PRISON LABOR 
 
 -A.3ST 
 
 ARGUMENT, 
 
 MADE BEFORE THE 
 
 SENATE COMMITTEE, 
 
 AND ALSO BEFORE THE 
 
 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE, 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 
 
 ON PRISONS. 
 
 MARCH 22, 1882. 
 
 By JOHN S. PERRY. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 ALBANY, N. Y.: 
 
 WEED, PARSONS AND COMPANY, PRINTERS. 
 
 1882. 
 
NAMES AND RESIDENCES 
 
 OF THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY THE LEG¬ 
 ISLATURES OF MASSACHUSETTS, CONNECTICUT 
 AND NEW JERSEY IN 1880, TO INVESTIGATE 
 AND REPORT IN REGARD TO PRISON LABOR, 
 TO WHICH REPORTS FREQUENT REFERENCE IS 
 MADE IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES. 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Asa P. Morse, ------- Cambridge. 
 
 William Taylor, ------ Boston. 
 
 Charles H. Litchman, ----- Marblehead. 
 
 Hamilton A. Hill, - Boston. 
 
 John H. M ellen, ______ Worcester. 
 
 William Reed, Jr., _____ Taunton. 
 
 Edwin A. Marsh, - - - - - - Quincy. 
 
 CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Lucius P. Deming, ------ New Haven. 
 
 Washington F. Willcox, ----- Deep River. 
 
 Edmund Tweedy, ------ Danbury. 
 
 Jeremiah Tierney, Norwalk. 
 
 Merrick A. Marcy, - 
 
 NEW JERSEY. 
 
 Edward Bettle, - - - . - _ _ Camden. 
 
 W. R. Murphy, ------ Bordentown. 
 
 A. S. Meyrick, ------- Kingston. 
 
 Samuel Allinson, - - - - _ _ Yardville. 
 
 Sanford B. Hunt, - - - - ^ _ _ Newark. 
 
ARGUMENT 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN S. PERRY. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : 
 
 The best mode of utilizing the labor in our Prisons is 
 a question of such magnitude, that it cannot be properly 
 disposed of in a few brief sentences. I must therefore 
 crave your patience for a somewhat lengthy considera¬ 
 tion of a subject, so important that it has engaged the 
 attention of noble and learned statesmen and political 
 economists in all civilized nations. 
 
 It is a question from which all passion and prejudice 
 should be excluded, and which should be viewed solely 
 with regard to the best interest of the prisoner, the 
 State, and the greatest number of its citizens. In this 
 spirit I desire to appear before you, and to state the 
 facts as I find them in history and in experience. 
 
 The present age is pre-eminent for its attention to 
 those great social problems which enter into a wise system 
 of political economy, seeking for the best methods of 
 making good citizens. The people, as well as states- 
 
4 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 men, are beginning to take an active interest in all the 
 questions which lie at the foundation of good govern¬ 
 ment, and a sound philanthropy, and of these Prison 
 Labor is one. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the obligation of every 
 citizen to support himself is not cancelled by his commit¬ 
 ting a crime, and so far as convicted prisoners can, by 
 their personal service, contribute toward their own sup¬ 
 port, and toward the expense they have caused the State, 
 it is clearly the right of the tax payers, and the duty of 
 the State, to exact and utilize that service. 
 
 In 1880 the Legislatures of Massachusetts, Connecti¬ 
 cut and New Jersey, each appointed a special commis¬ 
 sion, composed of several gentlemen of the highest char¬ 
 acter and ability, in the words of the New Jersey Legis¬ 
 lature, “ to make careful inquiry into the subject of Prison 
 Labor, and whether it comes in competition with free 
 labor; and if so, in what manner, and to what extent, 
 and what in their opinion is the best means of preventing 
 such competition, and at the same time of providing main¬ 
 tenance for the prisoners." 
 
 After spending several months in taking testimony and 
 making personal investigations, these commissioners 
 made their reports, to which I shall have frequent occa¬ 
 sion to refer. 
 
 The New Jersey commissioners wisely remark : 
 
 “ A State Prison is not a public charity ; it is not a 
 hospital nor an alms-house. It is an institution to 
 which persons, generally able-bodied adults, are sent by 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 5 
 
 the courts, to be kept at hard labor for* the punish¬ 
 ment of crime. Their labor, such as it was, is taken 
 from the trade or profession they have followed before 
 conviction, thus giving room for the employment of an 
 equal number of other persons in those pursuits. They 
 are indebted to society for the damages inflicted upon it 
 by their crimes, and the consequences flowing from them ; 
 for the cost of trial and transportation to prison, and of 
 safe-keeping, food and clothing during their imprison¬ 
 ment. To add these latter expenses to the injury their 
 offenses have inflicted upon the community, is to heap one 
 wrong upon another, to punish the innocent for the fault 
 of the guilty.” 
 
 It is evident that if prisoners do not support themselves 
 by their own labor, they must be supported by the labor 
 of others. After our citizens have been preyed upon by 
 rogues, it is not just that they should be further burdened 
 for their support, 
 
 Herbert Spencer, one of the most eminent of living 
 investigators of the Science of Society, writes — 
 
 “ On this self-maintenance (by prisoners) equity sternly 
 insists. 
 
 The reasons which justify his imprisonment, equally 
 justify the refusal to let him have any other sustenance 
 than that he earns. 
 
 “ He is confined that he may not further interfere with 
 the complete living of his fellow-citizens, that he may 
 not again intercept any of those benefits which the order 
 of nature has conferred on them, or any of those pro¬ 
 cured by their exertions and careful conduct. And he is 
 
6 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 required to support himself for exactly the same reasons 
 — that he may not interfere with others complete living ; 
 that he may not intercept the benefits they earn. For if 
 otherwise, whence must come his food and clothing ? 
 Directly from the public stores, and indirectly from the 
 pockets of all tax payers. And what is the property 
 thus abstracted from tax payers ? It is the equivalent 
 of so much property earned by labor. It is so much 
 means to complete living. And when this property is 
 taken away, when the toil has been gone through, and the 
 produce it should have brought is interrupted by the tax- 
 gatherer on behalf of the convict, the conditions of com¬ 
 plete life are broken ; the convict commits, by deputy, a 
 further aggression on his fellow-citizens.” 
 
 Without labor, whether inside or outside of prison 
 walls, there can be no sound discipline, nor sound bodily 
 or mental health, and as a reformatory agent it is recog¬ 
 nized by the civilized world as of the first importance. 
 No truth can be more evident than that “ Idleness is the 
 Mother of Crime.” Take a retrospect of the past forty 
 or fifty years in the history of the young men of any city 
 in the land. The almost universal rule has been, that the 
 industrious have become respected members of society, 
 and, at least, moderately prosperous,while the idle, what¬ 
 ever their social position and wealth may have been, have 
 shortened their lives by excesses, and left no names to 
 be remembered with honor. 
 
 If such is the effect of idleness upon citizens, and upon 
 those who enjoy the advantages of wealth and educa¬ 
 tion, what must be its effect upon convicts, confined 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 7 
 
 within prison walls, with few resources for pleasure in 
 retrospection, or for hope in anticipation. 
 
 If to idleness is added solitary confinement, the work 
 of rendering the convict utterly unfitted for assuming the 
 duties of citizenship upon his discharge is most com¬ 
 plete. 
 
 That convicts dread idleness and confinement in a cell 
 has frequently been made plain to me by the request of 
 those acting for Perry & Co., as engineers and machin¬ 
 ists, that permission might be obtained for them to make 
 certain repairs on Sunday; for, said they, “we greatly 
 prefer to work than to be idle in our cell.” And for 
 the same reason holidays are not anticipated by convicts 
 with pleasure, otherwise than as bringing with them more 
 delicacies for the table. 
 
 If to avoid some of the injurious effects of idleness 
 and confinement, convicts are allowed to spend more or 
 less of the day in the yard of the prison, there must be 
 much indiscriminate intercourse, contaminating those who 
 are not wholly depraved, and giving opportunity for con¬ 
 cocting schemes for mutiny, for escape, and for crime 
 after their discharge. 
 
 A very large majority of convicts when they enter the 
 prison are destitute of any mechanical training. 
 
 This is largely due to the iron rule of Trades Unions, 
 which, by forbidding the employment of boys in mechan¬ 
 ical work, except in a small proportion to the number of 
 journeymen, say from three to twelve in one hundred, 
 condemns a large number to enforced idleness. The 
 result is seen in the numerous arrests of children and 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 youth for heinous crimes, which the bench in New York 
 city, at the present time, is taking special notice of. 
 
 Young convicts have frequently said to me in sub¬ 
 stance, “ I never did an honest day’s work until I came 
 here; I dreaded labor, but I now find it better than 
 idleness.” 
 
 That large numbers of these young fellows do abandon 
 the paths of crime and engage in some honest labor, 
 appears to be proved by the fact, unprofitable though it 
 may be to the contractor, that of the several thousand men 
 employed on our contract, in mechanical trades, who have 
 during the past five years been discharged, not three 
 per cent have been returned. This has been an equal 
 surprise both to Mr. Superintendent Pilsbury and our¬ 
 selves, as he informed us, when we took the contract, 
 that he believed more than one-half of those discharged 
 would be returned. A return of discharged convicts of 
 less than three per cent effectually answers the charge, 
 that under the contract system there is no reformation. 
 Can more convincing proof be offered, that the present 
 system of labor and discipline in the State Prisons of 
 New York is conducive to the best reformatory influences ? 
 
 There is little reason to expect reformation in old 
 thieves and burglars, but for the young, who are in a 
 large majority in our prisons, there is much ground for 
 hope. 
 
 The State is bound to have these men trained in such 
 kind of work as is most likely to be in demand when they 
 resume their citizenship. If they leave the prison with¬ 
 out this knowledge, and without the practice of regular 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 9 
 
 and systematic labor, enforced idleness will be pretty 
 sure to float them again into crime. 
 
 It was a favorite maxim with Howard, “ Make men 
 diligent and they will be honest.” Work is the only 
 sure basis of reformatory discipline. 
 
 “Unless prisoners acquire habits of industry, and a lik¬ 
 ing for some kind of labor,” observes Mr. Frederick Hill, 
 in his Work on Crime, “ little hope can be entertained of 
 their conduct after liberation.” 
 
 “ The acquisition of a full trade during the convict’s in¬ 
 carceration is a valuable aid in effecting this reform.” 
 
 “The ranks of criminals are recruited chiefly from the 
 class of persons who have no regular business, and espe¬ 
 cially from those who have never learned a trade. More 
 than eighty per cent of our imprisoned criminals belong to 
 this class, which shows to what extent the want of a trade 
 is an occasion of crime.” 
 
 “ Mr. Rice,” former warden of the State Prison of Maine, 
 says, “ that he gives a full trade to every convict who 
 stays long enough to acquire one, and has the requisite 
 capacity. That of two hundred convicts discharged 
 during his incumbency, only seven (three and one-half 
 per cent) had been reconvicted.” 
 
 The late Dr. Wines, in his discourse, pronounced 
 at the opening of the International Prison Congress of 
 Stockholm, said, “There can be no doubt that, other 
 things being equal, prisoners who maintain themselves 
 by their labor during their incarceration, are more 
 susceptible to reformatory influences, and to the same 
 2 
 
IO Prison Labor. 
 
 degree more likely to reform, than those who come short 
 of that result; for this, among other reasons, that they 
 have constantly before their eyes a visible demonstration 
 of their ability to maintain themselves by the labor of 
 their own hands.” 
 
 Col. Carroll D. Wright, Chief of the Massachusetts 
 Bureau of Statistics of Labor and a noted authority, in 
 his report to the Legislature, in 1879, on this subject 
 says : 
 
 “ The proposition to abolish all labor in penal insti¬ 
 tutions presents a complete remedy for competition ; 
 but it is as insane as the convicts would become if it 
 should be carried into effect. Every man is the competi¬ 
 tor of another ; and the only way to avoid competition 
 resulting from convict labor, is to hang the convict or 
 keep him in idleness. While the State policy is, and 
 always should be, to send a man out of prison better 
 than he came in, this proposition cannot be adopted ; 
 nor would it be wise, industrially, for crime begets crime, 
 and the chief source of trouble from prisons to the work 
 ing man is the expense of crime now. The abolition of 
 labor would increase the expense in every direction, not 
 only in the punishment, but in the care of criminals. 
 The labor of convicts does not so much harm the inter¬ 
 ests of working men, as does the short sentence for some 
 petty crime. The interest of the working man would 
 be much better subserved by doubling the terms of sen¬ 
 tence.” 
 
 * :Tf the intention of the law was simply to punish , soli¬ 
 tary confinement, with its attendant evils, .would be the 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 11 
 
 simplest plan ; but as I think it must be conceded, that 
 making the convict support himself by his own labor, is 
 best for both himself as a reformatory measure, and the 
 State in ^every aspect of the subject, the inquiry then 
 arises, what kind of labor and by whom conducted is the 
 best for both, and the least injurious to any class of citi¬ 
 zens ? 
 
 I shall consider as briefly as possible : 
 
 First—Unproductive labor. 
 
 Second — Unskilled labor. 
 
 Third — The lessee system. 
 
 Fourth—The public account system. 
 
 Fifth—The contract system. 
 
 The employment of convicts at unproductive labor, 
 like the crank or the tread-mill, cannot in this enlightened 
 age be, for a moment, favorably considered. It would 
 simply be a return to barbarism. Could any thing be 
 more destructive to the intellect, more debasing to mor¬ 
 als, and more certain to defeat any efforts at reformation, 
 than the compulsion of prisoners to toil day after day at 
 useless labor, a labor which they would consider only as a 
 mode of vindictive punishment? Such treatment could 
 not fail to have the effect of sending men out into the 
 world more hardened than when they entered the prison. 
 
 When convicts are employed in some useful occupa¬ 
 tion, they generally become interested in the progress of 
 the work, and many of them show a laudable ambition, 
 both for their employers and for themselves. Convicts 
 are men who are not materially different from ordinary 
 citizens, except in their crimes. They are amenable to 
 
12 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 the same considerations that affect others, and these con¬ 
 siderations should inspire in them the desire and the 
 hope to lead better lives. 
 
 Under the second head I will consider — 
 
 The employment of convicts in unskilled labor. 
 
 It is a favorite theory with some mechanics, that con¬ 
 victs should only be employed at that work which de¬ 
 mands the most muscle and the least amount of brain, 
 such as breaking stone, building roads, and other com¬ 
 mon labor. 
 
 Aside from the immoral effect upon both citizens and 
 convicts by the necessary exposure that would be thus 
 entailed, the effect upon the tax payers from the increased 
 cost for guarding the prisoners, the increased danger of 
 escapes, and the reduced amount of income from such 
 labor, it will readily be seen that most of the burden of 
 prison competition would simply be transferred to that 
 portion of our population which is the least able to bear 
 it. But were the question free from this objection, the 
 method is wholly impracticable except in special cases, 
 where some great public work is conveniently situated. 
 
 While there is probably no class of citizens more 
 dependent or less able to meet competition than those 
 engaged in common labor, there is no class more inde¬ 
 pendent than skilled mechanics. The latter are strong, 
 well organized, and able to make their influence felt when 
 they desire to do so, while the former can bring no 
 united influence to bear upon public questions. 
 
 The New Jersey Commission, in referring to this sub 
 ject, says (Report 1880. page 231): 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 13 
 
 “ Stone breaking is already one of the industries in 
 which a numerous class of laborers find a part, or the 
 whole of their support, and it has been seriously objected 
 to the employment of prisoners in our jails in this man¬ 
 ner, that the product of their labor would be more than 
 counter-balanced by the cost of maintaining the poor, 
 who, by being thus deprived of their usual business, would 
 become a public charge. This has been the case in 
 Essex county already. Besides this, it would be utterly 
 impossible, in either of these ways, to provide a proper 
 maintenance for the prisoners.” 
 
 Col. Wright further says (1879, page 33) : 
 
 “ It has been suggested that the State might engage in 
 some work that might not be performed unless by con¬ 
 victs, such as macadamizing the roads of the whole State. 
 This would necessitate one of two things : either the 
 preparation of stone at the prison, involving the transpor¬ 
 tation to the prison from the source of supply, and from 
 the prison to the place for use or the mobilization of the 
 convicts to the points, not only of supply but of con¬ 
 sumption, involving a heavy expense for guard duty and 
 temporary confinement.” 
 
 Mr. Tallack of London, a high authority on the sub¬ 
 ject of Prison reform, in 1872, prepared a paper on the 
 “ Defects of the criminal administration of Great Britain 
 and Ireland,” in which he says : 
 
 “That at the public works at Chatham, Portland and 
 Portsmouth an immense amount of excavation, quarrying 
 and masonry is every year achieved, the estimated value 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 H 
 
 of which is immense ; but in reality there is reason to 
 doubt whether many at least of these so-called public 
 works are more profitable to the Nation, than if the same 
 labor was devoted to building a huge pyramid on Salis¬ 
 bury Plain, or transferring Scawfelt to the top of 
 Helvellyn.” 
 
 The Connecticut Commissioners say (1880, page 20i)> 
 
 “Work to be honorable must first be profitable. Use¬ 
 less labor is degrading, and there can be no element of 
 reform in labor that excites disgust or hate. There are 
 many kinds of labor honorable to an honest man which 
 are degrading to a convict. A gang of laborers may 
 work day after day on the public road and still stand 
 erect, in all the dignity of American citizenship, proud 
 that by honest industry, they eat honest bread. But at¬ 
 tach these men together by chain and collar, strip them 
 of the clothing of honest laborers, and clothe them instead 
 with striped garments, the badge of crime, and say if it 
 would then be honorable work or industry tending to 
 reformation? All labor done by convicts under the public 
 gaze, all labor that brings pain instead of pleasure, all 
 work that is penal instead of industrial, degrades the con¬ 
 vict in his own estimation, kindles more intensely the fire 
 of hate against society, makes stronger the natural dis¬ 
 like for work, and renders reform almost if not quite im¬ 
 possible.” 
 
 The employment of convicts upon public works, except 
 in rare cases, is wholly impracticable. What would have 
 been thought of the project of introducing a horde of 
 convicts into the city of Albany to build the New Capitol? 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 15 
 
 Even if it could have been done with any success, the in¬ 
 jury to the mechanical trades and to common labor would 
 have been direct , while as I hope to be able to show be¬ 
 fore closing, the contract system as now in force has, at 
 the most, but an indirect effect upon citizen labor. 
 
 The Lessee System. — This system, in vogue in some of 
 the southern States, is barbarous and inhuman to the last 
 degree. The reformation of the criminal is not consid¬ 
 ered, and the fatality existing among them by reason of 
 their brutal treatment is appalling. The citizens of the 
 south are said to be clamoring for the introduction into 
 their prisons of the contract system. 
 
 The third point to be considered is: 
 
 The Public Account System — i. c., when the State it¬ 
 self becomes the manufacturer. Whatever may be said 
 of the dignity or justice of such a proceeding, a sufficient 
 objection to it may be found in the archives of our State. 
 These will show that millions of public money have been 
 wasted in abortive attempts to carry out this system. On 
 State account the convicts have been employed in mining, 
 in the manufacture of iron and nails, in quarrying and 
 working marble, in burning lime, in manufacturing burr 
 millstones, tools and brushes, in laundrying shirts, etc. It 
 is fair to assume that these operations were all unprofit¬ 
 able, as they have been abandoned, notwithstanding the 
 large outlay made from time to time by the State for 
 mines, quarries, woodland, machinery and other facilities 
 for conducting these respective industries. 
 
 In regard to the manufacture of iron and nails, it is 
 well known that millions were sunk at Clinton Prison 
 
i6 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 from 1844 to 1877 in the attempt to conduct this work. 
 The State was fleeced at every step, from the conception 
 of the enterprise down to the sale of the product. 
 
 So with the burning of lime. The State paid $125,000 
 for the quarries and kilns, it being many times their value. 
 These thousands and millions came out of the tax payers, 
 and who was honestly benefited ? 
 
 A slight investigation will show to your honorable 
 committee that it has been the exception, when business 
 carried on in any of the prisons in this country by the re¬ 
 spective States has been successful. 
 
 In no instance, as far as I can learn, has this been the 
 case in New York State. Even the Elmira Reformatory, 
 from which great results were expected, and which 
 claimed for the year 1880 an income of sixty cents per 
 day for the labor of its inmates, has proved as unprofit¬ 
 able as its predecessors. The Legislature of 1881, after 
 an investigation of its affairs, voted the sum of $50,000 
 for the purpose of paying its outstanding indebtedness. 
 
 In the report of the managers to the Legislature, De¬ 
 cember 31, 1881, it is stated : 
 
 “ The loss sustained since the 30th of September 
 through the forced sale of goods and material, valued 
 then on a basis of cost at $112,700.57, is $35> 2 73- 2 3- We 
 have assets consisting of the present inventory, $10,287.39, 
 and bills and accounts receivable, $39,488.72.” 
 
 I will not undertake to predict what portion of this will 
 be realised, but upon the general principle that the State 
 is a proper subject to be plucked, particularly in a bank¬ 
 rupt business, it may safely be assumed that a consider¬ 
 able discount from these assets should be made. 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 1 7 
 
 The very short time in which this prison was run on 
 public account satisfied the Legislature of 1881 that it was 
 a mere repetition of Clinton and Sing Sing under that 
 system, and, therefore, a bill was passed with the follow¬ 
 ing mandatory clause: 
 
 “ It shall be the duty of the managers to seek an op¬ 
 portunity to let the labor of the inmates of the Re¬ 
 formatory by contract, upon terms which shall be as 
 advantageous to the State as possible, without injury to 
 the system of discipline now in operation in the institu¬ 
 tion.” 
 
 The State Prison in Maine had long been held up as a 
 model of success under the Public-Account system, but 
 subsequent investigations showed that this claim rested 
 solely upon a skillful mode of book-keeping. 
 
 The special commissioners for the State of Connecticut 
 report (page 16) : 
 
 “ The great industry at Thomaston, Maine, has been 
 wagon-making, and when this committee visited the 
 prison, many were stored in the lofts where they had lain 
 for years, doing duty only in the annual inventory. 
 Warden Rice had been removed and Warden Tolman 
 occupied his place. An investigating committee had 
 pricked the bubble and shown that the boasted financial 
 success was but an arrangement of figures without founda¬ 
 tion in fact, that instead of a reported yearly profit, the 
 State was a loser to the amount of nearly $100,000.” 
 
 The report from the Wisconsin State Prison is but 
 little better. Mr. Cordier, when warden in 1878, reported 
 that the convicts were earning under this system $1.36 
 3 
 
i8 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 per day. His successor, Mr. Smith, says: “To our 
 minds, the manufacturing business of the prison has 
 proved a failure, and the State would have been $13,565 
 better off financially, had the shops in the prison been 
 closed and the prisoners confined in idleness.” 
 
 The following extract from the report of the officers of 
 the Virginia Penitentiary, January 19, 1881 (page 7), will 
 show how glad they were to substitute contract labor for 
 the Public Account system : 
 
 “ The directors have for some years past been im¬ 
 pressed with the idea that the State, not having the funds 
 to make cash purchases of raw materials in large quan¬ 
 tities at suitable times, and placed under disadvantages 
 in effecting sales, could not compete successfully with 
 private enterprise in the manufacture and sale of goods, 
 and as early as 1875, indicated their opinion that the 
 interests of the State would be promoted by hiring out 
 the convicts to responsible contractors. 
 
 Existing legislation had partially provided for this. 
 Gradually the institution increased its manufacturing 
 operations till the advent of the present Superintendent, 
 who fortunately fully concurred with the views of the 
 Board, and at once took the necessary steps to hire out 
 under contract all of the convicts possible, and to the 
 same extent, curtail the manufacturing operations of the 
 institution. The results so far have fully confirmed the 
 opinion of the Board on the subject. Soon all the shops 
 in the Penitentiary will cease to be operated by the 
 State, and all the convicts will be hired at remunerative 
 
 In all cases so far as known to the 
 
 wages. 
 
 * -x- 
 
Prison Labor . 
 
 19 
 
 Board, where the contract system has prevailed, it has, 
 with few exceptions, proved successful, while on the other 
 hand the system of leasing as a whole, even when pe¬ 
 cuniarily successful, has not given satisfaction in other 
 respects.” 
 
 The Superintendent of this Penitentiary reports : 
 
 “At the commencement of my administration I found 
 four separate branches of manufacture were being con¬ 
 ducted on State account, and I directed my attention as 
 soon as practicable to the details of the operations and 
 the financial exhibits of each industry, and the result 
 enabled me to demonstrate that the nominal profits 
 arising from these departments as shown in the published 
 reports were pitrely fictitious , and that the Common¬ 
 wealth had annually been subjected to serious loss thereby. 
 * * * * The shoe department, the cooper 
 
 shop, the weaving department, had all been sources of 
 heavy loss, and the blacksmith and wheelwright shops 
 had not been sources of profit.” 
 
 The Commissioners of the Illinois State Penitentiary 
 state, on page 5 : 
 
 “ On the 1st of August, 1879, we m ade a contract with 
 E. R. Brainard, of Chicago, for the labor of 150 convicts 
 for the term of eight years from that date, at the rate of 
 51 cents per man per day, and sold to him the stock and 
 fixtures then on hand in the stone department at a proper 
 valuation. We are thus relieved from the responsibility 
 and the demand for necessary working capital which that 
 department has imposed upon us, and are now in receipt 
 of a large monthly revenue from the labor of the con¬ 
 victs assigned thereto.” 
 
20 Prison Labor. 
 
 Many other examples of like character could be quoted 
 if time permitted. 
 
 The only successful example that I am able to men¬ 
 tion is that of the prison at East Cambridge, Mass., car¬ 
 ried on by the county of Middlesex. I again quote from 
 Colonel Wright’s report of 1879 (p a g e l 7 ) : 
 
 “At Cambridge 180 men are employed upon brushes. 
 The raw material is purchased, made up and sold on 
 account of the institution. The brushmakers enter no 
 complaint against the prison contract, but their principal 
 complaint is of the injurious competition of the county of 
 Middlesex. Here they allege is a large corporation with 
 unlimited means, paying neither rent nor taxes, and not 
 even obliged to make a profit, and they find it impossible 
 to compete with it.” 
 
 On this subject the Massachusetts Commissioners 
 report (1880, page 21) : 
 
 “The manufacture of goods on Public Account, with a 
 view to profit, has been tried, and it is in vogue to-day 
 in some prisons in the Commonwealth. In a large 
 prison that system requires a heavy plant, and a large 
 yearly outlay, and the result will be that the State comes 
 directly in competition with its own citizens. Of course 
 the presence of outside agents in a prison is not necessary 
 under such a system, but prison officials must be business 
 men of experience and skill, and as alert as outside man¬ 
 ufacturers with whom they come in competition, to insure 
 any degree of profit for their products.* The history of 
 
 * Note. — The writer is in error. The same character of men, with precisely the 
 same duties and relations to the prisoners must be employed as instructors and 
 managers in each industry under the “ Public Account ” as under the Contract 
 system. — P. 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 21 
 
 the Public Account system has usually been that of pecu¬ 
 niary loss in the end, perhaps held off for a time by a 
 system of doubtful book-keeping, which never tells its 
 correct story until death or a removal from office changes 
 the prison administration.” 
 
 In conducting a manufacturing business by the State 
 there must always be a loss, either from incapacity on 
 the part of the officials, or from negligence, or dishon¬ 
 esty. It cannot be expected that a man who has special 
 fitness for the duties of a warden should have either the 
 skill or the time to make a success of manufacturing, 
 which requires great experience and undivided thought 
 and attention, with the inspiration of hope for personal 
 profit. 
 
 The Massachusetts Commissioners say (page 21) : 
 
 “ Prison sentences order labor, and labor is recognized 
 as a reformatory agent ; but without the contract system 
 there would be but two courses open for the State, to 
 employ convicts in making goods for the State to sell in 
 open market, or to keep them in idleness, with an assur¬ 
 ance of its evil results. 
 
 Also, on page 22 : 
 
 “ In a small prison, with honest officials over long-term 
 men, it is possible that the manufacture of certain lines of 
 goods on public account might be as profitable to the 
 State, as a simple sale of convict labor ; but in a large 
 prison the difficulty of securing a competent manufacturer 
 and disciplinarian combined, and a certain clashing of au¬ 
 thority if a double-headed system prevailed, must always 
 militate against any move in that direction. Tempta- 
 
22 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 tions, too, are great ; and the history of such under¬ 
 takings the country through, although there are shining 
 exceptions, pointedly proclaims that human frailty is 
 never so apparent as when the public service is involved. 
 With the same temptations to overwork, and make a 
 good exhibit for the State existing, there are no grounds 
 for belief that a Public Account system, managed with a 
 view to profit, would exert any more powerful reforma¬ 
 tory influence than that which now prevails.” 
 
 The Connecticut Commissioners say (page 24) : 
 
 “ In isolated instances the State may succeed under the 
 Public Account system, but as has been too often illus¬ 
 trated, success depends upon the life of one man, or is 
 entirely a fiction. And with hardly an exception, where 
 the experiment has been tried, official corruption, pecun¬ 
 iary loss and general prison demoralization have followed. 
 New York, Maine and Wisconsin are recent examples. 
 In striving after financial success, reform was entirely lost 
 sight of, and instead of teaching lessons of virtue and 
 morality, prisoners were, in New York especially, used as 
 instruments for the promotion of fraud.” 
 
 Again, on page 34 : 
 
 “ A successful manufacturing business is of slow 
 growth, the result of business ability and well-matured 
 plans, carried on with great perseverance through years of 
 trial, to ultimate success. Prison wardens, especially if 
 they are partisan politicians, are not, as a rule, first-class 
 business men. And if they are, their tenure of office is 
 too short and uncertain to admit of a development of 
 plans, or a display of business faculties.” 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 23 
 
 The New Jersey Commissioners say (1880, page 21) : 
 
 “ If the trades complain now of the competition of 
 contractors, who are of themselves subject to the same 
 circumstances financially and commercially as other manu¬ 
 facturers, what would be their complaints against the 
 gigantic power of the State? The immense soulless cor¬ 
 poration, with resources beyond those of any individual ; 
 with power to hold enormous quantities of goods, and 
 throw them upon the market at pleasure, without risk to 
 the manager ; with all the credit of a great common¬ 
 wealth as a basis of operation, entering into competition 
 with its citizens.” 
 
 Further: “The American people have a wholesome 
 and well-grounded distrust of commercial operations car¬ 
 ried on by the State. Systems of public works of great 
 apparent promise have been undertaken by several of our 
 States, and in every one of them the failure has been 
 conspicuous. In no case has it been possible to secure 
 for the State the zeal and the comprehensive grasp of 
 situations and opportunities, necessary for the successful 
 conduct of such operations.” 
 
 The Connecticut Commissioners say (page 25) : 
 
 “ While it is true that individual interests must be 
 protected, it is also true that the State has some rights — 
 and when it is asked that one system of labor shall be 
 abolished and another adopted — on the naked assertion 
 that one does harm, and the other does not, the State 
 has a right to ask for proof to sustain the assertion, and 
 to warrant the change ; and if this proof is not furnished, 
 the State has a right to believe that no proof exists, 
 
2Af Prison Labor. 
 
 and that the complainants have mistaken the cause of 
 their trouble.” 
 
 It is urged that under the Public Account system the 
 prisoners would be more removed from the influences of 
 citizen instructors and overseers, than under the Contract 
 system. How can this be ? The business would not run 
 of itself. It would require even a larger number of in¬ 
 structors and overseers, and they would be precisely of 
 the same character as those now employed, with this 
 striking difference, that they would be less careful and at¬ 
 tentive in conducting the business of the State, than if 
 under the eye of a contractor, whose financial success or 
 ruin depended upon a thorough and economical manage¬ 
 ment. 
 
 Col. Wright says (page 21) : 
 
 “ Under a well-regulated warden system, where the 
 State-retains the full control of all matters of discipline, 
 the change (to the contract system) would not be felt. 
 Upon this point the writer made special inquiry of many 
 wardens, and the unanimous testimony was that the pres¬ 
 ence of the employes of the contractor, so long as the 
 warden had the power to remove summarily any such em¬ 
 ploye, did not have any more injurious effect upon the 
 discipline of the prison, than would the presence of the 
 same number of officials which would be necessary under 
 the Public Account system, and especially as under the 
 latter the warden would not, as a rule, have the power to 
 remove summarily the government officials.” 
 
 Again (page 22) : 
 
 “ Wherever this system (Public Account) has prevailed, 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 25 
 
 it has caused more slaughtering of prices than any other, 
 yet the parties who demand it find no fault. They can 
 see the most unjust results from contracting for the labor 
 of convicts, but can see no harm in contracting for the 
 products of the same labor.” 
 
 Again (page 4) : 
 
 “ The general introduction of the Public Account sys¬ 
 tem, as a rule, simply aggravates the grievances arising 
 from whatever competition may result from the contract 
 system.” 
 
 Again (page 22) : 
 
 “ The testimony of wardens everywhere, and almost 
 without exception, is against the claims of those who 
 favor the Public Account system. They assert, and with 
 reason it seems, that under such a system the prison 
 becomes a vast shelving-place for appointees : and that 
 all the objections which can possibly be made against the 
 contract system, on account of the presence of contractors 
 and their men, apply with double force against the Public 
 Account system ; and, further, that unless the productive 
 labor of a prison is confined to one or two branches, it is 
 impossible, as a rule, to find a man well versed in all, and 
 a good executive officer besides.” 
 
 The New Jersey Commissioners say (page 20) : 
 
 “ The commission is unable to see how the complain¬ 
 ants would be benefited by a change from the Contract to 
 the Public Account system. The same number of con¬ 
 victs at least would be employed. In fact, the probabili¬ 
 ties are that a greater number would be. Fully ten thou¬ 
 sand of them' are employed as common laborers, many of 
 4 
 
26 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 whom could be turned into mechanics very easily if the 
 State found it profitable to do so. If the officers of our 
 prisons are capable of managing such operations, they 
 would have to display the same zeal and energy which 
 the contractors find necessary. If the State is not to lose 
 by the change, as many or more goods must be put upon 
 the market — the same advantages and manipulations 
 brought to bear upon it as now, and the effect upon it 
 will be precisely the same. 
 
 “ If the officers are unfit the business will be a loss to 
 the State, and the tax payers will have to make up the 
 deficiency.” 
 
 Whatever system may be finally adopted for the prisons 
 it may be assumed as certain, that the Public Account 
 system always has, and always will be a financial failure, 
 and more prejudicial to the interest of citizen mechanics 
 than any other. 
 
 I will now more fully consider the fifth and last point, 
 viz. : 
 
 The Contract System , 
 
 Toward which, the opposition of the workingmen of 
 the State appears to be mainly directed. The inquiry is 
 then pertinent, is this opposition well-founded ? 
 
 We learn from statistics gathered and formulated with 
 great care by Colonel Wright, before mentioned, that 
 there are in the United States 129 penal institutions, in 
 which convicts are employed in labor of any kind, viz.: 
 
 State Prisons. 48 
 
 Jails and Penitentiaries.... 4 ° 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 2 7 
 
 Work-houses and Houses of Correction. 25 
 
 Houses of Refuge and Reform Schools. 16 
 
 129 
 
 That in these institutions there are 47,769 inmates — 
 44,084 males, and 3,685 females.* Of these, 37,245 
 males, and 2,877 females, amounting to 40,122, are en¬ 
 gaged in labor, in all the penal institutions of this country. 
 
 In skilled labor. 23, 524 
 
 In unskilled labor. n, 688 
 
 In prison duties. 4 > 93 ° 
 
 40,12 2 
 
 That thirty-six different industries are practiced in 
 these prisons. 
 
 That the whole number of citizens employed in these 
 industries in the United States is 1, 743,120. 
 
 That the whole number of convicts , male and female, 
 employed in these industries is 23,524 or 1 4-10 per cent 
 of the number of citizens so employed. 
 
 Among these thirty-six industries I note the percent¬ 
 age of the following: 
 
 Iron goods of every description. 1 8-10 
 
 Hats.. . 3 
 
 Boots and shoes. 3 5-10 
 
 Brushes. 30 8-10 
 
 * Note.— Adults and children. 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 With a percentage of i 8-10 in the manufacture of 
 iron goods of every description in prisons, I think there 
 need be little concern for the welfare of citizens engaged 
 in the same industry. But with a percentage of 30 8-10 
 in the manufacture of brushes, a business conducted in 
 the East Cambridge Penitentiary and the Elmira Re¬ 
 formatory under the Public Account system, there might 
 well be some reason for complaint, though I do not 
 remember of hearing from any citizen brushmaker on 
 this subject. 
 
 In the foregoing statement I have included all the 
 convicts, male and female, engaged in skilled labor, in 
 all the penal institutions in this country, the num¬ 
 ber being. . 23 ,524 
 
 From this number should be deducted those 
 employed in city and county jails, work-houses 
 and houses of correction, houses of refuge 
 
 and reform schools, the number being. 11,341: 
 
 Leaving the number employed in the State 
 
 prisons and penitentiaries. 12, 183 
 
 The product of manufactured goods in the minor insti¬ 
 tutions named, made to a great extent by children, is in 
 amount and character unworthy of notice. 
 
 But admitting the whole number of 23,524, it is less 
 than one per cent of the entire number of citizens employed 
 in mechanical pursuits in the United States, the same 
 having been on the 1st of January, 1880, 2,732,595, and 
 producing goods to the value of $5,369,579,191. 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 2 9 
 
 The opponents of convict labor appear to lose sight of 
 the fact that most of the prisoners were employed at 
 some kind of labor when free, and, therefore, that just so 
 much was withdrawn from the market when they were 
 arrested. Taking into account the time lost in idleness 
 before conviction, the small production by those employed 
 in mechanical labor, compared with that of citizen mechan¬ 
 ics, the large number of citizens that are necessarily 
 employed on Prison contracts, and the still larger num¬ 
 ber required to produce the material used and consumed 
 under the same, we must conclude that the system has 
 the effect to reduce the general competition in the labor 
 market, instead of increasing it. 
 
 Perry & Co. directly employ in connection with their 
 contract at Sing Sing, inside and outside the walls, 262 
 citizen mechanics, foremen, instructors and clerks, who 
 otherwise would not be employed by them, and indirectly 
 more than double that number. 
 
 The labor reformer wants the contractor abolished 
 because he increases competition in trade. But he has 
 never yet shown how this increase is brought about. 
 Every new manufactory that is established somewhat in¬ 
 creases such competition, but no more under a Prison 
 contract than any other, and the establishment of a new 
 manufactory is not generally considered a calamity. So 
 far as relates to the manufacture of stoves in Prison, we 
 sell them no cheaper than those made wholly by citizens ; 
 our price lists are prepared irrespective of where the 
 goods are made. 
 
 In regard to Prison labor producing an unhealthy com- 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 30 
 
 petition, the testimony before the commissions relating 
 to the manufacture of boots and shoes, was conflicting. 
 A shoemaker in Burlington, N. J., testified before the 
 New Jersey Commissioners (page 66) : 
 
 “In all my business experience I have never found 
 State Prison labor interfering with outside labor in the 
 manufacture of shoes to any extent. It is too small a 
 drop in the bucket. I have been making boots and shoes 
 since 1833, an d this m Y experience of the trade.” 
 
 The New Jersey Commissioners say (page 19) : 
 
 “Were shoemaking stricken entirely from the list of 
 Prison industries in the United States, it is very much 
 to be doubted if the most delicate machinery of trade 
 would be able to gauge the effect upon the market. A 
 few more shops, a few more sets of McKay machines, 
 or the immigration of a few years would fill the void so 
 silently, that not one person in ten thousand would ever 
 know of its existence.” 
 
 Col. Wright says (1879, P a g e I2 ) : 
 
 “ Parties who write or speak upon convict labor are apt 
 to take it for granted that the product per man is the 
 same for the prisoner as for the outside worker. In this 
 they err. The product of each person employed in the 
 manufacture of boots and shoes in Massachusetts is, 
 $1,858 per year, that is 48,090 operatives employed in 
 1875 produced $89,375,792 worth of goods. The product 
 of prison work per man is $1,142 per annum. The 200 
 workmen employed on boots and shoes at Concord, pro¬ 
 duce $228,575 worth of goods per year on an average. 
 The same number outside would make $371,600 worth 
 of goods.” * ' x * * * * * * 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 3i 
 
 “ A manufacturer remarked that he did not see how 
 prison labor in Massachusetts could much affect the shoe 
 business one way or the other. If all the convicts at 
 Concord were put to making shoes, he would not care. 
 It would only amount to one more large factory, and the 
 shoe business of the State could stand that, in his opin¬ 
 ion. 
 
 In answer to the question, “ Do you know of any in¬ 
 stance where your own business has been affected by 
 prison labor ? ” both partners answered, “No,” and to the 
 question, “ Has it ever caused you to reduce the pay of 
 your employes ? ” they answered, “ Never.” 
 
 “ Another large dealer and manufacturer said, ‘ That 
 he knew of no injurious effects to his business from 
 prison labor ; was very glad the subject was being inves¬ 
 tigated, as he was satisfied that most erroneous ideas 
 were entertained in regard to it by many who ought to 
 know better ; in his opinion it had been too much of a 
 handle for small politicians to use for their own advantage ; 
 and that so many preposterous and ridiculous statements 
 had been made, it was time that real facts were known.” 
 
 The Connecticut Commissioners say (page 30): 
 
 “ Mr. Marcy, a member of this commission and a con¬ 
 tractor at Wethersfield, says, ‘The convicts in our em¬ 
 ploy do not average more than half as much work as free 
 men. There is very little profit in our contract. The 
 large manufactories of Massachusetts can produce a shoe 
 at less cost than we can. If we did not have a contract 
 we would not take one.’ ” 
 
 Mr. Clark says : “ Free manufactories have advantages 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 we do not, and can produce a shoe of the same character 
 as ours at a cost of several cents per pair less.” 
 
 Mr. Bigelow, President of the Bay State and Leather 
 Co., a contractor, and having a free manufactory at Wor¬ 
 cester, Mass., testifying before the commission, said: 
 “ The cost of labor upon a pair of shoes of the same 
 kind is less in my free shop than in prison.” 
 
 It is estimated that 5,688 foreign shoemakers, all 
 grown men, have landed at the port of New York, dur¬ 
 ing the past six years, while the whole number of convict 
 shoemakers employed in this country is but 6,530. If 
 such a force, which really represents but little over 3,000 
 citizen shoemakers, is so alarming, how frightful must be 
 the effect of the hordes of foreign workmen who are 
 daily flocking to our shores. 
 
 The introduction of one important piece of improved 
 machinery in the manufacture of boots and shoes would 
 affect the citizen mechanics more directly than all the 
 convict workers on these goods, and no one thinks of 
 asking the government to regulate the use of machinery. 
 
 The census of 1880 shows that the annual product of 
 the boot and shoe manufacture of the United States is 
 $207,387,903, while the product of prison labor in this 
 branch is less than $4,000,000, or less than two per cent. 
 With all these figures on record, petitions are made from 
 time to time, asking that the number of convicts upon 
 this, as well as other kinds of labor, should not exceed ten 
 per cejit. It is evident there is a great want of definite 
 knowledge on this subject, which a study of statistics 
 
Prison Labor . 
 
 33 
 
 would readily supply. As the New Jersey Commissioners 
 truthfully say : 
 
 “ The amount of goods produced in prisons by convict 
 labor is too small at present to exert any serious injury 
 upon the trade outside.” 
 
 “ The evils for the redress of which the commission 
 was created are, at this time, in its opinion, more 
 imaginary than real.” 
 
 Eliminate from this question the imaginary troubles, 
 and the opposition of the Trades Unions to every thing 
 which interferes with their supreme control , and there 
 will be nothing left of it. The agitation is mostly confined 
 to the leaders of these unions, who already rule the manu¬ 
 facturers with a despotism worthy of the dark ages. 
 
 Col. Wright (page 16) says : 
 
 “Furniture is not now made in our prisons, but has 
 been very extensively in the past, yet no manufacturer 
 or dealer was found who could say that prison labor had 
 injured his business in the least, and some were not aware 
 that furniture had ever been made in the prison. The 
 man who held the contract for furniture until the prison 
 was moved to Concord did not care to move with it, but 
 hired of the State the machinery and shops at Charles¬ 
 town, and with outside labor continues the business of 
 cabinet-making, and his customers testify that they can 
 purchase goods of him now as low as when he held the 
 contract.” 
 
 In 1880 there were employed in the New Jersey 
 State Prison, 368 convicts on boots and shoes. In re- 
 
34 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 sponse to the clamor of the Trades Unions, a law 
 was passed a year ago limiting the number to ioo to 
 be employed at anyone branch of industry. What is 
 the result ? The burden, if any, that rested upon wealthy 
 shoe manulacturers and well-paid union shoemakers is 
 transferred to the backs of poor women and children, to 
 the extent of the labor of 180 of the convicts now being 
 employed in making shirts and collars and washing and 
 ironing — woman’s work. The poor women have no votes. 
 
 Another result of this foolish law is the transferring 
 of a yearly surplus of $18,437.36 to a loss of $660.16. 
 
 The Superintendent reports to the Legislature as 
 follows : 
 
 “ The law passed last winter, limiting the number of 
 convicts to be employed in any one industry to one hun¬ 
 dred, has driven away from us the large contractors for 
 prison labor, who would pay the best price for the labor, 
 and obliges us to accept the proposals of those who 
 operate on a smaller scale.” 
 
 “The loss to the prison from this source alone may be 
 estimated from the fact, that a proposal was made to me 
 to employ all the able-bodied men in the prison on the 
 expiration of the contract in June last, at prices which 
 would have made their labor net $110,000 (instead of 
 $51,362.90 as in the past ), for the ensuing year.” 
 
 Under this law the Trades Unions are placated and the 
 State and the women and children are made to suffer. 
 
 I will briefly refer to the manufacture of hats by con¬ 
 vict labor. 
 
 The New Jersey Commissioners say (page 26): 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 35 
 
 “ The Legislature of 1876 prohibited the manufacture 
 of hats in our State prison in the hope of benefiting New 
 Jersey hatters. But New York and Massachusetts kept 
 on making hats by convict labor, and sent them to New 
 Jersey to compete with the work of our hatters, already 
 taxed to pay for the support of two hundred convicts, who 
 might have been employed but for the passage of the 
 law, and who have nearly all been idle up to this time. 
 The next Legislature might forbid the manufacture of 
 shoes in our prison, throwing three hundred and sixty- 
 eight more men out of work, and the shoemakers of 
 Newark and other places in New Jersey would be obliged 
 to help pay for their support while confronted with the 
 convict-made shoes of New York, Maryland and Massa¬ 
 chusetts.” 
 
 Col. Wright says (page 4, 1879): 
 
 “ It is necessary to treat this whole subject nationally, 
 because of the interweaving of the industrial interests of 
 one State with those of another, and of the apparent, if 
 not real, difficulty in the way of one State making any 
 regulation whatever, for its own relief, or that of its own 
 industries, while other States did or did not conform to 
 the like regulations.” 
 
 Again (page 41): 
 
 “That with the present policy of prison administration 
 in Massachusetts, the Contract system of labor, either by 
 the day or by the piece, is the wisest, as a rule, but that 
 the administration should have power to adopt the Public 
 Account system if for the interest of the State.” 
 
|6 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 Dr. Wines testified before the joint commissions (Con¬ 
 necticut report, page 131): 
 
 “If the prisons were conducted on State account, I 
 don’t think the tendency to competition, or the tendency 
 of the State to undersell the manufacturers, would be any 
 less than it is on the contract system.” * 
 
 “ I say decidedly, that under existing circumstances the 
 contract system should be retained in our prisons.” 
 
 Again (page 126): 
 
 “ Well, now, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the broad 
 question of competition of prison labor with free labor, I 
 hold a very decided opinion, and that is, that really there 
 is nothing of it. I do not think that the amount of 
 prison labor, take the whole country together, is more than 
 a drop in the bucket. I do not think it can possibly come 
 into competition appreciably with free labor.” 
 
 Dr. Harris testified (page 154): 
 
 “Until public opinion can be educated up to the re¬ 
 quired standard I would certainly maintain the contract 
 system, with limitations.” 
 
 The Connecticut Commissioners report (page 35): 
 
 “ By far the most thorough and searching investigation 
 into the subject of convict labor, and its influence upon 
 free labor, so far as this Commission can discover, was 
 made in 1877-8 by a joint commission, consisting of offi¬ 
 cers of the government of Prussia and committees repre¬ 
 senting the various Trades Unions of the Kingdom. 
 Perfect harmony prevailed among the members of the 
 Commission, and entire agreement as to the result. Every 
 phase of the question was examined, and the unanimous 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 37 
 
 report made to the government by its officers and to the 
 trades by their committee, was, that a great deal of the 
 complaint was without foundation, and that the evils 
 which did exist were the result, not of the “ contract 
 system,” but of concentration, by which small industries, 
 in a few instances, were greatly injured.” 
 
 Again (page 23) : 
 
 “ The effect of the contract system is no worse for the 
 convict in the matter of work, than under the ‘ Public 
 Account,’ so long as thorough business men and 
 thoroughly honest men are at the head. So far as the 
 question relates to discipline, the weight of evidence is in 
 favor of the contractor. Deputy Warden Biglin, of Sing 
 Sing, said the convict did not know any difference 
 between the State officers and those employed by con¬ 
 tractors.” 
 
 The inspectors of the Michigan State Prison, in their 
 report of 1879, sa Y (Connecticut report, page 23) : 
 
 “ We are satisfied from long observation, that the 
 ‘ contract system ’ does not interfere with the discipline 
 and good order of the prison. The contractor has no 
 control over the convict. He is as much under the charge 
 of the officers of the prison when at work as when not. 
 The contractor furnishes work to do, and he expects the 
 State to see that it is done if reasonable in amount. He 
 cannot over-work the convict without being discovered, 
 nor can he in any case inflict punishment.” 
 
 “ The testimony of convicts in the Connecticut State 
 Prison was, that it made no difference to them for whom 
 they worked.” 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 In 1878 the Directors of the Wisconsin Prison say : 
 
 “ We are gratified to report that our most sanguine 
 anticipations in relation to the results of the experiment 
 of leasing the convict labor have been fully realized, if not 
 exceeded. The system has been found to very much 
 simplify the management of the institution ; has obviated 
 the necessary risks attending manufacturing conducted by 
 the State, and has enabled us to rely with certainty upon 
 an assured income.” 
 
 The Warden in the same report (1878) says : 
 
 “ In my last report (1877) I expressed the opinion that 
 no appropriation would be required for the then ensuing 
 year (from September, 1878, to September, 1879). The 
 result of last year’s business (under the contract system) 
 has proved the correctness of that conclusion, the prison 
 now being o,ut of debt with a balance of $11,654.45 in 
 cash on hand. The earnings for nine months, ending 
 September 30, 1878, from the leased labor, being $22,- 
 879.58. This, together with the improved discipline, has 
 demonstrated the wisdom of leasing (contracting) the 
 labor, instead of manufacturing by the State. The con¬ 
 dition and treatment of the convicts has in no sense been 
 made worse by the change.” 
 
 The Connecticut Commissioners say (page 9) : 
 
 “ As the Legislature in providing for the appointment 
 of this Commission did not give them power of sum¬ 
 moning witnesses, it was decided to issue a series of 
 questions to manufacturers and artisans throughout the 
 State, asking for such information as would materially 
 assist the Commission in forming a just estimate of the 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 39 
 
 extent of the injury complained of. These circulars 
 were accordingly prepared and sent out by mail to the 
 number of more than 2.000. But few replies were re¬ 
 ceived, and those which were, came from parties who 
 must have been entirely uninformed upon the subject of 
 prison labor, and who could never by any possibility have 
 been injured by it. These replies were absolutely worth¬ 
 less as furnishing information. An important paper was 
 read from the manufacturing hatters, and another paper 
 from the working hatters, each claiming that the industry 
 of hat manufacturing was seriously injured by the manu¬ 
 facture of hats in prison.” 
 
 “Disappointed at not receiving more information, or 
 even complaint, either, from the signers of the petitions, 
 or from others in reply to our circulars, and remem¬ 
 bering that the petitioners say that grievous evil 
 is worked to us and our business, and being anxious if 
 possible to rightly answer the question, does convict 
 labor interfere with the free labor of the State, the 
 Commissioners gave notice of a public meeting to be 
 held in Hartford on the 5th day of November.” 
 
 “ The meeting was extensively advertised, but not a 
 person appeared before them to represent either corpora¬ 
 tion, manufacturer or individual. No artisan appeared 
 in person or by proxy, thus indicating that the grievous 
 evils had no existence.” 
 
 The Massachusetts Commissioners say (page 15) : 
 
 “ The hat manufacturers and brush-makers whose testi¬ 
 mony could be secured, did not, in the opinion of your 
 committee, show that their business was injured by prison 
 
40 
 
 Prison Labor . 
 
 labor in this State to an extent that would call for legis¬ 
 lative interference. The number of convicts employed 
 by contractors is so small, in comparison with outside 
 workers, that it does not appear that these trades are 
 called upon to bear more than their share in the general 
 contribution for the protection of society and the de¬ 
 mands of the reformatory part of prison discipline.” 
 
 I find that the whole number of citizens employed in 
 the United States in making hats is 22,710. 
 
 Whole number of convicts employed in this industry 
 593, or less than one per cent.* Not ten per cent, your 
 honors, will please to note, the maximum limit required 
 by the opponents of prison labor. 
 
 The whole number of persons employed in the States 
 in which hat making is carried on in the prisons is 9,021, 
 number of convicts, 593, or about five per cent. 
 
 The whole number of citizens employed in the State of 
 New York in the manufacture of hats is 7,320. 
 
 The whole number of convicts employed under the hat 
 contract in the State is 320, or less than five per cent.f 
 
 Deduct the number employed by the contractor in 
 other kinds of labor, and also the less amount of work 
 produced by convicts, and it will be found that not over 
 three per cent in this State is due to prison labor. 
 
 A large percentage of the hats sold here is made in 
 New Jersey and Connecticut; not ten percent is made 
 in New York, and not half of one per cent is made in 
 prison. 
 
 Note. — Not half this number in 1883. 
 
 f None in 1883. 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 4 i 
 
 Col. Wright says (1879, P a g e 26): 
 
 “The convention of hatters, at Orange, N. J., Septem¬ 
 ber, 1878, passed, among others, the following resolution: 
 
 “ Resolved\ That while we hardly indorse any system 
 calculated to restore criminals to respectability and self- 
 respect, yet we do not consider it necessary to make me¬ 
 chanics of them, nor feel it incumbent upon us to pay for 
 their moral reformation with the loss of our labor and 
 wages. If convicts must be kept employed, this can 
 readily be done, as it is in all other civilized countries, at 
 other than skilled labor, and without making them direct 
 competitors at industrial pursuits.” 
 
 That is, to transfer the burden, if any, to common labor, 
 less able to bear it. 
 
 Hon. James Bishop, Chief of the Bureau of Statistics 
 of Labor and Industries of New Jersey, 1881, reports : 
 
 “ Some of the manufacturers of cheap goods complain 
 of the competition of convict labor; a prisoner being paid 
 but forty cents per day, while free labor is worth two dol¬ 
 lars for the same class of work. Other manufacturers, on 
 the contrary, say that the general prosperity of all classes 
 of people has created a demand for a better grade of 
 goods than can be manufactured in the State Prison. 
 One of the largest manufacturers of the cheap grade of 
 hats asserts, that he can compete successfully with con¬ 
 vict labor, as he uses the latest improved machinery, and 
 never offers poor goods to the regular trade, such stock 
 being disposed of at the auction sales. 
 
 “The contractor of convict labor in one of the Eastern 
 States desired this gentleman to make hats for him, as he 
 6 
 
42 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 could not compete in some of the grades, since one free 
 laborer will accomplish as much as three convicts, taking 
 into consideration the fact that, in addition to the forty 
 cents pay (generally fifty to sixty), and ten cents allow¬ 
 ance for tobacco, daily, a great percentage of goods is 
 damaged by the latter.” 
 
 In proof that convict labor on hats does not reduce the 
 price of free labor, Mr. Bishop quotes the wages paid in 
 New Jersey, as follows : 
 
 “ In 1879 the amount paid per dozen for hats was $4.54 ; 
 in 1880, $5.21; in 1881, $5.28.” 
 
 L\\.t journeymen hatters, in their communication to the 
 Connecticut Commissioners, state “that fully 25 per cent 
 of the trade is now done in prisons.”—a striking ex¬ 
 ample of the lack of definite knowledge on the subject, 
 and of the untruthfulness of most of the statements 
 made by the opponents of prison labor. 
 
 The hat manufacturers, with more enlightened liberal- 
 ify, say to the committee : 
 
 “We appreciate the difficulties which surround this 
 whole question. We do notask for special legislation on 
 our own behalf, only such general regulation as shall bear 
 upon all alike. We do not desire that the burden shall 
 be lifted from our shoulders to be placed upon others 
 who would find it as hard to bear. We are willing to 
 share with the other industries of the country to our full 
 proportion or more, the tax imposed by convict labor 
 upon honest industry. We do not ask for the abolition of 
 the contract system if it shall prove to be the best for the 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 43 
 
 State and the prisoners, but that it shall be so restricted 
 and guarded as to do equal or nearly equal justice to all, 
 and remove a dangerous power from the hands of an irre¬ 
 sponsible few.” 
 
 If these gentlemen had been aware that less than half 
 of one per cent was the extent of the manufacture of hats 
 in this country by convicts, they probably would not have 
 appeared before the Commissioners. 
 
 At the hearing before the Senate committee it was 
 stated by one of the members that 42 per cent of a cer¬ 
 tain kind of hats (understood to be fur hats) is made 
 by convict labor. Subsequent inquiries enable me to 
 state and to prove, that not more than five per cent of 
 this work is thus made.* 
 
 I have the best reason to believe that the hat con¬ 
 tractor at Clinton finds no profit in the work, and does 
 not care to continue it.f 
 
 From this it is evident that hat manufacturers and 
 journeymen may safely dismiss their fears of any danger 
 to their trade from prison labor. 
 
 I confidently assert, without fear of contradicti on, that 
 the employment of convicts in the manufacture of boots and 
 shoes, hats and stoves has no more effect on citizen manu¬ 
 facturers than the establishing of new works here and there, 
 which is being done all over the country, and as a rule no 
 more rapidly than the increase in our population requires. 
 There would be just as much sense and reason in attempt- 
 ting to limit this increase as in attempting to abolish con¬ 
 vict labor on the ground of its interference with free labor. 
 
 * Note —Not one per cent is made in 1883. 
 f He since declined to renew it. 
 
44 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 It is the view of some theorists that the alleged injury 
 of convict labor to citizen labor would be avoided by in¬ 
 troducing a diversity of industries in our penal institu¬ 
 tions. This would at once drive from them every busi¬ 
 ness of any magnitude, for in this day no manufacturing 
 business can be conducted with profit, except on a large 
 scale. 
 
 The business in the prisons would then be confined to 
 small, weak industries that might be less able to bear 
 the competition than the great interests of the country 
 which are carried on by individuals and corporations upon 
 a large scale and with unlimited capital and credit. 
 
 I cannot understand why so many intelligent men who 
 have given thought to the subject should appear to favor 
 diversified industries in prisons. They must of necessity 
 be small industries and therefore comparatively weak, and 
 requiring but few citizen workers outside. 
 
 Training prisoners to such industries will be far more 
 likely to overstock the labor market in those directions, 
 than if trained to such as employ large numbers of men, 
 and for which there is an ever-growing demand. In this 
 latter case no one feels the burden, and the liberated 
 prisoner will be able to readily secure remunerative labor. 
 
 The Massachusetts Commissioners wisely remark on 
 this point (page 14): 
 
 “ Furthermore, if it be at all desirable that a discharged 
 prisoner shall be able to become a bread earner by a handi¬ 
 craft, there is certainly but little hope for him, if he is to 
 look for employment at a trade where the whole number 
 employed in the country at large can be gathered into 
 one small factory without crowding.” 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 45 
 
 Colonel Wright says (1880, page 14) : 
 
 “If prison contracts have any effect upon free labor, 
 they bear the most heavily upon small industries, like the 
 gilt moulding trade, which has provoked so much discus¬ 
 sion in this Commonwealth. This industry employs but a 
 small number of workmen, and has been liable at all times 
 to be swamped by the addition of a small number of 
 laborers like women and children, willing to work for 
 cheap wages. The introduction into a prison of a contract 
 for labor in a special industry which gives employment to 
 but few people outside , is open to objection on many grounds." 
 
 Again (1879, page 29) : 
 
 “The manufacturers and operatives engaged in a weak 
 industry — one not thoroughly established, or turning out 
 but a small annual product — insist that the industries 
 of the prisons should be those of the greatest magnitude 
 in the State ; the shoe business, for instance, because, to 
 carry on an industry insignificant in itself, like the gilt¬ 
 moulding business in the prisons, is to crush the industry 
 outside, while the great industry would feel prison com¬ 
 petition the least. On the other hand, the men engaged 
 in the great and leading industries claim that only the 
 weak ones should be carried on by prison labor, because 
 the injury arising from such labor, if any, strikes but few 
 people ; if the great industries are carried on, a greater 
 number of people are injured.” 
 
 The joint Commissions of the States of Massachusetts, 
 Connecticut and New Jersey, were composed of seven¬ 
 teen prominent gentlemen of the highest respectability ; 
 representing manufactures, trades unions, and profes- 
 
46 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 sions. Persons from almost every class appeared before 
 them, and stated their views, their theories and their 
 grievances, real or imaginary. The sittings of the Com¬ 
 missioners were continued from time to time during sev¬ 
 eral months, and every one who desired had an opportu¬ 
 nity of being heard. 
 
 The Massachusetts Commissioners report (page 13) : 
 
 “ A large amount of testimony was secured, all of 
 which came on special invitation, save that of five per¬ 
 sons who could alone be found interested enough to ap¬ 
 pear, after a public hearing was advertised three days, in 
 three newspapers of the largest circulation in the State. 
 The testimony of manufacturers and contractors, work¬ 
 men and philosophers, stripped of its verbiage, and re¬ 
 duced to the level of plain fact, coupled with a thorough 
 weighing of advantages and disadvantages of prison con¬ 
 tracts, has brought your committee to the opinion, that 
 the effect of prison contracts upon the combined interest 
 of the State is not appreciable.” 
 
 The Connecticut Commissioners report (pages 40, 41): 
 
 “Every ( avenue of information at home and abroad 
 has been carefully searched, months have been devoted 
 to the inquiry, reports of similar investigations in the 
 United States, Canada and Europe have been read and 
 considered, the written opinions of men who have made 
 the science of penology a careful study have been ob¬ 
 tained ; all who have complaints to make have been 
 heard, and as a result, the Commission has failed to dis¬ 
 cover any ground for the complaints made against the 
 Connecticut State Prison or the Contract system. They 
 sum up the matter in the following words : 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 47 
 
 “That there is great difficulty in finding responsible 
 parties to take prison labor. 
 
 “That the price paid for it is not greatly below its 
 value. 
 
 “That as a rule convicts do not accomplish more than 
 half as much work as free men. 
 
 “That the profit of contractors as a rule is not larger 
 than that of ordinary manufacturers, and that as many of 
 the former fail as the latter. 
 
 “That prison-made goods as a rule do not undersell 
 free manufactures. 
 
 “That it would not be just to the State or the prisoner 
 to abolish machinery from the prisons, or to prohibit 
 convicts from being employed at skilled industry. 
 
 “ That the Public Account system is not practicable 
 under ordinary circumstances, because wardens are very 
 seldom good managers of convicts and also good manag¬ 
 ers of manufacturing industries. 
 
 “ That workmen as individuals are not unreasonable. 
 They admit that convicts should work; they are willing 
 that trades should be taught them ; they disclaim any 
 aversion to working in the shop or at the bench with an 
 ex-convict, or that such associations would be a disgrace; 
 they ask that greater effort should be made toward 
 reform. 
 
 “ That it is only when met in convention that imagin¬ 
 ary evils are magnified into real wrongs. It is only in 
 convention that they demand the enactment of such 
 laws as would prevent reform, would increase crime by 
 enforcing degrading labor or idleness, would abolish 
 machinery, and prohibit skilled labor.” 
 
4 8 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 After an experience of forty years in the employment 
 of large numbers of workmen, I can cordially indorse 
 the statement, that as individuals they are not unrea¬ 
 sonable, but quite the reverse ; that it is only when 
 banded together under leaders who have their own 
 special interests to serve, that they are disposed to 
 make unjust demands. 
 
 I now respectfully ask your attention to the relations 
 which convicts employed in Sing Sing Prison in the 
 manufacture of stoves, bear to citizen mechanics and 
 laborers engaged in the same industry. 
 
 It is popularly said that 900 convicts are employed 
 under the contract of Perry & Co. in the manufacture 
 of stoves. There never was a greater mistake. The 
 men thus employed may be classed as follows : 
 
 Moulders. 
 
 Mounters. 
 
 Pattern-fitters.. . . 
 Carpenters .... 
 
 Machinists. 
 
 Blacksmiths. 
 
 Engineers. 
 
 Tinsmiths. 
 
 Japanners. 
 
 Clerks. 
 
 Common laborers 
 
 377 
 
 196 
 
 19 
 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 9 
 
 13 
 
 240 
 
 Total. 895 
 
 Here are nine distinct trades ; only three of them, num¬ 
 bering 592 men, have any special relations to stove making, 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 49 
 
 and of these, 215 can readily turn their hands to other 
 departments of iron work; so that in reality there are 
 but 377 out of the 895 whose work must be strictly 
 confined to making stoves. The alarming number of 
 Sing Sing stovemakers is thus materially reduced. 
 
 As moulders, mounters and pattern-fitters are the only 
 mechanics, who by any possibility, can be affected by the 
 prison contract, I shall confine my comparisons to them. 
 
 I may be allowed to say here, that for nearly forty 
 years I have made annual statements and close esti¬ 
 mates of the details connected with the manufacture 
 and sale of stoves, and therefore respectfully claim that 
 what I may present is entitled to confidence. 
 
 I estimate the annual production of stoves in the 
 United States at 364,160 tons. 
 
 The production of stoves by convict labor in the 
 United States, at 6,427 tons, or 1 8-10 per cent. 
 
 The production of stoves in the State of New York, 
 at 95,700 tons. 
 
 The production of stoves by convict labor in the State 
 of New York, at 6,424 tons, or 6 7-10 per cent. 
 
 The number of stove plate moulders employed in the 
 United States, at 24,710. 
 
 The number of convict stove plate moulders in the 
 United States, at 473, or 1 9-10 per cent. 
 
 The number of stove plate moulders employed in the 
 State of New York, at 3,485. 
 
 The number of convict stove plate moulders in the 
 State of New York, at 377, or 10 8-10 per cent. 
 
 7 
 
50 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 The number of stove plate mounters and pattern- 
 fitters in the United States, at 7,848. 
 
 The number of convict stove plate mounters and 
 pattern-fitters, at 254, or 3 2-10 per cent. 
 
 The number of stove plate mounters and pattern- 
 fitters in the State of New York, at 1,872. 
 
 The number of convict stove plate mounters and 
 pattern-fitters in the State of New York, at 196, or 10 
 5-10 per cent. 
 
 But the real question is not how many convicts are 
 employed in a certain branch of manufacture, but 
 rather what number of citizen mechanics does their 
 work represent. 
 
 As I shall have occasion to show more in detail further 
 on, a convict moulder produces of merchantable castings 
 but 47 per cent of the amount produced by a citizen 
 moulder, therefore in the State of New York, instead 
 of a percentage of 10 8-10 so far as affects the citizen 
 moulders of that State, the percentage is but 5 1-10. 
 
 In the employment of convict moulders in the United 
 States, I estimate that twenty citizen moulders employed 
 as instructors of the former are withdrawn from outside 
 competition, and in the State of New York I know that 
 fourteen are thus withdrawn. 
 
 And in regard to convict mounters and pattern-fitters 
 I shall also show you that each one produces but 44 per 
 cent as much work as a citizen of the same craft; there¬ 
 fore, instead of a percentage of 3 2-10 produced by the 
 former in the United States, so far as affects the latter, 
 the percentage is but 1 4-10. 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 5i 
 
 And so in the State of New York, instead of a per¬ 
 centage of 10 5-10, so far as affects the citizen mounters 
 and pattern-fitters of that State, the percentage is but 
 3 7-io- 
 
 In employing convict mounters in the United States I 
 estimate that fifty citizen mounters, necessarily em¬ 
 ployed with them, are withdrawn from outside competi¬ 
 tion, and in the State of New York I know that thirty- 
 five are thus withdrawn. 
 
 The business of mounting stoves require men who 
 are skilled in the use of tools and in working in metals. 
 But very few of this character are found among the 
 convicts in our State prisons. This work, unlike mould¬ 
 ing, requires some years of training; we are, therefore, 
 compelled to provide a shop, manned by citizen mechan¬ 
 ics, who revise and perfect every stove after it has passed 
 from the convict shops. 
 
 We have thus seen that the percentage of convict labor 
 in the manufacture of stoves, against which there is such 
 an outcry, is as follows: 
 
 In the United States, stove plate moulders, 1 8-10 per 
 cent. 
 
 Stove plate mounters and pattern-fitters, 1 4-10 per 
 cent. 
 
 In the State of New York, stove plate moulders, 5 1-10 
 per cent. 
 
 Stove plate mounters, 3 7-10 per cent-—amounts too 
 insignificant to be worthy of a moment’s notice. The 
 increase of two new foundries of moderate size would 
 
5 2 Prison Labor. 
 
 give a product equal to all that are made in the prisons 
 of the United States. 
 
 New foundries are being constantly established in all 
 parts of the country. Ten years ago there were but few 
 stoves made in the State of Michigan. Now, the annual 
 product in the city of Detroit is double that made in all 
 the prisons. 
 
 There has been no material increase in the prison 
 product during the past five years, while the population 
 of the United States has increased during that time 
 about six millions, forming twelve hundred thousand 
 families, and requiring the product of eighteen large 
 foundries to furnish these new families one stove each 
 every three years. 
 
 There is reason to believe that, with the prospective 
 immigration, one million and a half will be added to our 
 population during the year 1882. This increase will 
 form 300,000 families, requiring a year’s product of thir¬ 
 teen large foundries to furnish them each with a stove. 
 The entire product of the prisons could only furnish 8,000 
 of these 300,000 families. 
 
 In view of such figures, and they could be extended in 
 other directions if time permitted, how utterly trifling are 
 the complaints we hear from the moulders about the effect 
 of convict labor. 
 
 But, as State lines in business, like State rights in poli¬ 
 tics, have long since been wiped out, there is little signifi¬ 
 cance in the statement, that the percentage of convict 
 moulders to citizens in the State of New York is 5 1-10 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 53 
 
 per cent, for the simple reason that our business is cosmo¬ 
 politan. 
 
 In 1881 the percentage of our sales in different parts 
 of the country was as follows: 
 
 New England. 5 3-10 
 
 New York. 25 2-10 
 
 The Middle States .. 7 6-10 
 
 The Southern States. 9 8-10 
 
 The Western States. 51 8-10 
 
 Foreign countries. 3-10 
 
 100 
 
 It is also to be considered, that as the prison product is 
 mainly composed of the cheapest grade of stoves, a lar¬ 
 ger proportion of it even than 75 per cent goes to distant 
 States. If we did not make these goods in the prison, 
 they would mostly be made outside of the State of New 
 York, as every foundry that I know of within this State 
 is already fully occupied. 
 
 In such a case the State would lose a large income. 
 About 260 citizens now employed by us in connection 
 with the prison contract would be discharged, and thus 
 increase the labor supply outside ; while the vast amount 
 of material and supplies now required at the prison would 
 be compelled to seek another market. 
 
 Investigation shows that the proportion of mechanics 
 in the population of the United States is 5 4-10 per cent. 
 That the proportion of mechanics among the immigrants 
 that reach our shores is 13 per cent. 
 
 In 1877, our first year at the prison, the immigration 
 was 130,503. In 1881, 720,045. 
 
54 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 During the five years’ existence of the present contract 
 system under the new Constitution, 1,848,083 immigrants 
 have been added to our population, and of this number 
 it is estimated that 240,251 were mechanics. 
 
 If the small number of 23,851 male and female convicts, 
 children and adults, employed upon mechanical work in 
 our State prisons, penitentiaries and other penal institu¬ 
 tions, taking the place of less than half that number of 
 citizens, are capable of producing such dire effects upon 
 honest labor, as claimed by the leaders of trades 
 unions, how dreadful must be the effect of the advent 
 of some 50,000 foreign mechanics, who every year come 
 to this so-called land of liberty. 
 
 And speaking of liberty, I have before adverted to the 
 fact that the chief opponents to our contract, fearing 
 there might be too much work done, and too many boys 
 instructed, by an iron rule forbid the thousands of jour¬ 
 neymen moulders under their control, who work by the 
 piece, from commencing labor before seven o’clock in the 
 morning, and by the same rule restrict the employment 
 of boys in any shop to twelve per cent of the number of 
 journeymen. 
 
 I have no objections to trades unions. Mechanics 
 have an equal right with the rest of the world to form 
 and maintain protective and benevolent associations. I 
 would cheerfully do my share in promoting their inter¬ 
 est. But when they trespass upon the rights of others, 
 and attempt to control by force the business of employers 
 their action becomes illegal and unjust. 
 
 Col. Wright, in his report of 1882 (page 361), quotes 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 55 
 
 the words of a Fall River operative on this subject, as 
 follows : 
 
 “ I have long since given up all connection with the 
 Spinners’ Union, having become disgusted with the way 
 things are being conducted in Fall River, where the 
 ignorant and shiftless can hold full sway, to the utter 
 annihilation of the intelligent.” 
 
 In former days when mechanics were allowed the 
 usual rights of freemen, moulders found it for their com¬ 
 fort and profit, particularly during the warm season, to 
 get up their work during the cool of the morning, and 
 those who had the ambition were thus able to increase 
 their daily wages. 
 
 Article 8, section i, of by-laws of the Moulders’ Union 
 reads as follows : 
 
 “ Any journeyman moulder commencing work in any 
 foundry under the jurisdiction of this association previ¬ 
 ous to seven o'clock, a. m., shall be fined two dollars for 
 the first offense , and not less than five dollars for each 
 offense thereafter." 
 
 It was also the universal custom for every moulder to 
 employ a helper, frequently a son or relative. It was 
 not unusual for two, three and even four boys to be 
 thus employed by one moulder, who found his profit in 
 it, and at the same time trained his own sons or other 
 relatives to regular and systematic work, and fitted them 
 to become respectable and self-supporting members of 
 society. The moulders are now deprived of this liberty 
 and the boys are to a great extent on the street. 
 
 Rule 38 of the Moulders’ Union of North America 
 recites : 
 
56 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 “ A member cannot take his own son on the floor with 
 him for the purpose of learning the trade." 
 
 These rules can be for no other purpose than to re¬ 
 strict the amount of work produced by a given number 
 of moulders, and also the number of skilled mechanics. 
 How futile this appears in view of the number of foreign 
 moulders who are annually reaching our shores. They 
 are taking the place of our own boys. 
 
 This rule in regard to the training of boys, which is 
 also applied in most other trades, is the cause of far 
 greater injury to business and to the people generally, 
 than ail convict labor ten times repeated. 
 
 This unjust, unpatriotic and arbitrary rule exerts a 
 mighty influence in filling our streets with idle boys, 
 and our prisons with young men, more than half of 
 whom are under twenty-six years of age. 
 
 I will now refer to some of the injuries which con¬ 
 tractors experience in the use of convict labor, and of 
 these there are many. I will premise by saying that 
 the chief benefit derived, is from the absence of strikes 
 and the certainty of having regular work performed. 
 
 The Massachusetts Commissioners say (page 12) : 
 
 “ The disadvantages urged by advocates of the contract 
 system are, short hours for work, interruptions by prison 
 officials for reformatory or other purposes, ignorance, 
 indifference and malice on the part of prisoners, the cost 
 of foremen or instructors, the impossibility of curtailing 
 the working-force during dull seasons, the custom which 
 compels them to take the men as they run, and gives no 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 57 
 
 opportunity for selecting the best workmen, the expense 
 of tobacco which their contract compels them to furnish, 
 the dependence of the contractor on the good-will of the 
 warden, who can remove his best help at any time, and fill 
 their places with the last recruits from the criminal courts ; 
 the necessity of carrying a large stock and large interest 
 account, waste of material and poor work. Summing up 
 all these disadvantages, a contractor claims that it is not 
 possible for him to produce goods more advantageously 
 than he can with free labor, and that the same energy 
 which secures success in prison would be as well, if not 
 better, rewarded outside.” 
 
 The Connecticut Commissioners corroborate these 
 views (page 29) : 
 
 “Convicts are constantly changing; those who have 
 become proficient, by care on the part of the instructor 
 and effort on their own, are going out and unskilled men 
 coming in. Many convicts are in prison for short terms, 
 and almost as soon as they become proficient in work, are 
 discharged. The contractor is taking for workmen the 
 worn-out and unskilled, the vicious, and those with little 
 ability and no inclination, and the question is, ‘ What is 
 the labor worth ? ’ The value of any kind of labor de¬ 
 pends upon the quality and quantity, and the rule is that 
 any marketable commodity will bring what it is worth.” 
 
 Again (page 32) : 
 
 “The State of Connecticut has received an income 
 from the prison* every year, but six, since its erection. 
 During that time, out of fifteen contractors whose names 
 appear in this report, twelve have either failed or retired 
 
5 ^ 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 from the business because it did not pay. In Maine the 
 contractor failed while paying the State only 46 1-2 cents 
 per day, and space would not suffice to tell of the con¬ 
 tractors who have failed in New York and other States. 
 Mr. P. Hayden, who has been a contractor since 1832, 
 says, ‘ more contractors have failed during my time, than 
 in the same time outside,’ and this statement is fully cor¬ 
 roborated by many other witnesses.” 
 
 The New Jersey Commissioners say (page 18) : 
 
 “ The commission ordered by the province of Ontario 
 to inquire into the subject of convict labor, after hearing 
 experts and managers of prisons in large numbers, came 
 to the conclusion that convict labor was not worth on the 
 average more than one-third the value of free labor. * 
 * * Taking the commercial value of it as determined 
 
 by the contracts now in force in twenty-one States, it is 
 found to range between thirty-five and fifty-five cents per 
 day.” * 
 
 “ I will now present some figures which will indicate the 
 effect, if any, of our contract at Sing Sing prison upon 
 the 7 noulders of this State ; and I will premise by saying 
 that there is no trade in the whole category which requires 
 less time to acquire , and less ability to practice. 
 
 In 1877 the moulders of Perry & Co. in Albany 
 
 earned a daily average of... $2.10 
 
 In 1878. 2.14 
 
 In 1879. 2.19 
 
 In 1880. 2.36 
 
 In 1881. 2.85 
 
 At the present time (1882). 2.98 
 
 *Note. — Twenty-five to sixty-five in 1883. 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 59 
 
 The individual wages earned have ranged from two 
 to six dollars per day, and in some cases even more 
 according to the amount of skill and industry exercised. 
 Our number includes 88 journeymen and 12 apprentices. 
 These averages include the old and the young, the skilled 
 and the unskilled, the industrious and the idle, and the 
 12 apprentices ; and they have been earned after seven 
 o’clock in the morning. 
 
 Our shops, and I believe the shops in the State gener¬ 
 ally, are open for their work about 300 days yearly, and 
 the men are paid in full, in cash, every Saturday night. 
 It may be proper to mention here, that the moulders 
 in Troy, at the present time, are on a strike to compel 
 the manufacturers to allow a committee of the union 
 from outside to enter their shops at their pleasure, for 
 the purpose of canvassing their goods and their prices. 
 
 At a meeting of the Troy Moulders’ Union, held on 
 the 15th inst., it was agreed, “that business was never so 
 brisk, nor labor so scarce, and that the capitulation of 
 the employers was only a question of time,” a con¬ 
 dition of things occurring when the moulders were 
 receiving the highest wages of any mechanics in the 
 country. And as an evidence of the scarcity of moulders, 
 we are to-day, and have been all this year, in want of 
 twenty, whom we have been unable to procure. 
 
 I challenge any moulder in the State of New York to 
 come before this honorable Committee and prove that 
 his wages have been reduced, or his work shortened by 
 reason of labor in the prison. 
 
 And I also challenge any manufacturer to prove, that 
 
6o 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 the general prices of stoves in the market during the past 
 five years have been affected by our contract. Contract¬ 
 ors, like other men, desire to get good prices for their 
 products, and they are not likely to undersell, unless 
 compelled to do so by reason of imperfect goods. The 
 quality of the work produced in our Sing Sing shops is 
 equal to that made by any citizens in the land; a proof 
 that the convicts are well trained in mechanical work. 
 
 In regard to the wide margin of profits on prison-made 
 goods as popularly claimed, I will state that there are 
 stoves made by citizens in some parts of the country, 
 with which we cannot profitably compete, and never 
 attempt to. If prison labor is as profitable as claimed 
 by some, why are there so many idle convicts on the 
 market? There are now 250 unemployed in the New 
 Jersey State Prison that can be had for’the asking. 
 
 I neglected under the proper head to answer the charge 
 frequently made, that under the contract system convicts 
 are not taught complete trades ; the case of a man who 
 was employed in boring holes through the handle of a 
 shoe brush being a standing example. 
 
 It is observed that people employed both outside and 
 inside of prison walls generally find their level, and fall 
 into the places for which they are best fitted. It is further 
 observed that those who evince marked ability in any 
 walk of life are largely in the minority, and that such 
 people are being constantly sought for. The same gen¬ 
 eral principles apply in prisons. For a low grade of 
 work, a low grade of man is selected ; as vacancies occur 
 the best available convict is selected to fill the place. If 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 61 
 
 the typical “ shoe-brush man ” has shown himself worthy 
 of advancement, he gets it, as there are always plenty just 
 adapted to fill his place. 
 
 It is well known that nearly all manufacturing is now 
 carried on under a division of labor. No business of 
 any magnitude could live under any other system. This 
 is strikingly illustrated in the manufacture of boots and 
 shoes, and, I believe, also in hats, and precisely the same 
 system is carried on in prisons as in citizen shops. 
 
 In the manufacture of stoves every branch stands by 
 itself, and is taught complete. No citizen moulder ever 
 thinks of turning his hand to mounting stoves, nor to 
 making tin pans. Every convict, who is employed under 
 our contract in a mechanical industry, has the opportu¬ 
 nity, if he remains a sufficient time, to acquire a trade 
 that will enable him to lead an honest life, and to com¬ 
 fortably provide for himself and family. 
 
 The Connecticut Commissioners say (page 21): 
 
 “ If the State should not receive a cent from the con¬ 
 vict during his incarceration, but had taught him to love 
 labor as a means of earning an honest livelihood, had 
 taught him to abandon vicious habits and adopt virtuous 
 ones, had in fact given society an honest man for a rogue, 
 it would have made a substantial profit.” 
 
 It is frequently claimed that the mechanical training of 
 convicts works an injustice to citizen mechanics. Are 
 not convicts men like ourselves, with bodies to be fed 
 and clothed, and souls to be saved ? When they have 
 paid the penalty of their crimes and come forth to free¬ 
 dom, they stand in respect to equal rights, upon a level 
 
62 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 with the rest of mankind. Shall a little clique of union 
 moulders or union mechanics of any kind, or any class 
 of manufacturers, deny the right to these unfortunate 
 men to practice trades, or to gain a livelihood in any 
 other honest and lawful manner, and thus remand them 
 back to crime, and to its penalties? No set of men in 
 this free country has any indefeasible right to the 
 monopoly of a trade, and it is presumption for them to 
 attempt to maintain it. 
 
 Charges against contractors. 
 
 I feel that we, as a firm, are entitled to an opportunity 
 to answer before this honorable Committee to the 
 charges that have been made public against the con¬ 
 tractors for convict labor in this State, and particularly 
 against ourselves. 
 
 These charges, so far as they relate to our firm, or to 
 any member thereof, are unwarranted and utterly desti¬ 
 tute of truth, and I hope to be able to make this plain. 
 
 I desire to have the Committee distinctly understand 
 that my statements will generally be made from personal 
 knowledge, and that I shall hold myself responsible for 
 their accuracy. 
 
 It is charged “ that the present system of convict labor 
 has been prostituted from its legitimate object, into a 
 money making concern for the enriching of a few favored 
 contractors, regardless of the dictates of humanity and 
 common decency in the treatment of State prisoners.” 
 
 The complainant inquires : “ Is there any justice in tor¬ 
 turing them, outcasts and pariahs though they be, for the 
 benefit of a few ' individuals ? ” 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 63 
 
 It is further charged that “ Sing Sing is a moral leper 
 house, and the prison officials know it ; yet no effort is 
 made to arrest the evil, because to do so might reduce 
 the gains of the contractors.” 
 
 That “the contractors, when accused of controlling the 
 prisons, claim that they pay the State for the labor of the 
 convicts, and have a right to use them as they see fit.” 
 
 That “ many prisoners are compelled to work in the 
 shops on Sunday in the interest of the contractors.” 
 
 That “ the chaplain tried to introduce a system of 
 night classes in the chapel, but the contractors had it 
 broken up. It interfered with their interests, and con¬ 
 victs who were being worked to death in the day time, 
 needed all the rest they could get at night.” 
 
 That “charges have been made from time to time in a 
 general way, of cruelties practiced toward the convicts 
 when sick, maimed or disabled, and who were unable to 
 perform the task required by the contractors.” 
 
 That “day after day in order to satisfy the lust for gain 
 of a few greedy contractors, who run the prison as they 
 see fit, the convicts are abandoned to the tender mercies 
 of their ‘ task masters.’ ” 
 
 That “ when they find themselves unable to perform 
 their ‘ task,’ they are either ‘ done to death ’ slowly, or 
 they seek relief in suicide, or by maiming or crippling 
 themselves, as so many have done.” 
 
 That “ the shops of Perry & Co. are filled with dust 
 and smut from the iron and the emery wheels, and an un¬ 
 pleasant odor permeates the atmosphere.” 
 
64 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 That “ in the stove polishing shops the work is of the 
 most laborious kind.” 
 
 That “ in this shop forty men are employed and that it 
 is the terror of the prison, few men being physically able 
 to perform the work.” 
 
 That “ the convicts compelled to labor in the foundry 
 rapidly decline in health, and either die in prison or go 
 out total wrecks, physically and mentally. That the 
 work is also laborious, dangerous, disgusting and filthy, 
 the men frequently burning their legs and feet with the 
 molten iron, and meeting with other accidents of a pain¬ 
 ful nature.” 
 
 That “ the stove mounters also have a laborious task ; 
 most of the mounting requiring heavy lifting.” 
 
 That “ the men are kept two in a cell, all for the 
 benefit of Perry & Co.” 
 
 These charges may be briefly stated as follows : 
 
 First. That the prisons are run to enrich a few favorite 
 contractors, and convicts are overworked. 
 
 Second. That the character of the work is objection¬ 
 able. 
 
 Third. That the convicts are compelled to work when 
 unable. 
 
 Fourth. That they are tortured in the interest of the 
 contractors. 
 
 Fifth. That they are made to work on Sunday. 
 
 Sixth. That night schools are forbidden by the con¬ 
 tractors. 
 
 Seventh. That the operations of the prison are con¬ 
 trolled by the contractors. 
 
Prison Labor. 65 
 
 Eighth. That the men are kept two in a cell, for the 
 benefit of Perry & Co. 
 
 At the time we took the contract in 1877 the condition 
 of the prison at Sing Sing was unsatisfactory. Most of 
 the contractors had failed, voluntarily surrendered their 
 contracts, or declined to renew them. But few of the 
 prisoners had been employed in any systematic labor, 
 and a lax discipline reigned. The entering into this 
 contract was a most hazardous proceeding on our part, 
 and one we could not have been led into, had we foreseen 
 the sea of trouble that was to follow. The labor, and 
 anxiety attendant upon converting several hundred raw 
 and untrained convicts into tractable and profitable 
 mechanics, was of a character that no words can fitly 
 describe. For two years the results were, most unsatis¬ 
 factory, and it was only by the greatest persistence and 
 determination that the venture was made a success. 
 
 Having thus hinted at some of our early troubles, I 
 will proceed to consider the charge, 
 
 That the prisoners are being overworked. 
 
 At the commencement of our work in the prison we 
 inaugurated a system of daily reports, both there and 
 in our foundry at Albany; these reports embodied the 
 minutest details of the operations, which from that time 
 have been daily recorded in books in my private 
 office, and under my own eye, and will at any time be 
 freely opened to the inspection of this honorable Com¬ 
 mittee. From these reports we are able to contrast the 
 average amount of work daily produced during any year 
 9 
 
66 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 of the existence of the contract by our citizen, and by 
 our convict moulders and other mechanics. 
 
 In 1881 in our Grand street foundry, Albany, ioo 
 citizen moulders, 12 of whom were apprentices, pro¬ 
 duced a daily average of 226 pounds of merchantable 
 castings. 
 
 In 1881, 377 convict moulders in our Sing Sing foundry 
 produced a daily average of 106 pounds of merchantable 
 castings, thus making 113 per cent in favor of the citizens. 
 In addition to this daily deficiency of work in the prison, 
 we were compelled to employ there, as instructors, a daily 
 average of fourteen citizen moulders. 
 
 In the same year 66 citizen mounters of stoves in our 
 Grand street shops, Albany, completed a daily average 
 of 310 pounds. 
 
 One hundred and ninety-six convict mounters in our Sing 
 Sing shops produced a daily average of 175 pounds, thus 
 making 77 per cent in favor of the citizens. I say pro¬ 
 duced, not completed, for in the work of mounting stoves, 
 but few convicts are competent to complete them. We 
 therefore employed for that purpose, and as instructors, 
 a daily average of 29 citizen mounters. 
 
 It is further to be considered, that the work done in 
 Albany was nearly all upon first-class stoves, while that 
 done in Sing Sing was generally upon those requiring 
 less skill and labor. 
 
 Take another view as applied to common labor, of 
 which a large amount is used in foundries. 
 
 In the production of 3,022 tons of stoves in Albany, a 
 daily average of 89 men employed in the various depart- 
 
Prison Labor. 67 
 
 ments of common labor represented an average of 225 
 pounds of castings. 
 
 In the production of 5,717 tons of stoves in Sing Sing, 
 a daily average of 263 convicts employed in the various 
 departments of common labor represented an average of 
 but 144. pounds of castings, being 56 per cent in favor of 
 the citizens. In addition to this, we were compelled to 
 employ with these 263 convicts, a daily average of 25 
 citizens to superintend the various departments of work. 
 
 In further proof that our convict moulders are not over¬ 
 worked, I have caused a count to be made showing the 
 average of the different hours at which they commence 
 and complete their tasks, viz.: 
 
 247 moulders commenced work at 7:15 a. m. 
 
 33 “ “ “ 7:20 “ 
 
 49 “ “ “ 7:25 “ 
 
 47 “ “ “ 7:30 “ 
 
 376 
 
 29 moulders completed their tasks at 
 
 II A. M. 
 
 5 
 
 Ii:l5 A. M. 
 
 34 
 
 Ii :30 
 
 97 
 
 12 M. 
 
 83 “ “ “ “ 
 
 I P. M. 
 
 76 “ “ “ “ 
 
 1:30 P. M. 
 
 37b 
 
 
 These men rest until their turns come for “pouring 
 off,” which occupies an hour to an hour and a half. Six 
 
68 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 to seven hours of work is all that these men average, and 
 eight hours is all the whole number of convicts employed 
 under our contract average. 
 
 Enough has been said to show that these men are not 
 required to perform one-half the labor that citizens volun¬ 
 tarily assume, and that statements made in regard to the 
 amount of work performed, and the effect of the same 
 upon the men, are utterly without foundation. 
 
 To carry on this contract a very expensive plant has 
 been provided, and we are compelled to use it, or suffer 
 heavy loss. We have paid the State more than half a 
 million dollars. We have sent out thousands of skilled me¬ 
 chanics, who had no trade when they entered the prison. 
 From the very small number (less than three per cent) that 
 have been returned, it is fair to assume that many have 
 been reformed by virtue of regular and systematic labor, 
 without which there can be no permanent reformation. 
 
 In further proof, if any is required, that the convicts 
 in Sing Sing prison during the past five years have been 
 properly treated and not overworked, I will refer the 
 committee to the average number that have been under 
 treatment in the hospital, and to the number of deaths 
 that have taken place : 
 
 Average No. of Average No. in Number of Number of Heaths 
 convicts. hospital. deaths. per 1.000 of pop¬ 
 
 ulation . 
 
 1877 . 1,448 15 15 IO 
 
 1878 . 1,629 13 7 4 
 
 1879 . E 660 15 19 II 
 
 1880 . I, 580 17 II 7 
 
 1881 . 1,547 10 17 II 
 
 Average. 1, 573 14 M- 9 
 
Prison Labor. 69 
 
 The respective diseases, twenty-four in number, which 
 proved fatal in these sixty-nine cases were as follows : 
 
 Consumption, thirty; heart disease, five; scrofula, 
 three ; gunshot wound, two ; pneumonia, two ; inflamma¬ 
 tion of the bowels, two ; inflammation of the liver, two ; 
 congestion of the lungs, two ; congestion of the brain, 
 two ; bleeding at the lungs, two ; suicide, two ; unknown, 
 two ; rupture, one ; apoplexy, one ; rheumatism, one ; 
 poison, one; accident, one; fever, one ; malaria, one; 
 paralysis, one; marasmus, one; bright’s disease, one ; 
 secret vice, one ; dropsy, one ; bilious cholic, one ; total, 
 sixty-nine.* 
 
 The average physical condition of convicts when enter¬ 
 ing the prison is found considerably below that of the 
 average citizen. This result is mainly due to intemper¬ 
 ance and other vices, and to a general irregularity of life. 
 In making a comparison this element must be considered. 
 
 In regard to the death rate among citizens, I find on 
 page 229 in Walford’s Cyclopedia, a report of the number 
 per thousand of population, in four cities to have been as 
 
 follows : 
 
 In Philadelphia. 26 
 
 In Brooklyn . . . .. 28 
 
 In Boston. 30 
 
 In New York. 32 
 
 In contrast to this table I ask the committee to ponder 
 the death rate per thousand of population in Sing Sing 
 prison during the past five years : 
 
 *Note.— Census report of 1880 gives the rate of mortality as follows : 
 
 United States.... . 18.2 per thousand. 
 
 England . 20.5 “ “ 
 
 Scotland. 21.3 “ “ 
 
70 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 Nine in 1,000 of convicts; twenty-nine in 1,000 of citi¬ 
 zens in four cities ; also the low average of fourteen con¬ 
 victs under treatment in the hospital, in an average pop¬ 
 ulation of 1,572. 
 
 Does . this showing give any indication of poor food , 
 harsh treatment and overwork ? 
 
 I believe that so small a percentage of sickness and of 
 mortality cannot be found in any community in this 
 country outside of a prison. These statements cannot be 
 refuted, and they should forever set at rest the baseless 
 and wicked charges that have been so industriously cir¬ 
 culated by those who desire to bring our prison system 
 into disrepute. 
 
 I will go further and contrast with Sing Sing the 
 mortality in other well regulated prisons. 
 
 Albany Penitentiary, 
 
 1878, 20 in 1,000 of population. 
 
 Missouri “ 1879- 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 0 
 
 Illinois “ 
 
 1880, 13 
 
 Virginia “ 
 
 1880, 20 
 
 New Jersey State Prison, 1881, 29 “ “ 
 
 Connecticut “ 
 
 1881, 21 “ “ 
 
 California “ 
 
 1881, 19 “ “ 
 
 Massachusetts “ 
 
 1881, 16 “ “ 
 
 Ontario, Canada, “ 
 
 1881, 20 “ “ 
 
 I have taken these figures from the official reports and 
 
 they comprise all that I have at hand. 
 
 It will be observed that all but one of these are below 
 the rate of mortality in the four cities named. 
 
 The average rate of mortality in these nine prisons is 
 
Prison Labor . 
 
 7 1 
 
 20 in 1,000 population as against 9 in 1,000 in Sing Sing 
 prison. 
 
 In regard to the character of our work , 
 
 The thousands of citizen moulders employed in this 
 country will be surprised to learn that their occupation is 
 either “dangerous, disgusting or filthy;” and the mount¬ 
 ers will be equally surprised to learn that much of their 
 work is heavy lifting. 
 
 As to the work at polishing, it is now mainly carried on 
 outside the walls, and the respectable citizens of Sing 
 Sing who voluntarily perform it, do not appear to view 
 it as a “terror.” 
 
 These charges are not worthy of a moment’s notice. 
 
 The third count is— compelling convicts to work when 
 they are unable. 
 
 If a prisoner claims to be sick he informs the guard, 
 and is sent to the doctor. This official decides whether 
 the sickness is real or feigned, and acts accordingly. 
 Neither the contractor nor any of his employes are al¬ 
 lowed to interfere. If the man is returned to the shop 
 he resumes his work. This is the ordinary course. 
 
 Investigation would show that Mr. Dickey has in hun¬ 
 dreds of cases reduced the task or remitted it altogether 
 in cases where he believed men were suffering, though 
 every such case was a loss to the firm, for when the 
 doctor returns a man to his work, the day is charged. 
 I challenge every physician who has practiced in Sing 
 Sing Prison during the existence of our contract, to name 
 one case in which we have tried to influence him, or 
 
7 2 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 sought to have the convict continued at work when un¬ 
 able. 
 
 The terrible charges that are brought against us under 
 this head, and also under the fourth count of— 
 
 Having men tortured in our interests , are too mon¬ 
 strous for belief. Gentlemen, do you credit it, that 
 any member of our firm or responsible representative 
 ever advised or consented to such atrocities as are 
 charged? You cannot believe it. Nor can you be¬ 
 lieve that any such have been perpetrated in the prison 
 by its officers. 
 
 That desperate men have been punished severely is 
 doubtless true, and they will continue to be in that, and 
 every other prison, or anarchy will reign. What would 
 you do with a prisoner who would strike another, or an 
 officer, a deadly blow upon the head with a hammer ? 
 Such things frequently happen in prisons. Much has 
 been said about showering prisoners from a hose ; the 
 impression is given that it is a common occurrence. I 
 doubt if this thing has been done at Sing Sing three 
 times in five years. In one case that I have heard about, 
 an infuriated prisoner in his cell, armed with a knife, 
 threatened death to any one that should approach him. 
 Which was the part of wisdom, to bring him to terms 
 with cold water, or to allow an innocent citizen to be 
 fearfully injured or perhaps murdered ? 
 
 There is a great deal of cheap and sickly sentimentality 
 on this subject indulged in by people who have had no 
 experience in the management of convicts, and who 
 perhaps were never inside of a prison. It must be re- 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 73 
 
 membered that there are but a score or two of citizens in 
 the Sing Sing prison to manage some 1,600 men, more 
 or less desperate. Let those who think they can be 
 controlled with soft words try the experiment. Soft 
 words are used there when the convicts are orderly 
 and obedient, but when they rebel other means must 
 be resorted to. 
 
 The charge under the fifth head that — 
 
 Convicts arc compelled to work in the shops on Sunday 
 in the interest of the contractors , is equally baseless 
 as the others. The impression is thus given that 
 manufacturing is carried on in the shops on Sun¬ 
 day. The informer well knew this was untrue. In 
 our Sing Sing works as in those in Albany, if an 
 engine or any other machinery requires repairs that 
 cannot be made when the works are in operation, 
 in rare cases it has been done on Sunday. We 
 think it better to do this than to cause several 
 hundred men to loose a day’s wages. So far as 
 relates to the convicts, I have reason to believe that 
 most of them would choose to work on Sunday, 
 rather than be locked in their cells; at any rate they 
 say so. 
 
 It is charged that — 
 
 The chaplain tried to introduce a system of night 
 classes in the chapel , but the contractors broke it up. 
 
 I challenge the informer to give the name of this 
 chaplain, and of those contractors, or else acknowledge 
 that there is not a shadow of truth in this statement, 
 io 
 
74 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 We have never heard of any such proposition. It 
 will be foupd that this charge against the contractors 
 of preventing the establishing of night schools is as 
 unwarranted as most of the others. 
 
 It is also charged — 
 
 “ That the contractors control the operations of the 
 prison .” 
 
 The absurdity of this must be apparent to those who 
 are familiar with the temper and character of Mr. Super¬ 
 intendent Pilsbury,* and of the several wardens who 
 have held rule under him, viz.: Messrs. Clark, Davis 
 and Brush. These officers have ever been jealous of 
 their authority, and I do not know the contractor who 
 would dare to trespass upon it. The rules of the 
 prison at Sing Sing are rigid. Neither the going out 
 nor the coming in of the convicts is ever influenced 
 by the contractors in the slightest degree. 
 
 The general arrangement of the tasks is submitted to 
 the warden, or his deputy, and cannot be increased with¬ 
 out their approval. They place the convicts, on entering 
 the prison, on such contract as they may think best, and 
 withdraw them from the same upon the advice of the phy¬ 
 sician, or upon their own judgment. I believe that no 
 contractor would for a moment presume to trench upon 
 the prerogative of these officers. 
 
 I come now to the last point, viz.: 
 
 That men are “doubled upl' or kept two in a cell , all for 
 the benefit of Perry & Co. 
 
 Note —Nor of Mr.Superintendent Baker. 
 
Prison Labor. 
 
 75 
 
 It is true that a portion of the cells are occupied by two 
 convicts, and I am told that this has always been the case. 
 
 It is not done for the benefit of the contractors, but, to 
 a great extent, out of regard to the feelings of the pris¬ 
 oners and their friends. 
 
 A portion of the men beg for a companion, and care is 
 taken to associate those who naturally desire it. Who 
 of us, under such painful circumstances, would not desire 
 a companion with whom to while away the Sundays and 
 long evenings, to say nothing of the dreary nights ? But 
 a stronger reason than this appeals to our humanity. 
 Nearly all the convicts confined in Sing Sing prison are 
 from the city of New York and vicinity. At stated inter¬ 
 vals they are visited by their parents, their wives, children 
 and other relatives, and there is no more painful sight to 
 be witnessed than the lines of tearful and despairing faces 
 in the reception room on those occasions. 
 
 Most of these unhappy people are poor, and could 
 ill afford a journey to Auburn or to Clinton. To put 
 it out of their power to make even such painful visits 
 to their unfortunate relatives, and to send them deli¬ 
 cacies from time to time, would indeed be an evidence 
 of “ Man’s inhumanity toman.” No one with a kinder 
 heart has ever ruled Sing Sing prison than the present 
 warden, Mr. A. A. Brush, and, to be the means of trans¬ 
 ferring some hundreds of these men beyond the reach 
 of their friends, would be to him a most painful trial. 
 
 If keeping two in a cell be objectionable, additional 
 cells should be provided at Sing Sing—but never should 
 
7 6 
 
 Prison Labor. 
 
 convicts from that vicinity be sent beyond the reach of 
 their friends. 
 
 If abuses exist in Sing Sing prison, the facts can easily 
 be proved. If men are being worked and tortured, 
 as stated, the evidence can be procured from living wit¬ 
 nesses. 
 
 Their physical condition will prove or disprove the 
 truth of their statements. 
 
 Most of the cases of cruelty cited by the informer are 
 dead , and from them there is no danger of contradiction. 
 If such cruelties have been practiced, it is reasonable to 
 suppose that some of the victims are yet alive. The 900 
 men now on our contract are in the same physical condi¬ 
 tion as when the statements were made, and any one of 
 them can be examined and questioned to the fullest ex¬ 
 tent, at any time as to their truth or falsity. 
 
 The informer calls on the dead as witnesses. We offer 
 the living to prove that the charges are malicious and 
 untrue. 
 
 I trust that the honorable committee having in charge 
 the investigation of alleged grievances in Sing Sing 
 prison will make it thorough to the last degree. I 
 believe that each and every one of these complaints is 
 without any basis in truth. If found so, the report 
 should be of a character to forever silence the slanders 
 of those whose aim is not to build up, but to destroy. 
 
 In conclusion, allow me to thank this honorable com¬ 
 mittee for their patient attention, and to say that I have 
 aimed, so far as time has permitted, to make a truthful 
 
Prison Labor . 
 
 77 
 
 presentment of some of the points that bear upon the 
 question of convict labor in general, and convict contract 
 labor, and Perry & Co.’s relation to it, in particular. I 
 trust that I have succeeded in proving that, all things 
 considered, the contract system is best adapted to the 
 present circumstances ; that the manufacture of stoves in 
 Sing Sing prison works no hardship upon either manu¬ 
 facturers or their employes ; and that no charge can be 
 justly made against Perry & Co., for cruelty or injustice 
 toward any convict who has been, or now is, employed 
 under their contract. 
 
 We court the most rigid investigation from friends or 
 foes. 
 
 Albany, March 28, 1882. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 JOHN S. PERRY.