[Under this heading will appear each month numerous paragraphs of general interest, relating to the
prison field and the treatment of the delinquent.]
“Governor Miller’s argument in defense of
the whipping-post would be simply unanswerable
if it were applied to any other state in
the Union, but Delaware.
“Delaware is an agricultural state wholly,
with only one city worthy of the name, and
that, Wilmington, which by its close proximity
to Philadelphia, is really a suburb of the
latter. There are no large number of factories,
business houses, or thickly settled
residential sections of the wealthy classes
offering temptation to the professional burglar
of other cities. A few banks are there,
but bank robbery has been classed among
the lost arts for some years, and rarely attempted
anywhere.
“Within the past six months, Wilmington
has been termed by the daily press, as a
“veritable hot-bed of crime.” Highway robberies,
burglaries, and assaults have been so
common that citizens formed patrols for
mutual protection of themselves and property.
The authorities were not only compelled
to largely increase its police department, but
to enlist the services of a former superintendent
of the Philadelphia Police to reorganize
it.
“If, as the Governor claims, professional
thieves from other cities give his state a wide
berth, the inference is that these recent
crimes were committed by natives. This being
so, why doesn’t fear of the lash act as a
deterrent to those who are so fully acquainted
with its frequent use?
“The probabilities are that the professional
burglar from other cities does not know of
the existence of such a penalty, and if he did,
it would not enter into his calculations one
iota. No man perpetrates a crime with a
view to being caught, therefore he rarely
weighs the consequences. The professional
thief endeavors to provide against detection,
not punishment.
“The Delaware whipping post is a relic of
the first settlers of the state, and used at that
time as a measure of economy instead of
jails which were to come later with the increase
of crime. The law has been on the
statute books for so many years, it has become
a matter of state pride to perpetuate
it as something reverential, descending from
their forefathers. It was not effective 250
years ago, else they would not have built
jails. It is no more effective now.”
“When the new prison commissioner advocates
the dedication of the earnings of
the prisoner to the support of his family,
or, if he has no family, that they should be
held for his benefit when he is released,
he is proposing to load upon the State a
charge which it ought not to bear. The
State is entitled to the proceeds of the
labor of its prisoners. With the handicaps
which have been imposed upon prison labor
by legislation such labor is not and cannot
be self-supporting. The goods that prisoners
make are excluded from the general
market. Power machines are forbidden,
for the most part, except in wood workings.
Take the State farm, where the conditions
are such that, if anywhere, the institution
could be made self-supporting. With all
possible use made of prison labor the average
cost for the care of inmates above the
proceeds of this work is in the neighborhood
of $2.50 per week. Of course the
able-bodied short-term men come nearer
than that to self-support. But that is the
average outlay for maintenance, allowing
nothing for interest on the plant. The
State has been put to the cost of ferreting
out the criminal, arresting, trying, and convicting
him. The State must provide for
his safe-keeping, clothe him, feed him,
shelter him with proper warmth. Under
restrictions surrounding prison labor he
will not nearly meet the expense to which
he has subjected the State. If his family
need support while he is imprisoned, let
the municipality provide that. With all
the work he can do, the criminal is a burden
to the Commonwealth. The State is
entitled to all he can do towards self-support.”
Out of each hundred paroled, twenty-six
have violated their agreement; fifty-seven
have received their final discharge; two
died; the terms of six expired while on
parole.
The paroled men have earned $1,315,642.76,
and it cost $1,143,078.64 to maintain
them, a difference in favor of the
State of $172,564.26.
The twine plant supplied the farmers of
Kansas with three million dollars worth of
twine last year at nine and one-half cents
a pound. This represents a net profit of
$32,000, which went into the State treasury.
If the farmers had been forced to
buy from outside dealers at eleven cents a
pound it would have cost them $45,000
more. This $45,000 and the $32,000 profit,
represents a total of $77,000 saved the citizens
of Kansas in twine.
The prison burns its own brick and lime
and supplies brick to the different institutions
over the state. The prison brickyard
manufactured, for the use of State institutions
in 1912, 1,623,447 brick of different
grades. The prison received credit on
the brick account for $12,098. This was
an average of about $2 a thousand less
than the same quality of brick sold for on
the market. If these different institutions
had been forced to buy on the open market,
the cost to the State would have been
about $15,344. This does not take into
consideration the brick used in the construction
of the new twine plant and other
small buildings in the prison yard.
The coal mine is the big money maker
for the State. Last year the different institutions
received 31,000 tons of coal from
the prison, for which the prison was credited
with $77,500—$2.50 per ton. It is said
if the State had been forced to buy this
coal on the open market, together with the
twenty thousand tons it takes annually to
run the prison, it would have cost the State
at least $155,000. Some estimates have
placed the amount as high as one-quarter
million dollars. If the prison had new
quarters it is said that the annual maintenance
appropriation could be safely cut
from $105,000 to $50,000, as the saving in
fuel alone would run into the thousands of
dollars.
The construction of the new twine plant
is another instance of economy where the
Kansas citizens profited. With prison brick,
lime and labor, this plant, consisting of two
buildings, will have cost the State, when
completed, $60,000 less than a similar
plant constructed by a sister State. The
two plants are identical in size except the
Kansas plant contains two more machines
than its neighbor’s.
Convict road work is advocated by the
governors both because of the healthful
nature of such work and owing to the fact
that convicts who have been employed in
this way can more readily find employment
when released; while many of the governors
also point out the benefit to the public
from better roads secured at a minimum
cost.
Governor Dunn, of Illinois states that
humanitarian reasons underlie the employment
in open air work or the sort
wherein and whereby the convicts are restored
to society with their manhood quickened
instead of deadened or destroyed.
Governor Oddie, of Nevada, who was
instrumental in securing the passage of
the legislation which provides for convict
road work in that State is enthusiastic as
to the success of the plan.
“There is no question,” he maintains,
“but that the passage of this law has had a
wholesome effect on our prison system,
and has been the means of giving a new
start in life to a large proportion of the
discharged and paroled men. About forty
per cent. of the total number of our convicts
have been performing good service
under the honor system at the road camp.”
Governor Hanna, of North Dakota, Governor
Cox, of Ohio, and Governor West, of
Oregon, hold that out-door work should be
a privilege to be earned by good conduct;
Governor Mann, of Virginia, testifies to
the efficiency of the convicts when employed
on the roads and cites figures to prove
the economy of such work, maintaining,
however, that the present cost can be greatly
reduced by placing the men on their
honor and lessening the number of idle
guards; while Governor McDonald, of New
Mexico, and Governor Carey, of Wyoming,
refer to the few attempts at escape that
have been made by convicts practically unguarded.
Governor Hunt, of Arizona, is in favor
of paying the convicts at least 25 cents a
day for their services as the cost will be
small compared to the actual benefit derived
by the construction of splendid highways,
while the benefit accruing to society
will return the investment a thousand fold.
The consideration given to convict road
work by the governors is an indication of
the importance attached to the matter by
the police throughout the country. The
governors present many different view-points,
but a careful study of their statements
shows that road work when conducted
on a basis fair to the convict and the
State, will go far towards solving the convict
labor problem and the problem of good
roads.
To adopt this suggestion means a return
to the old system of convict colonies. An
obstacle to the segregation plan under
present conditions is the scarcity of lands
available for such purposes. Suitable island
territory is at a premium. Continental
land, except in isolated cases, is not desirable
for the location of convict colonies
because of the opportunities for escape.
The alternative is the establishment of
prison farms—a system experimented with
more or less during recent years.
Almost since the time the prison was
first built it had been one of the stringent
rules of the institution that prisoners could
not talk with each other while at work. This
rule always was adhered to strictly. The
theory was that to let prisoners talk in the
shops and factories was to invite attempted
escapes and plots leading to infractions of
prison discipline.
Superintendent Moore selects the county
courthouse as the place to deliver his
lecture, and has already spoken at seven
county seats, including Toms River, Ocean
county; Woodbury, Gloucester county;
Freehold, Monmouth county; Mount Holly,
Burlington county; Belvidere, Warren
county, and Newton, Sussex county. At
the two latter places, the audiences were
so great that there was not room enough
in the courthouses to accommodate them.
At Mount Holly the largest gathering in
years was the result.
Usually the county judge presides, and
the lecture is heard by prosecutors, officials,
ministers, school teachers, etc., who
are naturally interested in the work from
their vocations. Excellent reports have
been made concerning the value of the
lecture.
“It is not necessary to charge that the
authorities or even the guards are worse
than the ordinary run of mortals, to see
how the human nature in them may be exasperated
by the criminal classes under
their charge into taking action which they
would not take if the steadying eye of the
whole community were on them. It must
be remembered that prisons are not young
ladies’ boarding schools. We do not send
the brightest and best of our youth to them.
In fact, the deliberate purpose of our system
of justice is to send them our worst.
Undoubtedly, at times, we do send there
some of our best—men whom a chance
step from the beaten path has tripped into
disaster—but our whole machinery of justice
is at fault if the rule is not to select
our criminals for our prison population.
“This being so, the guards and the prison
authorities generally have a difficult and
trying task constantly before them. It
would be little wonder if they grew pessimistic
and cynical touching the motives
and the prospects and even the possibilities
of their ‘guests.’ They are constantly in
contact with men who ought to be far below
the average in all these things. It
would be a miracle if they kept their faith
in human nature, and their attitude toward
the human derelicts who thwart and defy
them, at even the average pitch. Under
such conditions, with the prison shut in
on itself, like a little world islanded from
the rest of the country, what can we expect
but that prison opinion will come to
justify harsh measures and cruel punishments?
“What is clearly needed is to correct this
drift toward cynicism and possibly brutality
by keeping it always in touch with the sane
and unruffled point of view of the general
community. This can only be done by publicity.
Nor would a demand for publicity
be unfair to the prison authorities. Their
prisoner is sentenced to a fixed punishment
for a definite crime. If he commits another
crime, he should be sentenced to another
punishment for that; but he should
have his second trial and sentence as fully
safeguarded by public opinion as his first.
Refusal to obey prison regulations would
be such a second crime; and his public
trial for it would not only make it certain
that the evidence was convincing and the
punishment humane, but would bring the
regulations themselves under public review.
“The whole prison system is bad enough—necessary
as it is because of the criminality
of certain people—without keeping
it in darkness.”
Seven municipalities have made no purchases
of this sort since the enactment of
the law in 1896. One city has bought
nothing but a straight jacket in eighteen
years. Towns and villages have been even
worse offenders.
Rochester’s last order for supplies came
in May, 1911; the authorities there contended
that the city charter nullified the
provisions of the Prison law with regard to
the obligatory purchase of supplies from
the State. In August last the Commission
appealed to the Attorney-General, who
rendered an opinion that local statutes did
not supersede the provisions of the Prison
law. When the matter came up once before,
with regard to the liability of officers
making purchases elsewhere than from the
State Commission of Prisons, the Attorney-General
held:
It is the duty of officers of political divisions
of the State to make requisition on the
State Commission of Prisons for such articles
used in the municipalities as are manufactured
in the State prisons. If such articles
are bought elsewhere, without the certificate
of the State Commission of Prisons
showing inability to furnish the goods required,
the officers making such purchases
or auditing claims therefore are criminally
and civilly liable for their acts.
The Prison Commission has issued the
following:
The Constitution makes it the duty of the
Legislature to provide employment for the
convicts, and declares that the products of
prison labor shall be sold only to the State
or its political divisions. To compete as little
as possible with free labor the prison
industries have been diversified under assignments
by the State Commission of Prisons.
Instead of the present system of using
the labor of the prisoners, a system is being
worked out by which they will be put
to work on public improvements, receive a
fair remuneration for their labor, a portion
to be applied to paying their fines and a
cash return assured for the support of their
families. By this method the prisoners will
not be relieved from paying the penalty
for the crimes for which they have been
convicted in many instances of a minor
character, but neither will their families
be deprived of their supporting labor during
their imprisonment.
The board of inspectors has voted to discontinue
the contract system within three
months. Mayor Harrison is in accord with
the movement. Representatives of the
Chicago Federation of Labor and various
trade unions have been working for it for
a long time.
A report of the efficiency division of the
civil service shortly, will recommend that
the city use the convict labor, and will
criticise the present system as wasteful and
disgraceful. It is expected that a recommendation
will be made for the employment
of an administrative officer to act as
a business manager, in charge of the operating
part of the house of correction.
“The nine years of novel ‘elastic’ treatment
of prisoners carried on by Wilson S.
Lovell, superintendent of the State prison,
came to an end to-day when Lovell resigned.
It was believed the resignation was
due to a fire of criticism from Governor
Allen M. Fletcher and members of the
penal board.
“Some of the administration have openly
criticised the Lovell rule as “too soft,” and
declare that “a more impersonal and severe
ruler of the prison is required.”
“The Lovell system aroused nation-wide
interest among humanitarians and social
workers. One of its startling features,
which is said to have shocked the more
staid citizens of this State, was to let chosen
prisoners go to work about the country
without any restraint of any kind.
“Another was a plan for paying men for
overtime work in the prison factories, so
that convicts were often able to pick up a
comfortable little sum for themselves.”
Under a law passed by the legislature
last spring, prisoners were compensated at
the rate of from one to five cents an hour,
according to their character and good behavior.
From September 16, last, until
February 15, this year, there was paid to
Penitentiary prisoners on this scale, $33,000.
The amount paid to prisoners in the
Mansfield Reformatory was $24,000.
At this rate, the estimated annual cost
of prisoners’ compensation to the State
would be about $140,000. The general
assembly last month appropriated only
$75,000 for this compensation; hence the
revision of the scale downward. Where
the maximum earning power of prisoners
under the old scale was forty cents a day,
or $2.20 a week on a basis of five and one-half
work days each week, the new maximum
will be 21 cents a day or $1.17 a
week. No strike, however, is predicted because
of the cut, but much complaining is
looked for.
Prison officials have detected many
schemes of prisoners to beat the State’s
philanthropy. The law requires that 90
per cent. of their earnings shall go to their
dependents. The remaining 10 per cent.
is held in a fund against the prisoner’s release
to tide him over the period he is looking
for work until settled. A scheme of
the older prisoners to obtain all their
money was to represent that some relative
in the country was in urgent need of support.
The money would be sent to the
“friend,” but soon returned to the prisoner.
By the terms of the arrangement, the
board may terminate the remaining contract
on or after March 1, 1916, by giving
ninety days’ notice. The old contract could
not be cancelled before October 15, 1917.
The State gains more than a year by the
new deal.
The State will receive 60 cents a day
for each man employed by the tool company
under the new agreement. In addition
the company will pay each man 10
cents a day for himself. The working day
will be cut from ten to nine hours.
The holiday entertainment was furnished
entirely by convict talent and included
an address on Lincoln by an inmate. Addresses
were also made by Thomas Mott
Osborne, chairman, and Professor E. Stagg
Whitin, of New York, and Professor Henry
T. Mosher, of Rochester, members of the
State Commission for Prison Reform.
“The position of penitentiary warden is
the last in the world for a policeman. The
policeman’s education is all wrong. He
thinks only of hunting out the evil in his
victim, of making a record in convictions.
A policeman warden would keep the black
hole full, he would wear out the cat-o’-nine
tails, he would revive the iniquitous stool
pigeon and spy system; he would produce
the typical, modern penitentiary which
sends out unbettered and unstrengthened
man and which menaces the society which
it is supposed to protect.
“By removing the continual threat of
arms, by eliminating oppressions and brutalities,
by establishing a system of graded
rewards for cheerfulness and industry,
the Colorado penitentiary has been given a
wholesome, helpful atmosphere. The men
have taken no unfair advantage of square
dealings and fair intent. They have met
every advance in honesty and enthusiasm.
“Half the men who come here are men
who never had a chance—unfortunates
grown to manhood without impulse or direction.
Out of their very helplessness
they cheated and stole, robbed and killed.
Most manifestly, mere weekly religious
services will not free society from the menace
of these men. They must be taught
something to do. A State farm protects
the present and guarantees the future.
“The interests of justice and of society
would have been better served had many
a convict never known imprisonment. If
he were paroled immediately upon conviction
his dependents would not suffer, nor
the taxpayers be forced to bear the burden
of greater depravity that always and inevitably
attends penal servitude.”
The report of G. A. Ogline, superintendent
of police, covers all classes of
criminal offenses, from petty larceny and
disorderly conduct to train wrecking, highway
robbery and murder. The most frequent
offenders were those who “violated
railroad laws,” for which 8,303 arrests of
tramps and others unlawfully using the
railroad property were made. Arrests for
intoxication and disorder numbered 2,526,
with 1,567 arrests for larceny, 176 for burglary
and 3 for murder. For receiving
goods stolen from the railroad there were
67 arrests.
Commenting upon the large number of
arrests of trespassers—tramps and other
vagrants and loiterers about the railroad—Superintendent
Ogline says: “It is evident
that the number of persons unlawfully
riding over the railroads and trespassing
upon the property in other ways is on the
increase, but the officials have been badly
handicapped in coping with this evil on
account of the lack of co-operation on the
part of authorities. The courts will handle
a few offenders, but it is continually impressed
upon the railroads’ police department
that the arrests to trespassers must
be held to the minimum because the cities,
towns and counties are unwilling to bear
the expense of harboring this class of offenders
in jails and other institutions of
detention.”
The head of the police department further
states that in numerous instances where
reports were made of obstructions having
been placed on rails, missiles thrown at
trains, etc., it was found that “very small
children were often guilty of these offenses,”
and the railroad officers frequently
brought the cases to the attention of
parents in an effort to correct the trouble.
Convictions were secured under the Carlin
Act, a federal law, for the robbery of
cars on the Baltimore and Ohio lines and
heavy penalties were imposed for such
crimes.
Fort Leavenworth, Kas., would cease to
be a federal penitentiary under the terms
of the bill, and hereafter would be known
as the United States Military Detention
Barracks. The prison would be modeled
after the English army disciplinary institution
at Aldershot, and no soldier or civilian
convicted of an offense punishable by
penal servitude might hereafter be confined
there.
Military prisoners under suspended sentence
quartered in the detention barracks
would be organized into military commands,
and their training kept up where prison
conduct warrants in the opinion of the
Secretary of War. Honorable restoration to
the army, or permission to re-enlist without
prejudice if the enlistment had expired,
would follow good behavior.
This radical revision of the army’s disciplinary
methods is proposed in a recodification
of the articles of war, dropping
thirteen sections from the old code as
obsolete and inserting provisions for a
policy of suspended sentence and less
drastic treatment of military offenders
generally.
The bill makes no mention of the military
prison on Alcatraz Island, San Francisco.
In this connection the committee
report says the Secretary of War is convinced
that establishment of the detention
barracks and necessary branches would
make the maintenance of a military prison
unnecessary. The elimination of Alcatraz
Island from the bill would make
possible the use of the islands as an immigration
station, as desired by the immigration
bureau.
The jurisdiction of courts-martial would
be broadened considerably under the proposed
new code, extending to capital offenses
in time of peace which are beyond
the reach of civil courts. The present code
gives this provision only in time of war.
On spies in time of war only would the
death sentence be mandatory under the
new code, and a two-thirds majority of the
court-martial imposing such sentence
would be required instead of a bare majority.
“The present agitation of the prison reform
question in Massachusetts, and the
number of those who support a better
system of prison discipline, are interesting
facts to me, who, as secretary of the first
Board of State Charities, appointed fifty
years ago last October, was the first permanent
inspector of all our Massachusetts
prisons that had ever filled that post. I
devoted much time to it in the first years
of my service of five years; and on the 2nd
of March, 1865, my friend, Gov. Andrew,
sent in to the Senate my long special report
on our prisons, with suggestions for
their reformation, most of which were subsequently
inserted as laws in our successive
revisions of the statutes. But one suggestion,
then first made, has not yet been
adopted and is urgently needed for adoption
by the present legislature—the control and
classification of the prisons in our fourteen
counties by the State government. It is
not practicable, without a change in the
State constitution, to make this control
quite complete, for our county sheriffs are
constitutional officers and have certain
legal and customary rights over the arrests
and custody of untried prisoners, witnesses,
etc., which no statute can take away. But
all convicts in the counties—that is, all
sentenced persons—should be under a uniform
discipline in their prisons, which the
State alone can establish and enforce.
“Fifty years ago we had no separate
prison for women, no State reformatory for
young offenders, no State asylum for insane
convicts, and persons untried because
insane; and no State asylum for placing
reformed young offenders in private families.
The next year after my report, a first
step was taken towards State control by
the creation of a State Workhouse at
Bridgewater. This, which is now called
the State Farm, contains at present more
than a third part as many convicts as were
in all the county prisons in 1864-5—only
6,563 in all. Adding to the Bridgewater
prisoners the 800 insane convicts held in
custody there, the total to-day is more than
half the number in all the county prisons
in March, 1865. The Women’s Prison at
Sherborn, with its hundreds, the Concord
Reformatory and the Shirley branch, with
their 1,000 inmates, and the reformed
young offenders now living under State
authority in families and other convicts
under State authority elsewhere, would
add for an aggregate more than the 6,563
who were in the county prisons fifty years
ago. To that extent the State has exercised
its right of eminent domain over prisoners.
“But there still remain in the county
prisons and the few county reformatories
about 4,000 permanent or average prisoners—most
of them convicts—whose proper
classification is impossible, even in the
larger counties, and practically out of the
question in the middle-sized and small
counties. And this average population of
some twenty-five establishments represents
not less than 30,000 different persons
during the year, whose separation and
proper care cannot be provided for in these
twenty-five prisons, etc., some of which are
always crowded, others usually empty or
half filled, and all under a varying, partial,
costly and practically useless prison discipline.
State control would give all but
a few hundred of the 30,000 comers and
goers a safe, judicious and to a good extent
reformatory discipline, now quite uncertain
or impossible as things are.
“Our county systems, of which the outward
and visible signs are the prisons and
court houses, expend hundreds of thousands
of dollars every year and are the natural
nests and breeding places of county
rings, which waste the taxpayers’ money,
manipulate and corrupt our local politics,
and make the administration of criminal
law, in several of the counties sometimes a
job, sometimes a farce, and by its delays
and appeals a great revenue for lawyers
and officials, pocketing fees and postponing
or perverting justice, in a manner that
every one familiar with county business, as
I was while a State official knows, but to a
degree that can only be revealed by investigation
in each county, such as that undertaken
in my own County of Middlesex,
and threatened by the mayor and other official
persons in Suffolk. Let these investigations
go on; but, in the meantime, follow
the recommendation of all well-informed
persons, and give the State commission
control of these nests of crime and
vice, our ill-governed prisons.”
The Booher bill provides that convict
made goods “shall upon arrival and delivery
in any State or Territory be subject
to the operation and effect of the laws of
such State or Territory.”
Another bill dealing with goods produced
by convict labor will soon be considered
in the House. It applies the same provisions
to goods made by convict labor abroad.
This measure has already been reported
in the House.
A bill that has come before the committee
seeks to remedy this defect in the
present law. It amends the law now in
force so that it requires only such bodies
as are to be disposed of at the expense of
the State to be sent to the colleges. No
man who saves the little money which he
may have earned within the prison shops
and lays it aside for this purpose will any
longer be refused the right of burial.
This matter has for a long time been
a source of much agony of mind and bitterness
among the convicts. A Confederate
veteran at the State Farm fears the dissecting
table. If the bill is passed it will bring
happiness to a number of the poor men,
who have no other peace to look forward
to than that of a quiet grave.
The effect of this prison competition is
illustrated by figures gathered by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of Missouri,
which has just completed an exhaustive investigation
into conditions at the Missouri
State prison at Jefferson City.
The clothing factory at that prison reported
an output for 1912 of overalls and
other garments valued at over $2,500,000.
The convict working force consisted of 887
men and 44 women, a total of 931, while
for their labor the State received $200,629.
The total amount paid out in wages and
salaries for superintendents, etc., was
$371,385. From these figures it will be
noted that the cost of labor was so small
when compared to that at a similar factory
outside the prison walls as to be startling.
Free manufacturers are asked to compare
their own payroll with that of the
contractors at this prison where for healthy
male convicts, 75 cents per day was paid,
while for a few cripples and the women
the figure was only 50 cents per day.
The National Committee on Prison Labor
and the unions see that this unfair
competition can be overcome by the work
for the State, whereby no prison goods
reach the open market, but these two
groups need the support of all interested
either for business or humanitarian reasons
to bring about results which shall be
effective and lasting.
From a practical business standpoint organized
labor has brought this matter before
the people of the country and awaits
their action.
The Governor said he could see no reason
why he should discriminate between
the man who is sentenced to the House of
Correction and the man sentenced to State
Prison, simply because the latter sentence
is for a felony.
He would reserve the right to veto their
recommendations and findings, he said. All
petitions will be referred, the Governor
said, except those where a convict is
thought to be in immediate danger of death
and prompt action on the part of the Governor
is imperative.
The prisoners are to be assigned to road
work in a county that is to pay $15 per
month for each man’s services. Half of
their earnings will go to the penitentiary
fund and the other half to the prisoners.
The county will maintain the men and, as
no guards or overseers will be employed,
it is expected that the living cost of each
prisoner will be less than one dollar per
day.
Governor Colquitt has announced that
preparations are now being made for the
selection of another crew of 40 prisoners,
who will work under similar conditions at
construction work on Texas railroads. All
of the men selected are young and have
short sentences to serve. They will be
placed under paroles while away from prison,
but the paroles are revocable for disobedience.
STATEMENT OF THE OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, ETC. of THE DELINQUENT,
Published monthly at New York, N. Y., required by the Act of August 24th, 1912.
| NAME OF |
POST OFFICE ADDRESS |
| Editor, O. F. Lewis, |
135 East 15th St., New York City |
| Managing Editor, O. F. Lewis, |
135 East 15th St., New York City |
| Business Manager, O. F. Lewis, |
135 East 15th St., New York City |
| Publisher, The National Prisoners’ Aid Association, |
135 East 15th St., New York City |
| Owners, The National Prisoners’ Aid Association, |
135 East 15th St., New York City |
There are no bondholders, mortgages, or other security holders.
O. F. LEWIS, Editor and Business Manager.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of September, 1913.
H. L. McCORMICK, Notary Public No 6, Kings County.
My Commission expires March 31, 1914.
Table of Contents generated by transcriber.
Obvious printer errors corrected silently.
Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.