3. Burning of certain shops in Rusk and Huntsville
prisons, the losses aggregating $286,931. Neither the
indebtedness nor operating account were affected to the
full amount of this loss, for only about $60,000 was
expended in replacements. But both indebtedness and
operating loss were further swelled, to an unmeasured
extent, by reason of the interruption and disorganization
of industries; for a time there was no work for many of
the convicts to do.
There was also evidence in the investigation to show that the plan
of organization was imperfect. For one thing, the commissioners were
serving under the statute, with their terms limited to two years, and
they were therefore subject to removal in the event of change in the
office of governor. Also, under this law, they were serving in the dual
capacity of directors and executive officials. The system, therefore,
had three heads of co-equal authority. Much of the testimony indicated
that this system did not work well. The men who wrote the prison bill
in 1910 did not originally intend to provide such a system, but at the
last moment they changed their bill in response to an eloquent plea in
behalf of the “commission form of government.”
When the present Legislature met in special session in July, 1913,
prohibition was still an active issue. Moreover, there were rumors
that Governor Colquitt and former Governor Campbell would contest
for a seat in the United States Senate in 1916, or earlier should an
opportunity arise. Notwithstanding these difficulties or diversions,
the Legislature, upon the whole, seemed sincerely desirous of providing
a solution of the prison system problem. There was, however, no
leadership upon the subject which any considerable number of the
members seemed willing to follow. Indeed, the leaders were not in
agreement. Most of the members confessed their ignorance of the
subject, but in this situation many of them offered remedies of their
own devising. Pride of authority flourished. It had become quite the
style to advocate “humanitarianism;” accordingly many impracticable
propositions were advanced. Most of these were rejected; some found
their way into the bill finally passed.
This bill provided that the members of the prison commission should
hold office for six years, their terms lapping; that they should be
paid $1,200 a year each, and should not be required to give all of
their time to the service. In other words they were to act as a board
of directors. They were authorized to appoint a general manager, and
were not limited to the State to find one. This general manager was
to receive not more than $6,000 a year, and to have full authority to
employ and remove all other officers and employees of the system. The
bill also modified most of the provisions of the act of 1910 which had
been criticized; the limitation upon the hours of labor was slightly
modified, and the per diem requirement was repealed. The provision
of the law authorizing whipping within limitations and with certain
safeguards was permitted to stand.
These features were in line with the recommendations of Governor
Colquitt, but he vetoed the bill because of other provisions. One of
the objectionable features, this in lieu of the per diem requirement,
was an elaborate scheme for profit-sharing as between the State and the
prisoners. Many members of the Legislature and many citizens as well,
thought it ludicrous to embark upon a system of profit-sharing at a
time when there were no profits to be shared, and to bind the State
to stand all losses while sharing the profits of prosperous years. My
personal opinion is that the scheme, in the circumstances and in its
detail, was chimerical.
Subsequent to the adjournment of the special session, as I have
heretofore stated, a new prison commission was appointed, this time
for six years’ terms under the constitution. W. O. Murray, a successful
merchant of Floresville, is the chairman. He served fourteen years in
both branches of the Legislature, devoting himself, as chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations, to the fiscal affairs of the State,
and he resigned from the Senate to become the chief officer of the
prison system. The second new member is C. J. Bass of Terrell, also a
successful merchant. The third new member appointed is W. O. Stamps,
a well-to-do farmer and saw mill man of Upshur county. Mr. Stamps
served two terms in the Texas Legislature and was a member of the
special committee which investigated the prison system in 1909. He is
not exercising the functions of the office to which he was appointed,
for the reason that Commissioner Tittle claims title to the place, and
has been sustained in this contention by a district judge. The prison
organization therefore will remain incomplete until the court of last
resort has passed upon the case.
The new board is assisted by an appropriation of $1,350,860.27 to
pay debts, half of it not to become available until September 1,
1914. It will not clear up all of the indebtedness. The total amount
appropriated to the prison system since the act of 1910 became
effective is $2,210,860.27.
The indebtedness has increased since January 1, 1913, if payments made
out of appropriations from the State treasury are not considered, but
a fair statement of present indebtedness or of losses from operation
in 1913 cannot be made until the farm products of 1913 have been sold.
Cane is harvested during the early winter.
It is known, however, at this time that the crops of 1913 have not
turned out well and that the results of the year’s operations will show
on the wrong side of the ledger. Nevertheless, it is inevitable that a
large sum must be expended to plant and cultivate a new crop in 1914,
the returns from which will not be received until late in the year.
The losses have been increased through damage to the plantations
through the recent floods of the Brazos River. It is estimated that
such damage will amount to $500,000. The indebtedness, however, has
been reduced in effect through a recent opinion of the Attorney
General, holding that the law authorizing per diem payments to convicts
is unconstitutional. The Prison System owed the convicts quite a large
sum of money upon account of per diem, and this indebtedness has in
effect been wiped off the books through the Attorney General’s opinion.
In this situation, it is believed that Governor Colquitt will again
convene the Legislature in special session in January to further deal
with the problem.
In my opinion, the chief needs of the prison system are a plan of
organization of the sort which the Legislature sought to provide in
its recent act; abandonment of the big plantation scheme, and adequate
operating capital. Many penologists coming to Texas from other states
have praised the big plantation scheme; the idea of working prisoners
in the open air and under “God’s sunshine,” rather than in shops,
appeals to them. A more intimate knowledge of the plantation system
might convince these persons that its alleged excellences are largely
moonshine. It should be remembered, for one thing, that most men in
Texas, whether in shops, stores or offices, get more open air and God’s
sunshine than do persons engaged in similar pursuits in more northerly
latitudes. I believed that the big plantation system was bad even when
it was financially profitable, or seemingly so. It has now ceased even
to be profitable. Heretofore, few people agreed with my criticism of
this system. There have been converts; yet, I am frank to say that not
a very great number of persons are in agreement with me. Many now are
opposed to operating the plantations now owned by the State, but most
of these would have the State buy other large farms in a different
section, abandoning the growing of sugar-cane.
Practically all of the able-bodied convicts of the prison system
have been put to work on the plantations regardless of their former
occupations and regardless of their inclination to flee or to foment
trouble. The four big plantations are situated in the valley of
the lower Brazos River, in a wooded country which invites escapes.
Consequently, it is necessary to have a veritable army of officers and
guards. The pay-roll is enormous, although individual compensation is
small. Because the compensation is small there is a constant shift in
the guard personnel. As a rule most of the guards are unfit for the
service. This assertion is supported by the testimony of a number of
the officers of the system. Yet the convicts are directly and wholly
in the charge of these guards the greater part of the time, sometimes
being miles away from headquarters and officers.
The plantations are in a rainy country; the heaviest work of the year,
cane harvesting, is done at a season when the weather generally is
inclement. It is true that free labor encounters the same conditions,
but it is practicable for free labor to go to shelter, while
impracticable to move large forces of convicts expeditiously. Moreover,
free labor, as its name implies, is free to lay off when it so desires;
prisoners, as the word implies, cannot do this.
The Rusk and Huntsville prisons have cells in which usually one, and
not more than two convicts, are kept. But only 16 per cent. of the
total number of convicts are in these prisons. All others are on the
plantations. The act of 1910 called for fireproof cell buildings on
the plantations, but it did not provide funds wherewith to build them.
Moreover, the prison commissioners, like their predecessors in office,
deemed it impracticable and unnecessary to provide such buildings.
Accordingly the new buildings which they have erected are of the old
type, plus some improvements. These farm prison buildings are good of
their kind, but the kind is bad.
They are wooden dormitory buildings. In each dormitory a large number
of convicts are housed, sometimes more than 100. They commingle and
converse freely within certain hours. Among the convicts in every
camp there are agitators, “congressmen” their fellows call them. The
conditions are such as to permit, if not indeed, to invite, immoral
practices, conspiracy and mutiny.
The efforts to employ practically all the able-bodied convicts on the
farms, to cultivate a large acreage, and to meet the varying demands
for labor—this latter necessitating frequent transfer of convicts from
plantation to plantation, and from shops to the farms—has practically
defeated efforts at classification of prisoners as was required by the
act of 1910.
I do not see much hope for the Texas prison system unless provision
shall be made for a business like organization; unless there shall be
substituted for the plantation system a line of industries which will
admit of the convicts being under the actual control of competent and
suitable officers instead of incompetent and poorly paid guards, nor
unless adequate operating capital shall be provided.
In view, however, of the experiences here detailed, I am fearful that
before such reforms shall be enacted the people will grow weary of
footing the bills and will permit a restoration of the contract or
lease system, possibly in disguise. The present situation is not unlike
that of 1870 when the lease system was adopted.