The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-28
CONVICT LABOR.

| The question of convict labor is a
vexed one, not only to the working
man but TO the humanitarian. i
great many men look upon prison la
Dor as robbery of honest labor. That
the convict set to work upon the
street prevents the employment NOf
an honest and needy workman A
great many of them will argue that
prisoners ought not to be EMPLOYED
at any kind of labor which will COM
pete with free Iaborers. That If it
does cost the state more to support
the convict in idleness the largest
proportion of this cost is paid by the
rich and they are better able to pay
this tax than are the working classes
to stand the competition of prisoners.
Several points have to be considered
in the discussion of this question. The
first is THAT the main purpose of i'm
prisoning the law-breaker is to re-
form him. Another purpose may be
to protect society from his further
depredations. but certainly better
way TO protect society is to make an
honest man of the criminal. This fact
Is recognized in our leading penal in
situations and the penitentiary at FL
mira n. Y, has been the most sue
cessful Of any in the country in the
line of reforming criminals
But you cannot reform men and
keep them in idleness OF by putting
them at unproductive or useless work.
1t should be at some useful kind of
work which will be of service to them
In making an honest living after they
leave the prison. Under strict prison
discipline they should be taught how
to work. rewarded for excellence and
punished for disobedience or Iaziness.
1t is difficult, however, to cultivate
Industry and carefulness in a convict
who realizes that he is getting no ben
eft from his labor; that he is only
paying-perhaps more than paying
for his board and clothes. We think
even a convict is entitled to the pro-
duct of his labor. Even Imprisonment
does not rob him of that inalienable
right. Neither does it lessen his obli-
cation to support those who are de-
pendent upon him.
We think a very serious wrong IS
done the family of a criminal when
they are deprived of their bread-win-
ner. In some cases he may be a bur
den upon the unfortunate wife and
children, but in the great majority of
cases he has been their support. But
the law never takes this fact into con-
sideration. The. husband and father
Is dragged off to prison to remain for
years-and not a
thought is given as to how the de-
pendent and innocent family are to
be provided for. We insist that the
government which forcibly and neces-
sarily takes away the only support of
4 family is as justly bound to compen-
safe that family for his loss as it is
bound to compensate the owner of |
and for public use.
Government can make this compen-
sation by putting the convict at pro-
iuctive work and turning over the |
of his labor-or a large share /
If tito the family of the convict for
heir support. The benefits Of such a
plan are four-fold. First, the convict |
s aided to reform through the disci- I
1line of work; second, his compensa- |
ion depends upon his own industry |
Ind care and his self-respect is there
by cultivated; third, he has the salts I
action Of knowing he is supporting I
lis family; fourth. society is relieved /
If the burden of supporting them.
We think this is the only right way /
% solve the question of convict labor
Fhe leasing of them out to contract
rs is probably the very worst way
o deal with them and has been large
y abandoned in the northern states.
t is still common in a number of the
outhern states and has led to serious
on1icts between free and convict la
,orers. Notably SO in the Tennessee
'oal mines.
1t may be urged that a portion OF
he earnings of the convict should go
o pay for his own support. But this
s not so when we consider penal in
;titutions as reformatories rather than
They base their claims
or public support upon the same /