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.