Part 1

NEW SERIES.] [NO. 1.

THE JOURNAL OF PRISON DISCIPLINE AND PHILANTHROPY.

PUBLISHED ANNUALLY UNDER THE DIRECTION OF “THE PHILADELPHIA SOCIETY FOR ALLEVIATING THE MISERIES OF PUBLIC PRISONS,” INSTITUTED 1787.

JANUARY, 1862.

PHILADELPHIA: HENRY B. ASHMEAD, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER, NOS. 1102 AND 1104 SANSOM STREET. 1862.

NEW SERIES. NO. 1.

THE JOURNAL OF PRISON DISCIPLINE AND PHILANTHROPY.

PUBLISHED ANNUALLY UNDER THE DIRECTION OF “THE PHILADELPHIA SOCIETY FOR ALLEVIATING THE MISERIES OF PUBLIC PRISONS,” INSTITUTED 1787.

JANUARY, 1862.

PHILADELPHIA: HENRY B. ASHMEAD, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER, NOS. 1102 AND 1104 SANSOM STREET. 1862.

TO THE READER.

This being the first number of the new series of “THE JOURNAL OF PRISON DISCIPLINE AND PHILANTHROPY,” some reference to the action of the Society in relation to the change from a “Quarterly” to an “Annual” may be looked for here. We may, therefore, just say, that the ground upon which the change was proposed, and the manner in which it finally resulted, will be found to be fully set forth in the latter part of the “Report,” which is the first and principal article in the present number. This Report occupies so much space, that the “Editorial Board” have not deemed it expedient to include in the present issue much additional matter.

REPORT.

The Editorial Board, in the discharge of the duties assigned them, have prepared the following “Annual Report,” which they beg leave to present to the Society for its adoption:

_Introduction._—This being the first time that an Annual Report has become a part of the regular proceedings of “The Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons,” it seems a fitting occasion to take a wider range than is generally done in the preparation of such papers; and especially does it seem proper to bring into view the origin of the Society—the motives which prompted its organization, and some of the labors in which it has been engaged since its establishment, with the fruit of those labors. It will be seen that being but little known in the community, is not because it has been without vitality during its existence of nearly three-fourths of a century, but because it has steadily pursued its benevolent course, quietly and unostentatiously, not proclaiming its doings, or coming out before the public, excepting at such times as the accomplishment of some object of special importance required it.

Before proceeding in the narration, it is proper to mention, that the examination into the history of the Society during its earlier period, has been facilitated by referring to a pamphlet which it published about three years since, containing a sketch of its principal transactions from its origin to that time.

_Origin and Organisation._—It appears that on the 2d day of February, 1776, a Society of a kindred character was organized in this city, under the name of “The Philadelphia Society for Assisting Distressed Prisoners,” which, though not identical with ours, was imbued with a good measure of the same spirit, and may be fairly viewed as a forerunner. It embraced among its members some of the most prominent citizens of that day, and immediately commenced to carry out its benevolent purposes, and extended relief to many prisoners; but in September of the following year, the British army entered the city and took possession of the jail, which caused a dissolution of the Society, after an existence of nineteen months. The troubles resulting from the Revolutionary War, prevented any further organized action in the same direction for a number of years. But finally peace having been restored, and public attention having been again called to the condition of prisoners, and to the many abuses which existed, not only in the manner of administering the penal laws, but also from a want of proper statutory enactments—a number of benevolent citizens assembled on the 8th day of May, 1787, and agreed to form themselves into an Association to be called “The Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons.” This meeting was attended by twenty-five persons, and was composed of men eminent in the community for their general position, and their enlarged Christian benevolence; and, with those who came into the arrangement immediately afterwards as original members, embraced several who, through a continued career of virtue and usefulness, attained to a good old age before they were gathered to their fathers, and were consequently personally known to, and their memory is pleasantly cherished by, many of those still active in the Society; and it may be said, as regards their example, that, “though dead, they yet speak.” A few of those who were longest spared to continue their useful services to their fellow men, were William White, (Bishop) Thomas Wistar, Zachariah Poulson, Dr. Benjamin Rush, Thomas Harrison, Dr. Samuel Powell Griffitts, Isaac Parrish, William Rogers, Jacob Shoemaker, Thomas Rogers, Tench Coxe, Charles Marshall, and Joseph James.

The reasons which prompted the organization, and the basis of the action contemplated, can hardly be better set forth than by here introducing the simple, but eloquent preamble to the Constitution:—“When we consider that the obligations of benevolence, which are founded on the example and precepts of the Author of Christianity, are not cancelled by the follies or crimes of our fellow creatures; and when we reflect upon the miseries which, penury, hunger, cold, unnecessary severity, unwholesome apartments, and guilt (the usual attendants of prisons) involve with them, it becomes us to extend our compassion to that part of mankind who are the subjects of those miseries. By the aid of humanity, their undue and illegal sufferings may be prevented; the links which should bind the whole family of mankind together under all circumstances, be preserved unbroken; and such degrees and modes of punishment may be discovered and suggested, as may, instead of continuing habits of vice, become the means of restoring our fellow creatures to virtue and happiness.”

The principles thus enunciated at the outset, have controlled the plans and efforts of the Society from its origin to the present time, and their truth and value have been abundantly confirmed by large experience.

The late venerable William White (Protestant Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese) was elected the first President of the Society, and held the office until his death, on the 17th of July, 1836, a period of nearly fifty years. The general sentiment of the community with regard to this worthy man, was beautifully expressed in an editorial notice published in one of our daily newspapers, shortly after his decease, of which the following is an extract:—“If he went forth, age paid him the tribute of affectionate respect, and children rose up and called him blessed.”

_Abuses in Prisons._—In the year 1773, John Howard, emphatically called “the Philanthropist,” entered on his course of self-sacrificing, and almost unprecedented devotion to the interests of humanity, particularly as connected with Prisons and Penal Institutions generally. In the course of his examination into the condition of these Institutions, which he did by personal visits to most of them, not only in England, Ireland and Scotland, but in nearly all the countries of Continental Europe—he discovered that some of the penal laws in force were so erroneous in principle, and so evil and oppressive in their practical operation, that he was convinced they ought to be either wholly repealed, or so amended as to rid them of their obnoxious features; and also that there was a great want of salutary legal enactments, regulating the manner of construction and arrangement of buildings for Prison purposes, and establishing rules for their management when occupied. And in the Prisons he saw such an amount of abuse in their administration, and of misery on the part of those in confinement in them, as often shocked and deeply grieved him. Many of the scenes which he witnessed, and facts he ascertained, were truly heart-sickening. A few of which may here be briefly noticed. Speaking of the dungeons in the Conciergerie in Paris, he says, they “are totally dark, and beyond imagination horrid and dreadful. Poor creatures are confined in them for weeks—for months together.” In another of the Paris Prisons he states “that there are eight dungeons which open into dark passages. In four of these, 10 feet 8 inches by 6 feet 8 inches, I saw sixteen prisoners, two in irons, and all lying upon straw.” In the course of his account of the condition of things at Liege, in Belgium, he says: “The dungeons in the _new_ Prison are abodes of misery still more shocking; and confinement in them so overpowers human nature, as sometimes irrecoverably to take away their senses. I heard the cries of the distracted as I went down to them. One woman, however, I saw, who (as I was told) had sustained this horrid confinement forty-seven years, without becoming distracted. The cries of the sufferers in the torture chamber may be heard by passengers without, and guards are placed to prevent them stopping and listening. A physician and surgeon always attend when the torture is applied; and on a signal given by a bell, the gaoler brings in wine, vinegar, and water, to prevent the sufferers from expiring. ‘_The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel._’”

Let us for a moment look at the then condition of a few of the prisons in England, where we might have hoped to find a better state of things. Of Cheshire County Gaol, at Chester, he says: “Under the pope’s kitchen is a dark passage, 24 feet by 9; the descent to it is by twenty-one steps from the court. No window; not a breath of fresh air; only two apertures (lately made), with grates in the ceiling, into the pope’s kitchen above. On one side of it are six cells (_stalls_), each about 7½ feet by three, with a barrack bedstead, and an aperture over the door, about 8 inches by 4. In each of these are locked up at night sometimes three or four felons.”

“In many gaols, and most bridewells, there is no allowance of bedding or straw for prisoners to sleep on, and if by any means they get a little, it is not changed for months together, so that it is offensive and almost worn to dust. Some lie upon rags, some upon the bare floor.”

In the County Gaol at Carlisle,—in one room, he states,—“I saw three men and four women lodged together.”

In the County Gaol at Gloucester, “there is no separation of the women…. The licentious intercourse of the sexes is shocking to decency and humanity. Many children are born in this gaol.” Many similar instances of a violation of the rules of virtue and decency are recorded by him.

_Evil of Association._—Howard early became sensible of the great evil of associating together prisoners of all ages, and of all grades of criminality, and frequently deplored its corrupting influences upon the young and less hardened and practised in the ways of crime; and he remarked that even debtors, when associated with the felons (as they frequently were), soon became equally depraved with the worst of the criminals. Seeing this, he urged separation, at night, as _essential_, and at all times as _desirable_; but he does not seem to have matured any plan of thorough separation, by which alone these influences could be effectually guarded against.

Beside from the first, communicating freely the wrongs which he discovered, as they came to his knowledge, in the year 1777 he published, in a large volume, his “State of the Prisons.” Thus the world was put in possession of facts, many of them of so horrible a character as to awaken an intense interest, and enlist the sympathies of the benevolent on behalf of the victims of such wrongs, many of whom were really not guilty of crimes to warrant their incarceration; and even when guilty, they were still human beings, objects of divine mercy, and though they had by their conduct forfeited their liberty,—if the makers of the laws, and those appointed to administer them, did not feel the force of the Christian obligation, to endeavor to promote their reform and to care for their souls,—it was but reasonable to suppose that the common impulses of humanity would have prompted to extend to them at least as much kindness and bodily comfort, as are admitted to be due to the “beasts that perish.”

_Prompt action for relief._—By the year 1787, therefore, society generally throughout the civilized world saw the necessity of a thorough reform, and legislators were prepared to listen to and favorably consider, propositions to enact laws, adapted to a wiser and more humane policy, and consequently our Society was organized at a time peculiarly favorable for the beneficent labors it contemplated; and as an evidence of the promptness with which these labors were commenced and practically carried out, for the relief of unjust suffering, it may be noted, that at the very first meeting, information being received through a member, that although an order had been issued three days before from the Supreme Executive Council, that a person who had been sentenced to death, but had been pardoned, should be released from his irons,—they still remained on him,—the subject was referred to an appropriate committee, who took instant and successful measures to relieve the prisoner from his fetters, and effect his discharge from confinement.

_Early contribution to the cause._—As a very gratifying practical endorsement and encouragement, received by the young Society, just one year after its establishment, it is proper to mention, that John Dickinson and wife, then of Wilmington, Delaware (but previously of Pennsylvania), by deed, dated in May, 1788, after reciting the formation of the Society, and expressing their desire to promote its benevolent designs, granted to the Institution some yearly ground rents, issuing out of premises in Philadelphia, amounting in the whole to fourteen pounds ten shillings ($38⅔) per annum, which sum (though not in its original form), still contributes that much towards meeting our annual expenditures. Several other benevolent individuals have, at different periods since, contributed liberally towards our funds, both by bequest and donation.

_Considerations in relation to Penal System._—There is no reason to believe that the Society, when it first entered on its benevolent labors, contemplated directing its efforts towards the introduction of any new system, or effecting any general change in the then prevailing principles of prison discipline; but as their arrangements for securing efficient and comprehensive action within their own body embraced from the outset, a standing committee to visit the prisons and prisoners, they not only carefully examined and considered the provisions of the penal laws, but they had full opportunity of observing their practical operation upon the prisoners, and also of judging whether the gaols were so constructed and arranged as to adapt them to their proper purposes. On entering the prisons, the Committee saw in close association those of the various ages, from the comparatively far advanced in life, down to mere children; and from those long practised and utterly hardened in crime, down to such as had made their first serious misstep, which may have been more from want of thought than from actual depravity of heart, and they soon became convinced, that if the community desired the spread of vice and wickedness, they here had schools admirably adapted to their purpose. Exactly in accordance with their conviction of what must be the result of this state of things, crimes were found to increase in number and boldness, and this association of convicts was apparently the only adequate cause which could be assigned for it. “This being the evil (to adopt the language of the ‘Sketch’ referred to), _separation_ was the obvious remedy; and on this, therefore, as we shall soon see, they ultimately fixed, as the grand point to be aimed at. Thenceforth, _separation_ and _employment_ were felt to be the cardinal features of convict discipline; and even at that day it was maintained, that though the structures which this principle demanded, might be somewhat more expensive in the outset, they would, nevertheless, in the end, pay for themselves with large interest. In saving in police force; in the avoidance of conspiracies and insurrections; in the dispensing with violent and exciting modes of punishment; in the power to adapt the means of improvement and reformation to individual character and circumstances; in the exemption of the discharged prisoner from recognition by prison acquaintances; and in the moral and disciplinary virtue of seclusion in itself considered, were to be found a generous compensation for any extraordinary outlay.”

_Former severity of the Penal Code._—According to the penal code existing in Pennsylvania at the commencement of the American Revolution, nearly a score of crimes were subject to capital punishment. In 1794, just eighteen years after the Declaration of Independence, it was ordained that murder in the first degree should be the only crime punishable with death,—a transformation truly remarkable, as being accomplished in so short a time.

Many other features of the old code and its administration would, in these days, be considered in Pennsylvania to be highly barbarous; such as exposing the offender in the public streets, with the clogg and chain upon the neck or leg, and not unfrequently on both, or punishing by cropping or the branding iron, the pillory or the whipping-post, all of which were at one time conspicuous features of the code and its administration in our city; and thus the victim was exposed to the gaze and taunts of the rabble, and almost necessarily hardened by the cruel system, instead of being reformed. Ten years proved sufficient to change all this, and instead of these relics of barbarity, to introduce a more rational, humane, and Christian system, by which restraints and “punishments were adopted, better fitted to reclaim the transgressor, and not less effective in penal suffering.”

_Reforms Applied for._—On account of this odious state of things, so abhorrent to the better feelings of humanity, the Society, as early as August, 1787, appointed a committee to inquire into the effects produced upon convicts, then at work in the streets, and also its influence on society, and to collect such observations as might assist in correcting any abuses suffered therein. As a result of their inquiries, the Society adopted a memorial to the Legislature, asking that private, and even secluded labor should be substituted for that which had been public and disgraceful in the manner of its imposition. They also suggested that the mingling of the sexes, and the use of intoxicating drink in the prisons, were evils requiring legislative remedy.

_Abuses Indicated._—In the autumn of 1788 the Society indicated the following defects and abuses in the treatment of prisoners.

1. Insufficiency of clothing for the untried, and that clothes which the Society had supplied to poor prisoners had been exchanged for rum.

2. The daily allowance to persons committed for trial was only a half of a four-penny loaf, while those detained as witnesses had no allowance at all.

A stranger accidentally present at the commission of a crime, without friends to enter security for his appearance, was committed to jail for the benefit of the community, and suffered more than the actual criminal; and what added greatly to this grievance, he was afterwards detained until he paid the jail fees! The Society earnestly protested against this practice, and against detaining any prisoners for any such cause after acquittal. This was one of the abuses which Howard ranked amongst “enormities.”

3. No provision was made for decent lodging; the inmates of the jail lying indiscriminately upon the floor, unless supplied with something better by their friends. It will scarcely be believed that, in the memory of persons now living, the male and female prisoners in the jails of this city, were allowed a promiscuous association, and were even locked up together in the rooms at night. The new Society remonstrated loudly, and the men and women were soon after confined in separate apartments. Almost equally incredible is the fact, that prisoners complained that they were not allowed to purchase intoxicating drinks where they could get them cheapest, but were compelled to buy them in the jail at a considerable advance. To obtain them, they not only stripped themselves, but when new prisoners were brought in they took their clothing from them by force, and exchanged it for rum.

4. The indiscriminate intermingling of criminals, untried prisoners, and debtors, was another monstrous abuse, and led, in many instances, to the conversion of debtors and innocent parties into criminals.

5. Parents were allowed to have their children with them in jail, and young offenders were exposed to all the corrupting influences of association with confirmed and reckless villains.

6. It was presented as a radical evil that a large proportion of the prisoners were unemployed; and farther, it was maintained that labor, even in the public streets, was preferable to sheer idleness within the walls.

In view of these several considerations, and as the result of careful observation, the Society resolved that “labor in seclusion, and the interdiction of all intoxicating drinks, were the two principal elements of the desired reform.”

_Publications; and Reform of Penal Code._—From an early period, the Society had issued through the press, memorials and addresses in behalf of its objects, and in 1790 a pamphlet was published, entitled, “Extracts and Remarks on the Subject of Punishment and the Reformation of Criminals,” 500 copies of which were distributed among the members of the Legislature, and other persons prominently connected with the government, with a view to preparing them to support such reforms as the observations of the Society had suggested to be necessary. As a result mainly due to the efforts of the Society, an Act was passed in April, 1790, to reform the penal code of the State, by which the principle of individual separation was recognized, though applied strictly only to “more hardened and atrocious offenders, who are sentenced for a term of years,” while the introduction of intoxicating drinks was prohibited under severe penalties.

_Early Advantages of Separation._—Even this very partial separation resulted so satisfactorily, that one of its early fruits was the Act of 1794, by which it was intended that not only “the more hardened and atrocious offenders,” but _all_ convicts should be subjected to seclusion. But as the number of the cells was not equal to one-third the average number of the convicts (say thirty of the former to one hundred of the latter) the Inspectors were obliged to exercise their discretion. Some of the prisoners, immediately on their admission, were conducted to their separate cells, and remained in them until their discharge; and the remarkable and most gratifying fact is on record, (see Roberts Vaux’s Letter of Sept. 21st, 1827, to William Roscoe, of Liverpool,) that _the cases thus treated were the only instances of reformation which continued throughout the lives of the individuals_, so far as they could be traced, or their condition ascertained by diligent inquiry.