The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Review, Vol. 1, No. 12, December, 1911
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Review, Vol. 1, No. 12, December, 1911

Author: Various

Publisher: National Prisoners' Aid Association

Release date: May 13, 2023 [eBook #70750]

Language: English

Original publication: United States: National Prisoners' Aid Association, 1913

Credits: The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE REVIEW, VOL. 1, NO. 12, DECEMBER, 1911 ***





                 VOLUME I, No. 12. DECEMBER, 1911

                               THE REVIEW

                 A MONTHLY PERIODICAL, PUBLISHED BY THE
                  NATIONAL PRISONERS’ AID ASSOCIATION
                AT 135 EAST 15th STREET, NEW YORK CITY.

                TEN CENTS A COPY. ONE DOLLAR A YEAR.


  T. F. Carver, President.
  Wm. M. R. French, Vice President.
  O. F. Lewis, Secretary, Treasurer and Editor Review.
  Edward Fielding, Chairman Ex. Committee.
  F. Emory Lyon, Member Ex. Committee.
  W. G. McClaren, Member Ex. Committee.
  A. H. Votaw, Member Ex. Committee.
  E. A. Fredenhagen, Member Ex. Committee.
  Joseph P. Byers, Member Ex. Committee.
  R. B. McCord. Member Ex. Committee.




               LABOR’S ATTITUDE TOWARD PRISONERS’ LABOR

                          BY JOHN J. SONSTEBY

[This address, which we print in large part, was read by Mr. Sonsteby
at the recent Rhode Island state conference of charities and
correction. It seems an excellent statement from the standpoint of
organized labor.

The Review will be glad to print authoritative statements from other
persons holding other views on the prison labor problem.--EDITOR.]


In speaking to the subject of labor’s attitude toward convict labor, I
speak from the standpoint of organized union labor, and through it to
the free labor of our country.

I speak particularly for the United Garment Workers of America, a union
whose membership is largely composed of women and girls, and which is
subjected to more competition with convict labor than almost any other
union or trade.

Organized labor has taken a positive stand and has an attitude toward
convict labor. That attitude is practically no different from the
attitude of other citizens who have given the subject careful thought
and who are not financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the
labor of convicts.

I have found whenever labor men, manufacturers, sociologists and other
financially disinterested people have discussed the question there has
been an almost unanimity of opinion.

The attitude of free labor toward convict labor finds expression only
through the means afforded by the labor unions. Unorganized free labor
is what the name implies, and has no authorized person to speak for
it. Organized labor’s attitude toward convict labor is, therefore, the
only one capable of being crystalized and expressed.

Free labor is unalterably opposed to convict labor as it is commonly
understood to-day, viz.: The competition of the products of convict
labor with that of free labor on the open market. Free labor favors
prison labor for the purpose of keeping prisoners employed, training
them for their duties as citizens when they are released, and making
products for the state and the state institutions.

Speaking before a subcommittee of the committee on labor, in the house
of representatives, in March, 1910, Mr. Thomas F. Tracey, representing
the American federation of labor, said, in part: “The labor
organizations of this country, as typified by the American federation
of labor, have not, are not, and should never help in the advocacy of
anything that would put prisoners in idleness. We want those who are
the outcasts of society, and who are confined in prisons to be allowed
to do work--such work as will be beneficial to them; but we do not
believe that, when these men are confined in prisons, instead of their
labor being put in the direction of either grinding out dividends for
stockholders of concerns of this kind (prison contractors), or making
profits for the state, their efforts should be rather in the direction
of educating them and reforming them to lead better lives.”

The foregoing sentiment represents the altruistic attitude of the
American labor movement.

What reason is there for an expression of labor’s attitude? People who
have a selfish purpose to serve have directly and by innuendo charged
labor unions with selfishly endeavoring to keep all prisoners in
idleness, so that no products from convict labor would be manufactured.
Organized labor has never been guilty of such an endeavor, and its
attitude has been intentionally and insistently misrepresented by those
who knew better.

That the inmates of penal and reformatory institutions must have
employment if the object of their confinement is to be attained, is
admitted by all. That this employment will, in some degree, compete
with free labor, is also true. That at the present time this employment
of convict labor does compete with free labor, and compete in a
demoralizing way with it, is recognized by all who are informed. People
who do not come in contact with prison labor or the products of prison
labor, do not realize what the competition of the convict labor means.
Organized labor believes that the employment of convict labor should be
so diversified that the burden will be equally distributed among all
free labor, and reduced to such a minimum that the members of no trade
or occupation can justly complain.

The two dominant ideas in prison management heretofore have been simply
retribution and economy. The possibility of reforming convicts who are
within prison walls--reforming them by useful, educative labor--is
a comparatively new idea, and not accepted by all those in charge
of convicts. Organized labor believes in reforming the convicts and
returning them as soon as possible to society, mentally and morally
sound and willing and able to take their places in the rank of
wage earners. It costs money to train morals or to do educational
or reformatory work. It takes effort, time, money, and interest to
diversify employment among convicts so as to render such employment
educative and beneficial to the convicts, and, at the same time, not
unfair to free labor.

The desire on the part of many managers and prison officials to make
penal and reformatory institutions self supporting is one of the causes
for their failure up to the present time to arrive at a successful
solution of the convict labor question. Another reason for the failure
to successfully solve the question has been the fast disappearing
but still remaining spoils system in politics, which gives to the
local merchants contracts to supply the needs of the state and state
institutions. The usual form of prison labor is not reformative.

The problems to which all right thinking people should apply themselves
is to adopt or evolve some system of employment that is fair to free
labor, and then endeavor to have such a system uniform throughout
the United States. Until some uniform system of disposing of the
products of convicts is adopted, there should be a federal law enacted
providing that each state shall have the right to regulate the sale of
prison-made goods within its own borders. Such a bill, has been pending
for a number of years in the congress of the United States. Each state
should dispose of, within its own borders, the products of its own
penal institutions.

The systems in vogue in our penal institutions at the present time are
commonly known as:

1. Contract labor (indoors).
2. Contract labor (outdoors).
3. Piece-price plan.
4. Lease system (outdoors).
5. State account: products sold on open market.
6. State account: for state use.

Of these, the contract labor and lease systems have been universally
condemned. At the present time, each state has its own system, or lack
of system of handling the convict labor question. Each state endeavors
to avoid competition with free labor in its own particular state. To
do this, many contracts provide that the product shall not be sold
within the state where it is made, and as a result the free labor in
all the states is subject to about the same competition because of this
interstate commerce in prison-made goods.

The farming out and disposing of the labor of convicts by contracts
to private persons or corporations, is the most pernicious form of
competition to which free labor is subjected. The piece-price plan and
state-account, when the product is disposed of on the open market,
either to favored persons or corporations, or without regard to market
conditions or prevailing market price, is not much better. All of these
systems except the state account plan, where the product is used by
the state or state institutions, tend toward the concentrating of the
productions into a few trades. The concentrating of prison-made goods
into a few trades is bitterly opposed by free labor. Such products
are sold in the open market at less than the market prices, and this
unfair, cruel competition drives free manufacturers out of business,
free workmen out of employment, and puts a penalty on the wage-earner
who keeps out of prison.

The old systems of labor have been tried, have been weighed in the
balance and found wanting. The story of graft and corruption of prison
officials who have had anything to do with contracts for prison labor
under any system, except the state account plan, where the products
are used by the state, or in the state institutions, has aroused
almost every state in our Union. The reports of state investigating
committees and of committees appointed by civic organizations, are such
as to be almost unbelievable. The abuses, the atrocities, the crimes
that are committed in the use of convict labor, have brought down the
condemnation of all right thinking citizens, and created a demand for a
system of labor that will not be subject to those conditions.

In the movement for better conditions, organized labor takes a stand
in the front rank. Of all of the systems of work that have been used
in the various penal institutions the one most successful is the
state account system by which the labor of the convicts is used for
the state, and the products for the state institutions. This system
eliminates nearly all incentive to bribery of prison officials, the
exploitation of convict labor and the opposition to the parole laws.
Under it the whole people get whatever benefits may be derived from the
labor of the prisoners of the state.

Organized labor is on record as favoring this system. When the prison
officials recognize that the profits of the prisoners’ labor belongs to
the state, that the state is more interested in reforming the prisoner
than making a profit on him, such officials thereupon become much
better officials for the state as a whole.

The efforts of the prison officials are thereafter directed toward
curing our morally sick men and women, and new and various methods are
tried. In this connection I might mention the experiment as reported
in the press of September 30, of this year, of Ray Baker, warden of
the Nevada state penitentiary, who, in company with three unarmed
assistants, took fifty-two convicts, many of them life termers, to
attend a theatrical performance. Every convict was upon honor, and not
one violated his word.

How many of our prison officials will hold up their hands in holy
horror at such unconventional conduct on the part of the warden?

Slavery and involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime
is forbidden in the United States by the thirteenth amendment to the
constitution. It is by this amendment that the state has any right in
the labor of convicts. That right, I think, should only exist when
the convict labors for the state or its institutions. Where the state
through its courts has no power, as punishment for crime, to sentence a
convict to labor for private persons, it should have no right to do so
directly by contracts with private persons providing for the labor or
the product of the labor of the convicts.

Under the plan organized labor favors, the convicts are always under
the control of the state and its authorized officials. They may be
shifted from one form of work to another as the needs of the state or
the health and training of the convicts require.

Every convict who has no trade and is capable of learning one should be
taught one most suitable for him. Not in a haphazard, spasmodic way,
but in a way that will make him an efficient, intelligent mechanic,
retaining skill, and able to follow the trade when he is released.
In the arrangement of employment for the prisoners the state should
endeavor to supply itself with everything necessary in its various
institutions. Convicts should be employed as nearly as possible at the
work they are accustomed to, especially if they are skilled mechanics,
in order that they should not lose their skill. A large proportion of
the convicts are men accustomed to outdoor life, either on farms or
other outdoor labor; many of them are convicted of crimes in no way
violent or due to vicious or violent dispositions.

To confine men of this kind in cells and compel them to work in shops
is to endanger their health, break them down physically, and return
them to society not only morally sick, but also physically and mentally
sick.

The death rate from tuberculosis is much higher in prisons than
outside. In some prisons the conditions are such that a sentence of
five years or more means almost invariably another case of tuberculosis
and death.

The danger to the public from the clothing and other products made by
these tuberculosis infected convicts is so great that if the public
only knew the facts, prompt remedial legislation would be forced. The
states are spending millions of dollars annually to eliminate or reduce
the great “white plague,” yet at the same time they are maintaining
also at public expense some of the worst causes. These convicts are
returned to society about every five years, and the product of their
labor is in every state in the Union. Is it not better and cheaper to
prevent tuberculosis by wiping out one of its most prolific causes than
to let it continue to spread pain, misery and death, among our people
who have committed no crime?

As large an amount of outdoor work as possible should be provided. A
large farm should be operated, on which not only necessary foodstuffs
be raised, but a flour mill for the grinding of flour and all other
necessary plants for the turning of the different raw products into
the finished articles needed in the various institutions. The making
of roads is needed in almost every state, and is an ideal occupation
for convicts. After providing for the needs of the state and state
institutions the surplus labor could be used in this way. Only those
convicts should be put to work on the roads who have been convicted of
minor offenses, and can be trusted without ball and chain and armed
guards. In this day of speedy communications by telegraph, telephone
and wireless, the old restraints are very much less needed.

At the present time none of the prisons of the country are
self-supporting. All of these penal institutions are a burden on
taxpayers of this country. All free workmen are taxpayers of the state,
either directly or indirectly. It is unfair that any one part of the
taxpayers should be discriminated against by the state. Concentrating
the labor of prisoners in an institution into a few trades forces the
free labor in those trades to enter into competition with the state.
The selling of convict labor products on the open market in competition
with free labor, at any price, throws free taxpayers, into ruthless
competition with the state. Using convict labor to furnish the needs of
the state and state institutions not only removes the state from the
market for free labor, but also permits free manufacturers to meet each
other in fair, free competition. They are then all equal as to labor
costs, no products of slave labor being thrown at any price on the open
market.

Organized labor asks no special privileges in this matter, but wants
simply that each free laborer be treated the same as every other
free man; that he pay only his just share of the tax necessary to
the maintenance of the state and its penal institutions; that he be
subjected to only his fair share of the competition incident to the
manufacture of any product within the penal institutions; that a system
of employment be inaugurated and maintained in the penal institutions
of the country that will educate and reform the convicts; that the
products of all convict labor should be used entirely by the state and
institutions of the state, where the convict is incarcerated; that the
labor of the convicts should be so diversified that the burden will
fall as equally as possible on all free labor within the state; that
the exploitation of convicts or their labor or the products of their
labor for the benefit of individuals be not permitted in any form;
that a rate of compensation be allowed for the product of convicts
based upon the labor costs outside prisons, and that, after deducting
from the earnings of the convicts the cost of maintenance and other
proper and necessary costs, the balance should be used either for the
dependent family of the convict, the reimbursement of those who have
been injured or suffered through the crime, of the convict, or kept for
the use of the convict and given to him when he is released; that when
a convict is discharged or paroled, a place be provided for his care
until he is able to secure employment in the line he has been taught,
and means provided to secure him employment.

In all movements for the betterment of prisoners and the welfare of
prisoners, organized labor has assisted. Every law enacted in the
United States, changing and bettering prison conditions has either been
initiated or strongly supported by the labor unions. The improvement of
sanitary conditions in the prisons; the providing of dining rooms are
all improvements largely due to the efforts made by organized labor.

The adoption of the foregoing plans will make of the penal institutions
of our country industrial institutions for the saving of morally sick
men and women committed to them. The inmates of such institutions
will return to the body politic with a corrected perspective due to a
training under a state government that desires to reform as well as
correct. They will again take their places in society not only willing,
but able to do their share of the world’s work. This is the attitude of
organized labor toward convict labor.




                     TURNING BEGGARS INTO WORKERS

                   BY O. F. LEWIS, GENERAL SECRETARY

                    PRISON ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK

[In the Summer of 1911, Mr. Lewis traveled through Belgium, Holland,
Germany, England and Scotland, studying European methods of dealing
with delinquents, and especially the beggar colonies of Central Europe.
The following article is a part of one chapter of Mr. Lewis’s report
to the Prison Association of New York, which will be presented to the
Legislature in 1912. The report has special significance because the
state of New York is to build a compulsory farm colony for habitual
tramps and vagrants.]


Foreign countries, notably Belgium, Holland and Germany, have had
lengthy and varied experience with the problem of vagabondage and
mendicancy. Indeed in Central Europe the vagrancy problem is not alone
a generation old, but a century old. Napoleon devoted some of his
genius to the problem of the suppression of vagabondage. When the Dutch
possessed Belgium as well as Holland, Dutch benevolent societies sought
the reformation and rehabilitation of the vagabond. A half century ago
Holland was segregating over one thousand vagabonds and beggars on the
bleak heath in the north of Holland near the Zuyder Zee and already
turning the arid plain into a blooming oasis. Belgium was creating
fifty years ago local beggar colonies, and recognizing that vagrancy
is one of the great social dangers of a nation, a danger increasing
inevitably with the progress of civilization. Germany was thirty
years ago this year establishing its first voluntary labor colony at
Bielefeld in Central Prussia. Pastor von Bodelschwingh, the great
organizer of philanthropic institutions for defectives of all kinds,
founded with deep religious conviction his first farm colony for the
“brothers of the highway.” Compulsory workhouses, semi-penal in nature,
have come to number about thirty in the kingdom of Prussia, containing
not thieves, not cases of assault, not robbers, not other criminals
of greater or less degree, but solely vagrants, mendicants, and that
despicable class of human beings, the souteneurs, who traffic in human
flesh.

Today the accumulated experience of generations can be found in
the records and in the methods of administration of Belgian beggar
colonies, Dutch vagrancy colonies, German free labor colonies and
German compulsory workhouses. It is unthinkable that the United States,
ever ready in commercial and industrial lines to profit not only by the
mistakes but by the successes of other nations, will be blind to the
wealth of experience that European countries can offer us.

With the purpose of rendering a slight contribution to American
information on this subject, a considerable part of my last summer’s
tour in Belgium, Holland, Germany, England and Scotland, as general
secretary of the prison association of New York, was devoted to the
first-hand study of the administration of institutions for vagrants and
mendicants and the study also of their history and of the laws under
which at various times they have been operated. In several chapters
following this introductory chapter I present a somewhat careful study
of Merxplas the world-famous beggar colony of Belgium; of Veenhuizen,
the less known but remarkably interesting vagrancy colony of Holland;
of the free labor colonies and the compulsory workhouses of Prussia
and Germany; and of conditions and problems of vagrancy in England and
Scotland.

Several general observations may well precede the special chapters.

1. In all four of the countries above mentioned (Belgium, Holland,
England and Scotland) the correctional institutions in which vagrants
and mendicants are confined are under the same governing body as that
which governs the prisons. In Belgium and Holland, the department
of justice controls the beggar colonies and the vagrancy colonies.
In England and Scotland the boards of prison commissioners are the
governing bodies not only for the convict prisons in which the more
serious offenders are imprisoned, but also the local prisons, which
are the places of imprisonment of beggars and mendicants. In Prussia,
the Arbeitshâuser (compulsory workhouses) are under provincial, not
royal control. In short, in Prussia compulsory workhouses are county
institutions, or in the case of Berlin municipal institutions, rather
than state institutions. We find, herefore, in Holland and Belgium
special institutions for the imprisonment of vagrants and mendicants
controlled by the state, in Prussia special institutions for the
imprisonment of vagrants and mendicants controlled by the provinces
corresponding in general to our American counties; we find in England
and Scotland local prisons, not specially designated for vagrants
and mendicants, controlled by the state through boards of prison
commissioners. While in Prussia the American student might perhaps
expect under provincial (county) management a condition analogous to
the indifferent if not highly neglectful management of correctional
institutions so familiar to American students, where politics rule
in county affairs, the fact is that the Prussian county compulsory
workhouses are managed with that German thoroughness, efficiency,
and integrity which makes these county institutions, so far as my
observations went, fully comparable with the management of the state
prisons and penitentiaries.

The important point is that the state, or in Prussia the county, can
organize and operate its institutions for vagrants and mendicants
independent of petty local prejudices or ignorance, and regardless of
pernicious political influences. If the state concludes to institute
in its labor colonies or other institutions an innovation or a method
well tested elsewhere, it has the power. As with us in New York,
state institutions are in general far better managed than the local
institutions, so in European countries I visited the principle of state
control and operation of all correctional institutions is held to be
fundamentally correct. If in Prussia the local institutions were poorly
managed, undoubtedly the state would seek to step in and take over
the management of these institutions. Briefly then, it can be stated
that state control and operation of institutions for the treatment of
vagrants and tramps is a principle justified by European experience.

2. In all European countries visited, I found a most admirable absence
of political influence. Repeatedly it was impressed upon me by high
authorities that politics play no deleterious part in the appointments
of officials, high or low, in the course of justice. To be sure each
country has its political parties, but the integrity of men in office
is, I was informed, rarely if ever questioned. Positions such as
secretary-general of the department of justice, which office carries
with it in Holland and Belgium the administration of prisons and
other correctional institutions, or that of the head of the Prussian
prison system, or that of chairman of the prison commissioners of
England or Scotland is practically a position of life tenure, during
good behavior. Governors and directors of prisons, and subordinate
officials as well, hold office without fear of removal for any cause
except dereliction of duty, incompetency or immorality. Frequently
indeed was the plea made to me: “Urge above all things the removal of
American prisons from politics.” In short, the type of prison employee
from governor down to the list of attendants is, from the standard of
integrity, admirable in all countries I visited. That such conditions
make for good service through the elimination of the worry as to tenure
and through the elimination of voluntary or compulsory dishonesty under
the pressure of political influences is self-evident.

3. On the continent vagrants and mendicants as found in the colonies
and in the compulsory workhouses are very noticeably different from our
typical tramp or vagrant, in that the European tramp in prison is much
older than our typical youthful or young adult wanderer. In Merxplas
and in Veenhuizen the young tramp was a rarity. Perhaps ninety-five per
cent. of the population of the colonies was at least forty-five years
old. The population of the several compulsory workhouses visited in
Prussia averaged somewhat younger, but nevertheless was considerably
older than the average age of our tramp army.

Added to this was the fact, everywhere observable, that the great
majority of the tramps and vagrants possessed a trade. They could
accomplish at least moderate results with their hands and they
seemed to wish to do satisfactory work to a reasonable extent. As
illustrations I cite the tailoring department, the shoe making
department and the trunk department at Merxplas, and the weaving and
the carpentry work at Veenhuizen. The great majority of the vagrants
and the beggars who are segregated in Holland, Belgium and Germany are
men who know how to do things with their hands and heads sufficiently
well to earn a living, but who are either physically or mentally
so under par that they cannot work hard enough, or will not save
money enough, to render them permanently self supporting. Hence they
gravitate, generally without marked criminal instincts or intentions,
into vagabondage or vagrancy, are arrested, and sent or returned to the
beggar colony. In these colonies, under a control which they are not
adverse to, and with a shifting of responsibility which they are glad
of, they produce a moderate amount of product with a moderate amount
of pleasure in their work. The directors of the colonies and other
representatives of the departments of justice claim that the men are
happier in the colonies and are better off by far than they would be
outside.

4. The beggar colonies and the compulsory workhouses are in practically
no sense reformatories. The importance of this fact cannot be
over-emphasized. There seems to be a rather general belief in the
United States that farm colonies for tramps and vagrants will be
important reformative agencies. European experience is directly
contrary to this belief. European sociologists, directors of colonies,
prison physicians, or prison commissioners without exception stated
emphatically to me that the percentage of reformation (by which is
meant fairly permanent rehabilitation) is exceedingly small from the
colonies and the compulsory workhouses. The history of beggar colonies
in Belgium and Holland shows that those colonies began with large
hopes of reformation and that in the course of years and generations
it has become thoroughly manifest that the tramp and vagrant is what
he is through a lack of stamina, will, physique or brain, whatever we
may call it in the individual instance, without which it is impossible
for him to lead a normal and self-supporting existence. Just as we in
the United States are coming to see that the feeble-minded criminal
and non-criminal are chronically deficient and that feeble-mindedness
means an absence of a quality which cannot be replaced or cured, so
with vagrancy and its twin sister mendicancy, European conclusions are
emphatic that vagrancy and mendicancy, especially in the more advanced
stages, must be regarded as manifestations of a social inefficiency
and incompetency which require segregation and custodial care, in most
instances permanently or for long periods.

If ever a labor colony was organized and conducted with the earnest
purpose of reformation of a large proportion of its inmates, the
voluntary labor colony at Bielefeld was such a one. Yet after thirty
years the parent colony, known throughout the civilized world and
quoted more than any other of its kind, bears this testimony through
its secretary, given to me on August 6, 1911: “This colony is not
successful in reforming many men or in making them permanently self
supporting. This colony is successful in furnishing, as do the score
of other colonies in Germany, a haven to the “brothers of the highway”
who are stranded and unable to live honestly without our help. This
colony is a colony not for the permanent rehabilitation of its inmates,
but for the temporary succor of those who seek our help. A large
proportion of our brothers come time and again to see us. They think
themselves strong enough to leave us, but they come back. If they do
not come to us, they go to other colonies from time to time. Many of
our colonists are discharged prisoners. Many of them are at times in
the voluntary labor colonies, at times in the compulsory workhouses. We
have many instances of successful reformation and rehabilitation, but
the voluntary labor colony as represented by Bielefeld colony has not
solved the problem of the elimination of the tramp.”

On the other hand, opinion is general that the compulsory labor colony
as represented by the beggar colony or compulsory workhouse is of
great value as a deterrent and as a custodial institution. None of
the countries would, I believe, give up the colony idea, although
statements were frequently made that the colony should be smaller,
classifications more developed and that the efforts to influence
for the better the individual colonists should be more frequent and
varied. At Merxplas the secretary general of the Belgian department of
justice, the administrative head of the Belgian system, stated to me
that Belgium is planning numerous smaller colonies to take the place
of Merxplas. The feeling is pronounced in Belgium, Holland and Germany
that the most that can be achieved by any present method of dealing
with vagrants is the gradual reduction of the number of vagrants, the
deterrence of many would-be vagrants, and the segregation of a large
number of inevitable vagrants and beggars where they may do the least
harm to society at a minimum expense to society.

Although vagrants in the colonies and the workhouses manifest in
general a restlessness and a frequent desire for liberty, they are
themselves aware that their condition in general is better in the
colonies than outside. Indeed, at Merxplas, and particularly at
Veenhuizen the American visitor finds a beauty of landscape and a
condition of intensive development of garden and meadow, grove and
forest, canal and highway that renders both institutions scenically
beautiful.

The Prussian compulsory workhouse, Brauweiler, is most attractively
located in a renovated cloister, the original buildings of which
are 1,000 years old. The spacious rooms, the impressive arched
corridors, the striking central courts of the cloister as well as the
well preserved cloister church dating back to the tenth century, are
all impressive and even awe-inspiring. The workhouse prisoners eat
in cloistered passages where 500 years ago the monks had their daily
meals. The prisoners worship in a church used by royalty and nobles
at the time of the crusades. Even a spreading mulberry tree in one
of the court yards, furnishing shade from time to time for some of
the inmates, was planted a thousand years ago by the founders of the
monastery. In Rummelsburg, adjacent to Berlin, the walled workhouse
embraces ample grounds, a spacious garden and attractive buildings. At
Veenhuizen in Holland, the heath has been made to blossom like the rose
and no finer views of Holland scenery can be found than those in the
midst of the 7,000 acres embraced by the colony.

5. Not only do the vagrants live under such surroundings, but in nearly
all instances they and their predecessors have thus created their
surroundings. Merxplas and Veenhuizen were as the rest of the heath
when they were founded. Today the cold north wind, blowing down from
the North Sea, is checked before striking the grounds and buildings of
Veenhuizen by forests planted by the colonists a generation or more
ago. The large dormitories, accommodating 500 men each, in which the
Merxplas colonists sleep, were built by colonists most of whom have
passed away. The arable farm land of Merxplas, which now supplies the
bulk of the vegetable products needed by the colony, was made fertile
by gangs of colonists in previous years who rooted out the weeds and
heather and utilized the street sweepings of Antwerp in a mixture of
top soil. Shops, churches, officers’ quarters, farm buildings, farm
implements and wagons have been built by the colonists in these several
institutions. Stock has been bred and raised at the colony and to the
maximum extent the colonists are rendered self supporting. In addition,
industries are maintained to the maximum extent possible with hand and
foot power, it being still a literal principle in the colonies and in
the workhouses that by the sweat of his brow shall the colonist earn
his bread. Oftentimes the rigor of the work impressed me unpleasantly,
particularly the weaving by hand and foot power at Merxplas and at
Veenhuizen, which was carried on by many aged men who in our country
would seem candidates for an idle almshouse life.

In short, one of the important lessons taught by the colonies and the
workhouses is that there is in tramps and vagrants (at least in Central
Europe) a very large amount of latent productivity, which directed
normally and under conditions offering the least resistance can be made
financially profitable to the state.

6. European vagrants and beggars seem seldom malicious and vicious. The
colonies in Belgium and Holland are not regarded as penal institutions,
and in Prussia as only semi-penal. Discipline is comparatively easy,
the proportion of infractions of rules varying largely in proportion
to the tact, discretion and humanity of the director and of his
assistants. Throughout the Merxplas colony the words docility and
disobedience kept recurring to my mind. In Merxplas and Veenhuizen
the men come and go without the restriction of walls. Escape is easy
and the possibilities are often taken advantage of. As noted in the
special chapters that follow, little is done to follow up this escape
so long as the fugitives show a disposition to re-establish themselves
in industrial life. “Peace and good will” seem to be mottoes in the
colonies. In the Merxplas colony one finds many mottos printed in
French and Flemish admonishing the colonists to forsake the vices
and cleave to the virtues. Other religious influences, however, are
not very noticeable. By comparison, the atmosphere of Bielefeld, a
voluntary labor colony of Prussia, seems permeated with devoutness and
outward religious observance.




                     GOVERNOR WEST’S PRISON POLICY

                        BY REV. O. A. STILLMAN

[The prison policies of several governors have lately attracted
attention, notably those of Governor West of Oregon, Schafroth of
Colorado, Foss of Massachusetts and Gilchrist of Florida. The following
article, written by one closely in touch with Oregon prison conditions
and published in “Lend a Hand,” is a useful outline of Governor West’s
work in Oregon for prison betterment.]


There has been much comment in the papers and magazines lately
regarding Governor West’s prison policy; some of which has been written
in a friendly spirit, some of it in a spirit of criticism, and some of
it, while undoubtedly written in a friendly spirit, has, because of
insufficient information, had rather the result of putting the governor
and his policies in a false light.

Some of these writers, probably with the best intentions, have given
the impression that Governor West’s policy flashed upon the unmitigated
horrors of the Oregon state penitentiary like a flash of lightning out
of a clear sky, without any preparation or previous warning. If this
had been true, it would probably have resulted only in disaster, as far
as the policy is concerned, and in making the governor appear rash and
inconsiderate, if not ridiculous.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Governor West knew perfectly
well what he was doing, and, so far as I have been able to judge, he
has been eminently wise in his reforms. He has not entered into this
work without having given a great deal of study to its problems, and he
seems to have a large fund of information regarding the conditions he
is trying to meet.

The fact is that the change in the prison policy began in the spring
of 1903. At that time conditions were just about as bad as they have
been pictured. The generosity of the people of the state of Oregon did
not go to the length of furnishing the prisoners in the penitentiary
even such common necessities as socks and underclothing. Flogging was
common, and the hose, no less terrible as a punishment than the whip,
was considered a necessity in the government of the penitentiary. There
was no common dining room, and the men lived, slept, cooked and ate in
their cells. An exceedingly limited and coarse fare was provided by
the state, but the prisoner who had money could send out and purchase
provisions, which he could cook in his cell over a small oil stove.
The prisoner who had no money had to content himself with dry bread
and bean soup flavored with the smell from the cooking of his more
fortunate neighbor. Sanitary conditions were shockingly bad, and at one
time resulted in a large number of cases of typhoid fever. The spirit
of the inmates was exceedingly dangerous, as witnessed by the fact that
the officers of the prison considered it unsafe to go among the men
without a guard. The Tracy-Merrill outbreak was a fair sample of the
spirit of the institution at that time.

On April 1, 1903, C. W. James as superintendent and Frank C. Curtis as
warden, appointees of Governor George E. Chamberlain, took charge of
affairs at the prison. They proceeded cautiously, but with a marked
advance in their treatment of the prisoners.

The striped clothing formerly worn by the prisoners was abolished,
except as a mark of disgrace for infraction of the prison rules.
Flogging was abolished by act of the legislature. Necessary
underclothing was furnished the prisoners. A dining room was built
and cooking in the cells was stopped. The sanitary conditions were
improved. An orchestra and band were organized among the prisoners.
A parole officer was provided, whose duties were practically that of
chaplain. A prisoners’ aid society was organized, which looked after
the welfare of the prisoners, both before and after release. A printing
office was donated by the prisoner’s aid society, and the publication
of a small monthly paper by the prisoners and in their interest was
begun. This paper was known as “Lend a Hand,” and has now a circulation
that reaches across the continent. An innovation worthy of special
mention was the permission of baseball games between clubs of the
prisoners, which the prisoners were not only permitted to witness, but
they were allowed to cheer and “root” to their heart’s content. These
and various other reforms which were inaugurated during the eight years
previous to Governor West’s inauguration laid the foundation for the
success of his policies.

Great as had been the changes before the term of Governor West began,
they had been spread out over a period of eight years, and while
awakening considerable opposition, had not attracted much notice. When
Governor West came into office, notwithstanding what had already been
accomplished, he found plenty of room for improvement, and he went at
it in characteristic fashion. His “honor system” was put into effect
and with surprising success, if one did not know of the care with which
the cases were selected to whom it should be applied. The indeterminate
sentence law was passed by the last legislature, and provision was
made for a parole law and a parole board to have oversight of its
administration. Various advanced methods of treatment of the prisoners
were adopted, prominent among which were plans for giving the prisoners
a portion of their earnings. The contract system of employing the
prisoners has been practically abolished, or will be as soon as the
work now begun is completed.

A new auditorium has been built entirely by convict labor. A weekly
moving picture entertainment is furnished the prisoners and various
schemes for the improvement of their condition have been put into
effect, all with the result that the burden of expense has been
lightened, and the inmates have come to feel more as if they were still
considered human beings. The details of these improvements are too well
known to need repetition here. It but remains for me to say that, with
the unusual opportunities accorded me as manager of the printing office
and “Lend a Hand” to observe the effect of his policies in the working
out, I am impressed not only with the spirit of Governor West, and the
scope of the plans which he proposes to put into effect, but even more
with the wisdom he has shown in the reforms he has undertaken.

The fundamental principle of Governor West’s prison policy appears
to be that “A man’s a man for a’ that.” While he believes that
prison sentences are primarily for the protection of society, he
also apparently believes that the protection of society will be
best accomplished by helping the prisoner regain his manhood and
self-respect, and that is the keynote of his policy. I asked an
“old-timer” the other day to tell me how the spirit of the inmates of
the prison now compared with that of the time before these reforms
began. He said: “There is no comparison; they are as different as
heaven and hell.”




                  THE WAYWARD GIRL AND THE BINET TEST

            BY HENRY H. GODDARD, PH. D., AND HELEN F. HILL

[This is an abstract of a paper published in “The Training School” for
June, 1911. Dr. Goddard is no theorist; his conclusions always deserve
very serious thought.]


It was with a good deal of interest that we accepted the offer of a
prominent probation officer to examine some fifty of her girls who had
been in the girls’ reformatory, but were now out on probation.

Some little experience with similar groups had led us to feel confident
that quite a percentage of these girls would be found to be distinctly
feeble-minded, but we were not prepared for the results that we did
find. In all, fifty-six girls were examined, ranging in age from
fourteen to twenty, the average probably being eighteen and a half. The
usual misgivings were had on the part of those who knew the girls, as
to the effect of asking them to do the test, but as experience always
shows, there was not the slightest difficulty. Indeed, the girls took
hold of the tests with great earnestness and enjoyment, and, after they
were through, were very proud of their achievements.

The results are summarized as follows: One of them tested eight
years, that is, shows the mentality of a normal girl of eight
years of age; twelve tested nine years; fourteen tested ten years;
fourteen, eleven years; eleven, twelve years, and four did the tests
for thirteen. As the tests for thirteen have been demonstrated to be
much more difficult than that age would indicate, _we may say that
four out of the fifty-six are not feeble-minded, as we usually define
feeble-mindedness. The rest are clearly mental defectives_, and could
be made, or could have been made, had they been taken early enough,
happy and useful in an institution for feeble-minded. As it is, they
must always be a trouble, must always be a disappointment, incapable of
bearing the responsibilities that have been put upon them, and, what
is worse, they will be, as many of them already are, mothers of more
feeble-minded and deficient persons.

To appreciate the full force of this, one should see these girls and
note their characteristics, their physical appearance, and those
qualities and characteristics that go to make up the type of young
woman--those things that make us instinctively feel that they are
responsible persons and make so many persons even now refuse to believe
that such can be feeble-minded, and yet here are the tests. And
more than that, here is the test of life--they are unable to adjust
themselves to their environment and will always be unable.

Perhaps the reader may be inclined to say, “But these tests show that
they are ignorant and that it is because they have not been to school,
or have not profited by their school experience.” But such is not
the case. These are not tests of school training; they are tests of
mental development. Any person who has lived in any sort of average
environment for the requisite number of years is able to do these
tests, even though he has never been to school, even for a day, and by
failing in these they manifest their mental defectiveness.

It begins to look as though we have been attempting to solve the
problem of the wayward girl by beginning at the wrong end. We have
assumed that she was competent and responsible--that she was able to
do differently, if she would, and we have tried by various forms of
punishment to reform her. Apparently we have been grossly in error,
and it is a fundamental mistake we have made. We should have begun by
finding out in early age whether this child had normal mental capacity
or not and, if not, we should have taken the case in hand and provided
for her such environment as would have fitted her mental condition. The
past is gone, the mistakes cannot be rectified; but, if we are wise,
from now on we will proceed in accordance with what we are finding out
about this class of persons. Instead of enlarging our reformatories we
will establish colonies and schools, where these girls can be taken,
as early as we can detect them, cared for and trained to do the things
they can be trained to do; where they will be made happy and allowed to
live a happy and measureably useful life under the care, guidance and
direction of intelligent and humane people, who will make their lives
happy and partially useful, but who will insist upon the one important
thing, and that is that this race should end with them; they shall
never become the mothers of children who are like themselves.




                       THANKSGIVING IN THE CABIN

                     BY AUBURN, (N. Y.) NO. 29118


                                   1

    De winter’s come, an’ de darkies shiver;
      (Whoo-whoo, how de wind do blow!)
    De trees, dey’s moanin’ in de dark down by de river;
      (Whoo-whoo, how de wind do blow!)
    We gadder in de cabin, an’ we shet de door,
    Throw a log on de fi-ah, fo’ to see hit roar,
    An’ ole King Frost, he growl so fierce an’ sore.
      (Whoo-whoo, how de wind do blow!)


                                   2

    De old norf wind again de cabin door crashes;
      (Whoo-whoo, how de wind do blow!)
    Possum’s in de pot, and de sweet yam’s in de ashes;
      (Whoo-whoo, how de wind do blow!)
    Flitch o’ bacon in de pan--lawdy, hear it frying.
    Hain’t no sorter music dat’s near so satisfyin’;
    Corn pone am hot an’ brown--pickininnies sighin’.
      (Whoo-whoo, how de wind do blow!)


                                   3

    Ev’rybody gadder ’round de supper table;
      (Whoo-whoo, how de wind do blow!)
    Ev’rybody eats des as much, as much as dey is able;
      (Whoo-whoo, how de wind do blow!)
    Lil’ yaller dawg, he snug down by de fi-ah,
    Chewin’ all de possum bones dat he could desi-ah;
    Seems des like we all is full o’ happiness enti-ah.
      (Whoo-whoo, how de wind do blow!)


                                   4

    Supper table’s cl’ared away; pap he gits his fiddle;
      (Whoo-whoo, how de wind do blow!)
    Ev’rybody dances--up and down de middle.
      (Whoo-whoo, how de wind do blow!)
    When de reel am finished, den pappy plays a break-down;
    Rufe he double-shuffles till you’d fink de roof would shake-down;
    Then we pass de cider jug, and mammy brings the cake roun’.
      (Whoo-whoo, how de wind do blow!)


                                   5

    Ev’ry darkey suttinly feels happy ’round Thanksgivin’;
    Lawdy, yes, dey’s scrumptiously glad dat dey is livin’.
    Sorrer takes a day of--this hain’t no time for woe--
    And hit makes no diff’runce how de wind do blow.




                            EVENTS IN BRIEF

[Under this heading will appear each month numerous paragraphs of
general interest, relating to the prison field and the treatment of the
delinquent.]


_A Prison Philosopher._--Number 6203 in the Oregon state penitentiary
sees things thus:

Men are like cigars. Often you cannot tell by the wrapper what the
filler is. Sometimes a good old stogie is more popular than an imported
celebrity. Some men are all right in the show-case on display, but
are great disappointments when you get them home. No matter how fine
a man is, eventually he meets his match. A “two-fer” often puts on as
many airs as a fifty-center. Some men never get to the front at all
except in campaigns. Some are very fancy outside and are selected for
presents. Others have a rough exterior, but spread cheer and comfort
all about them because of what is inside. But all men, as all cigars,
good or bad, two-fers, stogies, rich or poor, come to ashes at last.


_Sterilization in New Jersey._--Governor Wilson has announced the
members of the commission provided for in the sterilization bill passed
at the last session of the legislature. The bill stipulates that George
O. Osborne, head keeper of the New Jersey state prison; Dr. Frank
Moore, superintendent of the Rahway reformatory, and Dr. George B.
Wight, commissioner of charities and corrections, shall be members of
the commission ex-officio. The Governor has named Dr. Henry D. Costill,
of Trenton, and Dr. Alexander Marcy, jr., of Burlington, as the two
other members. Dr. Costill’s term is for three years and Dr. Marcy’s
for five years.

The bill provides for the sterilization of such criminally insane
persons and defectives as in the judgment of the commission it would be
wise to treat thus.


_Big Brothers Show Results._--The big brothers movement in New York has
been given a 230-acre farm in the suburbs of Trenton, N. J., and $4,000
cash from two anonymous persons.

In the last year 2,195 boys, nearly all of whom had appeared in
children’s court, came under the influence of the big brothers; of this
number only ninety had to be brought a second time before the court. Of
the total, 1,208 boys were cared for by the movement in 1910; 840 more
were arraigned in children’s court this year on various charges; 117
came from institutions, and 1,202 applied at the office for advice or
to seek employment.

All for whom places were obtained proved efficient. Permanent homes
outside the city were obtained for thirty-seven, and but one could not
withstand the lure of the city and moving picture shows, and returned.


_Making Prisoners Useful._--At the federal aid good roads convention
of the American automobile association in Washington on January 16 and
17, 1912, a session will be devoted to the question of the utilization
of prisoners in road building; speakers will be heard from the national
committee on prison labor and the American federation of labor.


To increase the output of the state nurseries of New York to 12,000,000
trees per year, the state conservation commission will establish a
nursery at the Great Meadows prison at Comstock.


A class in road building, composed of more than 200 long term convicts,
has been formed at the Kansas penitentiary at Lansing, and this fall
and winter they will learn the fine points of highway construction and
building boulevards around the prison. Next spring it is hoped to have
a gang of at least 250 men, all experts, who will be put to work on the
river boulevard which is to connect Leavenworth and Kansas City.


Warden John E. Hoyle, of the California state penitentiary, is planning
to manufacture safes by skilled workmen serving sentences for bank
robberies and safe blowing. In trying out the plan he has secured
admirable results, as proof of which he displays a vault in his office
which was reconstructed from worn out articles by prisoners under
sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for robbing a safe. A man who is a
skilled mechanic will take charge of that division of the machine shop
where the manufacture of safes will be carried on.


_Trouble in Ireland._--A strange fault has been found with Irish jails.
The general prisons board reports that the institutions have become
so comfortable and attractive that short sentences, far from having a
reformatory effect, seem to prompt the person once in prison to get
back to the domicile as soon as he can. These short sentence prisoners
are not in long enough to receive the value of any real reform and are
out just long enough to keep themselves confirmed in their vicious
habits. So it happens that the board has recommended longer sentences
for two reasons, one that some real reform may be inculcated and the
other that jail may be made so tedious that culprits will be less ready
to seek the institution as a haven of snug refuge and ease for a time.

The board makes the recommendation that prisoners of education be
given instruction and a chance to study and that others be taught such
things as will tend to increase their usefulness and earning capacity
in the world. A plan is also recommended whereby superintendents of
prisons shall keep in communication with employers to the end that when
prisoners are discharged they may be given work as soon as possible.


_An Excellent Editorial._--Score one for the Boston (Mass.) Transcript,
which says:

“There may have been valid reasons for pardoning a man who has served
four years in our state prison for forging checks and since then has
been in the Springfield jail for another offense, but it is hardly
treating our neighbors well that one of the conditions of his pardon
is that he shall leave the state. If he is entitled to pardon at all
he is entitled to a chance to prove that he is worthy of it in the
jurisdiction where his offenses were committed. It looks too much
like passing our burdens on to others. We have criticised the Italian
government on the alleged charge that, instead of being at the expense
and trouble of punishing its own criminals it has frequently connived
at their emigration to this country. There is ethically not much
difference between that and our own practices. Every state should be
responsible for its own offenders. We do not want the ‘undesirable
citizens’ from other countries or commonwealths passed upon us and
doubtless other states feel the same way about it.”


“_Easy Money._”--Attention has been called by a Boston newspaper to
the vitality which the so-called “Spanish prisoner” swindle exhibits,
despite the repeated exposures to which the game has been subjected,
by the press of the country. Communities in New England, equally with
other sections of the country, continue to report the receipt of fake
appeals, along with the extravagant promises of rewards if money is
sent on, by which the languishing prisoner may be released from prison,
and thus enabled to enter upon possession of his gigantic fortune. The
appeals, it is easy to perceive, would not be sent to individuals where
the swindle has been laid bare, time and again, if out of the batch of
people thus addressed, gullibles were not found in number sufficient to
render the game a profitable one to the swindlers.


_How Many Prisoners Are Innocent?_--In a report read at the Omaha
annual meeting of the American prison association, Frank L. Randall,
chairman of the committee on reformatory work and parole, reported
that the committee devoted an entire year to its search for a case of
capital punishment wherein there was a reasonable doubt as to the guilt
of the victim, and so far has discovered not a single definite case
of the kind. This search was carried on in every prison in the United
States and in Canada, a personal letter having been written to the
warden of every state prison in both countries, and each official was
asked the following questions:

1. Have you personal knowledge of the execution of any person, on
conviction of murder, whom you believe, from subsequent developments,
to have been innocent?

2. Have you personal knowledge of the imprisonment, on conviction
of heinous crime, of any person whom you believe, from subsequent
developments, to have been innocent?

3. If either of the last two questions is answered in the affirmative,
was the victim a worthy person?

To the first question every warden in the United States and Canada
answered “No” unequivocally, with the exception of R. W. McClaughry,
warden of the government prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Colonel
McClaughry was not sure, but said: “I know of one or two who may, in my
opinion, have been executed wrongly.”

Warden Fogarty, of the Indiana state prison, wrote: “I have no
knowledge, personally, of the execution of an innocent person; however,
I have no doubt whatever that some innocent men have been executed.”

To the second question, however, a number of prison officials answered
“Yes,” qualifying their statements by answering question No. 3 with a
negative answer. For instance, Warden McClaughry, of the government
prison, answered, “Yes, a very few,” adding, “In no case could the
party have been called worthy.”

Warden Alston, of Wyoming, says: “Yes. I am confident that I know of
one man in our state who was convicted and sent here who was innocent.
But,” adds the warden, in answering No. 3, “he was of a drunken
disposition, and had he been a sober man would never even have been
suspected or accused.”

Warden Russell, of Marquette, writes: “I don’t think from my experience
as a warden of this prison that the courts make many mistakes.”
However, Dr. Gilmour, of Toronto, answers question No. 2 “Yes,” and
adds as an answer to No. 3: “Most worthy, and results sadder than sad.”
Superintendent C. C. McClaughry, of Boonville, Mo., answers “Yes” to
both No. 2 and No. 3.

Warden Fuller, of Ionia, Mich., writes: “During the seventeen years I
have been warden I know of only one case of wrongful conviction for
offences against property. One prisoner was sent here for stealing a
cow, and another prisoner afterward confessed that he had committed the
crime charged against the other man, in order to get rid of the man
with whose wife he was infatuated.”

Warden Fogarty, of Indiana state prison, writes: “I have not been
convinced by subsequent development that any man convicted and
sentenced here for a heinous crime is innocent.”

The case from the western penitentiary, Pittsburgh, wherein a prisoner
who served fifteen years was pardoned, was pensioned by Carnegie
and heralded as innocent, is treated in the following report: “Your
committee had previously taken pains to write to the warden of the
prison mentioned, but the information elicited did not indicate that
the prisoner had been declared innocent, but was to the effect that
the man had been discharged in the usual way--on recommendation--some
doubt having been raised.”

The writer of the report says: “The writer has for some years made it a
practice to follow up the correspondence or otherwise the most widely
published and sensational accounts of hardships experienced by innocent
persons under judicial conviction, and has been surprised at the meagre
ground upon which such reports rest, though he finds that they are
quite generally credited by the reading public.

“Perhaps his (the secretary’s) report may tend to establish confidence
in the courts on the part of those who are not informed and who have
neither the means nor the time, even if they have the inclination, to
inform themselves, and it might be a good beginning in the effort on
the part of the institutions to be understood by the public.”


_Annual Conference of New York Magistrates._--A number of important
problems before the judges of police courts and children’s courts will
be discussed and acted upon at the third annual state conference of
magistrates, which will meet in Albany on December 8 and 9.

One of the principal subjects to be discussed relates to the need of
a state reformatory for male misdemeanants between 16 and 21 years of
age. Courts outside of New York city have no suitable institutions
to which to commit offenders of this class. A special feature of
the conference will be a stereopticon lecture on the detection and
treatment of defendants who are mentally defective, by Dr. George M.
Parker, psychiatric examiner for the New York prison association. Dr.
Parker has lately examined large numbers of prisoners in the Tombs in
New York city and has found that a large proportion are feeble minded
or otherwise defective.

Other important subjects will refer to the necessity of public
prosecutors in police courts, weaknesses in the present methods of
securing and using court interpreters and the treatment of boys and
youths convicted of illegal train riding, trespassing on railroad
property and stealing from the railroads.




                          Transcriber’s Notes

Page 2: “universally condemed” changed to “universally condemned”

Page 3: “This sysem” changed to “This system”

Page 6: “state instituions” changed to “state institutions”

Page 7: “in he colonies” changed to “in the colonies” “refomative
agencies” changed to “reformative agencies”

Page 8: “At Merrplas” changed to “At Merxplas”

Page 9: “attactive buildings” changed to “attractive buildings”

Page 10: “exceedinly dangerous” changed to “exceedingly dangerous”

Page 15: “been inocent?” changed to “been innocent?”

Page 16: “railroad propery” changed to “railroad property”



*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE REVIEW, VOL. 1, NO. 12, DECEMBER, 1911 ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.