Southern standard. (McMinnville, Tenn.) 1879-current, 1891-09-05

felony convicts constitute large pro-
portions of the States criminals; at
present S03 are serving out sentences
under five years and 400 under three
years. s. orll.,f,.d hr.r %
Each county should pay its own
criminal costs and manage its eonvicts
of this grade. No county would
have more than it could work on the
public roads, bridges, streets, etc.1 or
on the county farm to provide food
for themselves, the inmates of the
county Jail and the poor house, -Four
counties in the State supply about
half of the convicts, Shelby having
4O8; Davidson, 223; Hamilton, 50;
Knox, 50; allarge part being minor
felony crimnals.n
I Following this the Governor enters
into lengthy discussion of the vari-
GUS prison systems of labor, present.
ing some Of their advantages and
Disadvantages as he sees them, con-
tinuing as follows: tan a.mr9
The prevalence of the lease system
in the South is due to the fact that
| prior to the war every plantation was
policed and controlled by its owners.
Penitentiaries were little peeded. l
have been told that South Carolina
had none. When great numbers of
ignorant slaves were set free from all
restraints they quickly extended our
criminal list beyond the capacity of
the prisons to accommodate them
and the ability of the State to take
care of them, and in the
financial straits incident to the civil
war the lease system was the best so.
luton of the problem that the States
have yet been able to make, But
thay are reaching out after better
system. Mississippi has taken high
ground in its new constitution, and
says that "no penitentiary convict
shall ever be leased or hired to any
person or persons, or corporation,
private, public or quasi public, or
board after Dec. 81, 1894, except I'M
der State supervisor and the proper
officers and employees Of the State on
public roads or, other public works,
or any levee board on any public
levees. ,eo
J. If the strong, outspoken sentiment
r in Tennessee against the lease system
= be genuine and reflect public senti-
ment, there will be no obstacles in
the way of its final abolition.
1t has been suggested that the State
" might engage them on public works
exclusively. 1t is true that in trans
ferring prison labor to public works
the State would not compete with
the price of artisans or laborers
: work, but with the work itself.
The stonemasons, carpenters, paint
ers, etc., would not suffer from the
reduction in the wages, but the mar
ket for their work would be cut of
to the extent of the public works tt
: be constructed.
Again it has been suggested tina
the State work the convicts on some
work that artisans would not do
such as macadamiEg the public roads
: of the State. To quote from G. d
Wright, United States Commissions
of Labor, who has giveu much
thought to this subject and observed
its workings closely: "This would
necessitate one of two things, eithe
= the preparation Of stone at the pris
on, involving the transportation t.
the prison from the sources of sup
ply, and from the prison to the plac,
for use, or the mobilization of TIT
. convicts at the points not only 0
supply, but of consumption, involv
ing heavy expense for guard duty
and temporary confinement"
This proposition is made upon tn,
ground that the State should no
make the expense or profit one o
any Importance, but should seek tt
keep convicts at work as the policy
and yet itself receive some lastinI
benefit from the necessity it is unde
of feeding and clothing them. TIL
chances Of escape under this system
of course, are multiplied greatly
Wherever convicts have been EN-
ployed on public works, and this ha
: been largely the case in England, tn
expense has been very much create
: than it would have been through tn
, employment of free labor.
At best the plan offers a mere pal
liative, shifting the burden from
skilled to unskilled labor, and woult
!, result in aggravating eventually al