
a convict is discharged or paroled, a place be provided for his care
until he is able to secure employment in the line he has been taught,
and means provided to secure him employment.
In all movements for the betterment of prisoners and the welfare of
prisoners, organized labor has assisted. Every law enacted in the
United States, changing and bettering prison conditions has either been
initiated or strongly supported by the labor unions. The improvement of
sanitary conditions in the prisons; the providing of dining rooms are
all improvements largely due to the efforts made by organized labor.
The adoption of the foregoing plans will make of the penal institutions
of our country industrial institutions for the saving of morally sick
men and women committed to them. The inmates of such institutions
will return to the body politic with a corrected perspective due to a
training under a state government that desires to reform as well as
correct. They will again take their places in society not only willing,
but able to do their share of the world’s work. This is the attitude of
organized labor toward convict labor.