Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1879-07-17
Convict Labor.


One OF the complaints OF the labor re
| formers against convict labor. especial /,
under the contract system. is founded OF
the assumption that 1t injuriously com
petes with similar labor performed out
side OF prisons. Some of these reformer.
demand that all convict labor. except such
as may be incidental to prison manage
ment, shall he legislstively abolished aud
OF course, that convicts shall be supported
by the State 10 idleucss. Others would be
content II all skilled labor were excluded
from our prison system, and thereby this
source OF competition with outside free
labor removed. Petitions embody ing such
Ideas are frequently presented to State
Legislatures, with the view OF securing
such statutory limitations and restraint
upon convict labor as will cure the al
legged evil The legislature OF Msssachu-
se,ts In 1873 directed Mr.. Wright, the Su-
per'rssnsisat OF ths Baraan OF Statistics Of
Labor. To make a thorough examination
OF the subject, aud report to the next leg
lslature The facts, and also whether ans
legislation changing the existing system 10
that State IL called for
Mr.. Wright seems to have performed
this duty very faithfully, and In his last re-
port he gives the results. The number OF
convicts In ISIS in all the State Prisons oi
the several States was - 1877, OF whom
49, ,ls6 worked under the contract system
or were otherwise employed 10 mechanical
Industries. The greatest number was 10
New lors State and the smallest u n
Rhode Island Three systems OF labor
were found to De IN practice. The first il
the contract system, which Is adopted 10
Massachusetts and generally in the North
ern States. aui which consists 10 selling
the labor OF the prisoners for stipulated
time and At a liked price per day 10 the
highest bidder. the work usually being
done within The walls OF the prison, under
the supervision Of an agent OF the purchas-
er. The second is the lessee stem. which
consists ln leasing eonvicss To a party for a
specified sum per year, with the provision
that the lessee shall feed, cluthe, and dis
riplsne the convjcts and. indeed. attend 10
the entire work OF their care and mainte-
nance. This system Is adopted In Georgia
and In some OF The other Southern States.
The .hlrd il the public account" system,
according 70 which the officers the prison
purchase all THE raw materials, mannfact-
nrc The goods. and sell them 10 the open
market tor the best price they can get, the
same a. A. any manufacturing establish.
n'cnt Mr Wright u OF the opinion that
the rfst OF these systems IL the best OF the
three certainly 50 for Massachusetls
The rrport In reply 70 the complaint Of
the labor rrfprmcrs furnishes some peril
nent sud Instructive statistics The total
number uf convict, employed 10 l,7> 10
al the state Prisons OF The country, Ia the
rarinu- form, Of m-cAauicA! industry, was
Is l-5 and. a. Ihr rate og fOrty cent. pr
day, which was the average. their wage
earnings tor the Whole year amo gnl~d "a
sl.G.t 10 20. AZ two dollars per dAy,
which wss the average price OF similar
labor outside of prisons. these same i-cu
u ouli have earned 81 i31 $40 The whole
Injury, therefore, Il any. done Us convict
labor ln STATE Prisons throughout the en-
tire country was ln THAI year represented
by s. l42 j16 The product. Of pti,pl ll-
bur. even u Ne t,s- the labor a. ,wn dol
lars per day. did uot exceed 80 upU 90 IN
icaI Industries OF the United State-
amounted 20 over ars haastnt millfsa dol
lars. Ihat IL 70 say, the products Of prison
labor Tor thA; ear really represented less
than onr-tlth of one per cent. OF The man
u'ACturcI product. % the United state.
ihi1 ~srtN,ntv does uut lpok uAc a VrTy
serious competition with free labor out-.d.
OF prisons. luc competition, when COM
pared with the aggregate ol oui,ld. lIy.
labor. IS too dim Butive 10 demaud a lrgi--
lAtIye remedy. It makes no Impress. lon
upon the average rate OF wages and. ex-
cept 10 very funaitssimal quantity, does
nst diminish the employ meut OF tre,. labor.
Practically, there j. uotblug Ia toe com
plant oi the labor reto.mcfs that !. worthy
OF legislative notice.
All labor i necessarily competitor With
other labor Of its own Kind Whenever
m. eel har =
pctes With somebody else who work,
Hence. the only way to prevent all compe-
ullpu by prison labor would be 10 abolish
all productive labor IN the penal instltu-
uoUs Of the country, and support the CON
ylcts IN idlene... THIS would be great
evil 10 the coayicts themselves, and add
their support 10 the burdens OF the state.
which must ultimately be borne by labor.
be real aud only question OF any i'm
portAncc 10 respect 10 convict labor Is not
whether such labor shall be cxacted a,
part OF prison discipline; but what system
Of cxactlon IS best adapted To Tighten the
burdens OF the State aud al the same time
act as 4 reiormatory influence upon the
prisoners themselves. Here there /, a y iIr
field for discussion, and withal not u IIltle
diversity OF views. Mr.. Wright. after look
lng at The various aspects OF the question
sees no occasion Tor recommending any
change IN the general policy OF Massachu-
sets lie thinks that the State has 4 ight
to maze is penal Institutions seli-suppOrt-
iug, and that, IL, in doing so PRISON lab0r
compete, with other laoor to anv extent,
this IS no more than is doAe by every man
utactnrer who employ, labor; aud INA,
this objection, 50 lar as il is .ucn at al. j.
of such small proportions a. 10 be OF but
ltttle consequence. HIS conclusions may
not commend themselves To mere dema-
eoguc-; but sensible people viii be very
likely TO approve them.-L The Ia,iependent.