Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1883.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1327, 10 July 1883, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1883.

Toe motion brought before the House of Representatives by Mr Hutchinson, having for its object the discontinuance of employing prisoners as skilled workmen, cannot be characterised as anything but a short-sighted and retrogressive measure. In advocating the motion, he said that he was pleading the cause of all the working men in the colony, as the employment of skilled labor in gaols was prejudicial to labor outside, and tended to lessen the rate of yvages. As a case in point, he mentioned that in one year Lyttelton Gaol had done £l,OOO worth of printing, which had injured the employees in the Government Printing Office to a very considerable extent. Like most things, there are two sides to this question — the side which Mr Hutchinson views it from, and a higher and far more important one—viz., the reformation, cultivation, and improvement of the prisoner. We will first meet Mr Hutchinson on his own ground Out of the eight prisons—viz., Addington, Auckland, Dunedin, Invercargill, Lyttelton Napier, Timaru, aud Wellington, only two (Auckland and Lyttelton) |

employ skilled labor, and these two, on an average, only about thirty two prisoners, the total receipts for the same being; Auckland, £l5 8s; Lyttelton, £791 8s 2d: total for the year, £BO6 16s 2d. In looking at this subject, it must be remembered that the skilled labor above referred to is employed solely on Government work. The expense of keeping a prisoner in Lyttelton Gaol is £l3 12s Id per annum, and the highest rate of earnings for the most remunerative skilled labor (printers) is £l5 4s per annum, thus leaving a balance of £1 Ils lid over and above the cost of his maintenance. Were these men at liberty, they would have to maintain themselves ; then why should they not do so in prison ? If a prisoner is able to support himself, why should the country be put to the expense of keeping him? We fail to see why a man should not be allowed — nay compelled—to support himself as well m prison as out. With equal reason might the Legislature be asked to prevent skilled men from working at a trade for any large firm, alleging as an argument against it that it was “prejudicial to labour outside” (of that firm) “ and tended to lessen the rate of wages.” A prisoner has to eat and drink in gaol as well as out, the only difference being that instead of going and buying for himself, the stores are supplied by contract. Nevertheless, the tradespeople who have the contract derive the benefit. The prisoner is merely a member of the community under restraint, still requiring and consuming the necessaries of life, and we utterly fail to see any reason whatever why he should not support himself whilst under restraint as well as in freedom. Another argument in favor of employing skilled labor in prisons is this : Two men, one a delicate, skilled artizan, the other a brawny labourer, get the worse for drink, become riotous, get locked up, and eventually get one month each. The crime has been equal, is the punishment equal ? Certainly not if both are put to laborious work, for the laborer will accomplish with ease that which will be a fearful task to the delicate, skilled man. These arguments are a sufficient ground for continuing and increasing the employment of skilled labor in prisons. But, as we before stated, there are higher considerations than all these—the amelioration of the prisoners. With this object, skilled labor has been tried in the prisons of nearly every civilised country in the world. It has been found of immense benefit in England, where the returns show that a very small percentage of prisoners who have been taught aud employed at trades are re-convicted. It is proved to be one of the best auxiliaries in enforcing prison discipline, experience having proved that there is no punishment so much dreaded as the withdrawal of the privilege of being allowed to work at a trade. Then is there nothing to be said in its favor on the score of humanity ? What is the real object of imprisoning a man, — is it solely punishment and not at all reformatory ? Is it with the object of further brutalising the offender? No ' We take it that his punishment shall be of such a nature as to act equally deterent and ameliorant, and this can only be done by raising the wretched prisoner's mind by a wholesome and salutary course of discipline and labor, aud thereby teaching him that a reasonable amount of contentment and happiness can be obtained by a steady course of industry, which is at once remunerative and exalting, and not, as he has been taught under the old regime, irksome and degrading. Many a poor wretch, who from physical inability is precluded from obtaining that employment which offers itself to the robust, resorts to crime for a livelihood who would otherwise be a good and respectable citizen had he only been taught a legitimate trade. We could go much further into this subject had we space, but will content ourselves with saying that the good resulting from the employment of skilled labor in prisons far outweighs anything that can be urged against it, and we trust it will be encouraged on the score of justice, enlightenment, and Humanity.