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

All diSinterested persons who have
! given study and reflection to the pro-
foundly important science of penology
must agree with Senator Terrell in
his general criticism of the convict
leasing system, as unstatesmanlike,
| irrational, inhuman and barbarous.
In his vigorous speech against the
ratification of the pending lease the
senator makes his strongest point
when he contends that the system,
essentially conflicts with the policy;
and object of penitential servitude SO,
far as it confiscates the labor of the,
convict as an article of traffic, and
turns the convict over to a master
who takes him on private speculation,
and who has no other interest in him
than to make all the money possible
out of his bone and muscle. AS the
senator well remarks, "the law never
Furnishes for the sake of punishment;
that would be barbarous and inhuman.
1t Furnishes only in the hope of refor-
nation, and to warn others by show
ing the consequences Of crime. ThRu
state of Texas desires neither the
death nor the torture of any
of her citizens. However we
may warp her policy by
speculative contracts, the state
strikes only to reform, she Furnishes
only to intimidate, and none of her
people ever demanded that merchan-
disc should be made of her criminals"
Nevertheless, this very thing has
through legislative and executive con-
trivance become an accomplished and I.
organized fact, and this blot on civili-
zation is made doubly dark by appro-
priating to the use and profit Of pri-.
vate speculation the con6scated labor
of convicts. Under the law of Eng
land forfeiture and corruption Of
blood with respect TO property rights
were repudiated us relics of "a barba--
rous age years ago. In England pro-
vision is made for the due admfnistra-
ton of convicts' estates. in the inter-
est of themselves and families; and
when Imprisonment is attended with
useful and profitable labor on the part
of convicts, provision is also made for
setting aside to the credit of the
laborers due proportion of their
earnings. This is done presumably
upon the theory that capacity for any
kind of useful and profitable labor is
in the nature of property, and as such
should be no more liable to forfeiture
VII dCCOunb VI IIldu Itdl .toIdBt
or personal effects. This capacity
for labor may be and often Is the
only property as well of the honest
citizen as the convicted criminal.
The law of Texas throws about IL
something like the sacredness of a
homestead right by guarding the
tools and wages Of iaborers from
seizure for debt. In this matter the,
law considers that the labor and its
current fruits may be the only means
of livelihood for the laborer, or the,
only means OF support for wife, chill
dren or other dependents. And here
we see the monstrous anomaly of a
convict-leasing system, which, with
remorseless indifference to the claims
of wife, children or other dependents.
takes the labor of the man who Is +.
nominally sentenced to penitential
servitude, and all the possible fruits
of his labor, as an absolute forfeiture
for the use and behoof of private
| speculation. 1t is declared, indeed, in
the penal code of Texas that "when
convict is imprisoned in the peni-
Tertiary his property shall be con-
trolled and managed in the manner
directed by law; but there shall, in no
criminal case, be forfeiture of prop
erty of any kind to the state" Here,
in general terms, proper regard is
shown for those who may have natu-
raj or lawful claims upon the
convict or his property, such as
wife, children, dependents, credit
ors. Now, suppose number of GRIM
inals happened to be convicted while
possessed of houses and lands, and
they and their houses and lands were
turned over in a lump to the posses
sion, use and profit of a set of private
| spectators. All can understand that
this would be unciviliZed, inhuman,
shocking. Well, what is the moral or
the material difference if the property
thus confiscated and appropriated is
the capacity of the convict for some
kind of useful and profitable labor?
1t has been seen that the penal code
of Texas declares that in no criminal
case shall there be "a forfeiture of
property of any kind to the state"
The phrase property of any kind"
construed in the economic sense.
must include the property which at
taches to man in the form of his
power and skill for productive and
money-making labor. BY bubble.
however, 1t may be argued that under
the present convict-leasing system
this kind of property Is not forfeited
TO the state in contravention OF the
quoted provision OF the penal code,
because the system works the forfeit
ure, not to the state, but to private
spectators to whom the state has re-
signed the solemn trust and trouble
some problem Of penitentiat seEyi-
tude.