Despite his partnership with Elgin A. Simonds that began in 1888 and the decision to engage inmate labor at the New York State Prison in Auburn, New York since 1891, Stickley expanded his use of prison labor through the F. H. Mills Company, a company he formed in 1893, which relied extensively upon inmate labor for the production of goods.  The partnership between Stickley and Mills has not been previously noted in the literature and sheds new light on the extent of Stickley’s work in the 1890s, the nature of his ambition, as well as a certain willingness to let financial considerations outweigh any moral qualms about what many felt was a system of coerced and exploitative labor. It is tempting to think that Stickley’s experience at Auburn made him an ideal candidate for introducing this company to the prison, but it was likely through Mills that the opportunity was presented, since he was employed for a decade in the industrial department of the reformatory  prior to this endeavor, and worked as a salesman from 1889-93 who had frequent contact with the prison.  The bulk of what is known about the F. H. Mills Company and Stickley’s involvement comes not through the objects themselves, but through a series of legal actions and appeals that stemmed from a fire at the prison in December 1896 which destroyed much of the existing stock and machinery.  Instead of an additional revenue stream for Stickley and the chance–perhaps, as David Cathers has suggested–to strengthen his role as a mentor, the operation seems to have been a source of continuous headaches that culminated in the fire, and lingered throughout the next decade a litigation dragged on. 

Unfortunately, from the outset, the venture proved to be problematic: court filings show an operation that appears to have been a constant drain on resources and a management nightmare.  The contract was signed by Stickley and Mills on February 16, 1893 that stated they would take over operation of the reformatory’s cabinet shop in May of that year and detailed the terms of the operation: the number of men employed, the wages paid, and the price per piece of the furniture made in the shop.  Yet, Stickley and Mills did not technically execute that contract, instead they formed a corporation and assigned the contract to that entity with the understanding that on or about June 1, 1893 The F. H. Mills Company would begin production in the cabinet shop.  It did not go smoothly.  By April 15th–barely ten weeks work was begun–the firm asked to suspend work until about February 1, 1894.  As the State noted in subsequent litigation, prior to May 1894 the firm had failed to employ the 100 laborers specified in the contract and made only “certain payments from time to time” that never kept its balance current.  Less than one year into the arrangement, the firm owed $7118.23 to the State but was allowed to continue operations by promising “to pay up arrearages with interest.”  By late May 1894, the parameters had shifted again: The F. H. Mills Company would pay their balance “promptly enough” to defray the cost of the dry kiln they were requiring the state to build.  In addition to the State receiving the money it was owed, the firm promised to spend an equivalent amount ($2500) on machinery to upgrade the shop.  Prices were negotiated on forms not specified in the initial contract, labor costs were hashed out again, and the work–inasmuch as it ever had–continued.

What exactly did the firm make?  Truthfully, we do not know at this point.  I am not aware of any furniture bearing an “F. H. Mills Company” label, nor has anyone I have spoken to about the firm been aware of such things.  Some indication is provided by the lists recorded in the court records which demonstrate a wide range from tanks and lids ranging from 15 to 75 cents to mahogany tables costing $6.50.  This is not to say that we may never know, for one benefit of the pandemic has been the extra time it has provided me to read through the court documents and discover that they speak of additional contracts and even exhibits with seemingly dozens of photographs of furniture models to be made in the prison.  The fate of these, however, remains unknown and will likely continue to be a mystery until this pandemic has past and the New York State archives and Court Systems are able to return to some semblance of normalcy.  I would like to believe these exist somewhere, but if 2020 has taught me anything, it is that predictions are essentially useless.

How involved was Stickley and for how long was he involved?  This too is unclear.  Testimony and exhibits from the cases establish him as involved from the outset of the operation and serving as Treasurer “for a very short time, perhaps a month,” but his presence (or absence for that matter) is unrecorded after that.  That their lives remained somewhat intertwined is evident by the fact that MIlls was a shareholder in Stickley & Simonds, and it is possible (perhaps likely) that Stickley was a shareholder in the F. H. Mills Company, who helped set up and negotiate the initial contracts without being involved in the day-to-day operation.  Whether Stickley remained connected with the firm, and whether he was responsible for any of the designs the initial iteration of the company produced, the firm shifted to become a producer of other people’s designs rather than a more traditional model that united design and production.  By December 1895, in fact, the company had entered into a memoranda of agreement with the Lyon Table and Supply Company of Buffalo to exclusively manufacture their goods.   

Ironically, although the fire at the cabinet shop precipitated the lawsuits that have provided the few glimpses we have into the operations of this firm, it was not the fire or resulting damage that doomed this venture, but the adoption of a new constitution in 1894 which stated that “no person in any such prison, penitentiary, jail or reformatory, shall be required or allowed to work, while under sentence thereto, at any trade, industry or occupation, wherein or whereby his work, or the product or profit of his work, shall be farmed out, contracted, given or sold to any person, firm, association or corporation.”  This was to take effect on January 1, 1897 and authorized by law in May 1896.  Throughout October, November, and December of that year, up until the night of the fire, the firm continued to finish up the work they had on hand and was apparently looking for new location.  In the early evening of December 22, 1896, a fire broke out that destroyed the cabinet shop.  At the time of the fire, the firm owed the State more than $4300 and despite efforts to achieve a mutually acceptable settlement, the firm sued for breach of contract and losses resulting from that.  The case made its way through the appeals process, and appears to have ended in 1906 without a victory for the F. H. Mills Company.