In view of the fact that to change from one system of work to another does not abolish competition; that to go from one kind of work to another does not do so, but merely takes it from one class to cast it upon another, and that to make articles in the prisons for use in State institutions and municipalities does not and can not abolish competition, it is believed to be the wiser course to select suitable kinds of labor and to justify the pursuit of these rather than to apologize for them. A rational defense meets with less opposition than apologies which inspire unfounded objections. Prison labor has, it is believed, the same reason for being that free labor has. An analysis of the objections to it reveals the fact that these are generally based on incorrect assumptions or violate the principles of economics.

The opinion that the products of prison labor are to be treated differently from the products of free industries simply because they are the product of convict labor, and the opinion that the natural competition of convict labor with free labor is of itself ground of objection to such labor, are believed to be unwarranted. The products are the same as though made by free labor. The competition is inevitable and exists between similar free industries just the same as between a prison industry and a free industry.

These industries add to the State's resources and greatness. The articles which prisoners manufacture constitute wealth and contribute to the subsistence and comfort of the human race just the same as though they were made in shops outside the prison; just the same as though the prisoners who made them were free. All agree that every man is under obligation to support himself and avoid being a public charge. All hold that if the men who are prisoners labored before they were convicted to support themselves this was laudable, and that it would be laudable for them to do so when their imprisonment ends. By parity of reasoning it is equally laudable for them to do so while they are prisoners. The man gains no right to be supported in idleness by committing crime, nor does society lose the right to insist that he shall support himself, nor is the laudableness of self-support diminished by his act. Those who advocate measures calculated to lessen or abolish productive industries in our prison seem to assume that a different economic principle applies to prison labor and to persons in prison from that which controls free men and free industries; that somehow it is for the interest of the State that the prisoners do not produce or that they produce as little as possible. But this is waste, and waste is a vice. The adoption of such a policy inculcates a vicious principle in the administration of the prisons and neglects the best good of the convict himself.

Industry and the habit of producing is the greatest support to the honesty of the man. Industry is the most available exercise the prisoner can have. To those who have been led into crime through idleness or dislike of labor it is the most appropriate punishment. From every point of view prison industry is justified. It is also an essential means of prison discipline and of reformation of the convict.

While the employment of a large number of convicts on one good industry is financially better for the prison, the pursuit of a variety is believed to be expedient, as this course prevents the concentration of competition and makes the convict familiar with a greater variety of work whereby he will be more likely to find employment when released.

Experience in this State has seemed to justify the preference expressed by the manufacturers and mechanics of 50 years ago in favor of the contract system of prison industries and to confirm the reasoning on which that preference was founded, for the greatest and worst competition of prison industries has occurred where the prison industry was carried on upon State account.

The history of prison industries shows that as a matter of fact the contracting of the labor of convicts to manufacturers for wages has been less hurtful to free labor than the State account system of work, and at the same time it has been more profitable to the State in a large majority of cases.

The circumstances and incidents that attend the two systems of work, the Stateaccount system and the contract system, are so different in different States that it seems well to mention what they are in this State. What the convict really earns inures to the State whether he be employed under the one system or the other. The maintenance of the convicts, their guarding and keeping, are in all cases done by the State and at its expense.

It is usual for the State to furnish the shops also, so the cost of these are not taken into account in comparing systems, but here the conditions that are common to both systems usually end. Under the contract system the State employs the convicts to work for contractors by the day for wages agreed upon between it and the contractor. The latter supplies the machinery, the raw material, working capital, superintendent of the work, and so on. Under the State-account system the State supplies all these and conducts the business throughout.

When prisoners are employed, working for wages agreed upon, the financial result to the State is fixed and apparent. It consists of the wages earned. When they are employed manufacturing on State account the financial result is at first uncertain and indefinite. It consists of the amount realized from the sale of the articles made, less the cost of selling them and the losses of the trade, less the cost of the raw materials used and wasted in the manufacturing, less the interest on the money paid for machinery and employed as working capital, less the wear and depreciation of machinery, and the like.

The preference for the contract system exclusively, so manifest years ago, went quite too far, and it was a step in the direction of rational management of prison industries when the law was so revised as to allow the prisons to employ the convicts on State account as well as upon contracts.

From the preference for the contract system exclusively, a tendency has manifested itself in some quarters to rush into the opposite extreme and to require all labor in prisons to be done on State account. It proposes to restrict and embarrass the sale of prison-made goods, to brand them and subject those who sell them to an unequal license tax, to restrict prisons to the making of things for other State institutions, and, finally, to prohibit the sale of prison products altogether. It is believed to be the only safe course in the management of prison industries, as in other affairs, to select and adhere to a rational policy, one that conforms to the policy that makes outside industries prosperous. The economic principles that apply to free manufacturing avail also in the prisons. The law as it now stands gives scope for the carrying on of prison work according to business methods. The liberty to employ the prisoners at work on State account or to have them work for contractors for wages, is essential to the attainment of the best results and is in harmony with the conditions that exist in a state of freedom where each man carries on business on his own account or works for wages as he finds best in his situation.

The recommendations of various other officials of penal and reformatory institutions in the State are summarized as follows:

No change is desired by the management of the State prison or the public at large. The present system is the best. The competition is so small that if all the industries of the penal institutions were abolished the public would not notice the difference. There is but little agitation of the question in this State.

The piece-price plan of contract is the most satisfactory, provided the terms and conditions of the contract place the regulating of tasks, etc., in the hands of the prison authorities, so that the inmates may be allowed a certain per cent of all

earnings over and above the required reasonable task or requirement. Under it you can regulate the output, allow your inmates a certain amount of his earnings over and above a specified task, so as to encourage industry, which is the acknowledged foundation of reform. I do not believe a prisoner should be allowed any privilege unless he earns it, and if this is impressed upon his mind he will work out his own salvation.

I do not believe that convict labor competes with free labor in general results. The average term of confinement throughout the United States is something less than 2 years, when these men are again placed in a position where it will be necessary to rely on their teaching of industry to earn an honest living as free labor. If they are not taught industry by steady employment wherein they can see that honesty is the best policy while in prison, they will go out entirely unprepared to battle with the outside world, and will sooner or later return to crime.

Abolish the contract system and substitute the State-account system. The State-account system is the most desirable, the prisoners being directly under the control of the prison authorities at all times.

I do not believe that convict labor competes with free adult labor to any appreciable extent. It is the competition of child labor, in my opinion, that needs correction, much of the results of child labor being charged to convict labor.

We have tried all the systems of employment, and find the piece-price plan of contract the most satisfactory, for the following reasons:

First. The contractor pays for what he gets only, knows exactly what each article is costing him, and has no fault to find regarding the amount of work performed by any particular inmate.

Second. The prison authorities can regulate the tasks to be performed at any amount which they may consider a reasonable day's work.

Third. The disposition and character of an inmate can be judged better by the class and amount of work he does than in any other way. If he is forced to do a certain amount of work, and does it well, I believe in holding out inducements for him to work for himself by allowing him a certain percentage of what he earns over and above the required task. This teaches him industry and at the same time takes away the sting of oppression.

Contract labor by convicts yields the most revenue to the State, and the manufacture of shirts and other cotton goods are clean, light, and healthy occupations. I have been unable to observe that prison labor in this State has lowered the price of goods or the wages of free labor.

The elastic system of Michigan, which permits of State-account, piece-price, or contract systems of employing convicts, as in the opinion of the board of control is most desirable, is the best for all concerned, under certain existing circumstances. Convict labor, like any other labor, must compete. All prisoners in county jails should be compelled to work.

MINNESOTA.

The public-account and piece-price systems in use at the State penitentiary have given general satisfaction. The warden states that it is his belief that any well-regulated penal institution of moderate size can be conducted on State account and made self-sustaining with proper management. The only changes he would suggest in the laws of this State would be such as to require all convicts to work on State account, and to place a reasonable limit on the number that might be employed upon any given industry. He does not believe that convict labor as now conducted in Minnesota cuts any appreciable figure with free labor, or that it has ever been the cause of reducing the price of labor.

250A-VOL III-9

There is not adequate provision made for the employment of prisoners in jails, and it is suggested that farm and road work would be most desirable, as it benefits the community without exciting the opposition of free labor.

Prisoners should be employed at State work, not on contract. The public account system is the best.

MISSISSIPPI.

The lease or contract and share-crop systems, as now worked, are not satisfactory. It is recommended that facilities be furnished for extending farm and agricultural work, the products to be sold on the open market and consumed in the State institutions.

MISSOURI.

The warden of the State penitentiary states that the contract system as it is used at that institution is giving satisfaction, and no changes are recommended. There appears to be no system so advantageous to both the taxpayers and the convicts. The competition with free labor is very limited.

The officials of other institutions state as follows:

It is believed that a law that requires convicts to work directly for the State, rather than the present plan of hiring their labor to contractors, would be beneficial to both convict and free labor. Convicts should have plenty of healthy labor. Keep body and mind employed as great a part of the time as possible without requiring over or unreasonable exertion. The amount of manufacturing in Missouri penal institutions, including the penitentiaries, is too small to have much effect on free labor.

The practice of working prisoners in the jails on the public roads is desirable. While employed on building public roads convicts do not compete with free labor, for the reason of the great amount of this work to be done and the small sum of money available for such use, all sums appropriated are exhausted in employing free labor, and convicts are employed in addition.

ΜΟΝΤΑΝΑ.

Beyond the duties incidental to the care of the institution, no employment is furnished convicts at the penitentiary. This practice of no employment for the inmates of the penitentiary and jails is not satisfactory. It is believed that the employment of convicts on public improvements, and at such work as raising produce for their own consumption, where they would not compete with free labor, would be very satisfactory to all the people of this State. It is suggested that they should be employed in improving and beautifying public places, such as highways and parks, where the cost of guarding would not be too great-dangerous prisoners to be employed within the walls in repairing the State property.

Industrial training on the "Elmira plan" is desirable for the younger prisoners. Older prisoners should be employed in manufacturing for the needs of the State institutions. Plenty of road work should be furnished, also cutting paving stones and making macadam. Laws should be adopted providing for a better classification of the prisoners. More employment and education, and permanent confinement for habitual criminals. Industrial training should also be introduced into penal institutions. Diversified trades should be furnished those capable of learning, and work on highways furnished when desirable.

NEBRASKA.

The contract system is largely in use. It is recommended that farming operations, to raise supplies for the use of the institutions, be extended.

NEVADA.

There are but comparatively few convicts, and they are kept constantly employed in the duties incident to the care of the institution and also manufacturing supplies for their own consumption.

NEW HAMPSHIRE.

The contract system, under which the State has full charge of the discipline, etc., of the men, is giving satisfaction. Good, healthful work in well-ventilated shops is the best.

Convicts do not compete any more, if as much, as if they worked outside. Free labor ought not to be taxed to support criminals in luxury and idleness.

The inmates of the State Industrial School are employed under the piece-price system. The president of the board of trustees states that the management is humane. There is an entire absence of anything in the exterior or interior of the building to denote that it is a penal institution, except that the windows of the dormitory are barred. It is impossible to adopt any system of labor which will not be the occasion of complaint on the part of those engaged in a similar occupation outside. In this respect we have been fortunate, as fault-finding has been noticed by its absence. In addition to the knitting machinery, we have a few cards, breakers, and spinning mules, so as to give the boys some knowledge of that kind of business. What I now say will be substantiated by hundreds, and that is, the annual examination of the school, which is held in May, in general interests and the good character of the exercises, are fully equal to those of any public school in the State. For good conduct during the year, a certain number of the pupils receive honorable discharges at this annual meeting. I do not believe that there is an institution in the country, that so far as net results are concerned, can make a better showing than the New Hampshire State Industrial School.

NEW JERSEY.

The piece-price system of employing convicts has been in use in the State penitentiary for about fifteen years, and has proved eminently satisfactory, not only to the State government, but to the citizens interested in the abstract question of convict labor. The supervisor of the prison states:

• It is not, in my opinion, desirable to make changes in the laws so long as their operation is harmonious and is obviously beneficial to all concerned. The question of the advantage morally and physically of the convicts and the minimum injury to the interests of free labor depends less upon the particular system adopted than upon the care and discretion with which any adopted system may be carried out. It is his opinion that the labor and production of the convicts under the present system as now conducted in the institution does not compete to any appreciable extent with outside labor, or has any noticeable effect to reduce the number of wage-earners, to diminish their earnings, or to depreciate the prices of manufactured articles. The laws of this State forbid contracts to be made for the mauufacture, by convict labor, of the product of more than 100 men in any branch of industry. There are 9 branches of industry carried on in the prison, and upon these there are employed about 700 men, an average of a fraction less than 78 men to each. The production of this small number of inexpert men in any one branch of manufacture is practically microscopic as compared with outside production, and by the operation of this law, the mental, moral, and physical benefits of regular labor are secured to the convicts, while the competition of their labor with outside or 'free' labor, is reduced to a point at which its effects are inappreciable.”

The officials of other State and county institutions refer to the systems of labor as follows:

"Farm work and making macadam and working on roads is giving satisfaction. No convict labor should be let by contract or machinery used in production. Under such conditions there can be no competition with outside labor.