REORGANIZATION OF THE STATE PRISONS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be the consideration of the bill [H. R. 78], concerning the government and organization of Prisons of the State; a majority of the Prison Committee recommending that 200 copies be printed for the use of the House, and a minority recommending that the bill lie on the table.
The minority report was rejected and the majority report was concurred in.
Mr. KENNER was opposed to the engrossment of the bill because it was complicated, and further that the Board of Directors were compelled to have their office in the city of Indianapolis.
Mr. GIBSON opposed the bill for the reason that he considered separate Prisons beneficial on this account: when one Prison is badly conducted, it does not affect the other. If one Board of Directors controlled the whole affair, there would not exist the emulation now prevalent between the two Prisons to outdo one another. Under the provisions of this bill, if you contaminate one Prison you contaminate the other, for the same heads control both of them.
Mr. WILSON, of Morgan, said he was through the Southern Prison and saw evidences of punishments inflicted which are absolutely indecent and outrageous to the civilization of the State of Indiana. He hoped the bill would be engrossed.
Mr. COLE thought it would be inadvisable to engross the bill at the present time, as it would defeat the measure entirely. Therefore, he moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions for further consideration and amendments.
Mr. MEREDITH--Democrats oppose this measure because it would remove the Democratic managers of the Southern Prison, not for the purpose of making reformation and doing good to all parties and to the people of the State. I have taken this position, and I intend to forward this bill just as much as I possibly can. It was drawn in the best interest of the State by a man who has given that subject more attention than any other man in the State. It was done in behalf of humanity and not for selfish motives.
Mr. EDWINS--I do not believe that this bill is a reform in any measure. We have already a Board of Directors who have the supervision of this business. What does this bill propose to do? It proposes to take this business out of the hands of three Directors and place both Prisons in the hands of three Directors. The existing Boards inspect the Prisons monthly. On the other hand that Board that this bill proposes to establish for both Prisons, as soon one of their number visits the Prisons once every three or four months, he reports to the rest of the members who are not there at all. So far as the humanitary part of the Prison is concerned, I do to not think it would be improved if you sent the best men of the State there. There are over 1,200 prisoners in both these Institutions who are the worst of the disreputables of Indiana. You congregate all these together, and you must have stringent supervision to keep those murderers and thieves in subjection. You can not bring the same power to bear upon them that you would in a female or juvenile department.
I do not think this bill is in the interest of reformation, therefore I favor its recommittal to some Committee.
Mr. SCHWEITZER said he had the honors of being on the Prison Committee, and in behalf of humanity he did not believe in using the cat as it was used there Although these persons are prisoners, they are still human. He favored reformation, but not that kind.
Mr. COLE said he did not make this motion from any partisan view at all, but for the purpose of defeating the bill in its present shape.
Mr. CARTER--This bill is a good one, carefully drawn and in the interest of reformation. I think it would not be possible for Committeemen to get up a perfect bill on this subject at once, but this measure is a step in the right direction, and for us to recommit this bill would be gratifying its opponents, for they are willing that is should go anywhere rather than be engrossed. The object is to defeat the bill, and not to make it better.
Mr. KENNER said if Section 82 be taken out of the bill, requiring the office of the Prison Board to be in Indianapolis, he would support the bill.
Mr. BUSKIRK said if the bill was in favor of reformation alone, he would vote for the bill. He thought the change to one Board, with insufficient pay and means for the management of these Prisons, would be a great deal worse than under existing laws. He favored the recommittal of the bill.
Mr. JOHNSON--I am in favor of recommitting this bill, and am opposed to conferring the management of these Institutions upon one Board, especially to men who have been unsuccessful in business.
The motion to recommit was agreed to--yeas, 49; nays, 40.
