PENAL LEGISLATION OF 1917 IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.
The County Industrial Farm, Workhouse and Reformatory Act of 1917.
Under this Act the State is to be divided into Nine Districts, in each of which is to be established an Industrial Farm to which prisoners sentenced to serve terms in county jails are to be sent. Each Institution is to be managed by a Board of Trustees which shall be composed of one county commissioner from each county of the district, to be appointed by the judge of Quarter Sessions.
The members of the first Board of Trustees shall be appointed to serve until the expiration of their respective terms of office as county commissioners. Each Board of Trustees is hereby authorized to select a suitable site for such Industrial Farm and to make arrangements for the erection and equipment of the necessary buildings. The Farm is not to exceed five hundred acres in extent. The buildings are to be “plain and inexpensive in character,” and the labor as far as possible is to be supplied by the convicts committed to said institution.
The ninth section of the Act provides that the court of Quarter Sessions in any county “may, in its discretion, transfer from the county jails and prisons, respectively, to such penal farm those who have been sentenced to the county prison for any crime, misdemeanor, or felony (murder and voluntary manslaughter excepted),” and also those detained for non-payment of fines and costs, or for non-support; in fact, any persons legally confined in the county jails except those who are held for trial. And hereafter the court may, in its discretion, send those convicted as above directly to said Industrial Farm.
Resources of the Site.
As far as practicable the selection of the site for the farm shall have reference to its advantages for various forms of husbandry, fruit-growing, stock-raising, for brick-making, for the preparation of road and paving material, and shall have good railroad, drainage, sewage and water facilities. The prisoners are to be employed in work “on or about the buildings and farm” in raising stock and supplies for the use of said institution and for the use of other public and charitable institutions in the District.
“All road material, brick, tile and concrete prepared” at these farms not needed for the purposes of the institution, shall be offered for sale at a price to be fixed by the Board of Trustees, the proceeds to be applied towards paying the overhead expenses of said institution.
Discipline.
“All inmates shall be clothed and treated as provided for in this Act, and in the rules and regulations of the industrial farm.”
Penalties.
“If any person refuses to perform the work assigned to him or her, or is guilty of other acts of insubordination, the superintendent shall punish such person by close confinement and a diet of bread and water only, or in such other manner as the rules and regulations ... may prescribe.”
Inebriates.
A separate apartment in the institution shall be appropriated to inebriates and drug users which shall be called the Inebriate Home. Any person habitually addicted to intemperance or to “dope” may on application be admitted to this Inebriate Home, the bills for expense being paid weekly by such applicant. It is further provided that if any inmate of this Home is able to pay the expense of his keeping, the court committing such person is authorized to make an order directing the amount to be paid by the said inmate.
Expense.
The original cost of the farm and buildings and all fixed overhead charges “shall be paid by the counties constituting the district, in the ratio of their population according to the last preceding United States census.” “The cost of the care and maintenance of the inmates shall be certified monthly to the counties from which inmates have been committed. Such cost shall be paid by the counties in proportion to the number of inmates committed from each county.”
NOTES AND COMMENTS ON THIS ACT.
On first reading there were some provisions of the Act which seemed impracticable. But we believe these minor imperfections may easily be corrected by future legislative enactment. The general principle of the Act is sound and in accordance with the trend of public sentiment. Massachusetts and Indiana both have Industrial Farms for prisoners serving short-time sentences. The State of Indiana has one such farm in successful operation, but we are informed some officials are convinced that it would have been wiser to institute two or three such farms. The original bill we favored provided for six such plantations. However, the nine farms may each have over 500 inmates to be cared for and employed.
It may be unfortunate that the farms are limited to 500 acres. Allegheny County now has a farm of over 600 acres, and has under cultivation about 500 acres. This county will be united with four other counties in the management of the Industrial Farm for the Second District, and 500 acres will prove insufficient. It may be wise to amend the Act making it possible to secure a farm of 1000 acres if thought desirable. It has been found to be an economical proposition to establish penal farms on waste land and by means of drainage, leveling, removing of rocks and scientific tillage and fertilizing to make the “wilderness blossom as the rose.” On a Penal Farm in Florida may now be seen flourishing corn and cane fields where three years ago was the lair of alligators. At Occoquan, Va., Warden Whittaker has transformed barren, arid, scrub pine lands, costing from five to fifteen dollars per acre, into a splendid plantation abounding in orchards, grain fields, gardens and small fruits. Similarly very cheap land at Bridgwater, Mass., has been cleared off and changed into a handsome productive farm.
It might be easier to limit the amount of money to be expended for the site, the only condition being that the farm should contain at least 500 acres.
Escapes.
Escapes were quite numerous from the Indiana State Farm when they first were trying the experiment. The passage of a State law severely penalizing the man who escapes (he is nearly always caught), justly punishing him with several years of imprisonment at the State Penitentiary has lessened the number making effort to escape.
Prisoners Awaiting Trial.
Some of these prisoners are held from thirty to ninety days. Why not allow them the option of languishing in idleness at the detention prison or of engaging in healthful occupation on the farm? The option should be given, as they can not be compelled to work. Such privilege should be granted with circumspection. The Court not generally being in session when such offenders are arrested could not pass judgment as to whether such privilege should be granted. The nature of the accusation must be taken into consideration. We are sure that a goodly number of those who are thus held might be sent to the Industrial Farm, but the details connected with such permission are yet to be arranged.
Compensation.
Nothing is said in the Act with regard to any compensation. It is expected that these farms will ultimately become self-supporting and may to some extent become a source of profit. We think it is within the province of the Board of Trustees to fix the compensation. An addition to the Act as soon as practicable should be enacted providing for compensation to be sent, part to the family, if in need, of the prisoner, and a part to be held for the prisoner at the time of his discharge. The wages will be graded with reference to the character of the labor. It is a wise provision of the law that the labor of prisoners in the construction of the buildings shall be availed of as far as possible.
Industries.
On a farm of 500 acres containing tillable land and stone quarries, a large number of men may find employment, but it will require very intensive farming to employ 500 men and make the venture financially profitable. Hence on every farm some one or two industries should be allowed not requiring highly-skilled labor, since the population is a rapidly shifting crowd. The bill very properly specifies brick, tile and concrete work, and the crushing of stone for road-making. A large number of men may be thus employed, but please remember that there are nine of these penal farms. There should be one or two industries suitable for mechanics and for indoor employment on each farm. The sale of the products should not be confined to the district in which any farm is situated. Let the soap-making industry be established on one of these farms. The product might be sold to all public institutions in the State. In one or two farms, there might be found the broom-making industry. In several farms canneries, under the best sanitary regulations, should be established. Underwear and socks for all public institutions could be made at two or three of these penal farms. Working shirts and overalls are properly made at such institutions. The manufacture of plain cloth of several inconspicuous patterns should be encouraged. One factory could make cloth sufficient for the other nine institutions. Ash cans and garbage cans for all municipalities are products of prison labor in several States.
We have by no means exhausted the list of industries suitable for the labor of prisoners. Every suggestion as mentioned above has been tried and found to work satisfactorily elsewhere.
In all cases, especially with regard to farm products and canned goods, it should be specified that the surplus may be sold in the open market. Suppose more potatoes should chance to be raised than the public institutions should need. In these days we tolerate no waste. We doubt whether there is a farmer in the Commonwealth who would object to the sale of the surplus in the open market. The competition would be negligible, as we think it would be with any other industry.
Inebriate Home.
It is specified that each of these farms shall have a separate apartment in the institution for the treatment of inebriates and drug users. What becomes of the proposition to establish a State Farm for the care of inebriates? Just such an institution was authorized by the Assembly of 1913. If this farm is established, and if nine other Inebriate Homes are to be constructed, it might seem that an appalling amount of dipsomania and anesthetic torpor is found in Pennsylvania. We suppose the intent of the Act is to retain, until cured, or greatly improved, those unfortunate wretches who spend a large part of the year in durance in thirty-day and sixty-day sentences. Philadelphia can supply a thousand of such derelicts, possibly Pittsburgh another thousand, and the remainder of the State a goodly proportion. Many of these people can do good work when not under the influence of intoxicants. We doubt the wisdom of segregation in every instance. If they mingle freely with those who are not drunkards or addicted to opiates, they may derive some benefit from such association. The separate treatment should be reserved for those who have become greatly impaired by bad habits.
There is also very great need of providing separate quarters for those afflicted with tuberculosis and venereal disease.
Expenses.
Original cost of farm and buildings paid by counties according to population. Overhead expenses to be paid by counties according to population. Care and maintenance of inmates to be paid by counties for each inmate sent. Each county pays for transportation of its inmates to the institution. The transportation of the convict when discharged will be charged, so it appears, to overhead expenses of the institution.
Thus, every county will pay pro rata according to population a share 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
The bill passed the Senate by a handsome majority, and there was every indication that it would pass the House with votes to spare. A day or two before the vote was taken, there was an explosion in a munition factory near Chester, which at first was thought to have been caused by spies or alien enemies. Great loss of life resulted, and the idea that such a heinous crime could not be punished by death, if the bill should be passed, so wrought upon the minds of the members of the Assembly that many of them changed their attitude, casting their votes against the bill. This shocking accident was never traced to the agency of any person or persons; however, it was felt by many that in the event of the commission of such a crime, death was the only adequate penalty.
The Indeterminate Sentence.
A law for the imposition of a maximum and a minimum term of imprisonment on convicts sent to the penitentiaries of the State was passed in 1909. It was provided that the minimum should not exceed one-fourth the maximum sentence.
In 1911 the law was amended to apply to convicts of the State when sent to the penitentiary or to the county jail. It was further amended by striking out the one-fourth provision and vesting the authority to determine the maximum and minimum entirely in the Court, except that the maximum was not to be greater than the law for any particular offence may prescribe. The Court has power by this law to make the minimum sentence any time at all to within one day of the maximum. A convict whose offence by statute may be punished by an imprisonment of twenty years could have a minimum sentence fixed at any time from one day to nineteen years, eleven months and twenty-nine days. There were four prisoners at the Eastern Penitentiary at the time the last report was made whose maximum was twenty years and whose minimum was the same lacking one day. There were thirty-eight prisoners sentenced to a maximum of twenty years whose minimum was eighteen years or more. According to the old law of commutation for good behavior, every one of these prisoners would have been entitled to freedom on good behavior at the end of twelve years and three months. This law of commutation for satisfactory conduct had been in vogue for fifty years and we have not learned that the judiciary of the State had issued any remonstrance. The number according to the last report whose maximum was twenty years was 86. These under old law of commutation might be released in 12 years, 3 months. Of these 86, under present law, 55 will remain longer than under commutation. And under present law, 31 may be released earlier than under commutation. It is the inequality of sentences which has produced dissatisfaction. We have confidence in the judiciary of the Commonwealth, but we know that they differ in regard to time of expiation. How could it be otherwise? It might be supposed that judges might welcome an opportunity to place the responsibility of determining the time of release, or of ascertaining when a convict is ready to resume the duties of citizenship, upon some judicious body of men or women chosen with regard to their special fitness for such a responsible task.
The Assembly was convinced of the righteousness of the plea for an indeterminate sentence which might more closely correspond with its title than the law as amended in 1911, hence the members of the Assembly by a solid majority amended the law of 1911 so that any convict who had served one-third of the maximum sentence as prescribed by the Court should be eligible for parole. Mark that the law explicitly states that such convicts are eligible for parole, not that they shall be paroled. The time when they should be paroled, if paroled under any event, is decided by the Parole Board. Granted that we have a judicious Parole Board, who can better decide when a man is entitled to liberty, the judge or the jury who note the crime and see the man at the time of his trial, or the men who are supposed not only to know the circumstances of the crime but also to become familiar with the man’s attitude and general character? In this country freedom is man’s birthright, and if by some error or mischance he loses that liberty, it should be restored to him as soon as he shows that he can safely be trusted with it, and that he appreciates its value.
But notwithstanding the favorable vote of both Houses of the Assembly, Governor Brumbaugh was not convinced of the correctness of the principle involved and so interposed a veto. With all due deference to the Chief Magistrate of this Commonwealth, we honestly differ with him in regard to this particular matter. The veto message was quite brief, the fear being expressed that some guilty of second degree murder, altho the circumstances might readily indicate a malicious murder of the first degree, might under the proposed act regain their freedom in something less than seven years. The statute provides a sentence of twenty years for murder of the second degree, but under the operation of the proposed amendment the guilty person would be liable for parole at the end of six years and eight months.
It seems to be forgotten that the Parole Board exercises judicial functions, and very often refuses parole when the minimum time has expired. Eligibility to parole is far from synonymous with election to parole. The circumstances are closely investigated, and the record of the trial is carefully studied. In the case of any outrageous murder or burglary, the Board of Parole is amply justified in detaining the applicant beyond the time of the minimum sentence. In many cases the Board has very properly refused the application for parole and in a number of instances has decided it best to retain a criminal to the end of his maximum term.
Granted that the Parole Board may occasionally err on the side of mercy, the wrong, sorrow, misery caused by the failure to secure this legislation will far outweigh the possible danger from the very few who might be prematurely returned to the outside world. Today the Commonwealth is supporting in almost complete idleness some hundreds who have demonstrated that they are ready to resume citizenship and to support themselves and families and yet they are compelled to remain as a burden to the community.
We are placing an immense burden upon the Inspectors of our Penitentiaries who in this State constitute the Boards of Parole. They are men with a high sense of civic responsibility, who do a large amount of faithful service without financial remuneration. They will not ask for any release from duties which the State may impose on them, but in justice to them we submit that the time has come for at least consideration of a proposition to appoint a special Board of Parole who shall receive compensation for their services. The work, if properly performed, demands a large amount of care and study.
Employment of Prisoners on the Highways.
Act 314 empowers the State Highway Commissioner to arrange with the managers of prisons to employ the inmates thereof at manual labor for “the construction ... or maintenance of the State Highways....”
The workers are to receive wages from 40 to 60 cents per day, and are to be subjected to no cruel treatment.
The law is an excellent one and should result, since there is great scarcity of laborers, in very great benefit to the Commonwealth, in fact, in the settlement of the good roads problem.
Recently the Rhode Island Legislature has made it possible to employ convict labor on the public highways. Two gangs of thirty-one men each were thus employed last summer, and it is reported that the results are very satisfactory to the road officials.
Missouri has also joined the ranks of States that use convict labor in the construction of highways. “The Old Trail highway, running from Kansas City to St. Louis, is being improved ... over a stretch of swampy land that has been the despair of the Old Trail highway promoters, and the work is being done entirely with convict labor under the direction of State engineers.”