Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-01-07
The STATE PRISONS AGAIN.

We have frequently dwelt upon the con-
stitutional section, the spirit and aim of
which is to remove the State Prison man
agement from political control. When the
Democracy succeeded to power in this
State it had before it the mistakes of its pre-
decessor in regard to this matter. The land.
marks it had created were too conspicuous
to be overlooked. They pointed directly
toward the broad path of constitutional
subversion, and the Democracy had no eI.
cuse for not avoiding the pitfalls they had
indicated. The Constitution, after except
ing two offices in favor of the appointing
power of the Board of Directors, says
"All other officers and employees of the
prison shall be appointed by the Warden
thereof, and removed at his pleasure"
This is plain sailing; there is no ambiguity
about this language of the organic Act. 1t
says, in so many words, to the Directory
You may appoint the Warden; but since
successful prison management depends
NtSh AAAo SAbOlhlAabto bCAAS aNkOuhb1bAS w
the Warden alone, subject to his discipline
alone, recognizing no authority superior to
his under the laws, subservient to no power
but his and fearing no changes of admin
istration but his, ne alone shall appoint,
and he alone remove them" This is
the root and vital factor in all peno.
logical systems of any worth whatever.
1t vests in Wardens the power of appoint
ment and removal they ere responsible
only to the Board of Directors for the
abuse of that power, and then only so far
as such abuse would constitute the basis
of charge for incompetency or miscon-
duct. But it is now openly charged that the
Directory does exercise control in the
matter of the officers intended to be con-
trolled only by the Warden; that by
Adroit legislation the partisan majority
has worked the removal at Folsom,
for instance, OF political opponents
In the past Wardens have been
governed by the Directory to the
extent of controlling their action in
appointing and removing. The viciousness
OF such control is apparent, and its con-
demnation has not been confined to either
Republicans or Democrats. This journal
did not hesitate to denounce the invasion of
the Constitution when its political friends
were guilty. 1t is not question Of
party, but Of principle; a question as to
whether the Constitution is a bit of wet
paper for political thumbs to punch holes
in, or a fundamental command of
the sovereign OF the State, and u
be respected and obeyed as such.
The Warden at Folsom is 4 Republican.
and his retention has met with public ap.
proval. There were none Of the conssitu
tional causes, so far as the public has been
informed, for removal found in his case.
But it is charged that under him since the
incoming OF the new Board changes have
been effected. by acts OF the Directors, so
that none but Republicans were removed,
and none but Democrats appointed As.
suming these things to be true, the infer.
ence is justified that the Warden has been
shorn of his free will as the price of his
retention, and thus the constitutional pro-
vision quoted has been subverted in spirit
if not in letter. For instance, the charges
run that by act of the Directory guards
have been removed who were Republicans,
and Democrats have been appointed to their
places; that while the guard posts are less
in number than last year, the total guard
force is greater, and the accession has been
wholly Democratic. Now, the Wardens
should be so hedgsd in by the independ.
ence with which the Constitution invests
them, that they will be above and Indifferent
to newspaper, political or other criticism
regarding their official acts, except so far as
they relate to their competency and the wis.