Produced by Larry B. Harrison, Wayne Hammond and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
book was produced from scanned images of public domain
material from the Google Books project.)









  NEW SERIES      No. 58

  THE JOURNAL
  OF
  PRISON DISCIPLINE
  AND
  PHILANTHROPY

  REPORT OF ACTING COMMITTEE

  REPORT OF COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE
  PRISON SYSTEMS

  MILITARY DISCIPLINE AND PUNISHMENTS, ETC.

  1919

  ISSUED ANNUALLY BY
  THE PENNSYLVANIA PRISON SOCIETY
  FORREST BUILDING, 119 SOUTH FOURTH STREET
  PHILADELPHIA, PA.

  PRESS OF ALLEN, LANE & SCOTT, PHILADELPHIA.


OFFICIAL VISITORS.

No person who is not an official visitor of the prison, or who has not
a written permission, according to such rules as the Inspector may
adopt as aforesaid, shall be allowed to visit the same; the official
visitors are: the Governor, the Speaker and members of the Senate; the
Speaker and members of the House of Representatives; the Secretary of
the Commonwealth; the Judges of the Supreme Court; the Attorney-General
and his Deputies; the President and Associate Judges of all the Courts
in the State; the Mayor and Recorders of the cities of Philadelphia,
Lancaster and Pittsburgh; Commissioners and Sheriffs of the several
Counties; and the “ACTING COMMITTEE OF THE PHILADELPHIA SOCIETY FOR
ALLEVIATING THE MISERIES OF PUBLIC PRISONS.” (Note: Now named “THE
PENNSYLVANIA PRISON SOCIETY.”)--_Section 7, Act of April 23, 1829._

The above was supplemented by the following Act, approved March 20,
1903:


AN ACT

    To make active or visiting committees of Societies incorporated
    for the purpose of visiting and instructing prisoners official
    visitors of penal and reformatory institutions.

SECTION 1. Be it enacted, etc., That the active or visiting committee
of any society heretofore incorporated and now existing in the
Commonwealth for the purpose of visiting and instructing prisoners,
or persons confined in any penal or reformatory institution, and
alleviating their miseries, shall be and are hereby made official
visitors of any jail, penitentiary, or other penal or reformatory
institution in this Commonwealth, maintained at the public expense,
with the same powers, privileges and functions as are vested in the
official visitors of prisons and penitentiaries as now prescribed by
law: _Provided_, That no active or visiting committee of any such
society shall be entitled to visit such jails or penal institutions,
under this act unless notice of the names of the members of such
committee, and the terms of their appointment, is given by such society
in writing, under its corporate seal, to the warden, superintendent or
other officer in charge of such jail or other officer in charge of any
such jail or other penal institution.

APPROVED--The 20th day of March, A. D. 1903.




  NEW SERIES      No. 58

  THE JOURNAL
  OF
  PRISON DISCIPLINE
  AND
  PHILANTHROPY

  REPORT OF ACTING COMMITTEE

  REPORT OF COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE
  PRISON SYSTEMS

  MILITARY DISCIPLINE AND PUNISHMENTS, ETC.

  1919

  ISSUED ANNUALLY BY
  THE PENNSYLVANIA PRISON SOCIETY
  FORREST BUILDING, 119 SOUTH FOURTH STREET
  PHILADELPHIA, PA.


FORM OF BEQUEST OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.


I give and bequeath to “THE PENNSYLVANIA PRISON SOCIETY” the sum
of................Dollars.


FORM OF DEVISE OF REAL ESTATE.

I give and bequeath to “THE PENNSYLVANIA PRISON SOCIETY” all that
certain piece and parcel of land. (Here enter the description.)




  OFFICERS FOR THE SOCIETY FOR 1919


  PRESIDENT

  EDWARD M. WISTAR, Provident Building, Philadelphia.


  VICE-PRESIDENT

  NORRIS J. SCOTT, Moylan, Pa.


  SECRETARY

  ALBERT H. VOTAW, 119 S. Fourth Street, Philadelphia.


  ASSISTANT SECRETARY

  CHARLES P. HASTINGS, 119 S. Fourth Street, Philadelphia.


  TREASURER

  JOHN WAY, 409 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia.


  COUNSELORS

  FREDERICK L. CLARK, West End Trust Building, Philadelphia.
  WILLIAM DRAPER LEWIS, Law Department, University of Pennsylvania.


  GENERAL AGENT

  FREDERICK J. POOLEY, 119 S. Fourth Street, Philadelphia.


ACTING COMMITTEE

  FOR ONE YEAR

  Harrison Walton        John A. Duncan          Fred Swarts Brink
  Charles P. Hastings    Mrs. Mary S. Grigg      Dr. B. Frank Kehler
  Rev. F. H. Senft       William Morris          Dr. J. J. Mullowney
  Isaac P. Miller        Mrs. Emma L. Thompson   Robert B. Haines, Jr.
  Charles McDole         Rev. Thomas Latimer     H. Wellington Wood


  FOR TWO YEARS

  Harry Kennedy          George S. Wetherell     Dr. Charles Williams
  Henry C. Cassel        Frank H. Longshore      Charles C. Simmington
  Mrs. Layyah Barakat    C. Wilfred Conard       Mrs. Eliza M. Cope
  Rev. J. F. Ohl         Rev. M. Reed Minnich    Watson W. Dewees
  Mary S. Wetherell      Miss Emily Whelen       George A. Coburn


  FOR THREE YEARS

  Frederick J. Pooley     Miss Annie McFedries   Joseph P. Byers
  William Koelle          Dr. John Frazer        Franklin S. Edmonds
  Deborah C. Leeds        Dr. J. Treichler Butz  Leon J. Obermayer
  Mrs. Clara Hodges Allen George W. Wilkins      Miss M. N. Cochran, Jr.
  Miss Rebecca P. Latimer Mrs. Mary Ella deLong  Miss Florence B. Kane


ACTING COMMITTEE FOR THE STATE-AT-LARGE

FOR ONE YEAR              FOR TWO YEARS            FOR THREE YEARS
BUCKS COUNTY             ALLEGHENY COUNTY         ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Mrs. Anna K. Garges      Paul T. Beiswenger      Rev. F. W. Beiswenger

CHESTER COUNTY            MONTGOMERY COUNTY         CENTRE COUNTY
Mrs. B. K. C. Marshall   Capt. Nicholas Baggs    Hon. J. Linn Harris

YORK COUNTY                LUZERNE COUNTY
Miss Rhoda M. Starr       Mrs. Anabel Wallace




STANDING COMMITTEES FOR 1919


_Visiting Committee--Eastern Penitentiary_:


MEN

  Rev. J. F. Ohl         Charles P. Hastings     Edward M. Wistar
  Rev. F. H. Senft       Charles McDole          Fred Swarts Brink
  Harry Kennedy          John A. Duncan          George W. Wilkins
  William Koelle         Albert H. Votaw         Dr. B. F. Kehler
  George S. Wetherell    Rev. Thomas Latimer     Leon J. Obermayer
  Henry C. Cassel        Isaac P. Miller         Chas. C. Simmington
  Harrison Walton        Rev. M. Reed Minnich    Geo. A. Coburn
  Frank H. Longshore     Dr. Charles Williams    H. Wellington Wood
                         William Morris


WOMEN

  Deborah C. Leeds       Miss R. P. Latimer      Mrs. Mary Ella deLong
  Mary S. Wetherell      Miss Emily Whelen       Mrs. Layyah Barakat
                         Mrs. Mary S. Grigg


_Visiting Committee_--_Philadelphia County Prison_--_Moyamensing_:

  John A. Duncan         Norris J. Scott         Deborah C. Leeds
  Rev. J. F. Ohl         H. Wellington Wood      Mrs. Clara Hodges Allen
  Frederick J. Pooley    Albert H. Votaw         Miss R. P. Latimer


_Visiting Committee_--_Philadelphia County Prison_--_Holmesburg_:

  Frederick J. Pooley    William Koelle          John A. Duncan


_Visiting Committee_--_House of Correction_:

  William Koelle                                 Robert B. Haines, Jr.
  Fred Swarts Brink                              Mrs. Layyah Barakat


_Committee on Discharged Prisoners_:

  Dr. Charles Williams                           George W. Wilkins
  Miss Florence B. Kane                          Charles P. Hastings


_Committee on Legislation_:

  Rev. J. F. Ohl         Mrs. E. M. Cope         Hon. J. Linn Harris
  C. Wilfred Conard                              Joseph P. Byers


_Committee on Membership_:

  Isaac P. Miller        George W. Wilkins       Miss M. N. Cochran, Jr.
  John A. Duncan                                 George S. Wetherell


_Committee on Police Matrons_:

  Mrs. Mary S. Grigg     Miss Emily Whelen       Mrs. Mary Ella deLong


_Editorial Committee_:

  Rev. J. F. Ohl         Miss Florence B. Kane   Joseph P. Byers
  Rev. F. H. Senft                               Albert H. Votaw


_Finance Committee_:

  George S. Wetherell                            John A. Duncan
  Robert B. Haines, Jr.                          Fred Swarts Brink


_Auditors_:

  John A. Duncan         Isaac P. Miller         Watson W. Dewees




THE JOURNAL OF PRISON DISCIPLINE AND PHILANTHROPY


ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SECOND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA PRISON
SOCIETY.


The 132d Annual Meeting of THE PENNSYLVANIA PRISON SOCIETY was held
by appointment in Assembly Hall, Church Building, northwest corner
Fifteenth and Race Streets, Philadelphia, on the evening of January 14,
1919, President Edward M. Wistar in the Chair.

Twenty-five members were present.

The Minutes of the 131st Meeting were read and approved.

The Report of the Acting Committee for the year 1918 was read by the
Secretary. It was approved and directed to be printed. (See pages 7-14.)

The Treasurer, John Way, presented a detailed statement of the receipts
and payments for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1918, accompanied
by a schedule of the securities held for the Society by the Fiscal
Agent, The Provident Life and Trust Company. The statement had been
audited and the securities had been examined by the auditors. (See page
15.)

On behalf of the Committee on Nominations, the Secretary presented a
list of nominations for the Officers of the Society and for members of
the Acting Committee to succeed those whose terms expire on February
1. Watson W. Dewees and George S. Wetherell were appointed Tellers.
The election being duly held the persons nominated were elected to the
offices designated in the report of the Committee. (See page 3.)

A communication was read, sent by Leonard G. Yoder, Esq., Solicitor
for the Berks County Prison, calling attention to the fact that the
Act of the Assembly, approved 1917, provided that prisoners in the
county prisons could be employed at agricultural labor only during the
continuance of the war which is now interrupted by the armistice. The
net profit of the labor of prisoners thus employed in Berks County in
1918 was $800, and the Solicitor recommends that this Act should apply
permanently and requests that this Society should exert an influence
on the present Assembly for the purpose of encouraging the continuation
of this beneficial measure for the employment of prisoners. By motion,
the communication was referred to the Legislative Committee of the
Acting Committee.

Dr. George W. Kirchwey of New York delivered the Annual Address. He is
the Counsel for the Commission under appointment to investigate prisons
and to recommend such revision of our present penal system as may seem
advisable. While the report of the Commission was not yet entirely
prepared, he intimated that some scheme of Central Administration would
be proposed, not so much to take the management away from the present
Boards of Inspectors as to exercise advisory and supervisory powers and
to correlate our various correctional institutions. The conditions now
obtaining in regard to the employment of prisoners were deplorable in
this Keystone State, and it was the aim of the Commission to provide
some form of productive labor for all able-bodied prisoners. They were
prepared to recommend an extension of agricultural operations and
favored the early removal of the Eastern Penitentiary to a farm in the
eastern portion of the State. He deprecated every form of brutality in
the treatment of delinquents and evidently thought the old repressive
spirit and measures could still be found to have lodgment in some
of our prisons. He was sure that a large number of our prisoners,
possibly a majority, were mentally deficient and ought to have special
treatment adapted to their needs, which, under present circumstances
of incarceration, was impossible. If we wish to restore the men whom
we confine in our prisons, we must do more than simply restrain them
within certain limits; we must treat them as erring brothers and
sisters, not as dumb driven cattle.

To nominate to our next Annual Meeting the officers of the Society
and members of the Acting Committee whose terms expire next year, the
President appointed William Biddle, Robert Dunning Dripps, John A.
Duncan, William C. Warren and Miss Emily Whelen.

  ALBERT H. VOTAW,
  _Secretary_.


REPORT OF ACTING COMMITTEE FOR THE YEAR 1918.

At a meeting which was held May 8, 1787, in Philadelphia, at which
the “Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Prisons”
was organized, provision was made for the appointment of an Acting
Committee which should discharge the executive functions of the
Society. It was composed of nine persons, the President, the two
Vice-Presidents, and six additional members. The first Acting Committee
was composed of

  Bishop William White, President,
  Dr. Henry Helmuth, Vice-President,
  Richard Wells, Vice-President.


Additional members:

  Tench Coxe,            John Kaighn,
  Dr. George Duffield,   Benjamin Wynkoop,
  William Rogers,        George Krebs.

From time to time, on account of additional duties, responsibilities
and opportunities for service, this Committee has been enlarged until
at the present time it is limited to sixty persons, and at the present
time is composed of fifty-six members.

In 1886 the name of the Society was changed to “The Pennsylvania Prison
Society”--a name indicating no change of purpose, but rather a wider
scope of operations.

In the year 1829, the Acting Committee, by Act of Assembly, were
appointed Official Visitors of all prisons in the Commonwealth. Our
Society was the only one having such duties until the year 1903, when,
by another Act of the Assembly, the privilege was granted to the Acting
Committee of the Catholic Society for the Visitation of Prisoners.


OFFICIAL VISITATION.

While many members of our Visiting Committees have been zealous in
their endeavor to open the door of hope to the prisoners, and to
stimulate them to higher ideals of life, the general conditions
obtaining in the prisons have also claimed attention. It is a
prescribed function of the Visiting Committee of any prison, whether
State or County, to note the “condition of the buildings ... the
discipline and management,” and to make report of their observations.
Great discretion and a full understanding of the situation are
essential in publishing the results of such comments and observations.
In the early history of our organization, there were so many abuses
prevalent in the management of prisons that by far the larger part
of the activities of the Acting Committee consisted in the effort to
remedy the evils of management. These efforts were eminently successful
in those days of emergence from medieval methods; and while we all
rejoice in the very great amelioration of conditions, it must be
confessed that penal improvement has lagged behind all other agencies
for betterment. If we compare our educational system, hospitals,
transportation methods, agricultural development--any field of human
endeavor--with our correctional institutions, we are overwhelmed by the
extreme lack of corresponding progress.


PERSONAL VISITATION.

The reports of the Visiting Committees for the year 1918 indicate that
there is no loss of interest or effort in seeking to restore men and
women to their better selves. In consequence of the quarantine caused
by the epidemic of influenza, which resulted in keeping visitors away
from four to six weeks, the statistics do not bulk as large as usual.

  Number of reported visits to the Eastern Penitentiary      337
  Number of reported interviews with the inmates           6,435
  Number of reported interviews with the inmates of the
    Philadelphia County Prison                             3,631
  Number of prisoners interviewed at Central Station
    by Agent                                              15,933
  Number of discharged prisoners receiving direct aid        590

On practically every Sabbath one or more of our members take part in
the religious services in the prisons.

We are convinced that many of those with whom we meet from time to time
are victims of circumstances, and also that many of them are defective
in mentality and in self control. At some time, we trust the General
Assembly will take up seriously the subject of the degenerates who need
treatment in accordance with the most approved psychiatric methods.
Some of them need institutional care for a much longer time than is
indicated by the Court sentence. Here they should be restrained until
they are deemed ready to become useful to the community.


EMPLOYMENT OF PRISONERS.

In the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the most flagrant evil of
the prisons is the lack of wholesome employments for the inmates.
Even some of our laws designed to help conditions have aggravated the
evil. For instance, the law of 1913, which, with the best intentions,
repealed other laws for employment in the State Penal Institutions,
in order that the inmates might all be employed in making articles
for State use, did not create a sure market for the articles thus
manufactured, and therefore the number of prisoners profitably employed
in the penitentiaries is not so large as under a former law when 35
per cent. of them could be kept at work in the manufacture of articles
or products to be sold in the open market. A simple remedy for this
deplorable state of affairs may be found in granting the privilege
of selling the surplus stock in the market at the prevailing price.
Organized labor found undesirable competition with the products of free
labor only when the prisoners were employed on the vicious contract
system. Under the present methods, the prisoners are to receive a fair
wage and the products are to be sold at the market price. Perhaps
we could make a beginning by listing certain industries in which
the convicts may be employed. Place no restrictions on agricultural
products, including canned goods, on the work of stone crushing and in
general the manufacture of road-making material, and also allow two or
three indoor industries, such as the manufacture of carpets and knit
goods. Thus the problem may be solved. When we consider the very small
number of persons so employed in comparison with the hordes of outside
workers, it appears very evident that the amount of real competition
would reduce to the vanishing point. No industry would be injured, the
tax-payers would be relieved from a large part of the expense, the
prisoners would earn their own maintenance, and thus the demoralizing
effects of idleness would be averted.


DISCHARGED PRISONERS.

It has sometimes been stated that for some visitors, the prisoner
loses his charm when released from confinement. He may be decidedly
interesting behind the bars, or perhaps he may be simply an object
of curiosity, or a psychological specimen to be studied, like some
abnormal freak of nature. Within the wall the visitor may show warmth,
interest, cordiality, sympathy, a certain degree of familiarity,
but on the outside the atmosphere is below zero. This is a species
of charlatanism for which we have no sympathy. It is an exceedingly
important part of our mission to set the discharged man on his feet,
and to establish his goings. If ever any man needed sympathy and
material aid, it is when the man released from confinement again
becomes a member of the community. Not all the men and women who are
released seem to require special help, but those who are in need are
very greatly dependent upon human kindness till they have regained some
sense of confidence and have again become self-supporting. If aid and
good cheer are not forthcoming at this crucial time of testing, there
is imminent danger of a relapse into former bad habits. We believe that
all of our visitors realize the importance of maintaining our interest
and kindly feeling for the prisoner at the time of his release.


SECURING EMPLOYMENT.

During the last two years there has been no difficulty in finding work
for any able-bodied man. There are some disappointments, but we are
learning not to become discouraged. Possibly we may allow ourselves to
dwell unduly on the failures, when we should recall the many instances
of reclamation. The saying “Once a crook, always a crook” has no
place either in our experience or in our philosophy. If this saying
represents a truth, we would become pessimistic regarding the human
race. Show us the man or woman who has never erred. Please note some
examples:--

The other day we met “A” on Market Street. Accompanied by his little
son, he was speeding away in his “flivver.” He stopped to give us a
greeting, and indicated that happiness and prosperity were his portion.

“B” is a spick and span policeman in a neighboring city. Though you may
say “Set a thief to catch a thief,” this particular guardian of the
public peace is discharging his duty to the community.

“C” seemed particularly pleased to meet us the other day uptown. He had
joined the church, and had attained to the dignity of usher.

“D,” who was once an accomplished burglar, having served at least two
terms in prison, has built up a manufacturing industry, and is quite
prosperous.

“E” is foreman in the jewelry department of a large department store
“somewhere in America.”

“F,” a one-armed piece of ebon jollity, is one of the handiest men
employed on a certain prosperous truck farm.

“G,” who began cooking for Blank Firm at $10 weekly wages, now reports
with a grin that he is getting $65 a month with board and lodging.

“H” is one of the most popular clerks in the office of a mammoth
establishment. That he once fell from grace is known, but it is no
longer reckoned against him.

“I” one year ago began as a solicitor and now his business has so
enlarged that he has taken a suite of rooms for his office.

We could easily exhaust the alphabet with such cases. There are
failures, but we try to discount our disappointments when we take
account of those who are “making good.” The Parole Officers have
informed us that seventy-five per cent. are becoming satisfactory
citizens. By far the larger part of those whom we willingly assist, in
a short time are beyond our ken. They take with them our hopes and our
fears--our fears, that they may again yield to the manifold temptations
on every hand; our hopes, that they have learned their lesson, and with
courage and by the help of divine grace are performing their duty to
the community.


A REVOLVING RELIEF FUND.

A few of those to whom we render assistance return a part, or all,
of the funds which we have advanced to them. We do not press them
for payment. Those who are invalids or who have families to support
are not expected to repay us. From many years of experience, we have
learned that it is not wise indiscriminately to make grants of cash
in hand. Old chums are waiting just around the corner for a treat.
Temptations of all sorts are manifold. We guarantee bills for board
and lodging, purchase tools and clothing, furnish transportation, and
provide outfits for those who are sent to the State Sanatoriums. But
there are some who should feel an obligation to return the value of the
assistance rendered. Thus we hope to create a sort of revolving fund
which may be used for cases of need, and when returned is ready for the
next man. Many of these released men have some natural pride or self
respect, and do not wish to be considered mendicants.


THE AMERICAN PRISON ASSOCIATION.

On account of the epidemic of influenza so prevalent in the autumn,
the meeting of the American Prison Association was called off. At a
meeting of the Executive Committee held recently it was concluded to
postpone till next year the sessions of this body. New York had been
selected as the place, and it has been decided to meet in the same
city, October 20-24, 1919.


THE AGENT’S WORK AT THE CENTRAL POLICE STATION.

One of the most important features of our relief work is under the
management of our Agent, Mr. Fred J. Pooley, at the Central Station,
City Hall. From the forty-two Police Stations throughout the city,
there arrive almost hourly at this Central Station van loads of human
freight which in some way or other must be quickly disposed of by the
Committing Magistrate. Most of these are petty offenders, but also
there are numerous cases of arrest on suspicion or for vagrancy, and
such as these need special care in order to prevent injustice, and to
be saved from criminal associations. Agent Pooley endeavors to have a
brief interview with these derelicts or victims of misfortune before
they are taken before the Magistrate. In ten months of last year he
thus interviewed 15,933 arrested persons, and on their behalf wrote to
their friends 1,937 letters. His experience for many years has taught
him to distinguish the ring of the true from the sound of the false, so
that when the cases come up before the Court, he is ready to interpose
a word on behalf of the accused person. Often the unfortunate man or
woman, boy or girl, is placed in the care of the agent, who sends them
to their homes or friends, or places them in some detention home until
he may verify their story or hear from their parents or relatives. No
day passes with a blank record in this work of rescue.

In the Agent’s report, an abstract of which is printed in the Annual
Journal of which this report forms a part, a number of instances are
narrated, illustrating the importance of this service.

During the time of the closing of the saloons on account of the
epidemic of influenza, the number of arrests for drunkenness and
disorderly conduct greatly decreased, thus clearly demonstrating that a
prohibitory law would have a decided tendency very greatly to diminish
crime and disorder in this city.


LEGISLATION.

We have delayed the printing of our annual report in order to include
in the JOURNAL the Report of the Commission to Investigate Prison
Systems, of which the Secretary of the Society is a member. The
Legislative Committee of the Society has endorsed the findings of the
Commission and has urgently requested the General Assembly to take
favorable action on the bills presented by the Commission. A synopsis
of these bills presents the following desirable features.

1. The enlargement of the functions of the State Board of Public
Charities so as to include the appointment from their number of a
Committee on Delinquency with supervisory power over all prisons of the
Commonwealth and with authority to condemn unsanitary conditions and
provide for betterment, and also to have especial direction over the
prison industries. Medical and psychiatric examination of convicts is
provided with power to transfer defective criminals to the institution
most suitable for their care and restoration.

2. The establishment of State Industrial Farms to which those sentenced
to the county jails may be sent.

3. An Amendment to the law of 1911 which deals with the imposition of
sentences by the Courts to the extent that convicted prisoners may be
eligible for parole when one-third of the maximum sentence has expired.

4. Abolition of the fee system in county jails, a practice universally
condemned by all who have studied the problem.

5. The removal of the Eastern Penitentiary to a farm in the eastern
part of the State. This suggestion is in line with the recommendation
of the Commission of 1915 of which the present Warden was a member. At
that time the purchase of a farm for the use of the institution was
proposed.

6. The provision that goods and articles made by the labor of prisoners
shall be used whenever practicable by public institutions of the
Commonwealth, thus insuring a market for such products.

The full report of the Commission is found in the present issue of the
JOURNAL, pages 19-46.


THE ROLL OF MEMBERS.

During the last year we have to a considerable extent enlarged the
membership of our Society. We presented the matter to a number of our
citizens, many of whom had been contributors to our work for some time,
who very cordially accepted membership. Seventy-five persons have
been added to our membership during the year 1918, and we are deeply
gratified to place on our roll the names of so many estimable citizens.
The number of members at the present time, including life members, is
252.


MORTUARY NOTICES.

During the last year four of the members of the Acting Committee have
been called away by death.

In January our dear friend, Mrs. Elizabeth M. Gormly, who has
faithfully visited for many years the prisoners in Pittsburgh, died
at an advanced age. She had been a member since 1903. She was also
connected with the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, being the State
Superintendent of Evangelistic Work among Prisoners.

In August, Mrs. Annie Fassitt, of Philadelphia, also of an advanced
age, passed from works to rewards. She had been a member from 1896,
and had given special assistance to hundreds of prisoners. She was
one of the founders of the “Door of Blessing,” and for many years
was prominent in the support and management of this effort for the
restoration of erring sisters. She was a real “Angel of Mercy.”

John Smallzell, a member since 1905, also passed away in the month of
August. His visits to Eastern Penitentiary will long be remembered.
Wherever he went, he took a message of good cheer. He was most sincere
and devout, and carried with him everywhere the influence of a devoted
Christian life.

In April, 1919, our esteemed Vice-President Joseph C. Noblit, in the
eighty-sixth year of his life, was called to his everlasting home.
He was elected a member of the Society in 1899 and was made a member
of the Acting Committee in 1900. In 1916 he was chosen as one of the
Vice-Presidents, and on occasion presided at the meetings of the Acting
Committee with dignity and a high sense of responsibility. He was a
diligent attender of the meetings and his judgment on the many matters
coming before the Committee was sound and discreet. He was a faithful
visitor to the inmates of our prisons, earnest in the endeavor to bring
to them a true gospel message and to induce them to choose the better
way of living. He knew the deep principles of experimental religion,
and was solicitous that all with whom he came in contact should know
for themselves the consolations of a devoted Christian life. “He giveth
his beloved sleep.”

On behalf of the Acting Committee,

  EDWARD M. WISTAR,
  _President_.

  ALBERT H. VOTAW,
  _Secretary_.


FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

              RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR 1918.

  To Balance January 1, 1918                         $1,716 94
   “ Contributions                                    3,439 00
   “ Dues from Annual Members                           410 00
   “ Life Membership (Edw. M. Wistar)                    50 00
   “ Income from Investments                          2,152 60
   “ Income from I. V. Williamson Charities             720 00
   “ Income from Anna Blanchard Fund                    220 50
   “ Income from Joshua L. Baily Fund                   157 62
   “ Income from Henry A. Rogers Fund                    25 20
   “ Income from Isaac Barton (Tool Fund)                80 33
   “ Interest on deposits                                42 05
   “ Sale of Literature                                     90
   “ Returned by Discharged Prisoners                    40 25
   “ Refund Account Wardens’ Conference                 129 45
                                                     ---------
     Total Receipts                                  $9,184 84

                      PAYMENTS.

  For Aid and Relief Discharged Prisoners            $1,408 34
   “  Journal and other Publications                    650 80
   “  Dues, various affiliated Associations              11 00
   “  Library, Periodicals                               27 35
   “  Postage, Printing, Stationery                     383 75
   “  Office Expenses, Telephone, Incidentals           275 89
   “  Traveling Expenses, Secretary and Agent            98 60
   “  Rent of Office                                    480 00
   “  Salaries of Officers                            3,710 00
   “  Life Membership Fee Transferred to Fiscal Agent    50 00
   “  Balance, December 31, 1918                      2,089 11
                                                     ---------
      Total Payments including balance               $9,184 84

         REPORT ON FUNDS HELD FOR HOME OF INDUSTRY.

  Receipts on Account of Income                        $361 28
  Payments to Home of Industry                          361 28

  Respectfully,
  JOHN WAY, _Treasurer_.

We the undersigned members of the Audit Committee, have examined the
foregoing account of John Way, Treasurer, compared the payments with
the vouchers, and believe the same to be correct.

We have also examined securities in the hands of our agents, The
Provident Life and Trust Company of Philadelphia, and find them to
agree with the list thereto attached.

  Philadelphia January 1, 1919.       JOHN A. DUNCAN,
                                      ISAAC P. MILLER,
                                          _Auditing Committee_.


REPORT OF GENERAL AGENT FREDERICK J. POOLEY.

During the year 1918 the Agent made daily visits to the cell-room at
the Central Station at City Hall. Twenty thousand and thirty-nine
men and women prisoners were detained there for preliminary trial,
15,933 of whom the Agent visited while at the Central Station and the
remainder after they arrived at Moyamensing Prison.

  Number visited at County Prisons                           2,829
  Number of notices and letters written on their behalf      1,888
  Number discharged prisoners receiving financial aid          345

The opportunities for helpful service are very numerous. In a large
number of cases of suspicion or of a trivial character, the Agent has
been instrumental in securing the discharge of the prisoners, or in
placing them under the care of the Probation Officer, thus saving their
family from disgrace and the County from expense.

It might be of interest to mention a few cases of interest.

No. 1. A young man from the west, arrested as a suspicious character,
had been from home nine years, and was held for a hearing. The Agent
got in touch with his relatives and he was discharged and sent home.

No. 2. A young man from Pittsburgh, Pa., money all gone, while pawning
his watch was arrested; the pawnbroker thought he had stolen it, and
when your Agent received word from his mother that it was his own
watch, he was discharged and sent home.

No. 3. Two young men from St. Louis, with no money, were held as
suspicious characters in order to give the Agent a chance to get in
touch with relatives. One mother came on, and the other sent ticket,
and they both went home.

No. 4. A young man who had gone from town to town, ashamed to write
home, until he landed in our City Hall cell. A few words from the
Agent, brought tears to his eyes and he allowed a letter to be written.
The magistrate discharged him and he is now at home, and he writes: “I
am so glad you found me when you did, for your letter found my mother
and brought her to my rescue, and now _I am free_ and expect to keep in
the right path the remainder of my life.”

With the close of the year 1918, your Agent completed 20 years of
service at the Philadelphia County Prison and eight years of service
at the Central Police Station, City Hall, and in all these years your
Agent has not lost sight of the fact that it is the kind word and a
kindly grasp of the hand, at the proper moment, that may be the means
of turning an unfortunate from the wrong to the right path.

  Very truly,
  FREDERICK J. POOLEY,
  1/15/19.       _General Agent._


PAROLE STATISTICS--EASTERN PENITENTIARY.

  The whole number of prisoners released on
    parole, including some who have been
    re-paroled, from September, 1910, to January
    1, 1919                                      2,773

  Number thus released in 1918                     510
  Whole number returned to the Penitentiary
    since September, 1910                          515

Some of those paroled have died, some have been pardoned and some have
received final discharge.

  Number who should now be reporting                 930
  Of these, the number actually reporting     728
  Number known to be in jail elsewhere         37
  Number whose present address is unknown     165    930

Less than six per cent. of the entire number have vanished. It must
not be considered that all of these have committed crime. Doubtless
many of them have been in the trenches. They have broken connection
with the parole officials in order to serve Uncle Sam, who has stated
that he will not accept those who have been guilty of felony. From
outside sources, we have known that a large number of former convicts
have thus endeavored to expiate their former offenses. Much praise
has been given to ex-convicts in Canada and Great Britain from which
countries many were released in order to join the army or navy. In
fact very few of these absconders are supposed to have again committed
crime. Nearly every penal institution of the country receives notice of
these decampers accompanied by their photographs, so they are easily
identified. The few who again committed some crime have thus been
detected and either returned whence they came or held with detainers.
Probably nearly all of them desire to get entirely away from any
restraint or semblance of authority. They make a grievous mistake for
they are liable at any time to be apprehended and to be brought back
in disgrace. They live the life of hunted animals. Never for one hour
can they feel secure. We believe that a penalty should be levied upon
those who abuse the privilege of parole. They have violated their word
of honor, and should serve additional time.

There are some persons who will argue against the granting of parole
because some eight and one-half per cent. of these obtaining this
privilege have again been guilty of violations of law and order. Nearly
all these violations are of the nature of misdemeanors. Comparatively
few have been guilty of felonies. The problem involves a deep study
of human psychology. In order to determine who shall be released,
there are many elements to be considered. Mistakes are made both
within and outside the prison walls. Those on the inside often give
the applicant the benefit of their doubts when the logic of the case
seems to urge further detention. When the man is on the outside he is
often disappointed in the attitude of the community of which he really
desires to become a law-abiding citizen. The members of the community
assume a serious responsibility when they put stumbling-blocks in the
way of the man who is endeavoring to make good. “Woe to that man by
whom the offense cometh.”

But the conclusion is irresistible that an argument against release on
parole, based on the fact that about eight per cent. have again become
lawbreakers, is a stronger argument against release at expiration of
sentence.

For a much larger percentage than eight per cent. of those who are
released because their terms have expired and therefore can not longer
be detained, become recidivists. Often one-half of the prisoners at a
penal institution have served previously, and yet a comparatively small
percentage are parole violators. In other words, the same argument
which is used against release on parole will apply more strongly to any
release whatever. Again, it must be remembered that the paroled man or
woman is under watchful care, while the person absolutely released is
subject to no restraint.

Out of every 100 persons reported January 1, 1919, as being on parole,
74 were making good. Of the remaining 26, barely two have committed
felonies. This record is better than Boards in some other States have
reported. Our Parole Officials are giving deep study to this subject
with a view to increasing the percentage of successful effort.

  A. H. V.




COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.

REPORT OF COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE PENAL SYSTEMS.


  _To the General Assembly_:

Your Commission duly appointed pursuant to Act of the Legislature, No.
409, 1917, “to investigate the prison systems and the organization
and management of correctional institutions within this Commonwealth
and elsewhere; to recommend such revision of the existing prison
system within this Commonwealth, and the laws pertaining to the
establishment, maintenance and regulation of State and County
correctional institutions within this Commonwealth as it shall deem
wise, and to report the same to the General Assembly at the session of
1919,” respectfully submits the following report of its proceedings,
together with its conclusions and recommendations and proposed bills
for carrying the same into effect.

The Commission was constituted as follows:

  Fletcher W. Stites, Narberth, Chairman,
  Alfred E. Jones, Uniontown,
  Mrs. Martha P. Falconer, Darling P. O.,
  Louis N. Robinson, Swarthmore,
  Albert H. Votaw, Philadelphia.

On November 1, 1917, the members of the Commission met in the City
of Philadelphia, for the purpose of organization and assigned the
work of investigation which had been committed to it to the several
members thereof. On July 1, 1918, the Commission retained Dr. George
W. Kirchwey, of New York City, as its counsel to direct the subsequent
course of the investigation and to aid the Commission with his counsel
and advice.


I.

SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION.

The Commission was fortunate in having in its personnel as thus
constituted four members, including its counsel, who had through
long experience and previous investigations acquired considerable
information as to penal institutions and their management in this and
other States. The investigation covered:--

(1) A careful study and analysis of the laws governing penal conditions
and institutions in this Commonwealth;

(2) An examination of the six correctional institutions directly
controlled by the State, namely:

  The Eastern Penitentiary, at Philadelphia;
  The Western Penitentiary, at Pittsburgh;
  The New Central Penitentiary, at Bellefonte;
  The State Industrial Reformatory, at Huntingdon;
  The Pennsylvania Training School, at Morganza;
  The State Industrial Home for Women, at Muncy;

(3) A similar examination of the Glen Mills Schools--the Girls’
Department, Sleighton Farms, at Darlington, and the Boys’ Department at
Glen Mills;

(4) A similar examination of the Philadelphia House of Correction and
of the County Convict Prison at Holmesburg, Moyamensing Prison in
Philadelphia, the Allegheny County Workhouse at Hoboken and many other
county institutions;

(5) A study of the constitution, organization and functions of the
State Board of Public Charities, and specifically of those of its
Committee on Lunacy;

(6) A study of the powers and activities of the Prison Labor Commission
instituted under the Act of June 1, 1918;

(7) A careful survey of the entire history of the penal system of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from the colonial period down to the
present time, based on the historical research of Professor Harry E.
Barnes of Clark University, Massachusetts;

(8) An investigation of significant correctional institutions in
several other States, notably in New York, New Jersey and Ohio.

To supplement and enlarge the range of these inquiries and studies, the
Commission was permitted to avail itself of the results of previous
investigations conducted by two of its members; on the Employment
and Compensation of Prisoners in Pennsylvania, by Professor Louis N.
Robinson, as Secretary of the Penal Commission of 1913-1915, and on the
county jails and workhouses, made periodically from 1914 to 1918 by
Albert H. Votaw, as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Prison Society.

The Commission desires to express its sense of deep obligation to
the officials and inspectors of prisons in this Commonwealth for the
courtesy and hospitality extended to its members in the course of their
investigations. It also acknowledges its indebtedness to the Secretary
and members of the Board of Public Charities and to the Secretary of
the Public Charities Association for their helpful co-operation.

The Commission has heretofore submitted to the Governor two preliminary
reports, one a Special Emergency Report on Prison Labor, bearing date
September 1, 1918, and a special report on the State Industrial Home
for Women, under date of September 15, 1918, both of which are hereto
appended.

While both these reports were called out by war emergencies, the
former by the dearth of labor power to man the war industries of
the Commonwealth, the latter by the need of providing a place for
the detention and treatment of the large number of dissolute women
convicted of offenses against Federal and State laws enacted for the
protection of the soldiers in the training camps--the Commission
believes that they are still pertinent and that the recommendations
which they contain should form a part of any constructive scheme for
the improvement of the penal system of the Commonwealth.


II.

DEVELOPMENT OF PENAL SYSTEM OF PENNSYLVANIA.

The most inspiring and significant chapter in the history of penology
is not the achievement of John Howard in redeeming the common gaols
of England from the degradation into which they had fallen, nor of
Lord Romilly in his lifelong struggle against the barbarities of the
English penal laws, but the leadership which for more than a century
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania gave to the world both in prison
reform and in the amelioration of the penal code. The two former were
the revolt of sensitive and humane natures against hoary abuses;
but the latter was all this and something more. It was a bold and
imaginative reconstruction of the whole basis of penal discipline. As
far back as the last quarter of the seventeenth century the Quaker
colonists of Pennsylvania introduced for the first time the practice
of employing imprisonment at hard labor as the ordinary method of
punishing anti-social action. After the reversion of the American
colonies for fifty years to the barbarous criminal jurisprudence of the
mother country, Pennsylvania was the first State, the first community
in the world, to break with this system and to substitute imprisonment
for the various brutal and degrading types of corporal punishment.
The Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia, in 1790, was the earliest
institution in America in which these more enlightened principles were
put into practice. From this second beginning, for a period of forty
years, Pennsylvania was elaborating and perfecting the first of the two
great systems of penal administration which were destined to dominate
the penology of the civilized world during the nineteenth century--the
separate confinement of malefactors. Visited, admired and imitated
by large numbers of eminent and enthusiastic European penologists,
the Eastern Penitentiary at Cherry Hill was the pivotal point linking
American and European penology for more than a generation after 1830.

Then followed that long period of inertia, of lassitude, of marking
time, which is so apt to succeed to a period of ardent reforming energy
and which to this very day has maintained its spell over the State and
the Nation.

Not that there have not in the last half century been notable
improvements in the theory and practice of penal administration,
some of them bold enough to bring America from time to time into the
forefront of interest and example to the penologists of the Old World,
but in most of these the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been content
to play a secondary role. Throughout this era of slackened energy she
has not cared or dared to initiate, to lead, to “carry on,” but has
followed belatedly and afar off the progress of other States. Examples
of this are the Auburn congregate system, which divided with the
Pennsylvania system of solitary confinement the interest of European
as well as of American penologists, and which was adopted in the
Western Penitentiary in 1869, a full generation after its establishment
in New York State, and which has only recently conquered the parent
institution on Cherry Hill; the justly famous Elmira experiment
of progressive classification and industrial training of inmates
embodied in the Huntingdon Reformatory in 1889, and the long-promised
reformatory for women at Muncy, which, six years after its creation by
legislative action, has not yet been rendered available for the purpose
for which it was designed.

The first step in the development of an intelligent conception of
delinquency and its treatment came not in an accurate conception of
the nature of crime and its causes, but in a clearer and more correct
notion of the function of punishment. By 1790 the element of deterrence
in punishment was recognized and emphasized. The element of reformation
was a cardinal point in the theory and practice of the Philadelphia
Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, and this
Society did its best to infuse this doctrine into the Pennsylvania
system of prison administration. Before 1830 it was very generally
asserted that reformation, as well as deterrence and social revenge,
was to be regarded as a chief aim of punishment, though the offender
was still regarded as an unregenerate free moral agent.

This theory of crime received a severe shock in the “forties” from the
investigations of Dorothea L. Dix and others, who showed the great
prevalence of insanity and idiocy among the delinquent classes. It
could scarcely be denied even by the traditional jurists that the
exercise of free will was likely to be seriously impeded by insanity or
feeble-mindedness. From 1850 to the beginning of the present century
the most notable advances toward a more intelligent conception of crime
and its treatment consisted in the gradual but definite triumph of the
notion of detention and punishment as agencies for reformation rather
than as instruments of social revenge.

For more than a century of its history the penal, reformatory and
correctional institutions of Pennsylvania were limited to the county
jails and the few and scattered workhouses, which were erected mainly
in conjunction with the almshouses. In the jails there could be no
approach to anything like a differentiated treatment of delinquents.
In them were herded promiscuously those imprisoned for debt, those
convicted of crime and those accused or held as witnesses; those of all
ages and both sexes; those convicted of all categories and grades of
crime punishable by imprisonment; those of all mental states--normal,
feeble-minded, neurotic, psychotic, epileptic. The few colonial
workhouses were employed as little more than an agency for suppressing
vagrancy.

The first step in a differentiated treatment of crime and criminals
came with the erection of a semi-state prison in the Walnut Street
Jail in 1789-90. This provided for a partial differentiation between
those convicted of the more serious crimes and those convicted of
petty offenses or awaiting trial. It did not however, attempt any
scientific differentiation on the basis of age, sex or mental state.
Children and adults, male and female, sane and insane, were confined
in contiguity. The opening of the State penitentiaries at Allegheny
and Philadelphia in 1826 and 1829, with their fundamental principle of
solitary confinement, carried further the process of differentiation,
but still continued to apply the same general type of treatment to all
incarcerated inmates. It was a system of separation rather than of a
differentiated treatment of special types of prisoners.

The second important development in the direction of specialization
in the provision of institutional treatment of delinquents appeared
in the establishment of a House of Refuge for juvenile delinquents in
Philadelphia in 1828. Though this was at first a private rather than
a State institution and was of very limited capacity, it marked an
epoch in the progress of Pennsylvania penology by making possible some
elementary differentiation on the basis of age, degree of criminality
and relative susceptibility to reformation. The next attempt at further
differentiation came with the erection of the State Hospital for
the Insane at Harrisburg between 1841 and 1851, chiefly as a result
of the agitation initiated by Dorothea L. Dix. This and the other
State hospitals for the insane, subsequently erected, provided for a
treatment of the more important types of mental disorder, though no
adequate provision was made for removing the insane from the prison.
Not until 1905 was an act passed providing for the erection of a State
hospital for the criminal insane at Fairview which was opened in 1912.

During the quarter of a century following 1850 there was an active
agitation to provide a means of differentiating the treatment of
criminals on the basis of age, sex and degree of criminality. The first
important achievement in this direction was the further development
of reform schools for juvenile delinquents through the removal and
enlargement of the Philadelphia House of Refuge in 1850-54 and the
erection of the Western House of Refuge at Allegheny during the same
period. Juvenile delinquents, if petty offenders, could thereafter be
removed from their degrading confinement in the state prison or worse
county jails and receive the properly specialized treatment which their
circumstances demanded. No provision for the differentiated treatment
of the less definite and confirmed types of adult delinquents was made
until the opening of the reformatory for men at Huntingdon in 1889
and the authorization of the State Industrial Home for Women at Muncy
in 1913. The provision of reformatories and juvenile correctional
institutions marked a double process of differentiation, in that these
institutions not only called for a diversity of treatment according to
age, sex and degree of criminality, but also from the fact that they
were clearly differentiated from the State prisons and the county jails
in making reformation rather than punishment or detention their chief
aims.

Along with this development of a properly differentiated system
of treating the delinquent population, has gone the growth of
specialized institutions for dealing with the closely related class
of defectives, which was once treated indiscriminately along with the
delinquent classes when its members were guilty of criminal action.
The State institution for feeble-minded at Polk, opened in 1893, and
at Spring City, provided by an act of 1903, and the State Village
for Feeble-minded Women at Laurelton, not yet available for use, are
designed to furnish scientific treatment for large numbers of those
who would today be confined in the state prisons or county jails, if
the ideas and institutions of 1840 prevailed. Even an institution for
inebriates was contemplated in an act of 1913.

But this vital and all important process of the differentiation,
classification and specialized treatment of the delinquent and
defective classes has now proceeded far beyond that most elementary
stage of furnishing separate institutions for dealing with the most
general classes of delinquents and defectives. It has been found
that the terms defective, insane and criminal have only a legal
significance and are practically useless when involving the problem
of exact scientific analysis and treatment. Each general class of
delinquent boys, of defective girls or of criminal adults, for
instance, is made up of distinguishable and distinct types which demand
specialized treatment in the same way that it is required for one
general class as distinguished from another. Though it is as yet very
imperfectly developed, the present tendency is for each institution to
differentiate into a number of specialized departments, each designed
to provide the proper treatment for one of these types.

Finally, within the last decade beginnings have been made in
what is likely to be an important future development, namely the
non-institutional care of the less pronounced and confirmed types of
delinquents, particularly of delinquent minors. The developments along
this line have, up to the present, consisted chiefly in the adoption
of parole systems in all the State penal, reformatory and correctional
institutions and in a more liberal use of the suspended sentence
and probation. The recently established Municipal Probation Court
of Philadelphia is a pioneer in Pennsylvania in this promising new
development in the preventive treatment of the less confirmed type of
delinquents.

Looking at the whole matter as it stands today, it cannot be said
that conditions in Pennsylvania are in any material respect either
better or worse than in other progressive States, except in the one
matter of the useful employment of the convict population. Here, as
elsewhere, some lucky chance has placed a man or a woman of exceptional
qualifications at the head of an institution, one who has by his strong
personal initiative made the best of a bad situation, as in the case of
the Eastern Penitentiary, or who has, with something akin to genius,
seized upon a new opportunity, as in the case of the Girls’ School at
Darlington and the new Penitentiary foundation at Bellefonte. But these
are sporadic and exceptional developments and have furnished no new
principle of a revolutionary character to mark the dawn of a new era in
penal administration.

Meanwhile the hopeless and demoralizing idleness to which most of
the inmates of the Eastern Penitentiary and of most of the county
institutions of the Commonwealth are doomed, is a spectacle in which
the people of Pennsylvania can take nothing but shame. But even if this
is remedied, as it should be at once by drastic legislative action,
Pennsylvania will have done no more than reach the level of penological
theory of the Quaker innovators of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. The step is an imperative one, but it will not restore to
the Commonwealth the proud position of leadership which once was hers,
which is still, by virtue of past achievements and by common fame,
attributed to her.

While we have thus been dreaming, tardily and ineffectually putting
into effect the aspirations of a long-distant past, a new penology has
come into being, based not on humanitarian sentiment or on “the common
sense of most,” but on the scientific study of the delinquent and his
environment. New sciences of psychology, psychiatry and sociology
have been forged to meet the conditions of the new day and these have
furnished us with a new basis for penological experimentation. We
have learned that the criminal is not merely a person who has in the
exercise of an unfettered will chosen the evil rather than the good,
but a person of complex personality shaped by heredity and environment
to what he is, none the less a menace to society than the older
conception made him, not the less requiring restraint and correction,
but demanding and deserving individual treatment according to the
nature which has been developed in him. We have learned from recent
scientific study of the most rigorous and trustworthy sort that from
50 to 60 per cent. of the inmates of our correctional institutions
are abnormal--feeble-minded, insane, psychopathic--to the point of
irresponsibility, to all intents and purposes the same kind of people
that fill our hospitals for the insane and institutions for the
feeble-minded. We have also learned, from sociological case studies,
that a very large proportion of those that the psychiatrist would class
as normal are the victims of neglected childhood and of the depraving
influences of the institutions in which they have spent a great part of
their young lives.

It seems clear that this new knowledge makes for a new classification,
based not, like that of the Elmira system, on behavior in confinement,
nor, like that of the current penology, on the character of the crime
committed, but on the exact study of the individual and that the
treatment accorded him must be adapted to the results of such study.

Here, then, is the new opportunity for a further advance out of this
slough of despond--an opportunity not inferior to that which this
Commonwealth so superbly grasped in its heroic youth--to bring its
penal administration into conformity with the newer conceptions of
delinquency. Tinkering the old machine is not enough. It must be
remodeled altogether. Adding to the powers of a board of inspectors
here, curbing them there, setting up new boards and commissions to
direct the doing of this, to restrain the doing of that--all these
are but a part of the old game, which will after all continue to be
played in very much the old perfunctory way. What is demanded is a
genuine reconstruction of the penal system of the Commonwealth, one
which shall, with as little disturbance to the existing management of
the several institutions as possible, put at their service all the
resources of the new knowledge of crime and its treatment. It is the
purpose of this report to suggest the lines of this future development
of our penal system.


III.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESENT PENAL SYSTEM.

As the foregoing outline indicates, the several State institutions of
a penal, correctional and reformatory character, with the two Glen
Mills Schools (which, though largely under private management, are
essentially public institutions) have been developed at different
times, under the influence of changing conceptions of social
responsibility for different types of offenders. As a result of this
circumstance each is separately managed by a board of inspectors or
managers, which exercises complete control over the policy of the
institution to which its authority extends. This Board appoints the
Warden or Superintendent, fixes his or her compensation, determines
the industrial and educational policy of the institution and, under
the authority of the Legislature, disburses the funds appropriated
for its maintenance. The disciplinary policy of the institution is
almost invariably entrusted to the Warden or Superintendent and,
as is natural, if that official happens to be a person of strong
individuality and initiative, his policy in practice, if not in theory,
governs the entire administration. Nowhere is there a centralized
authority exercising a general control or an effective influence. The
only approach to such a general agency is the State Board of Public
Charities, which may investigate and require the submission of an
annual report, and the Prison Labor Commission, which exercises a
general supervision over the industries of the two penitentiaries and
the Huntingdon Reformatory, but which has no effective power to carry
its plans into execution. There is, accordingly, no uniform policy,
even in the case of institutions like the two Glen Mills schools,
which have a similar type of inmates and an identical aim, nor in the
case of all the institutions under consideration in matters where
their problems and needs are the same. That there are advantages in
this policy of separate control cannot be denied. It gives to an
energetic and progressive superintendent or board of managers a degree
of initiative in reform and experimentation which, under a highly
centralized control of all the institutions, it would be difficult to
secure. On the other hand it may have the effect of depriving the
individual institution, because of its poverty or because of the
reactionary character of its administration, of the benefits of an
advance which may have been made elsewhere. There could not be a better
illustration of the unevenness of development resulting from this lack
of co-ordination in the Pennsylvania prison system than the fact that
the Eastern Penitentiary was compelled to wait for the initiative of
its present Warden for the partial adoption of the congregate system,
which had for forty years existed in the Western Penitentiary, and
which had everywhere demonstrated its superiority over the system of
solitary confinement.

Upon the whole, however, what strikes the thoughtful observer is not
the diversity of policy and management among these institutions,
even where they have avowedly different aims, but their conformity
to a common type, and that the prison type. With only two
exceptions--Sleighton Farms and the Training School at Morganza--the
persistent shadow of the Penitentiary rests upon them all. It is true
that in the new Central Penitentiary on its broad acreage at Bellefonte
and in the Eastern Penitentiary, so far as the physical and industrial
conditions render possible, the shadow has been lifted, but it is safe
to say of the penal system of the State as a whole, that it is still
too much dominated by the ancient ideal of demonstrating to the inmates
that “the way of the transgressor is hard.” Even in institutions of a
purely reformatory character, while they leave little to be desired
in the way of healthful conditions of living, orderly administration
and educational opportunities, the reformation of the wrong-doer is
still too much sought through a system of stern repression, of “iron
discipline”--a system which, as all experience shows, defeats its end
by crushing out the finer elements of character on which the redemption
of the individual must depend. An almost invariable incident of this
type of disciplinary control is the persistence of the policy of
securing good conduct through punishment--often severe punishment
for trivial offenses--rather than by the more enlightened and humane
method of holding out incentives to good behavior, either by the grant
of special privileges or by putting on the inmates themselves the
responsibility for the good behavior of all.

Other instances of the persistence of the traditional attitude toward
the offender are the almost complete lack throughout our penal system
of a scientific, balanced ration, such as has in the experience of
prison administrators in other States, as notably at Sing Sing Prison
in 1916, and more recently in our army camps, demonstrated the value
both for health and efficiency and from the point of view of economy
of a scientific management of the problem of food supply for large
masses of men; the general indifference to outdoor recreation and
exercise, so essential to the health and morale of the inmate body;
the meagre provision for any education worthy of the name; the all but
complete lack of comprehensive and well rounded systems of vocational
or industrial training, on which the efficiency of prison labor and the
ability of the inmates to “make good” in the world of industry after
their release so largely depends; the demoralizing idleness which is
still after three decades of effort the most marked characteristic of
our prison system; and, finally, the insufficient care for the physical
and mental health of the inmates of our correctional institutions,
which still for the most part mingle indiscriminately together the
tuberculous and syphilitic with those who are sound in body and the
insane, psychopathic and defective with those who are sound in mind.

Many of these conditions which continue to put the brand of the prison
on the inmates of our correctional institutions are doubtless due to
the survival of the Bastille type of prison architecture, which is
exemplified in the Eastern and Western Penitentiaries and in such
structures as Moyamensing Prison in Philadelphia, the Convict Prison at
Holmesburg, the Philadelphia House of Correction and many others. It is
scarcely too much to say that no human being is vile enough to deserve
confinement in such a place or dangerous enough to need it. Even the
most unbending of the old type of prison official will concede that
80 per cent. of the inmates neither need nor deserve to be confined
behind triple bars of steel or in cells like catacombs or within walls
like those of Egyptian tombs. Keepers and inmates alike lose half their
humanity by confinement in these grim and forbidding structures. No
reforming influence however humane and generous, can long survive in
their atmosphere.

Public opinion is at last moving away from this antiquated type of
prison architecture to the newer type represented in the honor prison
at New Hampton Farms in New York and in our Commonwealth in the cottage
colonies at Sleighton Farms, Glen Mills, Morganza, and Muncy. The
change which comes over the men who are transferred from the Western
Penitentiary to the new prison site in Centre County is a sufficient
commentary on the older type of prison, and demonstrates beyond
peradventure the duty of affording to all of our convict population a
similar life of freedom and opportunity. This result, so desirable from
every point of view, could in large measure be attained in a short time
by equipping the Eastern Penitentiary with a suitable area of farm land
in the Eastern Section of the State and by making immediate provision
for the institution of State industrial farms for the convicts confined
in the county prisons, as is recommended elsewhere in this report.


IV.

PRISON LABOR.

The conditions existing in the penal institutions of the Commonwealth
with respect to the employment of the inmates in useful industry
have been so fully set forth in the Emergency Report submitted by
the Commission to the Governor in September last (a copy of which is
annexed to this report) and in the comprehensive study of the problem
by the Penal Commission of 1913-1915 (submitted to the General Assembly
under date of February 15, 1915) that it is not deemed necessary to go
into the matter at length in this place. It suffices to call attention
to the fact that the conditions described in those reports have not in
any material respect been improved. Of approximately 10,000 inmates
in the penal and correctional institutions of the State, less than
one-half are usefully employed, not more than one-fourth in productive
labor. The economic waste of such a system extended over a century is
scarcely less appalling than its inhumanity. By the law a large part of
this interminable procession of offending and suffering humanity has
been condemned to hard labor. In actual practice nearly all of it has
been doomed to wasteful and demoralizing idleness.

The law of June 1, 1915, “providing a system of employment and
compensation for the inmates of the Eastern Penitentiary, Western
Penitentiary and the Pennsylvania Industrial Reformatory at Huntingdon”
and creating a Prison Labor Commission to carry its provisions into
effect, has proved almost wholly inoperative, owing primarily to the
failure of the Legislature to provide for the compulsory purchase
of prison-made goods by the Commonwealth or the political divisions
thereof or by public institutions. As a consequence, out of a total
population of 3200 in the three institutions to which the authority of
the Commission extends, at the close of the year 1918 only 169 were
employed under the direction of the Commission. These were distributed
as follows:--

  Eastern Penitentiary, population                1,371
      Caning chairs                            16
      Cigarmaking                              11
      Shoemaking                               42
      Knitting hosiery                         38
                                            -----   107
  Absolutely idle                                   839

  Western Penitentiary, population                  720
      Broommaking                              10
      Brushmaking                               2
      Weaving                                  18
                                            -----    30
  Absolutely idle                                   393

  Huntingdon Reformatory, population                579
      Auto-tagmaking                                 32

Whether considered as a relief from the crushing burden of expense
that our penal establishments entail, or as a remedy for the physical
and moral degeneration resulting from enforced idleness, or as a means
to equip the inmates for lives of industry and usefulness after their
release, a system of prison labor which produces the results set forth
in these figures stands self condemned.

To make the plan embodied in the law of 1915 effective, it should
further provide:

(1) That municipalities as well as the Commonwealth and the political
divisions thereof and all public institutions shall be required, as
far as may be practicable, to supply their needs from the labor of the
penal and correctional institutions;

(2) That the authority of the Commission or of any body in which its
powers may be vested shall extend to the reformatory institutions at
Darlington, Glen Mills, Morganza and Muncy and to all State, county
and municipal institutions of a penal or correctional character;

(3) That the power of such Commission or body to regulate prison
industry be extended to all forms of labor activity of the inmates of
such institutions, including farming, roadmaking, land reclamation,
forestry, etc.;

(4) That such Commission or body be empowered to determine the
compensation of prisoners for industrial and other work performed by
them and the method of applying such compensation to the use of such
prisoners or their dependents;

(5) That the strict “State use” plan be modified by permitting the sale
in the open market, at not less than the market price, of any surplus
product resulting from the labor of the inmates over and above the
product disposed of as provided in the act.


V.

THE COUNTY PRISONS.

In Pennsylvania, as in most, if not all, of the other States of the
Union, the county jail is the despair of those who look for a better
day in the treatment of the wrong-doer. The admiration which our
experiments in the reformatory treatment of the young have excited
in eminent foreign penologists has turned to loathing when their
attention was directed to the county jails. Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise,
the distinguished head of the English prison system, in an article
published a few months after his visit to this country in 1910,
described them in the following terms:

    “In these gaols it is hardly too much to say that many of the
    features linger which called forth the wrath and indignation
    of the great Howard at the end of the eighteenth century.
    Promiscuity, unsanitary conditions, absence of supervision,
    idleness and corruption--these remain the features in many
    places. Even the ‘fee’ system is still in vogue. The gaolers are
    still paid by fees for the support of prisoners, and commitments
    to gaol are common when some other disposition of the case would
    have been imposed had not the commitment yielded a fee to the
    sheriff, who is usually in charge of the gaol. In many gaols
    there are not facilities for medical examination on reception,
    for ventilation, for exercise, or for bathing.... The foreign
    delegates were amazed at this startling inconsistency between the
    management of the common gaols and that of the State prisons and
    State reformatories. The evils to which I refer are well known
    and deplored by that body of earnest and devoted men and women in
    all sections of American society with whose lofty ideals on the
    subject of prison reform and generous aspirations for the humane
    treatment of the prisoner, the Washington Congress made us every
    day familiar, but they seem helpless and almost hopeless....
    I was appealed to by leading men in more than one State, as
    British representative, to publicly condemn the system, and this
    I did, at a risk of giving considerable offense. Until the abuses
    of the gaol system are removed, it is impossible for America to
    have assigned to her by general consent a place in the vanguard
    of progress in the domain of ‘_la science penitentiaire_.’”

Your Commission desires to submit as its considered judgment that the
foregoing statement does no injustice to many of the county prisons of
this Commonwealth, and that the Legislature can do no greater service,
nor one that will reflect more credit on the Commonwealth, than to
sweep away the entire county jail system without delay.

Attention has been called elsewhere in this report to the deplorable
conditions of idleness which prevail in the prisons of our
Commonwealth. These conditions are at their worst in the county
institutions. In the last six years the average daily number of
prisoners in the county jails of the Commonwealth has been about 6500.
Only about one-fourth of these have some form of employment other than
domestic service. But when all of the returns are in with regard to the
work accomplished, the number of days spent in complete idleness in the
course of a year will average more than one million. If we regard the
labor of the prisoners as worth fifty cents a day, the amount of waste
thus exceeds $500,000 annually.

In order to obviate this condition of affairs, the General Assembly
in 1917 passed an Act (No. 337, P. L. 1917), vesting in the officers
in charge of county prisons the privilege of allowing the prisoners
to work on county and poorhouse farms. Although only twenty-seven
counties have taken advantage of this Act, its results have been very
beneficial. The workers have improved in health, strength and morale,
and the produce of their labor has been of material help in the
up-keep of the institutions. Unfortunately, the operation of this Act
terminates with the close of the war.

A more comprehensive Act was proposed by the Penal Commission of
1913-1915, which recommended the establishment of six industrial farms
to be controlled by the State, to which all persons convicted of crime
or misdemeanor, and now committed to county institutions, should
hereafter be sent. This admirable measure was, however, amended in such
a way as to leave the initiative in the creation of such farms and
the control thereof to the County Commissioners of the nine groups of
counties into which the State was divided for the purpose (No. 399, P.
L. 1917). This legislation has fallen flat, not one of the industrial
districts having carried the scheme into effect.

Your Commission submits that there is no remedy for the condition of
affairs above described other than the complete assumption by the
State of the custody and care of the offenders, whether felons or
misdemeanants, who are now committed to the county institutions.

Farming for prisoners, as our investigations in other States have
clearly shown, has passed beyond the experimental stage. The State
of Massachusetts, some years ago, established a penal farm for
misdemeanants at Bridgewater. A large tract of ground was purchased,
consisting largely of swamp and abandoned land, which, by the use of
fertilizers and by drainage, has been brought to a high degree of
cultivation. This enterprise has been so signally successful that it is
now proposed to move the State Prison at Charlestown to this same farm
at Bridgewater.

Perhaps the most successful experiment of the kind has been made in
Indiana, where the State has taken over the custody of misdemeanants
on the plan which was recommended by the Pennsylvania Penal Commission
of 1913-1915, a recommendation which is renewed in this report. The
Superintendent of the Indiana State Farm makes the following report:--

    “The farm had an average daily population, in 1918, of four
    hundred and sixty-two prisoners. All institution buildings and
    outbuildings, the sewer system, power plant, heating and water
    systems, land reclaiming, farming and gardening, has been done
    with the labor of misdemeanants at a surprisingly low cost for
    guards. The Indiana State Farm is allowed fifty-five cents per
    man per day for its entire maintenance, while the same man in
    jail, at the present time, will cost more than one dollar per
    day for the gross maintenance. The fifty-five cents per man per
    day pays the entire pay roll, subsistence, fuel, light, heat,
    medical services, clothing, transportation, field and garden
    seeds, fertilizers, common labor, tools and all other items of
    maintenance....

    “The effect that the Indiana State Farm has had on the jail
    system of the State is indicated by the following figures: In
    the year 1914 there were 18,130 commitments to county jails, in
    1915, 14,644, and in 1916, 9,896. The doors of the State Farm
    were opened April 12, 1915, and the full effect of the State Farm
    was not noticeable until the close of the year 1916. The moral
    effect of the institution on the misdemeanant class was one very
    important factor in reducing the jail commitments.”

During the year ending September 30, 1918, this penal farm was
two-thirds self-supporting, and it is confidently expected that the
institution will soon be entirely self-supporting.

New York City has established a reformatory farm of 630 acres at New
Hampton, N. Y., to which boys and men from sixteen to thirty years of
age are committed. They have no bars, no wall, no restraining thing,
except supervision. They have no cell for punishment. From the farm
they secure most of their provisions. In handling 2000 prisoners, they
have lost only five. The health of the inmates is greatly improved. It
is estimated that 45 per cent. of the prisoners there were addicted to
the drug habit. Most of them were sent away restored. What they needed
was to be built up by fresh air, good food and exercise, and to be
employed in wholesome work. In fact, they have been taught the dignity
of labor--a thing to which most of them had hitherto been strangers.

But we need not go beyond the limits of our own State to prove the
benefit and success of farming for misdemeanants. The administration of
the Allegheny County Workhouse illustrates the economy of providing
employment for prisoners on an industrial farm. Here the average daily
number of inmates in 1918 was 722. The daily average cost of each
inmate was 81 cents, but after deducting the earnings of the inmates,
the net cost was only 32 cents. This means that the inmates earned 49
cents a day toward their own maintenance. Their bookkeeping indicates
merely the cost of raising the crops. If the institution had charged
itself with the produce used by it at the prevailing market price, the
net cost would have been much less. The farm has 670 acres, of which
560 acres are farmed and used as pasture. The inmates are continually
coming and going. Many of them are committed for ten days or less, and
a large part are sentenced for 30 days, while comparatively few of them
remain longer than one year. This shows that a great deal of efficient
work can be secured, even from those who serve for short terms.

A similarly striking result has been attained in Delaware County under
the law of 1911, empowering the judges of the Courts of Common Pleas
to release on parole convicts confined in county jails or workhouses
under the supervision of designated probation officers. Acting under
this law, the President Judge of that county has during the year 1918
paroled a number of inmates of the county jail to work on farm lands
rented for the purpose with the remarkable result that only two of
the men so paroled made their escape (both being afterwards retaken)
and that nearly $14,000 worth of crops were sold for cash in addition
to the vegetables used and stored in the prison. The net profit is
estimated at $7,000.

Logically, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the State ought to
assume the care of all offenders. The laws are made by the State, and
the indictments charge the accused with offences against the “peace
and dignity of the Commonwealth,” not against the peace and dignity of
the county, municipality or borough. The conclusion is inevitable that
the Commonwealth should assume the responsibility for the protection
of the community from both felons and misdemeanants. And since such
an arrangement as has been proposed will result in reduced taxation,
uniformity of management and in greater facilities for the education
and reformation of the delinquent, we feel that the establishment of
State industrial farms to receive the delinquents now committed to the
county prisons should receive your favorable consideration.

The bill submitted to carry this recommendation into effect omits the
counties of Philadelphia and Allegheny from its operation. Allegheny
County already has a prison farm which in many ways may be considered
a model of its kind. Philadelphia has a farm in connection with the
House of Correction which furnishes employment to many prisoners and
supplies much produce for the institution. We recommend that at some
early date the City of Philadelphia may, by the purchase of more land,
extend the advantages of a penal farm to its convict prison and in
some way combine under one management the entire penal system of the
municipality.

The fee system, whereby the sheriff or warden receives a stipulated
sum each day for the board of prisoners, is so liable to abuse that
we submit a proposition to abolish the practice in all our prisons.
Whenever the profits from boarding the prisoners is a part of the
remuneration of the officer in charge, the tendency is doubtless to
exploit the prisoners, or to reduce to a minimum the supply of food, in
order to derive the greater profit.

In 1915 a comprehensive study of the cost of boarding the prisoners in
the largest 25 counties of the Commonwealth indicated that the average
daily cost of food per prisoner in the 15 prisons where the food was
purchased on the contract system was 12 cents, and in the 10 counties
where the fee system was in vogue 33.7 cents, the difference in favor
of the contract system being 21.7 cents per day for each prisoner.

We estimate that in these 10 counties alone the saving to the taxpayers
by the adoption of the contract system will be at least $50,000
annually. The economy of the proposition is evident, making due
allowance for providing in some counties additional compensation for
the official in charge of the prison. In all cases where a change has
been made from the fee system to the contract system, the food has
improved in character, thus tending to the betterment of the health and
morale of the inmates.

Moved by these considerations, the General Assembly in 1909 provided
that in all counties having a population of 150,000 or more, the food
for the prisoners must be purchased by contract. We are now proposing
to extend this principle to all the counties of the Commonwealth, with
the understanding that no such change is to take place during the
incumbency of the officials who are at the present time in charge of
the prisons.


VI.

PROBATION AND PAROLE.

(_a_) Under the law of May 10, 1909, the several courts of criminal
jurisdiction are invested with the power of suspending sentence on
certain classes of convicted offenders and of placing such offenders
on probation instead of committing them for definite or indeterminate
periods of imprisonment. Probation officers, charged with the duty of
supervising the behavior of such probationers, are appointed by the
judges to serve in their respective counties. In this Commonwealth,
as in many others, experience has demonstrated that there is little
uniformity in the practice of the courts in suspending sentence or of
the probation officers in exercising their powers.

Conceived as a mere incident of the sentencing power, to be exercised
only in exceptional cases, the suspended sentence and probation
are beginning to disclose themselves as a momentous, not to say
revolutionary step in the progress of penology, not less important
in its ultimate consequences than the substitution a century ago
of imprisonment for the death penalty and other forms of physical
punishment. Like the older forms of punishment which it superseded,
imprisonment too has proved a failure, so far at least, as the newer
aim of punishment, the reformation of the wrong-doer is concerned. And
we are coming to see that the protection which society enjoys through
the imprisonment for a few months or years of a small proportion of
the criminal class is dearly purchased by a system which returns the
offender to society less fitted than before to cope with the conditions
of a life of freedom. More and more, as we develop a probation service
worthy of the name, will the courts be reluctant to commit men, women
and children to the demoralizing associations and discipline of
institutional life and will give them their chance to redeem themselves
under competent guidance and supervision among the associations and
activities of everyday life.

Even under existing conditions it is safe to say that far too
many adult and youthful offenders convicted of criminal offences
are committed to prison and far too many delinquent children to
reformatories and other correctional institutions. Your Commission
believes that the suspended sentence should be more liberally employed
by the courts of the Commonwealth under strict conditions requiring a
life of useful industry under careful supervision; that children under
12 years of age should never be committed to penal or correctional
institutions but rather, where institutional care is deemed necessary,
to parental schools such as have been established in other States as
a part of the regular educational system; and that children of larger
growth, say from 12 to 16, should, wherever possible, be placed on
probation or put under private guardianship.

Those considerations have led the Commission to the conclusion that
the whole subject of the suspended sentence and probation in this
Commonwealth should be thoroughly studied in order that the principles
that should govern it may be carefully defined and its procedure
worked out, supervised and put on a uniform basis. New York and other
States have for this purpose created a permanent probation board or
commission and the success which has attended their labors suggests the
institution of a similar body in this Commonwealth.

(_b_) The indeterminate sentence, which made its appearance in this
Commonwealth in the law of May 10, 1909, has passed through several
phases to a state in which its purpose is almost completely defeated.
In its original form it provided that the maximum term to be imposed
upon a convict who should be sentenced to imprisonment in either the
Eastern or the Western Penitentiaries should not exceed the maximum
time prescribed by law and that the minimum term when not fixed by law,
should not exceed one-fourth of the maximum time. This law was amended
by an Act approved June 19, 1911, striking out the restriction as to
the minimum sentence, thus leaving to the courts complete discretion
to fix the minimum to be served at any period short of the maximum.
Many of the courts have in frequent instances virtually nullified the
indeterminate sentence principle by imposing minimum sentences so
excessive as to bring the judicial office into disrepute. Sentences of
from 18 years to 20 and from 19 years to 20 have been common, and there
have been cases so grotesque as sentences of 19 years 11 months, or of
19 years, 11 months and 29 days to 20 years, of 23 years and 3 months
to 25 years and of 27 to 28 years. These are only the more extreme
illustrations of a practice which has been common enough to justify a
demand for a law which will result in greater uniformity in the matter
of imposing sentences for crime.

At its best the maximum-minimum form of the indeterminate sentence is
an unsatisfactory compromise between the ideal aim of penologists and
the traditional attitude of the courts, which cling tenaciously to
their ancient prerogative of “making the punishment fit the crime.”
That the power of determining the period of imprisonment requisite to
meet the demands of justice and the interests of society may safely be
confided to other than judicial hands has been conceded in the case
of all offenders entitled to commitment to reformatories, who are
sentenced to an indeterminate term limited only by the maximum fixed by
law, or, in the case of minors, to the attainment of their majority,
and who may be released on parole in the discretion of the boards of
managers of the institutions to which they are committed. It is only
in the case of hardened offenders or of those guilty of certain major
offenses that a minimum sentence is imposed.

For more than a generation prison reformers have urged the extension of
the pure indeterminate sentence to this class of offenders also. Their
logic is sound; it is the facts that are against them. The argument
runs like this: The offender should be kept in confinement only until
he is fitted by his prison experience to lead an honest and useful
life; when this end is attained he should be released. The answer
is that the prison doesn’t in fact reform the wrong-doer; that good
behavior under the conditions of prison life is no assurance of the
intention or capacity of the prisoner to lead an honest and useful life
after his release, and that the inspectors or other paroling authority
have no other guide to go by in determining the inmates’ fitness for
a life of freedom than his prison record. If the reformer makes the
obvious retort--“then reform your prison so that it shall reform its
inmates, and reform your paroling authority so that it shall make
its determination on all the facts of the inmate’s personal history
including a study of his mental conditions, his heredity and the social
influences that have shaped his character,” he is admitting that we are
not yet ready for the complete acceptance of the indeterminate sentence
in all classes of cases.

But there is a middle ground between the position of the extreme
reformer and that which has been assumed by the courts of this
Commonwealth. If there is to be anything short of a fixed sentence,
declared by law, it should be a reasonable minimum which should also
be declared by law. The policy of the indeterminate sentence is that
the delinquent shall be supervised and guided and his capacity to lead
an honest and useful life tested by actual experience under normal
conditions of living for a period of years long enough to try out
his capacity to readjust himself to a life of freedom in society. For
this reason an adequate interval between the expiration of his minimum
sentence, when he becomes eligible to parole, and the expiration of his
maximum sentence, when he becomes free from judicial control, should be
guaranteed by law.

There is great diversity of opinion as to the best form of paroling
authority. Generally, as in this Commonwealth, this power is lodged
in the inspectors or managers of the several institutions or, in the
case of commitments to county prisons, in the courts of criminal
jurisdiction. In some States, as in New York, a distinct Board of
Parole is constituted which visits the convict prisons at intervals and
hears and determines all applications for parole that may be awaiting
determination. Neither system has worked with complete satisfaction.
Under both the grant of parole is largely a perfunctory matter, the
inmates who have served their minimum sentences being generally
admitted to parole at once, except in those cases, comparatively rare
in number, where the applicant has been penalized for misconduct while
in confinement. It would seem, therefore, that the first step toward a
reform of the paroling system is not to set up a new paroling authority
but to devise some more effective machinery to put before the existing
authorities all the essential facts as to the applicant’s mental, moral
and physical capacity to conduct himself as a self-respecting, useful
member of the community. A second, but not less necessary step, is such
a change in the spirit and method of prison discipline as will develop
in the inmates by actual practice the qualities of self-respect and
self-reliance, the sense of honor and of responsibility and the habit
of co-operative action so essential to fit them for a life of freedom
and responsibility, and at the same time to equip them with the habits
of industry and the vocational skill which will enable them to make
good in the life that awaits them beyond the prison-wall.


VII.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.

In the foregoing analysis of the penal system of this Commonwealth, the
Commission has endeavored not only to present a picture of the existing
conditions in the light of modern conceptions of penology but to point
out, also, the lines of a sound and progressive development of the
system. Most of the suggestions thus made have already been embodied
in the penal systems of other states and of enlightened communities
beyond the seas. Especially is this the case in such matters as the
general employment of the prison population in useful and productive
labor and in the substitution of farm and cottage colonies for the old
type of prison. In a few of the larger cities and in some institutions
promising beginnings have been made in the mental examination of
delinquents with a view to the provision of specialized treatment for
those found to be mentally afflicted or seriously defective. But in
no State or country, as yet, have all these improvements been welded
into a comprehensive system which makes them available for the entire
delinquent population. The inertia or indifference which leaves the
extension of these benefits to chance or to the slow contagion of
example is unworthy of a great and progressive Commonwealth which has
in the past more than once demonstrated its capacity for leadership in
penal reform.

It is evident that the general adoption in this State of these modern
improvements in the treatment of the criminal problem can be effected
only through the institution of a central agency adapted to secure a
co-ordination of effort and a uniformity of development which under
the present system of separate control has been demonstrated to be
impossible. It seems equally evident, however, that the system of
separate management of the several institutions with their diverse
aims and problems possesses advantages which we would not willingly
sacrifice to an ideal unity. For this reason the Commission has not
deemed it wise to recommend the example of other States which have
committed the management of all their correctional establishments to
a central board of control. Moreover, with such a body as the Board
of Public Charities already vested with a certain authority over the
penal institutions of the State, it has not been deemed desirable to
recommend the creation of a new and independent body to exercise a new
jurisdiction over such institutions. It seems better to utilize the
authority which already exists, to enlarge its range of functions to
meet the needs of the proposed development and to commit the exercise
of these functions to a standing committee analogous to the existing
Committee on Lunacy. Through such a committee of the Board of Public
Charities your Commission believes that the desired co-ordination and
future development of the penal system of the Commonwealth can best be
secured.


VIII.

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Upon the foregoing facts and conclusions the Commission submits the
following recommendations, which are herewith submitted for such action
as the General Assembly may deem proper:--

_First._--The Commission recommends that the General Assembly provide
for the enlargement of the Board of Public Charities by the addition
of two members thereto, at least one of whom shall be a woman, and by
the institution of a standing committee of five members of such Board,
at least one of whom shall be a woman, such committee, which shall be
chosen annually by a majority vote of the Board, to be known as the
“Committee on Delinquency” and to be vested with the following powers:--

(_a_) To inspect and investigate the condition and management of
all penal, correctional and reformatory institutions within the
Commonwealth and inquire into all complaints against the same and
report thereon, with recommendations of appropriate action, to the
Board of Public Charities, the Governor, the General Assembly, or the
Courts, as the circumstances may require;

(_b_) To institute, maintain and supervise a medical service adapted
to the examination of the inmates of such institutions and the proper
professional treatment of all such as are mentally or physically
afflicted or deficient;

(_c_) To make recommendations to the governing authorities of all
such institutions for the improvement of the sanitary and hygienic
conditions, the medical and hospital equipment, and the medical service
thereof;

(_d_) To transfer inmates of institutions within its jurisdiction to
other institutions owned, managed or controlled by the Commonwealth or
any political subdivision thereof, or, if suitable arrangements can be
made, to other institutions, where such inmates may receive treatment
more suitable to their mental and physical condition;

(_e_) To institute, maintain and supervise in institutions within its
jurisdiction a system of correctional and reformatory education;

(_f_) To institute, maintain and supervise a system for the employment
of the inmates of institutions within its jurisdiction;

(_g_) To prepare and submit to the Board of Public Charities not later
than the first day of December of each even-numbered year, a biennial
budget for the Committee and such of the institutions within its
jurisdiction as are wholly or partly supported by the Commonwealth, and
for that purpose to require of such institutions such reports from time
to time as the Committee shall deem necessary; and

(_h_) To make rules and regulations establishing a uniform system of
accounting and bookkeeping in all institutions within its jurisdiction.

It is also recommended that the Committee on Delinquency be authorized
and directed to choose a Secretary, not a member of the Board of
Public Charities, at a salary of $7500 per annum, who shall be the
executive officer of the Committee and an expert in the care and
treatment of delinquents, and who shall be known as the “Commissioner
of Delinquency.”

_Second._--The Commission further recommends that the General Assembly
provide by appropriate legislation for the employment of all the
able-bodied convicts of the Commonwealth in useful and, so far as
possible, in productive labor, and especially, that it vest in the
Committee on Delinquency the powers of the Prison Labor Commission and
the functions of the Business Agent of such Commission and enlarge such
powers and functions as suggested on page 15 of this report.

_Third._--The Commission further recommends the enactment of a law
establishing four State Industrial Farms, to receive, care for and
provide for the useful employment of the inmates of county prisons and
jails and of persons hereafter convicted of any offense punishable
by imprisonment in any county jail or prison who have been or shall
hereafter be sentenced for a term of thirty days or more.

_Fourth._--The Commission further recommends that the Act of Assembly
approved July 17, 1917 (No. 337), providing for the employment, during
the continuance of the war, of inmates of county jails at agricultural
labor on any county or almshouse farm, be amended so as to continue its
operation indefinitely after the conclusion of peace.

_Fifth._--The Commission further recommends that the General Assembly
provide for the purchase of a tract of land, of not less than 600
nor more than 1200 acres, to be used for the benefit of the Eastern
Penitentiary as a prison farm.

_Sixth._--The Commission further recommends that a law be enacted
prohibiting fees or allowances and contracts for furnishing meals
to the inmates of county jails or other penal institutions of the
Commonwealth.

_Seventh._--The Commission further recommends that the Act approved
June 19, 1911, authorizing the courts in the case of a person sentenced
to a penitentiary to fix as the minimum term of imprisonment any period
less than the maximum prescribed by law for the offense of which such
person was convicted, be amended by a provision that the minimum limit
of the sentence imposed shall never exceed one-third of the maximum
prescribed by the Court.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the foregoing recommendations the Commission has confined itself
to matters requiring legislative action and to such only as seem
to it to be essential to a consistent, integrated policy of penal
administration. All other matters with respect to which the Commission
has given expression to its views are either subsidiary to those on
which immediate legislative action is recommended or are such as
may be properly referred to the wisdom of the proposed Committee on
Delinquency for consideration and action. The greatest abuse of the
prevailing prison system--the lack of imagination and of understanding
which keeps alive in most of our penal establishments the methods of a
severe and repressive discipline--cannot be abolished by legislative
decree. The greatest reform of which the system is capable--the
awakening in the inmates of the new life which comes from active,
responsible participation in the life of the prison community--is
equally beyond the reach of legislative action. These will be the
fruits of a keener intelligence and of a deeper understanding than
have yet, except in a few rare instances, been brought to bear on
the problem. But your Commission believes that the plan of penal
administration which it has recommended, and which provides for the
most thorough-going study and the most intelligent treatment of the
individual delinquent which has yet been attempted, will gradually
prepare the way for these and other reforms in the penal system of the
Commonwealth.

  Respectfully submitted,

  January 1, 1919.

  FLETCHER W. STITES, _Chairman_,
  ALFRED E. JONES,
  MARTHA P. FALCONER,
  LOUIS N. ROBINSON,
  ALBERT H. VOTAW,
  _Commissioners_.

  GEORGE W. KIRCHWEY,
  _Counsel to the Commission_.


COMMITTEE ON DELINQUENCY ACT.[1]

SECTION 1. _Be it enacted, etc._, That the Board of Public Charities
shall appoint a standing committee of five of its members to be known
as the Committee on Delinquency. Such Committee shall be chosen within
thirty days after the approval of this Act, and annually thereafter, by
a majority vote of all of the members of the Board, and at least one
member of such Committee shall be a woman. Vacancies in the membership
of the Committee shall be filled in like manner. Within thirty days
after their selection, the Committee shall each year elect one of its
members as chairman.

The members of the Committee shall serve without compensation but shall
receive all of their travelling and other necessary expenses incurred
in the performance of their official duties.


SECTION 2. The Committee selected under the provisions of this
Act shall appoint a secretary, who shall not be a member of the
Committee or of the Board of Public Charities. The secretary shall
be the executive officer of the Committee and shall be known as the
Commissioner of Delinquency. He shall be a person having expert
knowledge respecting delinquency, and the care and treatment of
delinquents and shall devote his entire time to the duties of his
office. He shall be appointed for a term of five years and shall
receive a salary of seven thousand, five hundred dollars per annum. The
Committee shall have the power to remove the Commissioner at any time
for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office, and shall,
whenever a vacancy occurs either by death, resignation, or removal from
office, appoint a Commissioner to fill the unexpired term.


SECTION 3. Subject to the approval of the Committee on Delinquency,
the Commissioner of Delinquency shall appoint a medical director,
an educational director, a director of industries, and such other
directors, experts, agents, and employees for such terms and at such
compensation as shall be fixed by the Committee on Delinquency. The
Commissioner with the approval of the Committee shall have the power at
any time to remove any director, or any expert, agent, or employee, so
appointed.


SECTION 4. The Board of Commissioners of Public Grounds and Buildings
shall provide the Committee on Delinquency with suitable rooms in the
State Capitol, and elsewhere if necessary,....


SECTION 5. The Committee on Delinquency shall have jurisdiction for the
purposes of this act over all institutions within this Commonwealth
of a penal, correctional, or reformatory character now existing,
or which may hereafter be established including industrial farms,
workhouses, and reformatories, and reformatory institutions for minors
or women, whether managed by the Commonwealth, or any political
sub-division thereof or otherwise; _Provided_, That this act shall not
be interpreted to deprive any warden, superintendent, or other officer,
or board of inspectors, managers, or trustees, of any such institution
of the right to manage its affairs, but every such institution shall
make such reports to the Committee on Delinquency as the Committee
shall be authorized by this Act to require and shall obey the rules and
regulations established, and follow the recommendations made, by the
Committee as authorized by this Act.


SECTION 6. The Committee on Delinquency shall have the power and its
duty shall be:--

(_a_) To inspect and investigate the condition and management of
all institutions within its jurisdiction, and inquire into all
complaints against the same, and report thereon with recommendations of
appropriate action to the Board of Public Charities, the Governor, the
General Assembly, or the courts, as the circumstances may require;

(_b_) To institute, maintain, and supervise a medical service to
accomplish the purposes enumerated in this Act;

(_c_) To make recommendations to institutions within its jurisdiction
for the improvement of the sanitary and hygienic conditions, the
medical and hospital equipment, and the medical service thereof;

(_d_) To transfer inmates of institutions within its jurisdiction to
other institutions owned, managed, or controlled by the Commonwealth or
any political sub-division thereof, or if suitable arrangements can be
made, to other institutions, where such inmates may receive treatment
more suitable to their mental and physical condition:....

(_e_) To institute, maintain, and supervise in institutions within its
jurisdiction a system of correctional and reformatory education to
accomplish the purposes enumerated in this Act;

(_f_) To institute, maintain, and supervise a system for the employment
of the inmates of institutions within its jurisdiction as provided in
this Act;

(_g_) To prepare and submit to the Board of Public Charities, not
later than the first day of December of each even-numbered year, a
biennial budget for the committee and such of the institutions within
its jurisdiction as are wholly or partly supported by the Commonwealth.
Such budget shall set forth the expenditures of the Committee and such
institutions during the preceding two years, their estimated financial
needs for the succeeding two years, and such other information as the
Committee shall deem appropriate.

To enable it to prepare such budget, the Committee shall have the
power to require of institutions within its jurisdiction, and such
institutions shall prepare and submit, such reports from time to time
as the Committee shall deem necessary, but to the extent that reports
shall be required by the Committee for the purpose of preparing such
budget; institutions within the jurisdiction of the Committee shall not
be required to report to the Board of Public Charities; and,

(_h_) To make rules and regulations establishing a uniform system of
accounting and bookkeeping in all institutions within its jurisdiction.


SECTION 7. The medical service which the Committee on Delinquency is by
this Act required to institute, maintain, and supervise shall include:--

(_a_) The prompt and thorough examination of all the inmates of
institutions within its jurisdiction with a view to the proper
diagnosis, classification, and treatment of all such persons;

(_b_) The prescription and maintenance of standards in diagnosis
and treatment in all institutions within its jurisdiction and the
determination of the qualifications of those selected as physicians,
psychiatrists, stewards, or nurses, in such institutions;

(_c_) The furnishing of instructions in personal and social hygiene
to the inmates of all institutions within its jurisdiction, and of
instruction in professional training to such officials, employees,
or inmates of such institutions as may be called upon to serve
as assistants, nurses, or otherwise, in the medical or hospital
departments thereof;

(_d_) The frequent inspection of the institutions within its
jurisdiction with respect to their sanitary and hygienic condition, the
adequacy of their medical and hospital equipment, and the competency
and efficiency of their medical service; and,

(_e_) The installation and supervision of a proper dietary adequate to
the maintenance of the health, efficiency, and morale, of the inmates
in all institutions within its jurisdiction.

SECTION 8. The system of correctional and reformatory education which
the Committee on Delinquency is by this Act required to institute,
maintain, and supervise shall include:--

(_a_) The prescription and maintenance of standards of correctional and
reformatory education in all institutions within its jurisdiction and
the determination of the qualifications of those selected as teachers;
and,

(_b_) The education in elementary branches of illiterate and
undeveloped inmates of such institutions; the instruction of all
inmates of such institutions in the principles, organization, and
practice of American government; and the furnishing of a thorough
industrial training to any of the inmates of such institutions for whom
such training shall be deemed useful and desirable.


SECTION 9. With respect to the labor of the inmates of any institutions
within its jurisdiction to which persons are committed for crime or
delinquency, the Committee on Delinquency shall have the power and its
duty shall be:--

(_a_) To require every such institution to afford to the inmates
thereof, who are physically capable, an opportunity to perform useful
labor in such institutions;

(_b_) To determine what industries shall be established in such
institutions and to regulate and supervise the installation of
machinery and equipment therein;

(_c_) To establish rules and regulations for the employment of inmates
of such institutions at road-building, quarrying, or crushing stone,
agricultural work, land reclamation, or forestry, or other suitable
work outside of such institution; and,

(_d_) To establish rules with regard to the number of hours per day
during which such inmates shall be employed; Provided, That except in
agricultural work such inmates shall not be employed for more than
eight hours in any one day.


SECTION 10. With respect to the labor of inmates of such of the
institutions within its jurisdiction as are owned or managed and
controlled by the Commonwealth or any political sub-division thereof,
the committee shall, in addition to the powers and duties enumerated in
the preceding section of this act, have the power and its duty shall
be:--

(_a_) To maintain a manufacturing fund for the purposes specified in
this section. The original manufacturing fund of the committee shall
be the manufacturing fund paid to the committee by the Prison Board
Commission, as provided in this act, together with any and all sums
due and owing to such Commission, and the unexpended balance of any
appropriation made for the use of such commission. To such fund there
shall be added from time to time such amount or amounts as shall be
appropriated by the General Assembly;

All receipts from the sale of the products, manufactured or produced
by the labor of the inmates of any such institution, shall be credited
to the manufacturing fund and used for the purchase of machinery,
equipment, raw materials, and supplies, and for the payment of wages to
such inmates;

(_b_) To sell to the Commonwealth or to any political sub-division
thereof, or any institution, owned, managed, or controlled by the
Commonwealth, or any political subdivision thereof, at not more than
the prevailing market price the products of the labor of such inmates;
_Provided_, That institutions within the jurisdiction of the Committee
owned, or managed and controlled by the Commonwealth, or any political
subdivision thereof, shall have the privilege of selling directly such
of their agricultural products as they do not consume, but every such
institution selling agricultural products shall account for and pay to
such committee the proceeds of the sale of such products.

Any surplus of the products of the labor of such inmates which cannot
be sold to the Commonwealth, etc., shall be sold in the open market,
but any such product sold in the open market shall not be sold for less
than the prevailing market price.

Should any institution desire to use the products of the labor of its
inmates, other than agricultural products, it shall purchase the same
from the Committee on Delinquency;

(_c_) From time to time to fix the compensation of such inmates for
labor performed by them; _Provided_, That the rate of compensation to
such inmates shall be based both upon the pecuniary value of the work
performed and on the willingness, industry, and good conduct of the
inmate performing the same;

(_d_) To make rules and regulations governing the payment of
compensation earned by such inmates. Such rules and regulations may
provide for the payment of a part of their compensation to inmates
during their term of confinement to be used for such purchases as such
rules and regulations shall permit. They shall also provide for the
bi-monthly payment of such part of the compensation of such inmates
as the committee shall determine to the dependents of such inmates,
and for the payment of the unpaid balance of such compensation to such
inmates at the time of their discharge, or at periodic intervals on and
after their discharge; and,

(_e_) To establish rules and regulations for the keeping of records and
accounts by all such institutions, showing the labor performed by the
inmates thereof, the value of the products thereof, and the wages paid
to inmates, or their dependents, or both.


SECTION 11. All wages paid to the inmates of institutions within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Delinquency owned, or managed
and controlled by the Commonwealth, etc., shall be paid out of
the committee’s manufacturing fund upon the order of the warden,
superintendent, or other proper officer of the institution in, or in
connection with, which the labor shall have been performed.


SECTION 12. The Prison Labor Commission created by the act approved
the first day of June one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, ... is
hereby abolished, and shall cease to exist, thirty days after the
chairman of the committee on delinquency shall have notified the
Prison Labor Commission in writing that the Committee on Delinquency
has been duly organized as provided in this act. Within such period of
thirty days the Prison Labor Commission shall transfer and set over
to the Committee on Delinquency all books, papers, and records, and
all moneys and evidence of debt, in its possession, and the Auditor
General is hereby authorized and directed to draw a warrant on the
State Treasurer for the payment to the Committee on Delinquency of the
unexpended balance of any appropriation made for the use of the Prison
Labor Commission.


SECTION 13. For the purpose of inspecting any institution within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Delinquency, such committee, the
Commissioner of Delinquency, and any director, expert, agent, or
employee, deputized by the Commissioner of Delinquency for the purpose,
shall have free access to the grounds, buildings, and all books,
papers, and records of such institution, and all persons, connected
with any such institution, are hereby directed and required to give
such information and to afford such facilities for inspection as the
person making such inspection may require....


SECTION 14. ...

Should any institution within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Delinquency which is not owned, or managed and controlled by the
Commonwealth, etc., fail to obey such rules and regulations, or make
such report, such institution shall not be entitled to receive any
financial assistance from the Commonwealth, and it shall be unlawful
for the Auditor General, after having received notice in writing from
the Committee on Delinquency that any such institution has failed to
obey such rules or regulations, or to make such report, to issue a
warrant for the payment of any money appropriated to such institution
so long as such institution shall continue to refuse to obey such rules
and regulations, or to make such report.


SECTION 15. All salaries, compensation, and expenses, payable under
this act, except wages for labor performed by inmates shall be paid by
the State Treasurer on the warrant of the Auditor General.


SECTION 16. To carry out the purposes of this act the sum of two
hundred thousand dollars, ($200,000), or such part thereof as shall be
necessary is hereby appropriated to the Committee on Delinquency.


SECTION 17. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby
repealed.


STATE INDUSTRIAL FARMS ACT.[2]


SECTION 1. _Be it enacted, etc._, That this act shall be known and
may be cited as “The State Industrial Farms Act of one thousand nine
hundred and nineteen.”


SECTION 2. There are hereby established four state industrial farms for
the first, second, third, and fourth districts respectively.


SECTION 3. The first district shall comprise the counties of Berks,
Bucks, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh,
Montgomery, Northampton, and York; and the state industrial farm
therein located shall be known as the “Southeastern Industrial Farm.”

The second district shall comprise the counties of Bradford,
Carbon, Columbia, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Lycoming, Monroe, Montour,
Northumberland, Pike, Schuylkill, Snyder, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga,
Union, Wayne, and Wyoming; and the state industrial farm therein
located shall be known as the “Northeastern Industrial Farm.”

The third district shall comprise the counties of Armstrong, Butler,
Cameron, Centre, Clarion, Clearfield, Clinton, Crawford, Elk, Erie,
Forest, Jefferson, Lawrence, McKean, Mercer, Potter, Venango, and
Warren; and the state industrial farm therein located shall be known as
the “Northwestern Industrial Farm.”

The fourth district shall comprise the counties of Adams, Beaver,
Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Cumberland, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene,
Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin, Perry, Somerset, Washington, and
Westmoreland; and the state industrial farm therein located shall be
known as the “Southwestern Industrial Farm.”


SECTION 4. Upon the approval of this act a board of managers for each
district shall be appointed by the Governor. Each board shall consist
of either five or seven reputable citizens, one or two of whom shall
be women. The members of such boards shall serve without compensation,
but all of their expenses actually and necessarily incurred shall be
paid by the State Treasurer on the warrant of the Auditor General,
which shall be issued upon the order of the board, countersigned by the
secretary of the Committee of Delinquency of this Commonwealth. The
members of the various boards shall serve for a term of five years and
their successors for the same period. The Governor may remove any of
the managers for misconduct, incompetency, or neglect of duty, and in
case of a vacancy for any cause shall fill such vacancy by appointment
for the unexpired term.


SECTION 5. The board of managers of each district is hereby authorized
by a majority vote to select a suitable site for the state industrial
farm of the district. Such site shall be within the district, and
shall either be chosen from lands donated to the Commonwealth for the
purpose or purchased by the board with moneys appropriated or donated
for the purpose; _Provided_, That any such site shall not contain
more than two thousand (2,000) acres. The title to land donated or
purchased as herein provided shall be taken and held in the name of
“The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” and shall be examined and approved
by the Attorney General prior to the acceptance or purchase of the
land. In the selection of a site the board of managers shall take
into consideration the objects and purposes of the institution, the
accessibility of any proposed site to the counties included in the
district, and all or as many as practicable of the following enumerated
advantages and resources. The land selected and purchased shall be of
varied topography with natural resources and advantages for many forms
of husbandry, fruit growing, and stockraising; for brick-making, and
for the preparation of all other road and paving material; and shall
have good railroad drainage, sewage, and water facilities. Waste land
or land requiring drainage may be selected if deemed susceptible of
profitable cultivation after its improvement.


SECTION 6. All buildings constructed in pursuance of this act shall be
plain and inexpensive in character and the labor in constructing such
buildings, improvements and facilities shall be supplied by persons
committed to the state industrial farm or confined in State or county
penal, reformatory, or correctional institutions so far as found
practicable.

The board of managers shall procure all necessary materials; erect and
equip such buildings; employ such skilled labor as cannot be furnished
by the persons committed to their respective industrial farms or by
persons confined in State, or county penal, reformatory or correctional
institutions and provide all proper facilities for their use and for
the practical use of the institution.

When the board of managers of any State industrial farm shall have made
all preliminary arrangements for the construction of the buildings and
equipment therein, they shall notify the Governor who shall issue a
proclamation announcing such fact, and thereafter prisoners having more
than thirty days to serve shall be transferred to such State industrial
farm from any jail or workhouse in that district on the order of the
Governor.


SECTION 7. The boards of inspectors of the State penitentiaries,
and of the Pennsylvania Industrial Reformatory at Huntingdon, upon
the request of a board of managers of a State industrial farm, are
hereby authorized to transfer to such State industrial farm from their
respective institutions any prisoners of special or mechanical ability
therein who may be found in the judgment of such board and the board
of managers of such State industrial farm suitable for the purpose,
and provide transportation and proper guards for such prisoners and
while such prisoners remain at such State industrial farm they shall be
subject to the orders of the inspectors of the institution from which
they were transferred as to their return, and in all other respect,
except as to discipline and government. While at such State industrial
farm they shall be under the control, discipline, and government,
and subject to the orders, of the board of managers of such State
industrial farm and its executive officers.

The expense of transporting and transferring prisoners used in
the construction of buildings and equipment to and from any State
industrial farm shall be paid by the State Treasurer upon the
warrant of the Auditor General out of any moneys appropriated for
the establishment of such State industrial farm. The Auditor General
shall issue warrants for such purpose upon the order of the executive
officers of the board of managers of such State industrial farm.

The maintenance of such prisoners as are transferred from a State
penitentiary or reformatory shall be paid by the institution from
which they are transferred, but the cost of such maintenance in
excess of the average per capita cost of maintaining prisoners at the
institution from which such prisoners shall have been transferred shall
be refunded to any such institution out of any moneys appropriated for
the establishment of the State industrial farm.


SECTION 8. When any State industrial farm shall have been established
and ready for operation, a superintendent and matron and such other
officers as may be deemed necessary shall be appointed by the
proper board of managers. Any persons so appointed shall hold their
offices respectively during the pleasure of the board of managers.
The compensation of all such persons shall be fixed by the board of
managers.


SECTION 9. When in any district the arrangements for the reception of
inmates shall have been completed, the Court of quarter sessions of
every county embraced in such district shall transfer from the county
prisons and jails respectively to the State industrial farm of the
district all persons who shall have been sentenced to any of said
county prisons and jails for any crime, misdemeanor or felony, murder
and voluntary manslaughter excepted, or who shall have been committed
to any of such county prisons and jails for non-payment of any fine
or penalty, or for non-payment of costs, or for default in complying
with any order of court entered in any prosecution for desertion or
non-support, and any other persons legally confined in any of said
county jails or prisons except persons confined awaiting trial or
detained as witnesses; _Provided_, That any person whose term will
expire within thirty days shall not be transferred.

Thereafter, when any person is convicted in any of the said courts
of any offense, crime, misdemeanor, or felony, murder and voluntary
manslaughter excepted, the punishment of which is or may hereafter be
imprisonment in any county jail or prison, the said court shall, if
sentence of imprisonment for thirty days or more be imposed upon such
person, commit such person to the State industrial farm of the district
in which said court may have jurisdiction. If sentence of imprisonment
for more than ten but less than thirty days be imposed, the court may
in its discretion commit such person to the State industrial farm for
the district.

Courts of record and courts not of record of the counties included
in any such district shall hereafter commit to the State industrial
farm of the district all persons who might be lawfully committed to
the county jail or prison on charges of vagrancy, drunkenness, or
disorderly conduct, or for default or non-payment of any costs, fine,
or penalty, or for default in complying with any order of court entered
in any prosecution for desertion or non-support, where in any such
case the commitment will be for a period of thirty days or more. If the
commitment be from ten to thirty days the committing authority may in
its discretion commit any such person to the State industrial farm.

The superintendent may under the direction of the court of quarter
sessions remove any inmate to the county jail for the unexpired term
of his or her term of commitment, or to the poorhouse of the proper
city or county, or to any hospital or lunatic asylum in such county as
circumstances may require.


SECTION 10. The cost of transporting any persons committed to a State
industrial farm shall be paid by the county from which the prisoner
is committed, and the sheriff of the county shall receive the same
mileage, and fees for prisoners committed to a State industrial farm
as are now allowed by law for transporting prisoners committed to the
State penitentiaries. When any prisoner is discharged from a State
industrial farm the superintendent thereof shall procure for him a
railroad ticket to any point to which said prisoner may desire to go
not farther from such State industrial farm than the point from which
he was sentenced, and it shall be the duty of the superintendent, or
his duly authorized agent, to accompany the prisoner to the railroad
station, deliver the ticket to the proper railroad conductor, and
formally release the prisoner on the train which he takes for his
destination.


SECTION 11. It shall be the purpose of every State industrial farm to
employ the prisoners committed, or transferred thereto, in work on
or about the buildings and farm, and in growing produce and supplies
for its own use, and for the other institutions of the Commonwealth,
in the preparation of road materials and in making brick, tile,
paving material, and such other products or materials as may be
found practicable for the use of the Commonwealth, or any political
subdivision therein, and in other industries which may be approved by
the board of managers of the State industrial farm and the Committee
on Delinquency of this Commonwealth. Should any State industrial farm
produce supplies or materials in excess of its needs and demands, or
in excess of the demands of the Commonwealth, or of any political
subdivision thereof, such surplus may be sold by the Committee on
Delinquency at the prevailing market price.


SECTION 12. Any State industrial farm shall make such reports and keep
such accounts as are now or may hereafter be required by law, and shall
in all such matters be subject to the rules and regulations established
by the Committee on Delinquency.


SECTION 13. The original cost of the site and buildings of any
State industrial farm, and all additions thereto, and all fixed
overhead charges in conducting the institution, shall be paid by the
Commonwealth out of moneys appropriated for the purpose by the General
Assembly.

The cost of the care and maintenance of the inmates of such institution
shall be certified monthly to the counties from which inmates shall
have been committed. Such cost shall be paid by the counties in
proportion to the number of days spent by the inmates committed from
each county. All payments shall be on requisition of the board of
managers and on warrants of the county commissioners countersigned by
the county controller.


SECTION 14. (Provides for transferring prisoners from one institution
to another, if deemed advisable.)


SECTION 15. All the property real and personal authorized to be held by
virtue of this act shall be exempt from taxation by the Commonwealth or
any political subdivision thereof.


SECTION 16. The rules and regulations governing State industrial farms
shall be uniform and shall be made by the Committee on Delinquency.
They shall be general in character and the respective boards of
managers of each institution may add local rules not inconsistent with
the spirit and substance of the regulations adopted by the Committee on
Delinquency.


SECTION 17. To carry out the purposes of this act the sum of two
hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), or so much thereof as shall be
necessary, is hereby appropriated but not more than fifty thousand
dollars ($50,000) shall be expended for the purchase and equipment of
the State industrial farm of any district.


SECTION 18. (Repeals the Act of 1917, authorizing the establishment of
nine Industrial Farms.)


AGRICULTURAL PRISON LABOR.

HARRY R. CAMPBELL.

An article prepared for the County Commissioners’ Convention,
Pittsburgh, August 7, 1918.

Agricultural prison labor is strongly advocated by prison authorities
and has been in general use in the penal institutions of Pennsylvania
for many years. The movement for outdoor work for prisoners has
grown rapidly, and as a result, the Pennsylvania legislature, at its
1917 session, extended the scope of agricultural work for prisoners,
and authorized by an Act approved July 17, 1917, the employment of
prisoners, undergoing sentence in county jails, on county or poor farms.

There is no greater curse than idleness. An unemployed prisoner is a
future menace to society, and no effort should be spared to keep him
busy--to impress upon him the dignity and necessity of work, and to
make him know that he is stronger physically and better morally if he
is regularly employed.

Prison labor should be approached with a desire to help the prisoner
and restore him to society cured of his criminal ailment. If the only
purpose in the minds of the authorities is to make a profit for their
district, they are in grave danger of reverting to the old convict
labor system, which at best was only a modified form of slavery.

Agricultural prison labor offers the opportunity of a direct profit
to the district, and places the prisoner in an environment peculiarly
adapted to his own physical and mental betterment. I am informed that
it is used with great success in several counties, including Delaware,
Montgomery, Chester, Berks, Lehigh, Beaver, Bucks, Cambria, Fayette and
Westmoreland.

Another important measure enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature and
approved July 20, 1917, requires the erection of an Industrial Farm,
Workhouse and Reformatory in each of nine districts created by the Act.
Each institution is to be built and managed by a Board of Trustees,
consisting of one County Commissioner from each county in the district,
appointed by the President Judge of the proper Court.

       *       *       *       *       *

It is the purpose of the institution to keep all persons employed
about the farm and buildings, in growing all kinds of farm produce,
raising live stock and in manufacturing supplies for its own use, or
for the use of the several counties in the district, or any public or
charitable institution owned or managed by any of the district counties.

Prisoners may also be employed in the making of brick, tile, and
concrete, or other road building supplies for the use of the several
counties. All material manufactured shall be sold at prices fixed
by the Trustees, preference being given in the sale to the counties
comprising the district, and to the cities, boroughs and townships
therein.

The cost of the site, buildings and additions thereto, and all fixed
overhead charges are to be paid by the counties comprising the
district, in ratio to their population. All moneys received from the
sale of produce or manufactured articles or supplies shall be credited
to the overhead expenses.

This, in brief, is a digest of the law which is designed to inaugurate
agricultural prison labor on a large scale in Pennsylvania.

The Trustees were promptly appointed by the Courts of the State. The
Fourth district, organized in March with the election of Mr. George
W. Deeds, of Westmoreland County, as president. This board has been
actively engaged in inspecting proposed sites, a number of which have
been offered, but no selection has, as yet, been made.

       *       *       *       *       *

Another phase of prison labor that must be taken into full
consideration in the establishment of industrial farms, is the
attitude of the Courts in reference to the parole law now in effect.
If the Judges believe that the ends of justice are best served by
paroling convicts, rather than committing them to some institution,
the necessary capacity of the proposed buildings would be materially
affected. In most of the counties but little has been done toward a
general use of the parole law, but in a few of them the Courts are
evidently giving it a trial.

The parole law is regarded with especial favor in Washington County,
where the Courts have at the present time, 672 prisoners under parole.
Every one of this number is employed in the county and must report
monthly to the parole officer, who is also the Court’s employment
agent, and who places every paroled prisoner in a job suitable to his
ability and inclination.

This might be called another phase of prison labor, as industry is one
of the conditions of the parole, and the labor is done by the paroled
prisoners for their own profit and advancement--with freedom to enjoy
their homes and pursue their own inclinations after working hours. So
far has the system been carried, that the Court House, once cleaned
entirely by prison labor, is now necessarily cared for by a paid force
of men outside the draft age. You may better understand why the Court
is going to this apparent extreme, when you know that practically every
industry in Washington County is engaged in war work, and that these
paroled men are placed on farms, and in mines, mills and factories,
where they are helping win the war, though only a small percentage of
them are American citizens and very few are native born.

About 90 per cent. of these men are faithfully complying with all
the conditions of their paroles, 95 per cent. are paying in monthly
installments, the fine and costs imposed upon them by the Court,
and less than five per cent. are proving themselves unworthy of the
confidence reposed in them.

Clearfield County has 10 paroled prisoners; Clinton, 25; Indiana 40;
Lycoming, 8; Lehigh, 104; Center, 6; McKean, 47; Butler, 35; and
Somerset, 64. It is doubtful if the entire number in all the other
counties in the State would equal the number paroled in Washington
County.

Montgomery County has taken a unique step in the employment of prison
labor and uses the 80 inmates of its county jail in knitting socks, on
knitting machines, for the Red Cross. Many other counties employ their
prisoners, in their jails, in useful occupations.

Agricultural prison labor has been tried out in many States with
gratifying success. Down in Alabama there are 325 men at work on State
farms, where they raised 2300 bushels of wheat last year, which is an
excellent record for a section where wheat is not supposed to grow.
Convicts down there are also worked in the Alabama coal mines, and
are producing 4500 tons of coal daily. Their farm prison labor is not
satisfactory, but in the mines it is pronounced superior to free labor.

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.

Let us be thankful that the instances of cruelty and preposterous
punishments have been so few. Grant that some of the reported instances
are a species of brutal hazing, that some few bone-headed young
officials “drest in some brief authority,” with an overweening sense
of their importance, have taken a narrow view of military discipline,
still there have been sufficient complaints to elicit the following
editorial in the sober Public Ledger of Philadelphia.


TORTURE FOR MILITARY PRISONERS?

    “If any branch of the Government’s military activities calls
    for an instant and searching investigation, it is certainly the
    treatment accorded the “conscientious objectors” in the military
    prisons to which they have been sent by court-martial. Even if
    half the allegations contained in the complaints concerning the
    prisoners of this type, at Governor’s Island, New York, and
    at Fort Leavenworth, are true, the conditions demand instant
    correction and those responsible therefor summary punishment.

    “In times of war severity of treatment, within the limits of
    humanity, is to be expected by those who refuse to fulfill
    their obligations to the nation; but the term ‘severity of
    treatment’ is an euphemism when used to describe the experiences
    of conscientious objectors, shackled, unclothed, for hours to
    cell doors, kept for days in dark cells, and forced for weeks to
    subsist under physical conditions which the law would not permit
    in the case of animals. If these charges are substantiated, and
    the outraged sense of justice of the nation demands that they be
    either substantiated or disproved, then the drastic revision of
    military law and practice is an imperative duty of Congress which
    it dare not ignore or neglect.

    “There is abundant reason to believe, in the severity of the
    sentences permitted to be imposed by army courts-martial, that
    there is lacking in the military mind that sense of fitness and
    of humanity which is in accordance with the age in which we live.
    The United States cannot with clean hands ask the nations with
    which it is allied in the war to humanize the laws of war while
    it tolerates inhumanity in the enforcement of its own military
    regulations at home. Recalcitrant soldiers offer a difficult
    problem, of course; but the fact is a greater reason for dealing
    with such offenders with tact and, above all, with humanity.
    Torture has no place in the penology of the day, and least of all
    in the service which prides itself on its patriotism.”

The Acting Committee of The Pennsylvania Society, having been informed
of some instances of punishment which seemed to resemble soulless
European autocratic methods, sent the following remonstrance to
Secretary Baker:--

    “The Pennsylvania Prison Society learns with astonishment and
    a profound sense of sorrow of the brutal methods of punishment
    employed in some of our Federal Prisons upon military
    offenders--especially upon so-called “Conscientious Objectors”
    whose only offense is a consistent adherence to their sense of
    duty. The studied attempt to break the spirit of prisoners at
    Fort Leavenworth and elsewhere by unspeakable cruelty suggests
    the practices of a barbaric past rather than those of a civilized
    and enlightened people. Granting that a Nation must at times deal
    firmly with political offenders, can any crime ever justify the
    employment of cruel and inhumane treatment? If such barbarous
    punishment has the sanction of law, then an outraged sense of
    justice demands the immediate revision of our Military Code.”

The following note was received, which indicates that the War
Department at Washington has taken measures to relieve the harsh
conditions.

  “FEBRUARY 6, 1919.

    “... The War Department immediately upon having conditions at
    the Disciplinary Barracks called to its attention, instituted an
    investigation. The report of that investigation disclosed the
    fact that the trouble at Leavenworth was due, not at all to the
    administration of the prison, but to the regulations which were
    ill-adapted to the unusual type of prisoner that the Selective
    Service Act brought to military prisons. The Secretary at once
    made some appropriate modifications of those regulations and has
    called a conference to consider further changes in disciplinary
    regulations, not only to meet this unusual condition but to bring
    the Army’s disciplinary methods up to the most modern penological
    standards, in case they shall be found to be deficient. The
    conference will also consider ways of meeting the immediate
    emergency of the overcrowding of disciplinary barracks due to the
    increased size of the Army during the war. The conference will
    come to its conclusions in the near future and you may be assured
    that action leading out of its conclusions will be promptly
    taken.”

  “Very truly,
  “F. P. KEPPEL,
  “_Third Assistant Secretary_.”

Confidential orders, recently made known, of the War Department,
issued in October, 1918, prescribed that those conscripts, refusing
on account of conscientious scruples to perform military service,
should not be treated as traitors or as guilty of rank insubordination.
The Government thus in some form recognized the validity of their
scruples. As a rule such persons were entirely segregated from the
other men. For a time solitary confinement was discontinued, but we
regret to report that at the military prison at Leavenworth some 25 of
these objectors have recently been remanded to cellular isolation. One
of these men has for some time been engaged in Christian work under
the auspices of the Y. M. C. A. Very recently he received a visit
from a gentleman in whose office he had often been a visitor, but his
mind seemed a blank, as he did not appear to recognize his visitor
who called to offer services. This mode of punishment was having its
logical effect.

We fully endorse the attitude of the U. S. Government as indicated in
its Official Bulletin, No. 113, page 5:--“Accustomed as these leaders
have been for many years to universal military service, to a large
standing army, ... to marked class distinctions, they have absorbed,
and are now wedded to, certain notions which to us, who have grown
up under very different conditions, seem like worship of constituted
authority and the unwarranted surrender of individual responsibility.
The gradual development of these very notions has brought about an
inordinate influence of the military group in public affairs.”

We rejoice that our Government so clearly sets forth the evils of a
military authority, the spirit of which is so manifestly opposed to the
genius of our free institutions.

  On behalf of the Editorial Committee,

  J. F. OHL,
  FLORENCE BAYARD KANE,
  ALBERT H. VOTAW.


PRISON EXPERIENCES.

Within the last few years the general public has been informed of the
real life of the convict by intelligent observers who have suffered a
few days of incarceration in order to gain an insight into the actual
effects of imprisonment. The accounts were interesting and instructive,
but we now have another opportunity to acquire knowledge of prison
conditions from some intelligent and conscientious persons who have
been imprisoned without resorting to a fake process in order to have
such experience. We refer to a class of offenders who from religious
scruples and in some cases for other reasons have disobeyed the
military requirements. We hold no brief for these offenders, but the
observations of some of these persons are a decided contribution to the
science of penology. Making due allowance for hasty conclusions arrived
at from a brief period of incarceration, and also after insufficient
opportunity to grasp the subject in its entirety, nevertheless, the
facts related, and the arguments and deductions derived from their
experiences should appeal to all who have interest in the reformation
of criminals.

Rev. Evan Thomas, a young man of deep religious conviction, and of a
keen sense of injustice, has recently published in _The Survey_ some
details of prison life in the Federal Prison at Leavenworth, Kansas.

We quote some portions of his article.

“The burden of prison life as I experienced it, however, was not the
physical hardships but the unspeakable moral filth and vice to which
one is constantly exposed. I could not have believed many of the things
I heard and witnessed at Fort Leavenworth had they been reported to me
before going there. No sexual vice or moral depravity is too low for
some of the men confined there. The Disciplinary Barracks have been
called the ‘cess pool for the dregs of the army.’ But many a fine young
soldier whose only offense was to overstay his leave or be the helpless
victim of the antiquated military law in this country, has found his
way among the ‘dregs’ of the army; and as for the others, the great
majority are the products of our reform schools, orphan asylums and
jails. These men are indiscriminately grouped together in the prison.
It is true that there are two so-called honor wings for prisoners
in the Disciplinary Barracks, but I was never able to discover just
what was necessary to be assigned to these wings. The information
generally given me by other prisoners was that it was necessary to do
‘some hand-shaking’ first. As a matter of fact, as nearly as I was
able to learn, the power lay very largely in the hands of a group of
prisoners, who through clever politics and the holding of certain
important jobs in the executive office and elsewhere, were able to
control things to a large extent. I was told that even in these honor
wings moral conditions were bad, but in the other wings where men were
indiscriminately alloted, it often happened that diseased men were
assigned to the same cells with others who had to share the same toilet
facilities. The sixth wing, composed of eight tiers of open cells, each
of which contains three double-decked cots and six occupants, is known
as the ‘mad-house’ by the prisoners. Any thoughtful reading, writing or
study in this wing is next to impossible. Before going into solitary
confinement as a protect against the severe treatment accorded to such
conscientious objectors as refused to work, I spent one day in this
wing and the thought of ‘solitary’ lost much of its dread for me.

“It is certainly possible for the man of wide interests or strong
character to live in such surroundings without any great degree of
moral harm to himself, but for the young, the weak, the very immature,
such conditions are nothing short of ruinous. The conversation is
confined largely to sex, ‘booze’ and the personal daring of the
prisoners. No crime is too terrible and no feat too desperate for most
of these men in their talk. The menace of this sort of thing to those
whose interests are almost entirely within the prison walls is the
most insidious and destructive thing imaginable. Yet no real effort
is made by the authorities to group the prisoners so that at least
some of the men could be spared a great deal of temptation. Much more
serious is the fact that the prison life itself is not calculated to
give a man any interests but those of the basest sort. Self-government
is practically unknown at Fort Leavenworth except in the honor wings,
where I believe the occupants are allowed to elect their own orderlies.

“At the Disciplinary Barracks there is a department of psychiatry which
takes a very careful record of every prisoner’s history and this record
is faithfully verified by the authorities through letters and other
means of information. But once this record is completed and on the
files, apparently everything has been done that is required. So far as
I was able to observe, at least, no really constructive efforts were
made to relieve the conditions in the wings which I have spoken of,
where a man of refined sensibilities is often quartered in the same
double-decked bunk with a degenerate or a moral pervert.


“THE FAILURE OF PUNISHMENT.

“The condition of affairs which I have been attempting to describe
is greatly aggravated by the fact that the idea of punishment and
discipline reigns supreme in the prison. Much is said in the rules and
regulations about the aim of the institution being to improve every
prisoner and turn each man out a better and more useful individual than
when he came in. That is one of the standing jokes of the prisoners
and not without reason, for one has only to read the book of rules
itself to see that the military tradition of punishment and discipline
is the medicine which is expected to work this great transformation.
But unfortunately most of the occupants of a military prison are there
because of their failure or refusal to accept this military tradition.
They are there because they are weak, mentally and morally, or too
independent for the army or because they object to it on principle.

“So far as I have had experience in life I have yet to observe anything
more absolutely negative in its purpose and effects than this method
of discipline. The prisoner who has the distinction of having been
longest at Fort Leavenworth, had only two more days of his sentence to
complete when a guard called him a vile name, and utterly regardless of
the inevitable consequences this prisoner knocked the guard down with
a brick. He has since received several extensions of sentence because
of other defiant acts. The ball and chain, solitary confinement and
all the other repressive measures of the prison system have some way
not succeeded as yet in turning this man out of prison a ‘better man
than when he came in.’ There unquestionably is a criminal element in
prison that is a menace to society, but depraved or vicious as some
of these men may be, there is yet some good in every one of them and
possibilities of truly chivalrous conduct in all of them when properly
treated. But the ball and chain, the iron rule, the cursing and foul
threats by guards do not seem to bring out the good side of these men.

“Not long before I was released two men were caught fighting in the
corridor of the wing near my cell. These two men were not equally
guilty. To go into the details of the case would require more space
than I have, but the point I wish to bring out is that they both were
at once taken to the executive officer of the prison and in ten minutes
were back, sentenced alike, to ten days in the ‘hole’ on bread and
water. The great object of such prison punishment is to break a man,
make him humble, meek and obedient. When this is done the process of
making a man of the prisoner seems to be considered completed. A guard
once told me while I was in solitary that when he chained a man up
backwards as punishment for talking in solitary, as used to be done, he
was generally kind-hearted enough to let the man down if he repented
and asked for it in the ‘right spirit,’ but if the man was too ‘damned
proud to show how much it hurt him he would let him take his medicine.’
I mention this because to my mind it is typical of the punishment and
discipline idea of the prison. Actually what happens in this process of
breaking is that the prisoner in the great majority of cases is shoved
still further down the scale of degradation and lack of self-respect.
He becomes either flabby or vicious. This is especially true of such
criminal types as need the helpful, sympathetic and human advice and
correction of trained men above everything else.

“It is my belief that at the bottom of all that I have been trying to
tell, lies not the dishonesty or cruelty of individual officials but
a state of mind shared largely by us all, even prisoners themselves
oftentimes, viz., the idea that the convict is something apart,
something taboo, a person who has forfeited all the rights of normal
human beings, and with this idea goes that of punishment, the ingrained
belief that the only way to deal with viciousness or wrong-doing is to
keep the big stick constantly at hand. This certainly is the theory
of our prisons if one is to judge from the products of our reform
schools and jails whom I met at Fort Leavenworth. These men very
largely had grown up with no other idea of life than that of the big
stick. Put one of these prisoners in authority over others and in the
majority of cases he can be more dictatorial and cruel than any guard.
The supposition is that to make this outcast--the prisoner--bow to
authority will make a man of him.

“Prison reform is no easy matter. It must be the work of devoted and
expertly trained men and women. Sentimentalism can play no part in it
and certainly discipline, properly understood, will always have its
place, but it will be discipline in which mutual responsibility, human
sympathy and understanding will replace autocracy and indifference to
the individual and personal element at stake. It is, perhaps, only
fair to say that with the arrival of Major Adler at Fort Leavenworth
at the beginning of this year certain very important reforms have been
started. But it is going to be a long, uphill fight which will require
the enlightened support of the public if prisons are ever to cease
being a degrading influence in the prisoner’s life to say nothing of
becoming the constructive help that they should be and can be.”


PROHIBITION AND ARRESTS.

HARRY M. CHALFANT.

... We have a detailed report of the number of arrests in Detroit
during the last eight months of license as compared with the first
eight months under prohibition. Detroit became dry May 1, 1918, and
this report covers the two periods of eight months each, preceding and
following that date. It is issued by George H. Walters, deputy police
commissioner. Detroit is the largest city in the world to experiment
with prohibition, it having close to 1,000,000 people.

We have grouped kindred offenses to secure brevity. The first column
shows the number of arrests during the wet period and the second column
shows arrests for the same offenses during the dry regime. In the third
column we have worked out the percentage of reduction. Under the dry
period there were 1511 arrests for violation of the prohibition law
and 550 convictions resulted. These are omitted from the list because,
obviously, no comparison on this offense could be made. The following
figures tell their own story:


NUMBER OF ARRESTS.

    Under       Under       Percentage
  license.   prohibition.   reduction.
   28,156       10,543         64

It is worthy of note that these results are not materially different
from what happened in the cities of Denver and Seattle, which became
dry January 1, 1916. They afford a hint of what may be possible, at
least to a degree, in Philadelphia after the 1st of next July.

PHILADELPHIA, February 20, 1919.


HONORARY MEMBERS.

  Maud Ballington Booth (1909)                New York City.
  Judge Ben B. Lindsey (1909)                 Denver, Colo.
  [4]Frederick Howard Wines (1909)
  Judge McKenzie Cleland (1909)               Chicago, Ill.
  [4]Gen. R. Brinkerhoff
  Z. R. Brockway (1909)                       Elmira, N. Y.
  [4]Prof. Charles Richmond Henderson (1910)
  Dr. Hastings H. Hart (1914)                 New York City.
  [4]James A. Leonard (1914)
  Timothy Nicholson (1915)                    Richmond, Ind.
  Amos W. Butler (1915)                       Indianapolis, Ind.


LIFE MEMBERS.

  [4]Ashmead, Henry B.,            [4]Lewis, Howard W.,
  [4]Bailey, Joel J.,                 Lewis, Mrs. Sarah A.,
  [4]Baily, Joshua L.,                Longstreth, W. W.,
  [4]Bartol, B. H.,                [4]Love, Alfred H.,
  [4]Benson, E. N.,                [4]Lytle, John J.,
  [4]Bergdoll, Louis,              [4]Maginnis, Edw. I.,
  [4]Betts, Richard K.,            [4]Manderson, James,
     Bonham, Eleanor M.,           [4]Milne, Caleb J.,
  [4]Bonsall, E. H.,               [4]McAllister, Jas. W.,
  [4]Brooke, F. M.,                [4]Nicholson, Robert P.,
  [4]Brown, Alexander,             [4]Osborne, Hon. F. W.,
  [4]Brown, T. Wistar,                Patterson, Robert,
     Brush, C. H.,                 [4]Pennock, George,
     Buckley, Daniel,              [4]Perot, Joseph,
     Carter, John E.,                 Perot, T. Morris, Jr.,
  [4]Cattell, Henry S.,               Pooley, Fred. J.,
  [4]Childs, George W.,            [4]Potter, Thomas,
     Cochran, Miss Mary N., Jr.,   [4]Powers, Thomas H.,
     Coles, Miss Mary,             [4]Price, Thomas W.,
  [4]Collins, Alfred M.,              Randolph, Miss Anna,
     Coxe, Eckley B., Jr.,            Rhoads, Joseph R.,
  [4]Downing, Richard H.,          [4]Roach, Joseph H.,
  [4]Dreer, Edw. G.,               [4]Saul, Rev. James,
     Dreer, Ferd. J., Jr.,         [4]Santee, Charles,
  [4]Douredore, B. L.,             [4]Seybert, Henry,
  [4]Duhring, D. D., Rev. H. L.,   [4]Sharpless, Townsend,
     Duncan, John A.,              [4]Steedman, Rosa,
  [4]Elkinton, Joseph S.,             Stephens, Emily J. I., M. D.,
     Elwyn, Alfred,                [4]Stokes, Wm. C.,
  [4]Elwyn, Mrs. Helen M.,         [4]Sulzberger, David,
  [4]Fotterall, Stephen G.,        [4]Thomas, Geo. C.,
     Frazer, Dr. John,                Thompson, Emma L.,
     Frazier, W. W.,               [4]Tracey, Charles A.,
  [4]Goodwin, M. H.,               [4]Townsend, Henry T.,
     Grigg, Mary S.,                  Tyler, W. Graham,
  [4]Hall, George W.,                 Votaw, Albert H.,
     Harrison, Alfred C.,          [4]Waln, L. Morris,
     Harrison, Chas. C.,           [4]Walk, Jas. W., M. D.,
  [4]Hockley, Thomas,                 Warren, E. Burgess,
     Ingram, Wm. S.,               [4]Watson, Jas. V.,
  [4]Jeans, Joshua T.,                Way, John,
     Jenks, John Story,            [4]Weightman, William,
  [4]Jones, Mary T.,               [4]Weston, Harry,
  [4]Jordan, John, Jr.,               Wetherell, William Henry,
  [4]Justice, W. W.,                  Whelen, Emily,
  [4]Kinke, J.,                    [4]Whelen, Mary S.,
  [4]Knight, Reeve L.,             [4]Williams, Henry J.,
  [4]Laing, Anna T.,               [4]Williamson, I. V.,
  [4]Laing, Henry M.,              [4]Willits, Jeremiah,
     Lea, M. Carey,                [4]Willits, Jeremiah, Jr.,
  [4]Leaming, J. Fisher,              Wistar, Edward M.,
     Leeds, Deborah C.,               Wood, Walter.
  [4]Lewis, F. Mortimer,


ANNUAL MEMBERS.

  Adger, Miss Willian,             Kaufman, John G.,
  Allen, Clara Hodges,             Kehler, Dr. B. Frank,
  Allen, H. Percival,              Keith, Elsie Wister,
  Arrison, Anna D.,                Kennedy, Harry,
  Ashton, Tabor,                   Koelle, William,
  Baggs, Nicholas, Capt.,          Lamartine, Rev. Phillip,
  Baily, Albert L.,                Landis, Dr. H. R. M.,
  Baird, John E.,                  Latimer, Emilie T.,
  Baldwin, Harriet H.,             Latimer, George A.,
  Barakat, Layyah,                 Latimer, Rebecca P.,
  Barnes, Rev. R. Heber,           Latimer, Rev. Thomas,
  Bartram, T. E.,                  Leeds, Austin C.,
  Beiswenger, Paul F.,             Lewis, William Draper,
  Beiswenger, Rev. F.,             Longshore, Frank H.,
  Belfield, T. Broom,              Lovett, Louisa D.,
  Biddle, Miss Christine W.,       Lowry, Wm. C.,
  Biddle, Mrs. Clement M.,         McCord, Rufus,
  Biddle, William,                 McFedries, Miss Annie.
  Boggs, Samuel R.,                Magee, George W.,
  Bok, Mrs. Mary Louise,           Maier, Paul D. I.,
  Booth, Henry D.,                 Mallery, Otto T.,
  Borden, G. W.,                   Marshall, Bertha K. C.,
  Bowers, Virginia R.,             Martin, Hon. J. Willis,
  Bradford, Miss Annie,            Mayer, Mrs. Henry C.,
  Brewer, Franklin N.,             Mellor, Alfred,
  Brink, Fred Swarts,              Miller, Isaac P.,
  Brinton, Joseph Hill,            Miller, Mrs. Benj.,
  Brown, Ellis, Y.,                Minnich, Rev. M. Reed,
  Browning, Mrs. G. G.,            Montgomery, Henry S.,
  Buckley, Mrs. Edward S.,         Morris, Anna Wharton,
  Burnham, George, Jr.,            Morris, C. Christopher,
  Butterworth, Elizabeth W.,       Morris, Marriott C.,
  Butz, J. Treichler, M. D.,       Morris, William,
  Byers, Joseph P.,                Mullowney, John J., M. D.,
  Canby, W. Marriott,              Murphy, William T.,
  Carpenter, Mrs. E. Payson,       Newkirk, John B.,
  Cassell, Henry C.,               Newlin, Sarah,
  Chichester, S. E.,               Nichols, Carroll B.,
  Clark, Frederic L.,              Niles, Henry C.,
  Clark, E. W.,                    Obermayer, Leon J.,
  Coale, Thomas E.,                Oetinger, Albert,
  Coburn, George A.,               Ohl, Rev. J. F,
  Collins, Henry H.,               Paisley, Harry E.,
  Collins, Henry H., Jr.,          Palmer, T. Chalkley,
  Colton, Mrs. Mary R.,            Pancoast, Linda H.,
  Colton, Mrs. S. W., Jr.,         Park, Richard G.,
  Comfort, Henry W.,               Patterson, T. H. Hoge,
  Conard, C. Wilfred,              Perot, Mary William,
  Cope, Mrs. Edward,               Platt, Miss L. N.,
  Cope, Mrs. Eliza M.,             Purves, G. Colesbury,
  Cope, Miss Margaret,             Rakestraw, Frederick A.,
  Daniel, C. A.,                   Randolph, Mrs. Evan,
  de Benedetto, Rev. A.,           Reeves, Francis B.,
  De Haven, Miss Clara B.,         Reilly, Anna L.,
  De Haven, Miss Sarah Cole,       Rhoads, William E.,
  deLong, Mary Ella,               Richardson, Charles,
  Develin, James Aylward,          Roberts, Charles C.,
  Dewees, J. H.,                   Roberts, Owen J.,
  Dewees, Watson W.,               Robinson, Anthony W.,
  d’Invilliers, Charles E.,        Robinson, Louis N.,
  Disston, Albert H.,              Rosengarten, Joseph G.,
  Disston, Jennie C.,              Roser, William,
  Drexel, Mary S. Irick,           Rouse, Wm. M.,
  Dripps, Robert Dunning,          Schaeffer, Paul N.,
  Ecroyd, Charles E.,              Schoch, Mrs. Parke,
  Edmonds, Franklin S.,            Schwarz, G. A.,
  Elkinton, Joseph,                Scott, Norris J.,
  Emlen, Samuel,                   Scull, E. Marshall,
  Emlen, Miss Dorothea,            Senft, Rev. F. H.,
  Fernberger, Henry,               Shoemaker, Comly B.,
  Fisher, Geo. Harrison,           Simmington, Charles C.,
  Fleisher, Samuel S.,             Snellenburg, Samuel,
  Fleisher, Moyer,                 Starr, Miss Rhoda,
  Frick, Esther,                   Steele, Joseph M.,
  Funk, Lawson C.,                 Stewart, Henry C.,
  Galenbeck, Louis C.,             Stone, Mrs. Virginia G.,
  Garges, Anna K.,                 Tatum, Joseph W.,
  Garrett, Elizabeth N.,           Thesen, Oluf,
  Gerhard, Luther,                 Thomas, Mrs. George C.,
  Gerhard, Arthur H.,              Tomkins, Rev. Floyd W.,
  Gerhard, Mrs. Arthur H.,         Turner, Mrs. Charles P.,
  Gillingham, Anna H.,             Vaux, Miss Meta,
  Graff, Charles F.,               Wallace, Mrs. C. Jaquins,
  Greene, Sallie H.,               Walton, Harrison,
  Haines, Dr. H. I.,               Warren, William C.,
  Haines, Henry E.,                Wentz, Catharine A.,
  Haines, Robert B., Jr.,          Wetherell, George S.,
  Hallowell, William S.,           Wetherell, Mary S.,
  Haney, Rein G.,                  Wetherill, Rev. Francis Macomb,
  Harding, Miss M. W.,             White, Elias H.,
  Harris, Rev. J. Andrews,         White, Elizabeth W.,
  Harris, Mrs. J. Campbell,        Wilkins, George W.,
  Harris, J. Linn,                 Williams, Charles,
  Hastings, Charles P.,            Williams, Ellis D.,
  Heller, Clyde A.,                Williams, Henry S.,
  Henderson, George R.,            Wilson, James L.,
  Hill, Miss Elizabeth A.,         Wing, Asa S.,
  Hodge, Mrs. Lydia B. Penrose,    Wood, H. Wellington,
  Hoffman, Jacob,                  Yarnall, William S.,
  Howe, Mrs. Mary W. F.,           Yarrow, George R.,
  Hutton, George S.,               Yarrow, Mrs. George R.,
  Jenkins, Theodore F.,            Ziegler, J. W.
  Kane, Miss Florence Bayard,




INDEX.


                                                  PAGE
  Acting Committee, report of,                       7

  Agricultural Prison Labor,                        60

  Annual Meeting, minutes of,                        5


  Board of Public Charities and Prison Labor,       67


  Commission to Investigate Penal Systems,          19

  Committee on Delinquency, act providing for,      47

  Committees, standing,                              4

  County Prisons,                                   33


  Financial Argument for Prison Farms,              65


  General Agent, report of,                         16


  Home of Industry,                                 68


  Industrial Farms, act providing for,              54


  Members, lists of,                                81

  Military Discipline and Punishments,              69


  Obituaries,                                       14

  Officers, list of,                                 3

  Official Visitors,                   Page 2 of cover


  Parole Work, Eastern Penitentiary,                17

  Penal Systems, report of Commission,              19

  Prison Experiences,                               76

  Probation and Parole,                             39

  Prohibition, effect of, on arrests,               80


  Treasurer, report of,                             15

The Pennsylvania Prison Society was founded under the name
“Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons,”
May 8, 1787.

    It was incorporated under same name April 6, 1833.

    The objects named in the Charter were three:

    1. Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons.

    2. Improvement of Prison Discipline.

    3. Relief of Discharged Prisoners.

By order of the Court, the corporate title was changed January 27,
1886, to “THE PENNSYLVANIA PRISON SOCIETY.”

       *       *       *       *       *

Copies of this JOURNAL will be forwarded on request to any address
without charge.

Financial contributions are needed to carry on the work of this Society.

All correspondence and contributions should be addressed to The
Pennsylvania Prison Society at 119 South Fourth Street, Philadelphia,
Pa.




FOOTNOTES:


[1] Approved and proposed by the Commission on Penal Systems.

[2] Approved and proposed by the Commission on Penal Systems.

[3] Information taken from Major W. S. Kellog’s “The Conscientious
Objector,” 1919.

[4] Deceased.


[Transcriber’s Note:

Dialect, obsolete and alternative spellings were left unchanged.
Printing errors, such as backwards or upside down letters, were
corrected; duplicate words were deleted; missing punctuation was added.]