St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-03-26
RIPE, RED ROAST.
The State Board Of Prison
Managers Roasted Almost
Beyond Recognition
By a House Committee Ap-
pointed to Investigate the
Institution.
Seymour, Sabin & Co. Appear
to Have Gobbled Every
thing in Line,
AS Well AS Practically Die
tated the Policy of Man.
ayers and officers.
A Terrible Arraignment Of
Methods Adopted to Re-
form Conviets.
A Report Which Every Legis-
lator Should Mark and In
Wardly Digest.

]. ". Keyes. chairman of the special
committee appointed to investigate the
state prison, made volGminous report
to the house yesterday. The report was
not read at the time, but is expected to
come up again this morning. Mr.. KeyeS
and his committee deserve the thanks
of the people of the state for the search
ing investigation they made, and the
clear, fOrcible character of the report
filed. The other members on the COM
mittee with Mr.. Keyes were Messrs. L.
Cole, Lewis Hadland, Wells, Tripp and
Kinney. There has never before i'll this
state been more sweeping arraign-
ment of a public board than this report
of the management of the state prison.
The conduct of the prison managers is
most severely handled, and it is difficult
TO conceive how the present legislature
can pass over the report of this conf
mittee in any manner or form. There
must be a thorough reorganization of
its management. 1t is an imperative
duty of legislators to act at once in the
matter. To demonstrate this the follow
ing excerpts from Mr.. Keyes' able re-
port will sufficiently demonstrate:
The findings of fact are divided into three
parts The first deals with the history OF the
Eo-called prison contracts" The second
with the prison management, so far as the
same is represented by the board of man.
ayers. and also with the existing contracts.
The third with prison discipline, Mr.. Ran
6al's administration. and subjects not treat
ed in the other two subdivisions.
Contract prison labor in this state is nearly
Us old as the state itself. According to the
executive document of 1865 the whole num-
ber of convicts in confinement during the
preceding year was5 nineteen, and those
were employed by G. NJ. Seymour under con
tract.
ON April l, 1872, the warden. under the di-
rectiOn Of the inspectors. entered into new
contract whereby the shops, grounds and
convict labor were leased 10 seymour. Sabin
d Co, successors to seymour & Webster, for
an additional term of nine 9) years, the con-
tractors to pay an annual rental of $780, and
IS cents day for convict labor During the
period covered by this last contract the same
system Of letting all contracts for building
and repairing 10 the leSsees of the shops and
labor continued. In 1876 contest arose be-
tween the state, represented officially by the
warden, and Seymour, Sabin q Co. relative to
the amount of shop room required to be fur
nished the latter under the contract and
also as 20 The number of guards 10 be fur
niShed: and from Anril l. 1876 the contract
Ors refused to pay the state in any manner
whatever for the rent of grounds and shops
and the labor of conYicts This refusal on
the part of the contractors finally led TO an
action being brought against them to recover
The Amount Due.
which taken by appeal to the supreme court
and a final decision rendered against the
contractors on the merits of the controversy,
and the case remanded.
Pending the final determination Of the
suit but after the right of the state to recover
had been established by the supreme court.
the contractors, III order, as your committee
believes to secure perpetuity of their con-
tracts with the stale and TO obtain the allow
Rnce of illegal and bogus claims against the
state, by some artifice or other secured the
passage of chapter s. of the General Laws of
1873 which act contained a preamble setting
forth that certain differences had arisen be-
tween the state and Seymour Sabin q Co.,
which 1t was advisable TO have adjusted, and
that it was deemed proper that the same
should be referred to a commission of three,
one 10 be chosen by Seymour, Sabin & Co,
one by the state ana these two to chose a
third
A brief review of the award of this com
mission Will show that the allowance of
$4l, 431.91
Directly Defeated
the result of the decision OF the supreme
court, and compelled the state to purchase
and pay for buildings which it, as a matter of
legal right already owned. The right to any
part of the relief granted under the award
was especially negatved by the determine
ton of the supreme court Just referred to,
and was made in The face of such decision.
The most dlabolcal portion of the whole
scheme manltestS Itself, however. in the
award where it is provided that the state of
Minnesota shall III The month of March, 1885
purchase of said Seymour, Sabin Il Co. the
engine, boiler, pump and attachment thereto
then III use III the prison shops. and at the
termination of said contract. on the 1st day
of April, 1881, the state of Minnesota shall
purchase of said SeymCur. Sabin & Co. all
the fixed and movable machinery belonging
10 them and then i'll use in said prison shops
and yard, including all shafting and betting
for driving the same"
In order to fully appreciate the scope and
magnitude Of
10 Q al go This Scheme. IS
1t should be horn in mind that while the
state had Tor years been furnishing the
contractors with men and n plant in which
10 work them at nominal figures. the con-
tractors had furnished their own machinery
and motive power. and to that extent the
state WAS not The loser. Now, however it
was awarded that at the termination of the
contract then existing between the state and
the contractors, the state should purchase
and become the owners of ali that machinery
and motive power afterward appraised at
$10,OO92S and pay for the same with convict
labor al forty cents per day.
The reasons why the contractors desired
this purchase are very apparent. In the
first place It relieved them OF q large amount
of machinery, the expense of maintaining
which was considerable, ana also reduced
their business investment.
In the second place. it enabled them to make
sale Of the machinery and motive power
for at least One-third more than
HIS Actual Value
at the time, according TO estimates secured
by YOU committee from one acknowledged
10 be the most accomplished machinery ex-
pert in the state.
In the third place, it left the state at the
termination of the contract, in 1881. with all
this machinery ana motive power on its
hands, most of which was specially adapted
20 the kind of work being prosecuted by the
contractors, and otherwise useless to the
state. It will readily be seen that such CON
dition of affairs would be an i2ducement to-
ward and strong argument IN favor of re-
neBing the contract with the contractors, as
was afterwards actually done.
But your committee is, however. not con
fned to evidence Of this character to demon
Itrs;e the
Existence of Scheme
IN the part Of the contractors to obtain and
maintain control over the prison, but they
hall speak for themselves.
On Feb, i, 1881. according to calculation, e