Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 03.pdf/322

 293 The convict, therefore, ought to be made to feel, with the honest man, that he must earn his living. The Government deprives him of his liberty, and it must therefore furnish him with the opportunity of labor. Only in this sense does it owe him any sup port. The convict, therefore, should be paid wages, — low wages, if his labor is of little value; high wages, if his labor justifies them. Out of these wages he should pay for his living; and if he earns more than will pay for the scanty fare of the prison, he should be permitted to accumulate the surplus. In this way the habit of industry and the habit of self-support are formed; and the fundamental maxim of political economy, that capital is the result of saving, is inculcated. Upon this point the generally admirable statute of the State of New York known as the Fassett Act is obnoxious to some criticism. That act provides that meritorious prisoners may receive ten per cent of the earnings of the prison as compensation, — compensation, ap parently, for good behavior. While good conduct deserves recognition, it is undesir able that it should be paid for in money. Pecuniary recompense should be reserved for labor alone. Another fundamental principle of prison science is " the individual treatment of con victs." The inmates of a prison cannot be reformed en masse by the application of the same influences. "As well might the pa tients in a general hospital, afflicted with divers diseases, be all cured by one universal and unbending regimen." It is obvious that this system of treatment implies a high order of ability on the part of the governors of prisons; no legislation will avail against weakness here. " The whole administration must be pervaded by the personality of a warden who shall possess keen insight, broad human sympathies, and a strong and mas terful nature; and that personality must be

brought into separate and direct contact with each prisoner." If it be once admitted that a criminal should not be discharged from prison unless he is reformed, that is, unless a reasonable probability exists that upon his regaining liberty he will not violate the law, the inde terminate sentence is a logical necessity. It is absurd to turn loose upon society a man who will immediately renew his attacks upon it. " It is just as irrational," Mr. Smith observes, to send a lunatic to an in sane asylum for the predetermined period of two years as it is to sentence a felon to two years' imprisonment, decreeing in advance that when the two years are up both shall go scot-free. Both should be confined until they have become so far cured that they may be set at large without danger to the commu nity." Theoretically, therefore, there should be no predetermined limit to imprisonment for crime. But practically the New York stat ute goes as far as is at present desirable in providing that the imprisonment shall not be shorter than the minimum term, nor longer than the maximum term for which under existing laws the convict may be sentenced. It is not encouraging, although under our system of nominating the judiciary by "halls " and party conventions not sur prising, that no judge has yet prononnced an indeterminate sentence. On the other hand, it is very encouraging that the efforts of a small body of disinterested citizens to reform our prison system should in the face of tremendous opposition have attained so great success as is marked by the enactment of the Fassett bill. This result is enough to convince all sincere reformers that no good cause is hopeless. Those who desire to learn how reason and experience may triumph over prejudice and ignorance can do no better than study Mr. Smith's little tract. — New York Evening Post.