Part 7

Nebraska is using agricultural prison labor in a small way outside State institutions and is meeting with splendid success. Maryland is having the same experience with about 75 convicts who are helping to relieve the farm labor shortage. Georgia’s male convicts are employed on the public roads, and the women prisoners are now engaged in light farm work.

Michigan is farming 4000 acres, but still found sufficient prison labor to help the farmers with their harvest last year. Wisconsin has about 100 prison labor farmers and is of the opinion that their work is as productive as free labor.

New Hampshire objects to agricultural prison labor because it gives the prisoners no winter employment, and continuous work is regarded as desirable. Mississippi is meeting with good success on her State controlled farms, but the law does not permit the use of prison labor except at State institutions.

Massachusetts is utilizing prison labor on farms, to relieve the scarcity of farm labor caused by the war, successfully employing about 100 for that purpose. They regard convict labor, properly directed, as efficient as free labor.

Vermont believes that its present experience justifies a more extended use of agricultural prison labor.

Kansas uses its prison labor mostly in prison coal mines, but is diverting some of its convicts to help the farmers during the war. Six hundred convicts are employed in Florida on State owned farms. They are meeting with great success and their prison labor is in considerable demand. Tennessee has a number of convicts employed in agricultural labor. The men have gained in health and earned a profit for the State.

Connecticut uses her prison labor on roads and farms. They think it is better and more efficient than available free farm labor, and the farmers of the State are well satisfied with the results obtained.

Minnesota uses prison labor on roads, and is conducting State agricultural farms with success. Nevada uses prison labor to harvest crops on shares. They report the cost disappointing and think their best results are obtained with agricultural prison labor on State farms. Virginia uses its prison labor for grinding agricultural lime for fertilizer. The State employs about 250 convicts on its own farm, in agricultural work, and finds the work beneficial to the prisoner as well as to the State.

Illinois is making a special effort to utilize its prison labor, not only to relieve the scarcity of farm workers, but to help in all other war industries. About 100 men have been paroled especially for farm labor, and 350 are successfully employed in factories where equipment for the government is being manufactured.

The great war has brought forth one outstanding fact in criminology--no matter what his instincts may be in times of peace, the convict is a patriot, according to his lights, in time of war, and in all my investigations, covering practically every eastern, southern and middle western State, I have not learned of a single prisoner who violated a parole given him to engage in work that would help win the war.

Iowa is operating nearly 3000 acres by agricultural prison labor, and is making a wonderful success, not only from a financial viewpoint but also in fitting the convicts to regain their place in society.

Indiana has done wonders with prison labor along agricultural lines, having established one large Industrial Farm for misdemeanants. In addition, the State is utilizing its prisoners to a considerable extent to relieve the scarcity of farm labor caused by the war. About 100 convicts built sidings to coal mines to get out fuel for the war. At the time of a disastrous flood they worked day and night, without guards, saving by their efforts thousands of dollars worth of private property. They were also successfully used at the time of a severe tornado, recovering the lost, and clearing away the debris. Indiana does not favor the use of prison labor on public roads.

North Carolina is working 500 prisoners on State owned farms with excellent success, and in addition is helping out the farmers to some extent. The State also employs about 100 men on the highways, but believes road work by prison labor is good for the roads but bad for the men.

New York thinks that every available prisoner should be employed, but because of constitutional limitation cannot use its convicts on private farms. Practically every penitentiary and county jail in the State is employing its prisoners either at gardening or farm work on State or county owned or leased farms. Food production has been materially increased by these concerted efforts towards agricultural products, and the prisoners themselves are benefited by the outdoor work. Prison labor is also extensively used on the public roads.

A notable example of the successful employment of agricultural prison labor, that is coming into more than local prominence, is in our own State of Pennsylvania, where Warden Francies is working wonders with his advanced methods at the new penitentiary at Bellefonte.

WASHINGTON, PA., August 7, 1918.

THE FINANCIAL ARGUMENT FOR A COUNTY PRISON FARM.

It will be generally granted that useful employment in the open air will be beneficial, but let us also consider the financial side of the proposition. It will be remembered that the General Assembly of 1917 passed a bill providing for the establishment of nine Industrial Farms, to which convicts usually sent to the county jails may be sent for discipline and employment. I am indebted to Mr. Harry J. Campbell, of Washington, Pa., for some statistics from nine counties in the southwestern part of the Commonwealth, constituting one of the Districts in which an Industrial Prison was to be located. In order to determine whether such a Prison Farm would be remunerative, Mr. Campbell collected the statistics from these nine counties which afford fairly conclusive proof of the economy of the proposition.

These nine counties in 1917 sent:--

179 prisoners to the Allegheny Co. Workhouse at a cost of $20,869 532 “ “ “ Western Penitentiary “ “ “ “ 102,401 313 “ “ “ Morganza (Boys & Girls) “ “ “ “ 60,267 122 “ “ “ Huntingdon Reformatory “ “ “ “ 13,742 409 “ “ “ County Prison “ “ “ “ 81,381 ---- -------- 1555 “ “ “ various prisons at a total cost of $278,660

If a Prison Farm were established, they would send none to the Allegheny County Workhouse.

It is estimated they would send to this farm one-fourth of those sent to the Penitentiary.

They would send to the Farm one-tenth of those sent to Morganza.

Likewise, one-third of the number sent to the Reformatory (some have estimated the number to be one-half).

The number of prisoners held for trial at the County Jail varies from one-tenth to one-half of the whole number imprisoned. However, we will estimate those convicted at one-half of the number. Hence, to this Penal Agricultural Institution a minimum number of 587 may be sent, according to the last available statistics.

The funds available for such Institution may be computed as follows:--

Money heretofore paid to the Allegheny County Workhouse $20,869 One-fourth the cost of prisoners at the Western Penitentiary 25,600 One-tenth the cost of prisoners at Morganza 6,026 One-third the cost of prisoners at Huntingdon Reformatory 4,580 At the County prisons there are certain overhead expenses which must be taken into account. Estimating that one-half the number in the County Jails would be removed to the District Farm, and that the cost of maintenance amounts to 50c daily for each prisoner, the saving would amount to 30,782 ------- Total estimated sum available for the District Farm in one year from nine counties $87,857 Let us be entirely fair in our estimate. The 587 prisoners are expected to earn a large part of their maintenance; but should we estimate the net cost of maintenance at 25c daily per prisoner, the cost amounts to 53,563 ------- Balance $34,294

This balance would go far toward meeting the expense of purchasing and stocking the farm and providing the temporary buildings which may be constructed by the prisoners themselves. The saving to these counties in two or three years would suffice to purchase and equip the plant, and with efficient management, the Penal Farm ought soon to be self-supporting--a result not only satisfactory to taxpayers but, what is far more important, in the highest degree beneficial to the delinquent in whose restoration the community is vitally interested.

These facts have been gleaned from a study of nine counties, but it must be remembered that the bill now before the General Assembly provides for the establishment of such an Institution by almost double the number of counties, hence it is apparent that within two or three years the entire expense of the farm and its equipment will be returned to the managers and with self-support practically assured, the future expense of caring for such delinquents will be reduced to a minimum or will entirely vanish.

A. V. H.

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC CHARITIES AND PRISON LABOR.

We gladly present the following facts which have been gleaned from interviews with Edward Wilson, Esq., one of the agents of this Board.

So far as prison labor is involved, the Board of Public Charities has been deeply interested in developing the possibilities of an Act which on their initiative was passed and approved in 1917. This allows the employment of prisoners on lands belonging to any county.

In 1915 Judge Isaac Johnson, in Delaware County began a system of employing prisoners which the Board desires to extend. In the year 1918, the receipts from the crops produced by the labor of prisoners amounted to $14,000, in addition to a large amount of vegetable products consumed at the prison. The net profit is near $7000. Report comes that Berks County will be able to supply the prison with vegetables for the winter. Northampton County employed fifteen to twenty prisoners on a small farm recently purchased. Dauphin County had a few prisoners at work on the almshouse farm. In Montgomery County from fifteen to twenty prisoners have been employed on the Poor farm. In Columbia County seven Italians are engaged in operating a war garden which it is said has been very profitable. In one or two counties with large population, there is no land available for such purpose. Mr. Wilson states that little or nothing has been accomplished in this direction in those counties whose jail population is small. At one time in the year 1918, there were 13 counties without a prisoner. In some counties prisoners have worked on the roads. A few counties have been willing for selected prisoners to be paroled to farmers.

Mr. Wilson is inclined to the belief that in some of our counties, the prevailing type of prisoner is too vicious to be allowed the freedom which belongs to the cultivation of the soil. From observations elsewhere we are inclined to the belief that the vilest man or woman, unless defective in mentality, will respond when treated with kindness and made to feel that he or she is trusted. Granted, however, that it may be considered unwise to send all prisoners without reservation to work on the farm, under the system proposed by the Commission to investigate Prison Systems, and whose Report to the General Assembly is found elsewhere in this number of the Journal, all the State Industrial Prison Farms are to foster some industry or industries aside from the horticultural and agricultural employments. On these farms there will be found opportunity for the employment of all prisoners, whatever may be their character or temperament.

Last year in a casual inspection of the prison at Wilkes-Barre, the secretary announced that he considered 46 out of the 75 prisoners would be available for an Industrial Farm. Mr. Wilson after a very careful study of the situation concluded that 11 could be sent to work on the outside. Now something depends on the viewpoint. If the State should own an Industrial Farm fully equipped for the permanent accommodation of prisoners with diverse industries, Mr. Wilson probably would add materially to the number which might be sentenced to the penal farm instead of to the county prison affording so little opportunity for continuous profitable labor. The secretary consents to some reduction of his estimates, if real employment with some remuneration can be supplied at the county jail. The tendency of this practical age is to give regular employment to all those whom we for a time exclude from community freedom, and to place over them officials who will direct these industries.

HOME OF INDUSTRY.

This Institution which we allowed some 30 years ago to pass beyond our control, perhaps to its advantage, has just issued a Report of its work for the year 1918. There was some honest difference of opinion in 1890 as to the value of this enterprise, but we believe the principal reason for the abandonment of the project by The Pennsylvania Prison Society was the lion in the way in the shape of a financial bugaboo.

During the last year this institution cared for 275 men, keeping them on an average of 32 days for each man. Their industries have contributed $9,422 toward its own support.

We have always thought that the institution should be removed to a farm. In 1917 some of the men did work on land which they secured and the results were very favorable. In 1918 they entered upon the same work with high expectations, but from a variety of causes the agricultural operations have not been prosperous. Labor went elsewhere. We hope for better results next year.

We recommend this Home as worthy of continued support.

MILITARY DISCIPLINE AND PUNISHMENTS.

The Committee on Public Information acting under the authority of the United States Government have from time to time published and issued pamphlets giving some extremely valuable facts and explanations with regard to the Great War and dealing with its causes and results. Not the least valuable among these circulars is No. 113, issued March, 1918, and devoted to “German Militarism and its German Critics.” This handbook contains forty pages and is compiled from sources which the Government regards as sufficiently reliable to justify extensive circulation. It may be obtained by any one who will send request, and refer to it by title, from the Committee on Public Information, Washington, D. C.

From this document we quote a few instances of brutality which have been presented by credible witnesses:--

1. “A Polish recruit was maltreated so fearfully by an officer that he finally hanged himself. The officer induced the soldiers to certify that they had seen nothing.

2. “An officer struck a sick recruit repeatedly on the chest so that he screamed with pain and soon thereafter died in a hospital.

4. “Soldiers were struck in the face during instruction.... Witness saw hundreds of times helmets pressed down and the bands which held them under the chin pulled so that the soldiers grew red in the face. Alsatians and Lorrainers particularly were maltreated and frequently called ‘French Skulls’ and worse. The officers warned the men against complaining, promising worse treatment if they dared to report these outrages.

5. “During the maneuvers no day passed without brutality.... Boxing of ears, blows, even with the sword and riding-whip, were daily occurrences.... Complaints were omitted for fear of the consequences.”

Enough. In the circular it is stated that at a certain military trial in Germany, held in 1914, 922 men from all parts of Germany had signified their willingness to give testimony and were ready to report some 30,000 separate instances of brutal treatment of soldiers.

Hence it seems apparent that the spirit of dominant militarism is arrogant, ferocious, brutal. It harks back to the time of medieval tortures. By the circulation of Tract No. 113, the Government of the United States has indicated its abhorrence and utter condemnation of such cruel and inhuman methods of enforcing discipline. Naturally we expected that our army officials would not for a moment countenance such arbitrary and tyrannical treatment of offenders.

When we take into consideration the inexperience of this nation with large armies, there is cause for congratulation that the instances of cruelty and unwarranted severity have been proportionately so few. And yet there have been some instances of pitiless malevolence inflicted upon a class of offenders who least deserve it. We are aware of the penalties for disobedience to orders which naturally belong to a military system. In accordance with the military code, disobedience is a heinous crime. So when the officials were confronted with refusal to obey orders, even though the offenders were of the highest character, the mind of the militarist could view the offense from only one angle. We are referring to the treatment accorded to some--not all--of the “conscientious objectors.” They constituted an exceedingly small proportion of the American Army which at the time the armistice was signed numbered 3,665,000. The number altogether of those conscripted whose religious convictions forbade them to use carnal weapons was about 3,900--less than one-ninth of one per cent. of the vast American Army.[3] Of these 1,300 accepted non-combatant service and 1,500 were allowed to be employed on farms or to aid France and Belgium in the work of reconstruction of their ruined homes and devastated lands. Our latest advices inform that 527 of these “conscientious objectors” have been court-martialed and sent to the Military Prison at Fort Leavenworth. A majority of these belong to religious bodies whose creeds are opposed to war. These men were not hunting for trouble. Conscription brought them from their peaceful homes and from their farms where they were so much needed to aid in increasing the food supply of the nation. They were living inoffensively and were brought into difficulties by no overt act. It is not our intention to uphold or combat their interpretation of “The Sermon on the Mount.” They were men who were regarded as useful, upright members of the communities where they resided. Some of them belonged to bodies whose members have been foremost in every philanthropic effort for the last two centuries. We may attach no special virtue to works of superogation, yet we venture to suggest that men and women who in times of peace have been foremost in honest industrial pursuits, who have been prominent in all movements to advance the best interests of the community, who have devoted their time and their means lavishly to social betterment, should in time of war be entitled to some consideration on account of their past services in the uplift of humanity. Between the ages of 21 and 31, less than one to every 36,000 were found who claimed immunity from military service on account of their creed, and as many of these accepted some form of non-combatant service, the number absolutely refusing to comply with any military command was less than one out of 60,000 conscripts. Would it not have been wiser to allow these men to continue their lawful avocations on the farm, in the shop, in the mills, than to support them in idleness, to detail a special force to guard them, and to ruin their health by harsh treatment?

The Hofers case is an authentic instance of an infliction of tortures by methods which acknowledge no obligation outside of military authority. Jacob Wipf and the three Hofer brothers were members of the Huttrian sect, a small body residing in California, “They believed, with an intense conviction, that their duty to their God utterly precluded any submission to military command.... It must be remembered that this was no degenerate whim, nor yet the stubbornness of criminals--it was the highest spiritual conviction of deeply religious men.” They refused to wear the uniform. A mere outline of the penalties will suffice. Thrown into the “Hole,” 30 feet below the base of the building at the level of the sea. Murky atmosphere. Stripped to underwear. Handcuffed to an iron bar so that their feet barely reached the floor. Remained strung up for 36 hours. No food; one glass of water. Repeatedly beaten with clubs. Then for five days exempted from “hanging up,” but confined without food, or sufficient clothing. The authorities were finally broken, not these God-fearing men. It seems like a tale from the “Book of Martyrs,” not an event in a civilized nation. They were released from the dungeon broken in health, afflicted with scurvy, and after suffering a lot of petty persecutions, were transferred to another prison in a colder climate. Here they were placed in “Solitary,” with diet of bread and water, strung up for nine hours a day, forced to sleep on the floor. The cold draughts had a natural effect. When it was learned that they were ill, they were removed to a hospital where two of them died in a few days from pneumonia. The surviving brother, though scarcely able to walk, was mercifully released to accompany the dead bodies of the two brothers to their homes. Military vengeance was satiated. It is incredible to believe that such methods in this enlightened age are used.

From the New York World, we note the following instances of treatment accorded to “objectors” at Camp Funston. Sleeping on bare floor. No food all day. Kicked repeatedly. Beaten with rifle butts, pricked with bayonets, dragged over filth, choked till they are breathless, placed under a cold shower at midnight, clothes and all, hung temporarily by the neck, some rendered insane for the time. It is hard to realize that such things could happen in America. Do we not speak of civilized warfare? Does war necessarily make fiends of men prematurely? It is a pleasure to report that the officers at Camp Funston responsible for these outrages were either dismissed or removed to a different field.

The larger proportion of those imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth belong to the peace-loving, inoffensive, industrious Mennonites. Take the case of the Amish Mennonites. Last summer 45 of these quiet people were sentenced to life imprisonment for refusing to obey the orders of their inferiors in many points of view except that of military rank. This sentence was commuted to an imprisonment of 25 years. Twenty-seven of the same sect were sentenced from 10 to 20 years each for a similar offence. Virtually in every one of these 72 cases, the crimes consisted in a refusal to don uniforms. Most of them have longer sentences than are usually dispensed for manslaughter.

The length of these sentences and also of many other sentences pronounced upon others who have broken the regulations of the military code has been made the special object of investigation by Congress. The excuse that some of these excessively long sentences were military bluff for the deterrent effect and were never intended to be carried out in full is irrational. If such statement is correct, our system of military court procedure ought to be overhauled and renovated. We are not contending that offenders should go unpunished, we are merely insisting that the penalties prescribed shall be commensurate with the offense, and shall be consistent with modern jurisprudence.