CONVICT LABOK FOE EOAD WORK. 19 



attention to the orders of the overseers, and a wilHngness to do 

 more work than money vi^ould induce him to perform. 



In certain sections, notably in the South, the convicts are drawn 

 largely from previous occupations involving the performance of a kind 

 of labor similar to that required in road work. On the other hand, 

 prisoners of other sections are derived to a much greater extent from 

 the shops and factories, and far fewer of them from the outdoor occu- 

 pations. For example, Table 3 shows that in New England and the 

 Middle Atlantic States the average proportion of convicts derived from 

 professional pursuits and from the ranks of the merchants, tradesmen, 

 shop workers, and indoor laborers was 42.8 per cent. The occupa- 

 tions of these men prior to conviction were totally dissimilar to the 

 work of the road camp" and in general they do not make efficient 

 road laborers. In the southern States represented, however, it will 

 be obsei-ved that the average proportion of convicts belonging to 

 these same classes was only 16 per cent, the remaining 84 per cent 

 being derived from the class of outdoor laborers to whom road work 

 is more or less familiar, and who are best fitted by nature to perform 

 the hard manual labor which it involves. 



The second class of causes explaining this difference between free 

 and convict labor includes those factors in the organization of con- 

 victs into working groups, in their discipline, and in the means 

 adopted for effecting their security, some of which tend to promote 

 the efficiency of the convict force as compared with the free-labor gang, 

 and others which tend toward relative inefficiency. It is probable 

 that these factors are more important in determining the efficiency 

 or inefficiency of convict labor than is the factor of individual effi- 

 ciency. 



In comparing the economy of convict and free-labor gangs, consid- 

 eration must be given to the facts that the daily expense of a convict 

 to the vState is much less, as a rule, than the daily wage of free labor, 

 and that even though the convicts be actually less efficient than the 

 free laborere, man for man, it is possible that the work of the convict 

 gang may be more productive than the free-labor force at the same 

 cost. This difference between the cost of maintaining the convict 

 and the wage of the free laborer is the greatest economic advantage 

 of convict labor, and the extent of this advantage in a number of the 

 States is indicated by comparison of columns 9 and 17 of Table 4. 



