Year: 1879

of the newspaper press of the State.
We have noticed several articles on the
subject, In different papers, and with
one consent, they all seem inclined TO
make uncompromising warfare on the
present management of this vast lnsti-
tution-or rather on the present policy
of the State in regard to it. We donot
mean to express any censure, nor do
we suppose the papers referred to intend
TO censure or condemn the course or
conduct of the present gentlemanly
and worthy lessees of the Penitentiary.


1t is the policy, or system, now in
force that seems to receive the unquaIi-
fled condemnation of all the papers, so
far as we have observed, that have dis
cussed the question. We have seen no
unfavorable criticism of the manage
ment of the present lessees.


1t is question that will force itself
on the attention of our approaching
Legislature; and it is well that it should
be discussed and ventilated, thorough
ly, in all its phases and bearings, in
order that the action, whatever 1t may
be, that shall be taken by that body
may be wise, prudent, just and for the
best interest of all concerned-both the
Taxpayers of the State, and the untor-
tunate victims of crime who must be





punished for their violations OF law.


1t is not our purpose, at present to
advocate any particular policy as the
right one, and better than all Others
to be pursued, or adopted by our State
with reference to the Penitentiary. We
are not sufficiently advised at present,
nor have we thought materially enough
on the subject to have framed ii our
mind policy that we can confidently
affirm is the wsest and best that can
be adopted. Our purpose is, rather, to
enter Il protest against thoughtless
and unreasoning warfare on, and
wholesale condemnation of the "leas-
ing SYSTEM" odious as it seems to be
with some; and at the same time to
excite serious and calm thought upon
the subject.


We are confident that some who have
INDUCED in this sweeping and unquali-
condemnation of the present system,
do not understand its nOdus 0peradt;
have not grappled with the whole ques-
ton; haven't got to the bottom OF it;
and, in short, to use rather a common
but, still we think, forcible expression,
we are sure they have fired before aim
ing; or in other words, gone Oft half
cooked. We say this because we have
seen it denounced as a system OF IA
misunderstanding if not directly
charging that the present, or leasing,
system, is intended to benefit few
special favorites. Now, this is certain
ly without shadow of foundation in
truth, whether with reference to the
immediate lessees from the State, or the
sub-lessees under them. How is it pos
sible for there to be any favoriteism
about it?


The lessees, we presume, offered bet
ter terms to the State than anyone else
did, or they would not have become
the lessees. And if this proposition be
not true, the least that can be said Of 1t
is, that they offered terms that were SO





much better for the State, and conse-
quently for the tax payers, than the
then prevailing system, that the Com
missioners promptly availed of the
offer, and closed good bargain for the
people at large.


The simple truth of the matter is,
that the former system was not self
supporting. The Penitentiary did not
pay its own expenses, and the taXpay-
ers had to foot annually bill OF sever
al thousands of dollars out of the State
Treatury to pay it out OF debt, and
keep it afioat. Whereas, under the
present system, it not only pays all
expenses, but actually yields an income
of several thousand dollars to the State.
In that point of view then, there was
certainly something gained-some adj
vance made and some improvement
on the old plan.


Then, as to the mode or plan of sub
leasing, adopted by the lessees, we are
wholly at a loss to see where any, even
! the least favoritism can come in. The
Iessees, by virtue of their contract with
| the State, became vested with the sole
and exclusive right to the convict
labor for the full term of the lease.
Clothed with this right, as they justly
were, we suppose they acted as any
other wise business men would, and
sub-leased or hired out 50 much of said
convict labor as they saw fit, on the
very best terms they could obtain.
They hired to anybody who offered
himself as bidder, and with whom
they could agree on terms; and there
was surely no favoritism in this. So
much then, for the charge Of favorit-
ism.


One other circumstance we mention,
as going to show that some of the
wholesale condemnation of the present
system has resulted from want OF a
proper understanding of the subject;
it is this-that the State pays the re-
wards offered for the arrest of escaped
convicts. No mistake could be greater.
The lesses are bound, under their con-
tract with the State, to report all es-
capes to the Governor, and it is his
duty to offer a reward for the arrest of
the convict or convicts thus reported
but in every instanse the reward is
payable by the lessees, and in fact is
paid by them whenever an arrest is
made. In no single instance, under
the present lease, has the State paid
such a reward.


Another very important thing to be
considered about this matter is this: