The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-03-15

according to the figures furnished by
1t can only be accounted for
on the superstition that those
making or ratifying such a lease
know nothing about business or the
value OF money or care nothing when
they see millions taken directly from
the pockets of the people and placed
In the pockets OF two or three men.
To lease a state institution for few
thousand dollars that is paying a
profit of $4,000, over and above all
expenses, is simply preposterous. The
theory that the state cannot manage
such an institution as successfully as
can the leSseeS is absurd and but
fllmsy excuse for throwing big, fat
Job into the hands of two or three
men. When members of a legislative
body have thrust into their faces the
undisputed and indisputable fact that
the state is losing thousands
upon thousands of dollars annual
jy in persisting in such and such
course, and still heed not the
fact or attempt to rectify it, the cen
clusion is irresistible that there is
something decidedly rotten in Dem
mark" The chief reasons for the
lease seem to be the want of business
capacity in the state to manage the |
penitentiary as well as private par
ties, the possible loss in resuming con-
tIol, and the foolish sentimentality |
that insists that the state should not |
run its penal institutions for profit. |
Thefirst argument is extremely fiimsy,
from the fact that the state is as well |
able to hire and pay superintendent |
and guards as are leSsees. In the next |
place, the appropriations already made |
for the penitentiaries are so ample, |
while those institutions are in their |
present condition, that the state would |
have resumed control without having |
to appropriate another dollar over |
and above the present munificent |
provisions, or without losing dollar |
otherwise. And then again, while |
the penal institutions of a state |
should not be run for profit, every |
dollar that can be legitimately made |
by the state in the ordinary and nee
essary methods of punishment of its
criminals, to render such burdens up
on the law-abiding people self-sus-
tanning or even remunerative should |
be made. 1t costs the state and soci-
ETY. much money to punish its crimi-
nails, and the state is entitled to re- |
turn, if possible. from the labor of |
these convicts of every dollar expend= |
ed by it. In other words, the people |
of Texas must decide whether the |
senate of the state has done its duty |
or defraudt the people when they |
take one of the hest paying institu- |
tons in the state and turn it over
for a mere nominal price per
annum to two or three favored lessees. |
The question of humanity is also one
to consider, for there is no one but
knows that lessees, who take the
penitentiary for the simple purpose
of making money, will eXpend less in
the care of and be far more exacting
in the labor of convicts than would
the state, when its object was not to
squeeze every cent it could out of the
institutions. If our penitentiaries,
instead of paying a clear profit to the
state, larger than the amount for
which they are now leased, had been
found source of loss and impossible
of being made self-sustaining, there
would be wisdom in getting rid of
them on any terms that would pay a
dollar. AS ii is there is no earthly
wisdom, so far as we can see, on the
part of Texas in turning these insti-
buttons into others hands annually
for mere song. The whole bust
ness looks bad, the manner in which
the bids were advertised for, the man
ner in which the particular bid was
accepted and the ratification of the
lease by sixteen senators in face of
the array of telling figures and facts
urged against the lease. All may be
and doubtless is square and fair, and
results from honest and patriotic
business notions, but the business ca
pacity exercised on the part of the
state of Texas in the premises is not
to say the poorest at least the most
peculiar we have any knowledge of,
unless it was that of the now famous
female who killed the fowl that laid
the golden egg.