Chairman Cabell denied the truth of their deductions as to the abolition of whipping, and he asserted that in his opinion these other officers exaggerated the influence of the limitation upon the hours of labor.
Certain of the new officers of the system who testified before the investigating committee said that most of the officers and guards, having been trained under the old order, were not in sympathy with the new law nor with its purposes. This suggestion was reinforced by the testimony of such officers, as is indicated in the foregoing.
The circumstances attending the abolition of whipping ought also to be considered. The prison act of 1910 did not prohibit whipping. It limited it and provided safeguards against abuses. Many of the officers of the system were not in sympathy with such limitations. In the early summer of 1912, Chairman Cabell moved that the use of the “bat” should be discontinued and prohibited. His motion was defeated by the votes of Commissioners Tittle and Brahan. Thereupon, Governor Colquitt ordered the commission to adopt Chairman Cabell’s motion. It did so, unanimously.
It was generally known throughout the system that practically every officer thereof believed it impossible to control convicts or to make them work unless the threat of whipping hung over them. Yet the first news of the change in punishment methods went out through the press during a political campaign. In many parts of the prison system, so the investigation disclosed, the convicts got their first information of the change from new prisoners. The effect was bad. Convicts reasoned that the authority of officers directly in charge was negligible; that these officers had said they could not control convicts or make them work without the “bat,” and, therefore, since the bat has been taken away, they could safely decline to work.
The reluctance of these prison officers to shape their course to the new requirements, I believe, was based upon sincere conviction. The influence of their attitude upon results can only be conjectured. In this connection it ought to be stated that these officers asserted that whipping was less inhuman than the substitutes provided. These substitutes were chaining-up and dark-celling. The former consists of fettering the convict’s wrists at the end of chains suspended from above at such height as to cause him to stand erect, but flat-footed, with his arms extended as high as they will go. There have been some complaints that convicts have been chained so high as to require them to stand tip-toe. The possibilities in the use of the dark-cell were illustrated in the Harlem farm tragedy.
A part of the prison system’s losses from operation were admittedly due to the following named causes:
1. Heavy damage to cane crop of 1911 by freeze.
2. Damage to cane and other crops in 1912 by drouth.
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.