The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1881-08-25

1 Jorbt ss 10 the evil effect Of this system
unon the interests of free labor. IL not
only tends to pauperiz honest 'ap9I' puS m
IL ia, in great measure Responsive loi
the over. crowded condition OF our peLal
institutions. This may be surprise 70
those who have never given this import
ant ouestion any study, still the l9dls'
nntable fact stsres us plainly in the FACE
Crime increases in proportion a. class
~ a naon,e are pauperized. Therefore,
fhe time of any law.making Dooy
can be employed in no more pronlaple
manner than that Of protecting the IN
dustrial classes againgt any system wnlCn ,l
tends to force them into q state OF pau.
perism. This fact received at the hahus
OF congress, in the passage 81 . law
known ss the protective Tariff Law"
nnoualified recognition. This enactment
hv Congress, it is we'll known, was ior
f6e purpose of protecting our industrial
classes against the unfair competltlon OF
cheap pauper labor abroad. NOW, theh
II it was the duty of our National Legls'
lature to adopt measures against the pau
perization of the producing classes OF our
country through foreign Influences II
seems to ue that 1t is clearly the duty Of
the State to shield and protect It's LABOR
inc people against the unfair Competltlon
and rauperizing tendency Of cheap con
vict labor, particularly since the State II
self is dire Fly responsible for MS statC
of affairs. The mechanics OF our 0tAt'
for the rast hirty five yePrs b We om
p,ained bitterly again t the en 'py !su. S
of the contract system by t7e slate Foi
thirty.hve years they have knocS Seu ~
the doors Of the Legislature, and IN
suppl eating manner begged our Jaw
makers to give this all-impurtant ques'
tion some little attention, but until now
without success, Whether indifference
toWord the interests of our laboring peo'
pie, or sympathy for the prison contract
ors, is the cause Of this delayed action
we are unable to STATE. Certain 1t 49,
however, that the contract system nat
been permitted to gnaw at the, Vitals u
our mechanical interests until the cry
now goes forth from one end Of the State
to the other for its abolition, and the
adoption of a system whereby the prohte
of convict labor shall accrue to the state
instead of the prison contractor.
CONTRACT LAB lR-ITs EFFECT UPON THE
REFORMATION OF PRISONERS.
In moral point of view, we find that
the contract system can never be made
an agency of reformation, On the cor
trary, we regard it as an insurmountable
barrier to the reformation of the unfor'
tunates incarcerate within the prison
walls, and who are compelled to live un'
der it's demolalizing influences. The
best evidence that can be obtained
proves conclusively that the prisoners
under the contract system, in majority
Of cases, are only hardeded instead Of
reformed. We need but call your atten-
ton to the Cincinnati Work-house in
contrast with the Cleveland Work-house'
The Cincinnati Work house is conducted
under the contract system, and the
Cleveland Work-house is managed by
the officers of the prison without the in
tervention of prison Contr Ctors. To
show that the contract system has de-
moralizing influence dpon the prisoners,
you1 attention is especially called to the
s'srmingly large per cent, OF recommit
tails to the Cincinnati Work.house under
the contract system which is seventy
fi,e in every one hundred. Here, then,
is grave cause for a'arm, and the exist
snce of a state of affairs which calls loud
ly for speedy action at your hands. For
fear that your Committee may be thought
as refscting upon the ability and eficien-
cy Of the Superintendent, Mr.. James
Morgan, and other officers Of that prison
we hereby take the opportunity to de-
claim any such intention. We do say,
however, that whatever the abilities of
Mr.. Morgan, or those of other men may
be, as prison managers, in the opinion OF
your Committee they cannot make a
PENAL institution successful retormatory
institution under any system which takes
The prisoners out of the hands of prison
authorities and places them in the hands
of prison contractors. In the testimony
taken from prison contractors Ve have
failed to adduCe any evidence to prove
that these men have given the subject Of
reforming the prisoners any thought
whatever. The testimony Of Mr., Perrin,
of the firm Of Perrin, GafP & Co., is fair
sample how little is thought of reforma-
ton in connection with our penal insti.
tutions. Mr.. Perrin, in his testimony
was honest and straightforward. H.
stated, frankly, that he gave the ques.
tion of reformation little or no concern
and that he contracted for the labor Of
the prisoners at the Cincinnati Work.
house merely for p rsonal gain. The ref
ormation of prisoners under the contract
system, seems to be lost sight Of; espec-
ially is this the case in the Ohio peniten.
tisry. Of all the witnessls examined
WhJ were in any way ConneC. ed with
this prison, not one claimed that the in
was reformatory in character,
but that il was a mere place for the pun
of men ConYiCted for committing
ohenses against the law.
Mr.. Alfred Thomas, contractor, in his
testimony said; 81 doubt whether it (the
Penitenliary) really exercises reforma-
tory influence upon the character of the
men there"
Mr.. Romeo Gregg, another contractor
in the Ohio Peni entiary, In reply to the
question, "lIave you given the subject of
reformation of prisoners any studyP"
said, "None in particular" He also stat
ed that he took the contract to make
what he could out Of it,
Hon. HArvey Rice, President of the
Board Of Directors Of the Cleveland |
Work-house, in his testimony, treated
The question of prison management in
an exhaustive, clear and concise manner.
AS Mr.. Rec has given this important
question life long study, we call your
especial attention to the testimony given
by him. 1t will be observed that he is
clearly of the opinion that the refOrma.
ton Of prisoners can not be accomplish.