Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1925-03-31
PRISONERS, PAY BILL


Senate Document No. 80. under
which the States prison commits
sioners would be permitted to pay
from manufacturing profits at the
prison. If there be any, as wage to
the prisoners, such sums as the COM
missioners may determine, but not
exceeding fifty cents per day. is now
before the Legislature for considera-
ton.
How many know the terms of this
measure? Here it is, proposing to
amend sec. 2 Of chap. 1876, Public
Laws Of 1917 by the addition Of the
following:
From the manufacturing profits
Of the prison the commissioners may
allow prisoners such wage as they
may from time to time determine.
but not exceeding fifty cents per
day, which wage shall be subject to
such order for distribution to de-
pendents and benef1ciaries and for
credit to prisoners release fund. as
the commissioners may direct"
What is there unreasonable about
this? What is there .extravagant
about it? Why isn't it wise econo-
my? What is there about this pro-
posed change that should cause
hesitation to approve?
There is about 1t that which
should cause a legislator to hesitate
to disapprove it.
There Is in it tho principles Of fair
dealing and sound business manage
ment. It is based on experience in
penology. successfully developed in
States having the most creditable
prison management. 1t does not take
from the States funds but from
that which the prisoner earns. If he
doesn't earn it he does not get 1t.
Before disappearing such meas
ure 1t might be we'll to recognize a
fact, an important fact; horse may
be led to water but no one yet has
devised way to make it drink. The
State may say what a prisoner shall
earn but never yet has it been able
to compel him to earn it. 1t simply
can't be done. The nearest approach
to it is in those States of the South,
where under the old regime convicts
are "farmed OUT. Results show that
most of what the prisoner earns
there goes to the contractor, not to
the State. Does Maine wish to go
back to that? Would it be any
richer or better under such an ar
rangement? Is it even good bust
ness to do that?
But does someone say: 1--WE must
punish the prisoner. But why
adopt a method that Furnishes our
selves more than the prisoner? We
are today taxing ourselves huge
sums in some parts of this country
for educating criminals in crime. for
turning them loose and then paying
the terrible price of their renewed
criminality. Of reconviction and re-
turn to prison.
There are well recognized ways for
Furnishing prisoners so that they may
recognize the justice of the punish
ment. Surely the State that as
sumes to correct those who have
been guilty Of injustice toward
society should not itself be guilty of
injustice. Surely State that i'm
prisons the criminal for taking that
which doesn't belong to him is not
setting very good example by TAX
ing even indirectly from the mouths
Of those dependent on that man.
The public is concerned in this
more deeply than perhaps It realizes
Society must see that justice be
done II it would protect itself from
injustice. It should read the report
Of the hearing on this matter before
the committee, a hearing at which no
objector cared to speak.
Enlightened selfishness alone is
ample warrant for this measure-and
there Is much besides that to sup
port it.