The Boy Too Tough for the Reform School
A teenage burglar escapes Chehalis, stumps the trustees, and triggers a constitutional standoff over who must deal with an incorrigible child.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Senator Long, of Chehalis, was in the city yesterday accompanied by trustees of the reform school. They were in search of the attorney-general for the purpose of obtaining his views on the disposition of an unmanageable boy at the home. The boy claims to be about 16 years old, although the indications are said to be that he is older than this. He is a youthful tough, but Judge Upton of Walla Walla, before whom the young man charged with burglary was brought, thought he should have a fair chance to mend his ways, and sent him to Chehalis instead of to the penitentiary in the town where he committed his depredations.
Pending his trial the boy had made a record for himself, and had broken jail. The sheriff of Walla Walla county, who took him to Chehalis, informed the director of the school that this was a case he could not manage. The three weeks the boy was kept there proved the remark. He proved entirely unmanageable, persuaded the other boys that they should try to escape; dug a hole through the floor of a prison he was placed in for safe keeping and almost escaped; and finally, when he was confined in the county jail, the trustees despairing of keeping him in the reform school, he escaped from there a few days ago, and came to Tacoma, as has already been related in the Ledger. The boy was recaptured and is again in the Lewis county jail.
The case has caused an interesting complication to arise regarding the law which established the reform school. According to section 17 of this statute the trustees are instructed to examine any boys thought by the director to be incorrigible, and in case they determine that it is for the best interests of the institution that any boy shall be sent away, they shall return him to the judge who sentenced him to the reform school. This was what it was determined to do in the case of Harlan, and Judge Upton was notified just previous to the late meeting of the superior judges in Seattle. Judge Upton then said that he was about to attend the meeting of the judges and he would consider the matter later. He has not, however, decided to receive the boy back for a sentence to the penitentiary as incorrigible, but on the contrary decides that he is not under any obligation to do so. The ground taken by the judge is that the law containing this provision is unconstitutional, and that it is the business of the authorities of the reform school if the boy cannot be kept in the ordinary way, to build a strong enough jail to confine him. He holds that he has fulfilled his duty in sentencing him, and intimates that the trustees will be cited for contempt if they shall refuse to take cognizance of his opinion and shall, in spite of it, return the boy to Walla Walla.
It was in this that the trustees found themselves perplexed, and they were uncertain as to whether or not they could return the boy to the committing judge. Not wishing to cause any needless strife, however, they decided to consult the attorney-general and Governor Ferry. Attorney-General Jones was not here, but the matter was discussed with Governor Ferry. The decision was unanimous that the law was constitutional, and the precedent already established was correct. It was therefore thought best that the boy should be sent back, notwithstanding the reluctance with which the trustees will go contrary to the expressed wish and opinion of Judge Upton. The boy will therefore probably be sent to Walla Walla today, and the outcome, which is likely to be the citing of the trustees for contempt, is looked forward to with interest.
Senator Long came to Olympia yesterday. He says that before the arrival of this trouble-bringing youth to the reformatory, and since he was transferred to the jail, it was doing excellent work. They have about fifty acres of good land near Chehalis, which they have put the thirty-four boys in the school to clearing, and in which the boys have shown quite an aptitude for labor. Their winter term of school has now begun, however, and they are studying much more faithfully than would be expected of lads brought together under such circumstances. They make their own boots and shoes and do other work which would not generally be expected of boys, all under 16 years of age and all from among the roughest boys in the state. Director Wessendorf has been for about fifteen years engaged in work of this description, in Illinois, and is a thoroughly competent man. Before the demoralizing advent of the Harlan boy the school seemed in a most flourishing condition. Now, since he has been in the county jail, the boys have been told that he is in the penitentiary, and if he should return among them it would have a doubly bad effect.
“It is the business of the authorities of the reform school, if the boy cannot be kept in the ordinary way, to build a strong enough jail to confine him.”
The case captures an enduring question: what the state owes a child it has labeled incorrigible, and whether punishment or care should follow him. Today Washington’s juvenile rehabilitation system still wrestles with that same balance, and with the cost of confinement versus the harder work of rebuilding young lives.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.