As Chairman of the Visiting Committee of the Eastern State
Penitentiary, I have been requested to make some inquiry into the
manner of determining the value of the work done by the prisoners,
and the allowance to be made to them for “over-work.” The inquiry
has been made accordingly, and the following may be given as the
result:—
In the first place, it is an important fact, that the law of the
State only directs that convicts shall be sentenced to “hard labor,”
leaving the _manner_ of executing the sentence to the Inspectors and
Wardens, or those having the immediate control of the Jails and
Penitentiaries. There is no provision for any compensation to the
prisoners for this labor; the primary, and probably the sole
purposes for which it was made a part of the sentences, being to
enforce it as a salutary part of the prison discipline, and also as
a means of compelling the prisoners to contribute something towards
the expense of their maintenance; consequently, any allowance made
to them for over-work is altogether a gratuity, which they have no
right to claim.
In the exercise of the discretion vested in the Inspectors and
Warden of the Penitentiary, they judged that the introduction of
rewards to the prisoners for industry would have a salutary tendency
in several directions, and they therefore allotted to each of them,
a certain quantity of such kind of work as should be given him, to
be performed in a day, or a month, to pay for his keep. This is
sometimes called “the task,” and is so moderate, that with ordinary
skill and application, it can be accomplished with ease. Such a
money valuation is affixed to this work, as will admit of the
Institution obtaining from their outside customers a small advance,
to provide tools, working materials, &c. The prisoner is expected,
at the price affixed, to earn for the Institution from twenty to
twenty-five cents per day. No penalty, however, is visited on him
for a failure, unless it is the result of culpable sloathfulness or
insubordination. Every thing done beyond this allotted task, is
credited to the prisoner as “over-work,” at the same rate affixed to
the “task,” half of it for the use of the County, and the other half
for his own use, to be paid to him at the expiration of his term; or
portions of it, during his imprisonment, are applied, at his
request, to the purchase of books, or, perhaps, a carpet for the
floor of his cell, or some other little comforts beyond the prison
allowance which the authorities may permit him to be supplied with,
or remitted to his family.
Under this system, many of the convicts, on the well known and
generally acknowledged principle, that “the hope of reward sweetens
labor,” are stimulated to so apply themselves, that they not only
fully do what is claimed of them by the Penitentiary, (and which,
without this encouragement, would often fail to be performed,) but
they sometimes accumulate the very handsome sum of several hundred
dollars against their discharge. One of them recently earned $14.31
_for his own use_ in one month—equal to $171.72 per annum—and
remarked that with a full supply of materials, he would have been
able to have doubled his earnings. The system, indeed, works
admirably, and its influences are salutary in several respects. The
interests of the Institution are advanced by it, and the present
comfort of those in confinement is promoted, and the susceptibility
of their minds to the favorable action of reformatory influences is
increased by having their time occupied by what they feel to be
profitable employment. Also, without having the character of
compulsory labor, it trains them to habits of industry, and
practically convinces them of the important truth, that labor is a
thing of real value. These habits, and this conviction, will be of
great value to them when they again enter into the world, and the
money they take with them will be an important aid in starting them
afresh in the business of life.
In allotting the tasks, if any of the prisoners appear to be
disheartened under an apprehension that they are greater than they
can accomplish, and therefore think it useless to attempt it, the
Warden reduces them, and thus leads them on gradually, and the
result fully proves that a greater amount of work is actually
obtained from them under this system, than would be by the more
exacting plan.
The law and rules in these respects, as applied to United States
prisoners, having also been under discussion in our Society, special
information has been desired on that branch of the subject. It being
understood that the General Government pays for their board, doubts
have been expressed whether they are bound to labor at all; and if
they do, it has been suggested that they should receive a credit for
the _whole_ value of their work. The first branch of the question is
answered and settled by the fact, that they are sentenced to under
go imprisonment for a certain term, _in conformity with our State
Laws_—that is, “at hard labor.” Next, as to compensation, their
board being paid. It is true the United States pays for each of its
prisoners $2.50 per week, which is for board, clothing, fuel,
medical attendance, and, indeed, all his ordinary wants, and is
hardly half of the cost to the Commonwealth, of each of those in
confinement. The Penitentiary was erected by the State of
Pennsylvania, at a cost of about $600,000, _for its own use_. The
interest of this sum, and an annual appropriation made, to meet
current expenses, such as salaries of officers, &c., amount together
to about $50,000 per annum, which, as the average number in
confinement does not exceed 400, makes a yearly cost to each of, say
$125, _in addition to their board and incidentals_. It is fairly
said, that, although we may be willing to submit to the loss on our
own prisoners, it is but reasonable that we should be protected from
it, when accommodating the General Government. The result is, that
United States prisoners, as regards labor and compensation, are
treated throughout in the same manner as our own.
The same principle, as to compensation for labor, though differing
somewhat in its practical details, has been introduced into our
County Prison, with very satisfactory results. Whether it has been
adopted in our Western State Penitentiary at Pittsburgh, or not, we
are not clearly informed; and we are not aware that it is to be
found in any Jail or Penitentiary beyond the limits of our State. It
is one of the advantages of the Pennsylvania Separate System of
imprisonment that it better admits of such an arrangement, than
where the prisoners are congregated together in the workshops.