The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-02-15

fully employed and was not frcqucnting
drinking saloons or otherwise going
astray.
a parole board was appointed to carry
out the law and to look after the parolcd
prisoner. helping him if necessary to
get employment. Meetings of the board
were To be held at stated times to pass
upon applications for parole. 1t was to
consist of the warden and the doctor of
the prison, together with the president
of the parole board, who OBLIGATED at all
Federal prisons and who would natu-
rally I've the superior official of the three.
But two members of the board would
form quorum, and meetings of the
board at times other than those regu-
larry required could be held II thought
desirable
This looked humane and innocent and
raised great hopes in prisoners. and an
Improvement in their general demeanor
was soon observable. Question soon
arising as to whether life prisoners cou d
be brought under the new law. 1t was
decided that lifers who had served fifteen
years were eligible II of good record
not an extravagant act of mercy-and
in obtaining this concession 1t was made
k..own that the warden of Atlanta peni-
tertiary. was instrumental. OF course
the reputation of Atlanta as "A model and
humane prison was greatly enhanced
thereby.
But the prisoners and perhaps the
| trainers of the law also had overlooked
| one little word in the language of the
law which grew to have large slgnif-
canoe afterward. The language is that
| If the prisoners conduct has been cor
rect. &c, he may be granted parole. II
for that harmless looking may" had
n.en substituted shall or must" the
secret annals of Federal prisons since
then would have been spared much ras-
cality. corruption, cruelty, torture and
death prisoners would not have
hated and distrusted their Keepers as
they do now and subordination on one
side and humanity on the other would
have received an impetus.
That may" rendered II optional with
the board to grant or to refuse parole in
any given case. They might not only
determine whether or not the conduct Of
the applicant had been while serving
his sentence good enough to justify
clemency, but also whether even then it
were expedlent to exercise it. No matter
prisoner We're shown to be. 1t was open
to the board to say to him. We hold
that your liberation would be lnimlcal to
the welfare Of society and we cannot
| therefore recommend it to the Depart
ment."
The prisoner. going before the board
unsupported 10y the advice Of counsel.
| had no further recourse: he must 90
back 10 his cell feeling that all his ef-
| forts to be obedient persisted in
| through what discourag ements only
prisoners know had been futile: that
he was not a whit better off than was
a man who had deted every regulation.
and was worse off in SO far as he had
taken all his pains and INDUCED all his
hopes for nothing. He must serve out
| his time. for If he renewed his appl-
| zion at the next meeting of the board
he was told that nothing could he done
in his case except upon the presenta-
ton of new evidence"
New evidence of what? The obstacle
ne had to meet was the arbitrary opin-
ion. or fiat, Of the board that it would
not he good thing to set him free;
with what argument. except his good
conduct, which had already proved un.
awaiting, could he hope to reverse It?
The decision left him helpless and
hopeless. and with a sense of despotlo
injustice on the part of the authorities
which was anything but conducive t.
good discipline in him or in his com
rades who were conversant with his
fate.
As soon as y man applied for parol,
the parole officer betook himself to the
place where the applicant had formerly
lived or been known and there busiet
himself in unearthing whatever GOSSIP
and scandal of a hostile nature any
enemy might be willing to supply. There
was no time limit on these revelation.
nor We're any apparent precautions
taken to determine whether the evil re
ports We're founded In fact.