PRISON LABOR IN NEW JERSEY. The following letter from Hon. A. S. Meyrick, of Kingston, New Jersey, one of the Commission ap¬ pointed by the Legislature, in 1879, to investigate the subject of prison labor, will be read with interest: John S. Perry, Esq. : My Dear Sir — There is very little in the history of prison labor in this State which any intelligent Jerseyman can reflect upon with pleasure. Up to 1869 the control of our State prisons was one of the prizes of political success, and its management was intrusted to men who had distinguished themselves rather for zeal in behalf of their respective parties than for any special fitness for the duties required of them. The labor of the convicts was performed in great part on State account, under the direction of the keeper of the prison and his assistants. The financial results were as follows : 2 Prison Labor. YEAR. Cost of keep¬ ing each prisoner. Earnings of each prisoner. Deficit for each prisoner. Average number of prisoners. 1865 . $182 14 $77 37 $104 77 393 1866. 224 60 5 ° *4 174 46 522 1867. 235 48 60 09 1 75 39 S28 1868. 244 70 70 98 173 72 SS 5 1869. 247 67 84 00 163 67 585 This drain upon the treasury of the State, amount¬ ing in 1869 to $95,746.95, for the support of less than 600 convicts, most of whom were amply able to earn their own living, arrested the attention of some of our best citizens, and a bill was introduced in the Legislature of that year, looking toward an almost entire reconstruction of our prison system, and its separation from partisan politics. This bill was shorn of some of its most important provisions, but enough of it became a law to exert a decidedly beneficial influence upon the prison. Under it, most of the business details of the concern passed into the hands of a supervisor, who was appointed by the Governor, Chancellor, Chief Justice, and Attorney- General of the State. The first supervisor was Col. W. R. Murphy of Bordentown, who held the office for ten years. Entering upon its duties strongly prepossessed in favor of the system of 11 public account ,” the experience of a comparatively short period led him to favor its entire abandonment, and the balance sheet of the prison became as follows : Prison Labor. 3 YEAR. Cost of keeping each prisoner. Earnings per prisoner. Deficit per prisoner. Average 'number of prisoners. 1870. $180 OO $102 33 $77 67 57 ° 1871. 208 35 139 69 68 66 526 1872. 207 97 I 5 I 5 ° 56 47 5 2 7 1873 . 221 58 165 84 55 74 545 1874 . 186 96 r6 9 17 17 79 615 l 87 S. 173 58 124 54 49 °4 656 In 1874 the whole available force of the prison was under contract, and for the first and only time since its existence, the institution cost the State less than $j20 per prisoner, over and above the ’receipts from convict labor. But in 1875, under the pressure of the finanical prostration of the time, the contrac¬ tor threw up his contract, leaving 525 able-bodied convicts idle upon the hands of the supervisor for more than one-third of the year. Their re-employ- ment was exceedingly slow and difficult, and the rates allowed for their labor were reduced so seri¬ ously, that the deficit per man for 1876 rose to $98. In the mean time the cry against Convict Com¬ petition with Free Labor had begun. Let me ex¬ tract from Col. Murphy’s report of 1877 his opinion of it. After stating that he had succeeded in the course of the preceding year in contracting the labor of' 450 men, and that the receipts from con¬ vict labor had risen from $40.49 per man in 1876 to $92.66 in 1877, he goes on to say : 4 Prison Labor. “ This satisfactory result is chiefly due to the au¬ thority given by law to the supervisor to contract with manufacturers for the labor of convicts. It is true that the law does not restrict him to that mode of utilizing their labor, but any other would be unwise , because unprofitable. No business can be successfully conducted by individuals who do not possess requisite skill, and more especially if they have no personal interest in its results.” “ Two principal objections are urged against em¬ ploying convicts under the contract system. The first is, that contractors necessarily obtain so much control in the management of a prison and its in¬ mates that it becomes subversive of discipline, and thereby lessens the hope of reforming the criminal. This objection is well founded only when the officer representing the State, permits a contractor to acquire such control by the terms of the contract, or when its terms are not clearly defined.” “ In all the contracts it has been my duty to make for the labor of convicts, the rights, privileges, duties and obligations of both contracting parties have been so distinctly set forth that no controversy has arisen, and no interference with the government of the prison has been allowed.” The second objection is, that the system gives to contractors the power to oppress the convicts, and subject them to needless and cruel punishment.” Prison Labor. 5 “This power is especially guarded against in our contracts. To each of the shop rooms in which the prisoners work, an officer designated by the keeper is assigned, whose duty is to pre¬ serve order, and require every one to perform a fair and reasonable day’s work, and is the sole judge whether or not a convict deserves punish¬ ment.” “The contractors and all their employes are subject to all the rules established for the gov¬ ernment of the prison, and may be excluded from it for a breach of any of such rules. These wholesome provisions and restrictions are accepted by contractors as promotive of their own inter¬ ests, as well as those of the convicts.” “ But these objections are made only against the mode of employing convicts. The recent agitation relative to labor has developed a strong opposition to prison industries under any form, on the grounds that such industries create a ruin¬ ous competition with outside labor.” “Whether such supposed competition furnishes a sufficient reason for maintaining criminals in idleness, and adding the cost of their mainte¬ nance to the tax levy, it is not the province of this report to discuss. If, however, the theory of injurious competition be admitted at all, it will apply with greater power in other directions, and against other forces than convict labor. The influx of skilled labor from abroad, and the 6 Prison Labor. constantly increasing use of labor-saving machin¬ ery, exert an immensely greater influence upon the industries of the country than the produc¬ tions of convicts. The annual increase of the former is nearly equal to the whole number of convicts employed in mechanical industries, while to the latter is to be added the power of steam, which is the real competitor, and to whose pro¬ ductions the industries of penal institutions add an inappreciable item.” “The fallacy of the grounds upon which oppo¬ sition to prison labor is based, has been shown by the exhaustive examination of the whole sub¬ ject made by intelligent mechanics and others, and the arguments, once plausible, have long since been abandoned by nearly all who have taken the pains to investigate the matter.” “ In a population of more than forty millions, the number of convicts engaged in mechanical labor does not exceed twenty thousand, and these are divided among all of the States. It cannot be, therefore, that prison industries, which are so limited in their amount, can depreciate the value of free labor to an extent that can be esti¬ mated.” “As the discussion of this subject in New Jersey is of a recent date, a few facts may per- * This was written by Col. M., ill 1877, when the arrivals of immigrants were less than 142,000. Those for 1881 were 669,431, and for 1882, 788,942— over a million and a half in two years. Twenty per cent of these were skilled laborers —300,000 against less than 25,000 convict mechanics of both sexes and all ages. Prison Labor. 7 haps prevent misapprehension and erroneous con¬ clusions. First : The number of persons engaged in this State in the manufacture of the same class of goods as those produced in the prison, is comparatively small, and hence no important interest is disturbed.” “ Second: A little more than two years ago when over five hundred of our prisoners ceased to work, the demand for other labor in the same line was not increased, nor was it dimin¬ ished when the work was resumed.” “ Third : The argument that those who employ convicts are enabled thereby to undersell the productions of free labor, is not consistent with the fact that the former is very much less in demand than the latter, and altogether fails from the more important fact that the argument is without foundation.” “ Other considerations might be presented, but these will probably be sufficient to lead to a candid inquiry whether the interests of the State would be promoted by abandoning remunerative labor in the prisons.” This was the testimony of an intelligent and conscientious officer after eight years’ experience in the management of the prison industries of New Jersey. Strange as it may seem, it paved the way for his removal from the office he had administered with signal ability and success. The Prison Labor. labor reformers demanded compliance with their dictates rather than demonstration of their ab¬ surdity, and not very long afterward the Gov¬ ernor of the State was obliged to say, “Col. Murphy, I have no fault to find with your ad¬ ministration in any particular, but the fact is, your place is needed for political purposes, and you must go.” In the mean time, however, he had given an¬ other offense to the labor agitators. He had over two hundred able-bodied convicts idle on his hands, and a hat manufacturer offered to take them at good prices. He entertained the proposition. The fact leaked out, and a bill was rushed through both houses of the Legislature pro¬ hibiting the manufacture of hats in the prison. Nearly that whole number of convicts have in consequence remained idle at the expense of the State up to this time, each of whom might have earned the whole or a greater part of the cost of his maintenance but for the interference of the labor reformers. Col. Murphy was removed. His successor was supposed to be more pliable, but being a shrewd and practica 4 business man, he no sooner became familiar with the duties of the office than, con¬ vinced of the soundness of the views of his pre¬ decessor in regard to convict labor, he set about carrying them out. To remove him has thus far been impossible. But his recommendations and Prison Labor. 9 suggestions have been steadily ignored, and his efforts to make the prison self-sustaining thwarted by the steady opposition of the labor reformers. Weary of the agitation of the- subject, in 1879 the Legislature proposed to close it by providing for the appointment of a commission to investi¬ gate the relations between convict and free labor, and suggest such remedies for the competition be¬ tween them, if any, as they should deem wise or necessary. This commission, after devoting sev¬ eral months to the duty assigned it, reported “that the labor of the prison should be mechani¬ cal ; that the amount of goods produced in the prison was too small to exert any serious injury upon the trades outside, and that the abolition of the contract system, so long as prisons are man¬ aged and controlled in the interest of partisan politics, would increase the prison expenses, de¬ moralize and corrupt the prison officers, and bring no substantial benefit to the free workmen.” It declared also that in the opinion of its men- bers, “ the evils for the redress of which it was created were more apparent than real.” In these conclusions similar commissions created by Mas¬ sachusetts and Connecticut unanimously agreed. The Governor of New Jersey, to whom the com¬ mission reported, declared these conclusions un¬ answerable, but the labor reformers ignored them altogether, and kept up the agitation with 2 i o Prison Labor. more diligence than before, as the new supervisor soon found to his cost. The revival of business in 1880 led one of the oldest and most responsible of prison contractors to make overtures for the prison labor of New Jersey. He offered to take every available man in the prison at rates that would have made the institution self-supporting or nearly so. The super¬ visor would gladly have availed himself of the pro¬ posal, but his contracts had a few months to run, and the Legislature met in the interval. To it came the labor men, demanding the passage of a law prohibiting the employment of more than fifty men in any branch of industry. The Legisla¬ ture was not quite ready to destroy the whole system of prison labor of the State at once, but it agreed to make the limit one hundred men for each industry, and passed the bill in this shape. Of course negotiations with large concerns became impossible. The supervisor advertised in the papers of this and adjoining States for proposals for con¬ vict labor, with great diligence. He got propo¬ sals for the labor of three hundred and twenty out of his eight hundred convicts at rates of thirty-seven cents each per day and under. None of these could be accepted. His contracts ex¬ pired and the whole work of the prison was stop¬ ped. One of the best of the old contractors re¬ moved his machinery, etc., to the State Prison of Prison Labor. 11 South Carolina, where he obtained a larger con¬ tract at lower rates than he had paid in New Jersey. The dead-lock continued for over two months, the prisoners doing nothing and the State paying the bills. Then one of the old contractors came back at fair rates, and by dividing two hun¬ dred men among the various departments of shirt manufacture, and securing two other small con¬ cerns, the supervisor is now able to work four hundred and fifty out of eight hundred and thirty men ; one hundred at sixty cents per day and the re¬ mainder at fifty cents. The labor of the convicts for the year ending October 30, 1882, amounted to $67,546.03, or $82.55 each, and the State paid for the same year a deficit of $61,163.27, nearly every dollar of which would have remained in its treasury but for the passage of the law above mentioned. Besides this, the prison, built and planned for the accommodation of less than 700 convicts, is crowded with 831 on the average. Two and even three men are locked up at night in many cells, while the law positively requires that each convict shall have a separate cell. The shop room of the prison, adequate for the working of the whole force at one or two contracts, is just sufficient for the number now at work under seven, each concern requiring its own shops, and separate storage for its materials and 12 Prison Labor. manufactured goods. Twenty thousand dollars have been asked for, to supply necessary shops and storage, so that another hundred of the men who are now living in idleness at the expense of the State could be set at work. This too the labor reformers have succeeded in staving off for the last two years, though the Governor as well as the supervisor have urged it repeatedly upon the Legislature. “ What is the use of pro¬ viding facilities for employing convicts when we don’t want them to work at all?” is the tacit understanding between the organs of the trades, and their friends in the Legislature. We need an intermediate prison, for persons convicted of minor offenses, and sentenced for short terms ; a place where young and inexperienced offend¬ ers could be put in the way of reform. For such, we have now the crowded State prison, with its stigma and its deadly associations on the one hand, and the enforced idleness and unlimited intercourse with criminals of all grades, and con¬ sequent instruction in vice and immorality and crime of our jails on the other. Even a work- house, where jail prisoners could be made to earn some part of their support, and debarred from the idleness they covet, would be a God¬ send to us, but every project for prison or jail reform is ignored or staved off, because it will add to the volume of convict labor. Prison Labor. 13 Is it not time for us in New Jersey, as well as for you in New York, to consider the tend¬ ency — the inevitable result of this ceaseless war¬ fare upon the industries which are inseparable from the well-being of our penal institutions ? Is it not time for the intelligent citizens of both States to examine for themselves into the merits of this question of convict competition with free labor, which must be settled before any thor¬ ough reform in the reeking infamy of our jails, and in the discipline of our prisons is possible ? Look at it. We open our doors to the labor of the whole world, except the Chinese. We allow the skilled labor of Europe to pour its uncounted thousands upon our shores every year, without stint or scruple, though every mechanic that comes to us is a direct competitor with every other who is already at work or seeking work among us. Our great cities, our manu¬ facturing centers, our great public works, our mines, swarm with workmen of foreign birth, and no one complains of it. But the labor of less than 25,000 men, women and children in the prisons, penitentiaries and reform¬ atories of the United States, each producing less than half the work of a citizen, who have already cost the community heavily by their offenses and the expenses of trial, and who must be watched, and fed and clothed at our expense, if 14 Prison Labor. we fail to make [them support themselves — this labor is not to be tolerated and the system of prison management by which alone we have succeeded in making our prisons self-support¬ ing is to be broken down, because in some in¬ finitesimal degree, too small for the appreciation of the most delicate of commercial tests, it in¬ terferes with free labor. Is not this preposterous? A man may come among us from abroad, erect his shop with foreign capital, fill it with foreign machinery, with men and women of for¬ eign birth, and compete with us in our chosen industries and welcome ; but let him or any of his employes commit a crime, rendering his imprisonment at hard labor necessary for the good of society, and he must cease to work even at the very trade he was pursuing when free, because he as a convict competes with free labor. Every citizen of the State may compete with every other to the full extent of his ability while free, but the moment he becomes a con¬ vict his competition must cease. Everybody in the State has rights which every one else is bound to respect, but the State, the sum of the individuals that compose it, and the protector of all their rights, must be guarded and prohib¬ ited from exercising one of the rights which each citizen possesses, lest it injure the individual by its competition. Prison Labor. 15 To appease the clamor, we have demoralized and crippled the prison industries of New Jersey for the last ten years, at an expense to the State of many hundred thousand dollars in money, and infinitely more in the putting off of prison reform measures, which by reducing crime would have done more to reduce convict competition with free labor, than all the efforts of the labor reformers ever have or ever will do. Very truly yours, A. S. MEYRICK. Kingston, N. J., October 8, 1883. 6 Prison Labor. The opinion of Dr. Francis Wayland, pro¬ fessor in Yale College, New Haven, Conn., on the subject of Prison Labor, will have great weight with the intelligent public, and I there¬ fore transcribe the following from the printed report of the testimony taken before the joint conference of the Commissions appointed by the States of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey, in 1879, f rom P a g es J 54 t0 T 5 8: The Chairman — Professor Francis Wayland , President of the State Prison Association of Con¬ necticut , and Chairman of the Board of State Prison Directors of Connecticut , is with us by special invitation. We will listen to whatever Professor Wayland has to say in regard to con¬ tract labor. He understands the special points of our inquiry, and will confine himself to those , so far as he can. Professor Wayland— As I understand it, three Commissions from three different States are here engaged in substantially the same inquiry. Now as to the general investigation, it seems to me that you are to deal with the existing condition of affairs and also with probabilities. Keeping this in view, let us examine and contrast the only practicable methods of employing convict labor, the “ public account system ” and the “ contract system.” It is, I think, conceded by Prison Labor. 17 all intelligent men who have looked into the question, that the “ public account system ” can only be successful under non-partisan manage¬ ment. Is the administration of any State prison in the United States absolutely under non-parti¬ san control ? Is there any reasonable probability that in the immediate future, or in any future with which this investigation can concern itself, there will be no politics in our prisons? Is it worth while for this Commission to consider the possible features of an ideal system ? Would it be a wise expenditure of your time? Under the best practicable conditions we are very far from the ideal management of penal institutions. Per¬ haps in the matter of penal reform there has been less progress in the last twenty-five years, than with reference to any subject to which phi¬ lanthropy has devoted its attention in this country. Of course in many cases the prisons are better, but the system is substantially un¬ changed. Mr. Brockway’s reformatory at Elmira is an experiment to which we all look with great interest, but it is limited to convicts who have committed their first offense. Now the two advantages claimed in favor of the “public account system” are, that it will tend to greater diversity of labor, and will, therefore, promote the interest of the prisoner by giving him more opportunities for employment when re- 3 Prison Labor. leased. Is this theory confirmed by the facts in the case ? Remember, we are dealing with what is and is likely to be. It has appeared already in the course of this investigation that wherever in the United States the “public account sys¬ tem” is in force, the tendency is to concentra¬ tion of industry by diminishing the number of trades. The reason of this is obvious, and in¬ volves an element which cannot be overlooked in arriving at a just conclusion. In every State, certainly north of Mason and Dixon s line, there is a public demand that prisons shall, if possi¬ ble, be made self-supporting; i. e., that law-abid¬ ing citizens shall not be taxed to maintain con¬ victs. Whether this demand is reasonable or justifiable, is not, it seems to me, a pertinent inquiry at this time. It exists and is likely to exist, and must be taken into account in com¬ paring the two systems. Therefore, experience having apparently proved that a diversity of in¬ dustries in a prison tends to diminish its in¬ come, we have a sufficient reason for the con¬ centration of industries under the “public account system.” But under the best possible conditions is the “ public account system ” self-sustaining ? It never has been, and assuming that prison management will not be absolutely non-partisan, it never will be. The occasional show of profit is deceptive and illusory, caused by an incorrect Prison Labor. J 9 appraisal of the State property, indicating an apparent profit where there has really been an absolute loss. In a recent case where for a period of about fifteen years the balance had been ostensibly on the credit side, a competent Commission has discovered that the State is about one hundred thousand dollars in debt. Articles have been annually inventoried at their original market value, when they were actually valu¬ able only as fuel. The fact is that the business of organizing the labor of convicts, providing, adjusting and regulating machinery, purchasing the raw material and selling the manufactured article under the “ public account system,” is quite sufficient to consume all the time of the warden, to the virtual exclusion of what he owes to the proper oversight of the convicts. And when we remember that the warden cannot suc¬ cessfully discharge his legitimate duties without devoting a large share of his time to personal intercourse with the prisoners, it will be seen that under the “ public account system,” he must either neglect what is expected of him as finan¬ cial manager, or what is required of him as custodian of convicts, whose treatment should be reformatory. In one case the deficiency can only be supplied by hiring, at large expense, persons competent to superintend the manufacturing de¬ partment ; in the other, the prisoners fail to 20 • Prison Labor. receive that personal supervision which their best interests and the welfare of society demand. Moreover the whole intelligent sentiment of our country is opposed to the management of mer¬ cantile affairs by the State. It is believed that they are always more wisely and economically conducted by individuals or private corporations. I think Senator Bettle touched the exact point of this phase of the question, when he said that “ the success or failure of the ‘ public account system ’ must always depend on the character and capacity of the man in charge of the prison.” The method is a bad one, but in the hands of an exceptionally honest and competent official, may for a time seem to produce good results. Let this man be removed by reason of a change in political control, or for any cause, and his successor will in all probability be a disastrous failure. The system of “ contract labor ” is not liable to these objections. The directors of the prison usually, if not invariably, make the contracts, and the most advantageous contracts possible at the time. This does not require great business sagacity. It simply con¬ sists in awarding the contract to the highest bidder, with such safeguards as will secure its fulfillment. The honest and successful manage¬ ment of business in behalf of the State, by officers in the military service of the United States, has been adduced in support of the Prison Labor. 21 claim that the “ public account system ” need not be a failure. But the illustration is not ap¬ posite, and for several reasons. In the first place these officers are not designated to their duties by political managers ; secondly, their term of public service is for life ; thirdly, any army offi¬ cer betraying his trust is tried not by a jury of twelve men selected because they have no opin¬ ion about the case, or indeed about any thing, but by a court-martial, composed of intelligent and upright men, whose decisions are rarely reversed. These considerations remove the members of the Military Department beyond the range of possible analogy. If it is contended that the contract system operates injuriously upon outside labor, it may be said, generally, that the burden of proof is upon those who object to the system on this ground ; and, further, that so far as the State of Connecticut is concerned, no actual grievance is even alleged. Each State must legislate for itself, and it will be time enough for Connecticut to deal with the problem when there is any apparent or pretended conflict. Dr. Harris, reasoning from the large prison popula¬ tion in New York, seemed to think that convict labor might possibly compete with free labor, to the disadvantage of the latter. But New York furnishes, in this respect, no criterion for Con¬ necticut. The prisons in New York are filled 22 Prison Labor. to overflowing from the county jails, which, as I have been recently informed by as competent authority as can be found in the State, are, without exception, schools of vice — not one of them to be compared to any county jail in Connecticut. Then, again, the great mass of the foreign population comes to the city of New York. Of these the criminal portion largely re¬ main in or near the city, and the better part go West. These two causes combined give to this State an exceptionally large convict class. Now look at the State of Connecticut. We have on an average about 250 convicts — of these about 220 are employed in labor under contract at fifty cents per day. I know this prison pretty thoroughly, and I feel perfectly warranted in saying that it would not be possible, under the best conditions of the “ public account system,” for the men to be better, more wisely or more humanely employed. As to the object of prison labor, I understand Dr. Harris to say that it is not primarily to prepare them for labor outside, and for two reasons : First, that if the men are reformed when they leave the prison, they gener¬ ally resume the kinds of* labor to which they were accustomed before their confinement. Sec¬ ond, because, if they are mechanics, it is ex¬ ceedingly difficult for them to find employment with other mechanics. Employers can easily be Prison Labor. 23 induced to afford the reformed criminal an op¬ portunity to earn his living by honest labor, but his bitterest enemy is his fellow-workman, who has never been in prison. He will often refuse to be at the same bench or in the same room with the ex-convict. He will listen to no appeal or argument. “ The fellow has been in prison ; that is enough for me.” It is, therefore, neces¬ sary, in most cases, to find employment for them on farms. Their chance of permanent reform is, therefore, based not so much on the skill which they have acquired in certain kinds of mechan¬ ical labor, as upon the habits of industry, disci¬ pline, and obedience to rules which they have formed whilst in prison. When they were com¬ mitted they had no habits but those of dishon¬ esty, idleness and intemperance. They have generally been in confinement long enough for their constitutions to have recovered from the effects of intemperance. They have acquired the habit, if not learned the value, of regular hours of rising and retiring—of labor, of eating, of reading; have had nutritious diet in sufficient quantities, and have had the benefit, on the Sab¬ bath, of religious services, conducted by a faith¬ ful chaplain. (I am speaking now of the prison with which I am most familiar, that . of the State of Connecticut.) This, then, is the true basis of their continued reform; not that they Prison Labor. 24 have learned this, that or the other trade, but that, with an improved physical condition, they have acquired habits which, if adhered to, will be of the greatest service to them as long as they live. In view of all this, I was not sur¬ prised when Dr. Harris, in answer to the closing question of the Chairman, replied, “that under existing circumstances, he would prefer to main¬ tain the ‘contract system’ with limitations.” What limitations would naturally occur to the intelligent prison-reformer? In the first place the labor should never be prejudicial to the health of the prisoner. Second, the contractor should not be permitted to override or oppress the prisoner. The contractor, as represented in each shop by an “ instructor,” should have nothing to do with the discipline. He should be in¬ trusted simply with the duty of teaching the prisoners to labor to the best advantage. There should always be present in the room a prison officer, to whom every question of discipline, every complaint of neglect of duty, could be re¬ ferred on the spot, and complaints from “ in¬ structors ” should not be encouraged. The con¬ victs should be made to learn by experience that they have rights, and that those rights would be respected. Steady, even-handed, uniform justice should be the inflexible rule. And. therefore, the prison authorities should always Prison Labor. 25 reserve the right to compel the immediate dis¬ charge or exclusion from the prison of any “ in¬ structor,” or other agent of the contractor, whose influence upon the prisoners is harmful. He should never be allowed to bully or bribe them to work beyond their strength. No honest con¬ tractor will object to this policy. Indeed, the best system of rules that I ever saw for pro¬ tecting the prisoner from a dishonest or tyran¬ nical instructor, were drawn up and offered by a man who was himself a contractor, and of his own motion. The Chairman — Will you give us your views in regard to the injury done under the present system, and whether that injury would be avoided under any other system ? Professor Wayland — I am glad that you have called my attention to that matter, although I think I have already answered the question, in part, at least. I do not think that I am here to deal with the question in the way in which I shall now speak of it, but I am sure that you will bear with me if I am in error. If in New Jersey, for instance, the kind of employ¬ ment carried on in the State Prison interferes disastrously with existing forms of occupation, that is a matter to be settled by the Commis¬ sion acting for that State, and it is not for me to suggest how it should be done. In Connec- 4 26 Prison Labor. ticut it is not contended by any one, so far as I am aware, that the business of boot and shoe¬ making, as carried on in our prison, has an in¬ jurious effect upon that branch or upon any other branch of industry in the State. So far, then, as Connecticut is concerned, therefore, I conceive it to be a purely speculative question. I have thus been able to present a clear and interesting statement of the effect of a change in the system of conducting the labor in the New Jersey State Prison, also the views of a well-known and highly appreciated scientist and humanitarian. Neither of these gentlemen have any personal interests to serve in connection with the subject; their labors in this regard are solely in behalf of the reformation of the prisoners and the best interests of society. I have also presented a statement of the financial results in our own prisons under the old system , and also under the new. It is for the voters of New York to decide whether the ' present system shall be continued without calling upon the State every year to make up deficiencies, or whether, ignoring all the teachings of the past, we shall return to a sys- Prison Labor. 27 tern that has been officially and publicly con¬ demned by the Comptrollers of both parties, and which the last six years of its existence cost the people the round sum of $3,555,065.64. JOHN S. PERRY. Albany, October 15, 1883.