[When the man that people like to speak of as “Frank” Randall went to Massachusetts from Minnesota as chairman of the Massachusetts Prison Commission it was expected that he would be “frank.” Here is a summary, from the Boston Herald of parts of Mr. Randall’s first annual message.]

In an interview given the first of the year by Frank L. Randall, the new chairman of the Massachusetts Prison Commission, he made several suggestions for the improvement of the penal system of Massachusetts.

In his six months’ service he has been taking stock of the situation. While he has found many things that warrant the pride the State has in her penal institutions, he has found also not a few serious problems of which the general public know little or nothing. He pays high tribute to the sheriffs and others engaged in the penological work of the State. But he discusses a large number of suggestions as to the supervision of the prison industries of the commonwealth, the indeterminate sentence, the trying out of applicants for employment as guards and in other capacities, the pardoning influence of the wardens and superintendents, and especially as to the very large number of persons on parole, of whom the State has lost track altogether.

“Did you know,” he asks, “that in this State there are 1,056 persons from the State reformatory, 217 from the State prison and more than 200 from the woman’s prison who ought to be making regular monthly reports to the proper authorities but of whom the State knows little or nothing?

“This is a very serious situation. According to the records all these persons were paroled. The terms of the parole in each and every case was a regular report every month, that the prison officials, representative of the power and supervision of the State, might know exactly the situation of each convicted person who has been liberated upon obligation to keep the State informed of his movements.

“Some of these persons have never rendered a single report. Others have reported for a time, and then ceased to trouble themselves about the matter. In very many cases their whereabouts is unknown.

“Now the sentences of these persons have not expired. They are still nominally in the charge of the State, which has granted them their liberty upon conditions. There ought not to be a single such case. In no instance should the State be ignorant of the whereabouts of a prisoner unless he is a fugitive from justice. These persons may not be classed as fugitives, and their sentences have not expired, yet the State has no trace of them.

“This situation certainly shows a flaw in our system and a serious one.

“I am strongly of the opinion that the prison industries of the State ought to be differently managed.

“Our boards now are primarily concerned with the welfare of the prisoners, and properly so. The welfare of the inmate of a penal institution must come first. But there is a service to the State which he is rendering, and it is the part of business efficiency to make that service as large and of as good quality as possible.

“The industries of the penal institutions of the State are not managed in a business way. Here are hundreds of workers making thousands of dollars’ worth of goods, and no one who is expert in business affairs is held responsible for the administration of this industrial system. The wardens and the superintendents look after these details as one of their duties. But neither they nor any other official can devote the time and attention to these industries which they ought to have in order that the State may get from them the largest return and the workers themselves derive from them the greatest benefit for themselves.

“The one officer who now gives all his time to the concerns of the penal system is the chairman of the board, and he has a multitude of matters to occupy every moment. There ought to be some person of commercial ability, a trained business man, who should give his whole time to the dollars and cents of the penal establishment of the State. Let the commissioner give his attention predominantly to the humanitarian side of the work. But let us have a trained expert who shall develop new industries, improve the system of marketing the product, and look in general after the business side of the prisons just as the superintendent looks after these matters in any private enterprise. It will pay the State to consider this matter.”

As he proceeded in his discussion of these problems it became more and more evident that to the commissioner prison service ought to be a life work, a professional occupation, to which men should give their lives, just as they go into law or medicine, and that this should be the case with the guards as well as with the wardens and the heads of the penal system of States. This appeared in his discussion of the warden’s influence on the granting of pardons.

“I myself got caught by my ignorance of one of the kinks in the laws of the country some years ago,” he said. “It was this way. Out in Minnesota there was an Indian boy in prison who was dying of tuberculosis. I investigated his case, saw the proper parties, and went to the executive with a plea for pardon that the lad might go where there was a chance for the recovery of his health. I had the influence of senators and prominent men. And at the last minute I found that I could not get anything done because my name appeared upon the petition.

“You see, it is assumed that it is not wise for the guard or the warden to be in any way friendly with his prisoners and at the same time to have influence for the securing of pardons. He might try to use his influence for the advantage of his favorites, and give them their liberty, not because they were ready for it, but out of personal reasons. That was the old thinking on the subject.

“But the new thinking is better. If you have the right kind of warden there will be no danger of the abuse of any such power. He will be so sincere a friend of each and every prisoner that he will not use his influence to free a man until he is sure the convict is ready to return to society with safety to himself and to his fellowmen. When you have that kind of warden his opinion will be the very best that it is possible to have.

“The same point applies in the case of the guard. The old theory is that the guard must not talk with a prisoner except on matters of discipline. He might become interested in a prisoner and that would be bad for discipline. The new and better idea is that we should have guards who mean to make penology a serious professional occupation, a life career, and then their attitude toward a prisoner changes entirely, and the danger of favoritism disappears.

“In most cases when a man applies for a place as guard we look him over and tell him to put on a uniform if he bears scrutiny. He may pass some simple tests in a civil service examination. But what about his temperamental fitness for the responsibility of the care of prisoners? That is, perhaps, the most important qualification. As it is, we have no means of determining it.

“I wish we might have some sort of central agency for the trying out of prospective guards. When they have made good and manifested a disposition seriously to study and practice the science of penology then they become very valuable to the State. Men who go into the occupation as a makeshift are expensive to the State in the long run. If we could test him in practice the credentials a man would bring from that central clearing house would be the best possible guarantee of fitness.

“The science of penology in this country has advanced with very rapid strides. But the art of penology has not kept pace with it. And the reason is suggested in what I have said. There are too few who mean to make penology a real career. What we need is the type of man who can see the possibilities of service to the State in his kind of work.

“Another matter which has been already a subject of study with me here in Massachusetts is the practice we have of mixing in our institutions two classes who ought to be kept apart. We have the workhouse cases and the prison cases. The former will include probably the older and the more confirmed offenders, many who are less hopeful of reformation, the careless and the professionally delinquent. They come and go and come back again quite as a matter of course.

“But very many of the prison cases will be younger persons convicted of more serious offences. They will include many who can be appealed to, that are not confirmed in crime, who will respond to influence of the proper sort.

“Now, it is not good policy to mix these cases. The one class comprises many who are glad to be fed and lodged and sheltered by the State. The others must not be permitted to learn to think of themselves as thus, subjects of the State’s care.

“I would have these men sentenced indeterminately, not to be released until it is evident that they are ready for liberty. They must be treated as individual cases and adjustments must be made in each instance. I would place their release in the discretion of certain officials who may be presumed to be best prepared to say whether or not they are ready for release.”

In general Mr. Randall referred to the need of the removal of the work of prison officials from all political and partisan influences and control. He named the State of Ohio as a community which has lately taken a very advanced step in penal legislation. The State of Illinois was referred to as an example of precisely the opposite sort. The commissioner told of his experiences in attending the annual meetings of the prison workers of the country, when year after year there will appear different sets of officials from the same city or State. “How can there be any real progress, or any development of the art of penology, when there is so little tenure of office?” he asked with a smile.

“This country,” he added, “is regarded all over the world as a great laboratory where all sorts of theories have a chance to be tried out. This is because of our federal system. The United States has nothing to do except with a few federal prisons. Each State of the forty-eight has its own penal institutions. Thus, as you go about the country you may see almost every sort of plan, the most advanced and the most belated, in operation. For that reason deputations from foreign countries are sent here often for observation and study. Massachusetts ranks high, and deservedly so, although there are many opportunities for improvement.

“One thing that must be remembered is this, that it is almost impossible to tell in advance how a plan is going to work. It may be wrought out with great care. But we have human nature to deal with, and exceptions to rules occur pretty frequently. Often a seemingly unimportant provision may prove very valuable. Then it must receive the place of importance that it deserves, and be adapted to varying conditions everywhere. And often what has seemed to be important will turn out to be of very subordinate consequence.”