CHAPTER XV.

LAWS FOR REGULATION OF CONVICT LABOR.

The problems connected with the employment of the convicts of the state have, from the outset, been peculiarly difficult of solution in California. Owing to the situation, the attractions of the climate, and other more complex causes, the percentage of the criminal population has been higher than in other parts of the country, thus imposing an unusually heavy burden upon the taxpayers. At the same time, there has been from early days a most persistent and vigorous opposition to the profitable employment of prison labor in manufacturing industries. Until recent years the comparative isolation of the state has limited. the market for her manufactured goods, so that any competition was quickly felt and its effects jealously watched. The manufacturing interests have centered about San Francisco, where the menace of Chinese labor led, at any early date, to organized efforts in defense of the good working conditions that have generally been characteristic of the state. To find steady and profitable employment for a large number of convicts, without in any way coming into competition with the free wage-workers of the state, has been a most difficult undertaking.

THE LEASING SYSTEM.

The first plan adopted for the regulation of the state prison had nothing to recommend it but its cheapness. The whole responsibility of caring for the prisoners, and finding them employment was turned over to lessees. Two men, M. G. Vallejo and J. M. Estell, undertook to guard and maintain the convicts of the state without other compensation than what they hoped to make from their labor.1 Vallejo quickly realized that he had made a bad bargain, and hastened to secure his release,2 but Estell took over the ten-year contract and persisted in his

1 Statutes of California, 1851, pp. 427-8.

2 Ibid., 1852, P. 157.

efforts to make money out of the care of the convicts of the state. By the original agreement, Vallejo also undertook to furnish money for the prison building.2a After his withdrawal,3 bonds were issued for the amount needed to erect buildings. In the meantime, the prisoners were confined in the county jails, or the "prison brig," one of the many abandoned vessels in San Francisco Bay which had been equipped for their safe-keeping.

As might be expected, this plan under which the state sought to shirk its responsibilities for the management of the state prison, worked very badly. Estell claimed that his contract permitted him to employ the convicts wherever, and at whatever labor he found profitable. The prisoners were worked in large gangs away from the prison grounds. Some of them were sent out without guards to serve as domestic servants, or to work on ranches. The "trusties" went on errands either with or without their guards. Of course many of the prisoners escaped. It is evident that the privations of their prison life would tempt them to take desperate chances in order to regain their freedom. While the Prison Inspectors were not explicit in their report of conditions, the distressing details that must have called forth their general remarks are easily imagined. They declared, “The state prison of California, as it now exists, is no paradise for scoundrels. It is a real penitentiary-a place of suffering and expiation. Of work there is abundance, with privations and corporal punishment."

This early period when the state prison was managed by a lessee was interrupted by a brief and disastrous interval of full state control. Estell had not found his contract profitable and relinquished it in 1855.5 Up to this time the state prison had cost the public nothing but the salary of a few officials appointed for inspection, but now over $55,000 a month was required for its maintenance. In addition to a warden and a complete list

2a Statutes of California, 1851, p. 540.

3 Ibid., 1882, pp. 132-4; 1853, pp. 155-158.

4 Report of Prison Inspectors, Appendix to Senate Journal, 1855. Report of committee relative to the condition and management of the state prison, Appendix to Senate Journal, 6th Sess., 1855.

5 Correspondence between Governor Bigler and Estell, Assembly Journal, 7th Sess. (1856), pp. 46-51.

of assistants, three directors at a salary of $3500 each were appointed. The latter were to reside at the prison and have a general oversight-if we may judge by the results of the looting of the public treasury. This was the period when it was felt that nothing short of a vigilance committee could purify the political corruption of San Francisco. Unfortunately this committee did not extend its operations to the state administration. The officials of the state prison were second to none in their ability to make away with the public funds. During the seven months of state control, $388,278 was spent for the maintenance of the prison. The wall was erected, not by prison labor, but by contractors who collected over $65,000 more than was due for a most unsatisfactory piece of work. The prisoners were employed chiefly in making bricks, but even this occupation proved a source of graft, for under the able management of the directors it required $17,168 worth of wood to burn $20,000 worth of bricks.

7

The committee that reported these facts recommended a return to the leasing system. The legislature hastily authorized the Lieutenant Governor, Controller, and Treasurer to act as a Board of Commissioners to lease the state prison grounds and property for five years, the lessee to erect additional buildings, and bear all expenses, including those of the recapture of escaped convicts. Estell was able to renew his contract with a promise of $120,000 a year of state funds, to be paid in monthly installments of $10,000 each." It was agreed that he should "be at full liberty to work said prison convicts at any and all mechanical branches of business that he may choose, provided that the said convicts shall not be employed in any kind or description of labor that shall greatly endanger their lives, health, limbs, or safe-keeping. ''10

Under this new arrangement the prisoners were employed

& Statutes of California, 1855, p. 292-6.

7 Report of Committee, Appendix to Senate Journal, 7th Sess., 1856.

8 Statutes of California, 1856, pp. 48-9.

9 Report of Committee on State Prison (Appendix to Assembly Journal, 1857).

10 Supplementary agreement to contract of March 26, 1856 (Alta, February 3, 1858).

11

chiefly in improving the prison grounds and in making brick.11 But the contractor was anxious to find more profitable occupation for his charges, and his advertisements offering contractors the labor of the many skilled mechanics12 that he declared were to be found among the five hundred prisoners, soon led to the establishment of more varied prison industries, and also called forth the first protest against the competition between convict and free labor.

An article presented before the Mechanics' Institute in February, 1857, attacked the California state prison system as "a blight upon the mechanical labor of the state." The writer claimed that the manufacture of hats, furniture, casks, and stone-work for buildings was already or soon would be absorbed or greatly injured by convict labor, and that the immigration of a desirable class of free mechanics was being greatly retarded by this threatened competition of the large number of prison laborers in the state. He pointed out that the support of the prisoners, whose labor was being utilized for private gain, to the detriment of the free mechanics, was costing the public $120,000 a year, or $240 for each convict. It was suggested that the prison labor should be utilized to improve the rivers and tule lands, and that the profits of such labor be given to the convicts.13 The mechanics of the state were urged to make a vigorous organized protest against the growing menace.

A year later we find a correspondent of the San Francisco Bulletin arguing that the labor of the convicts should be confined within certain well-defined limits. He claimed that, though this labor was limited in amount, it could be brought to bear against any one who demonstrated by experiment that a particular manufacturing business could be carried on successfully in the state. He declared that, to his certain knowledge, the fear of this competition had retarded the establishment of many manufacturing enterprises.14.

11 Report of Committee, February 25, 1857 (Appendix to assembly Journal, 1867). The convicts made 7,000,000 bricks during the year.

12 Quoted in the article in the Daily California Chronicle, February 14, 1857.

13 There are several references to this article in the newspapers of the time, but none of them gives the author's name. See Daily California Chronicle, February 14, 1857.

14 Bulletin, February 2, 1858.

The administration of the state prison was attacked at this time not only because of this growing competition with the free laborers of the state, but also because it was so badly managed that the people living in its vicinity were in constant fear of an outbreak of desperate criminals. The newspaper articles and the complaints from the neighborhood led to the appointment of a joint committee of investigation by the state legislature. On making an unexpected visit to San Quentin, this committee found a most deplorable state of affairs.15 The greater profits of the new contract had not secured a more humane treatment of the prisoners. One hundred and twenty of the prisoners were barefooted, and others had sought to protect themselves from the cold by tying pieces of sacks or blankets about their feet. The bedding was filthy and quite insufficient, and the food so bad that the hogs actually declined to eat it. At night young16 and old were crowded into the large dormitory or inadequate cells, with a resulting immorality that was indescribable. Ninetyfour prisoners had escaped during the previous year.

The special committee appointed to recommend action on this report declared Estell's contract forfeited, and presented a bill which required the Governor to take immediate possession of the state prison, and make suitable provisions for its administration. This bill was passed by a unanimous vote with recordbreaking speed.17 Governor Johnson hastened to execute the order, and succeeded in obtaining forcible possession of the prison keys and seal twenty minutes before the arrival of a restraining injunction.1

18

A new plan for the government of the prison was now devised. The extravagant and corrupt board of prison directors had been abolished.19 The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Secretary of State were appointed prison directors.20 Under the

15 The committee report is published in the Appendix to the Assembly Journal of 1858, and also in the daily papers of February 2-4. (See Alta and Bulletin.) #

16 At this time there were 82 boys under 21 confined at San Quentin. Boys who arrived at the prison in knee breeches were confined with hardened criminals from all parts of the world.

17 Statutes of California, 1858, p. 32.

18 Bulletin, February 26, 1858.

19 Statutes of California, 1857, p. 74. 20 Ibid., 1858, p. 259.