Part 2

_Jailor’s Fees._—In the year 1796, the sore evil and reproachful practice which existed, of the jailors exacting fees, as a condition of liberation from imprisonment, was taken in hand, and an adequate salary to the keeper was suggested as the best remedy, so that he might have no personal interest in any question affecting the liberty of the prisoner. This wholesome suggestion was not, however, at that time, as fully accepted and acted upon as its importance demanded.

_Imprisonment of Debtors._—The broad and interesting question of imprisonment for debt, in its various aspects, came up for investigation and consideration by the Society in 1798, and resulted in an Act of the Legislature in the same year, removing some of the most objectionable features of the existing laws on that subject.

_Instruction of Prisoners._—In the same year, the duty of _instructing ignorant prisoners in useful knowledge_, which previously to that time had been almost wholly neglected, both in Europe and this country, took such hold of our Society that it not only drew forth warm expressions of sympathy in such efforts, but resulted in an agreement to allow compensation for services rendered in that behalf.

_Vagrants._—In 1800, the _employment of Vagrants and Convicts_, and the expense of their support, were made a subject of inquiry, and resulted in some interesting statistical and other facts being brought into view.

_Pardons._—The subject of Pardons, also, at this early stage of reformatory movements, was discussed by the Society with much interest, and it was its settled judgment that the exercise of the prerogative at all, excepting in some rare and peculiar cases, was of very doubtful expediency; and that in the manner in which, in point of fact, it was generally exercised, it was a positive evil, both as regards the prisoner and the community. Pardons, it is believed, are nearly, if not quite, as frequently extended to undeserving, as to deserving cases; and beside this objection, the mere impression on the mind of the prisoner that, by effort and importunity, and the aid of the requisite agencies, he may succeed in obtaining a discharge before the expiration of his sentence, keeps him in a state of unsettlement, which entirely unfits him for the wholesome influence which the prison discipline is intended to exert.

_Prison Library._—One of the next prominent measures was the establishment of a _prison library_. The Inspectors agreed to pay the cost of a book-case, and a Committee of the Society was appointed to purchase proper books and frame rules for their circulation. In referring to the list reported, we find a large proportion of the selection was from the higher and more refined department of didactic literature, which, though intrinsically of undoubted value, we apprehend that many of the volumes were not adapted to the greater part of the class of persons for whose use they were intended. Even down to the present time, although the press is so prolific in its issues, and great judgment has been displayed in preparing books adapted to the various grades of mind, the task of making a selection is found to be very difficult. A large proportion of the prisoners, on entering, prove to be very nearly, if not quite, without literary culture; and their previous associations have been such, that the feelings and modes of expression which pervade refined society, are to them totally incomprehensible. As regards many of these, although they have in years fully attained to manhood, they are still merely children in mental capacity and training, and consequently books of the most simple and elementary character are alone suited to their condition.

_Bibles for the Prisoners._—In addition to establishing the Library, it was at the same time agreed that the convicts and other prisoners should be supplied with Bibles and Testaments, and a Committee was appointed to report on their distribution and its results.

_Digest of Penal Laws._—In 1810, the subject of a general improvement of prison discipline throughout the State was taken up, and a Committee was appointed to prepare a suitable memorial; but soon after, Jared Ingersoll, then Attorney General of the State, was commissioned to prepare a digest of its penal laws, and the suggestions of the Society were made to him.

_Sundry Abuses Revealed._—“In January, 1814, the Grand Jury of Bucks County presented the scanty allowance to poor debtors, as a subject deserving the attention of the public authorities. Fourteen cents a day only were allowed for provision, clothing, bedding and fuel, and even this niggardly allowance was withheld from the debtor until the creditor received notice of his commitment. For some days, therefore, they might be exposed to extreme suffering, unless the jailor or some kind friend afforded them relief. The rations of convicts were one pound of bread a day, and six cents’ worth of fuel, and one extra blanket in extreme weather. The subjection of persons committed for trial to the same fare as convicts, was also presented as a reproach to the community. It was, moreover, urged, that the manner and amount of the jailor’s compensation should be such as to remove from him all temptation to benefit himself at the expense of his prisoner. This position, which the Society assumed many years before, is one which the most obvious principles of justice warrant. It extends to magistrates and arresting officers, as well as jailors. To none of them should there be offered the slightest temptation to distress or annoy those in custody, for the sake of profit to themselves.”

_Measures to Obviate Them._—Resulting from the facts and suggestions thus developed, measures were soon adopted by the Society for ascertaining the condition of penal institutions in other States, and steps were taken towards memorializing our own Legislature in behalf of desired improvements; but definite action on the subject was prevented, by various circumstances, until January, 1818, at which time a memorial was adopted, setting forth “the crowded state of the Philadelphia Prison, and the impracticability of reaching the true end of all penal discipline therein, and urging the erection of penitentiaries in suitable parts of the Commonwealth, for the more effectual _separation and employment_ of prisoners, and so proving the superiority of that system.”

_Western Penitentiary._—From the time that the principle of individual separation of convicts was recognized by the Legislature, in 1790, the legal provisions and the arrangements of the prison had been so defective, that a full and fair trial of the system could not be made; yet notwithstanding the impediments it encountered, its good results were so evident, that the Society deemed it proper to call public attention to the importance of extending it throughout the State. This being done, in the same year (1818) the Act was passed, authorizing the erection, at Pittsburg, of the Western State Penitentiary, “on the principle of the solitary confinement of the convicts, as the same is, or hereafter may be, established by law.” In the passage of this Act, it is rather to be regretted that the term “separate” had not been used, instead of “solitary,” as it would have more accurately described what is now emphatically called “the Pennsylvania System,” and would not have been so likely to aid in the prejudice towards it, which is entertained by persons in other States and countries.

_Inquiries from London._—About the same time Dr. Lushington, on behalf of the London Society for improving the condition of Prisons, then recently established, requested of our Society information as to the results of the melioration of our Criminal Code. The reply expressed strong confidence in the full success of the system, when the difficulties were overcome which resulted from the construction of the Philadelphia gaol, not allowing the fundamental principle of separation to be observed except to a very limited extent, and when the new Penitentiary, then in progress at Pittsburg, was completed, the plan of construction of which being intended to especially adapt it to entire separation of the prisoners from each other.

_Inquiries from New York._—About the same time, a series of inquiries, tending to the same point, were addressed to us, by a Committee of citizens of New York. The reply most fully sustained the efficacy of our more lenient system, so far as facilities existed to properly carry it out. “Were a Penitentiary established,” they say, “sufficiently large, and so constructed as to keep the prisoners separated from each other during work, meals, and sleep (in other words, perpetual separation), and if no pardons were granted except in extraordinary cases, its efficacy would soon be self-evident.”

They also referred to the difficulty of procuring suitable employment, the frequency of pardons, and the deplorable condition of discharged prisoners, as being very serious, but not really necessary evils. They regarded the suggestion to extend capital punishment beyond its then narrow limits, or to resort to transportation, as being evidently inexpedient.

“The chain was also repudiated, and a fair trial of labor in seclusion from other convicts, with moderate diet, under suitable agents, was urged as the wisest, safest, most humane, most efficient, and in the end most economical mode of dealing with criminals.”

_Memorial to the Legislature to establish an Eastern Penitentiary._—The investigations of the Society, and their observations of the practical effect of the reformatory suggestions which they had made from time to time, so far as they had been carried out, so thoroughly convinced them of the correctness of these views, that they addressed a memorial to the Legislature of the State, in January, 1821, setting forth the tendency of the degrading and sanguinary punishments formerly inflicted to excite the malignant passions of offenders, instead of bringing them to a better mind, and thus frustrating the great ends of law; and then the various modifications of the system, designed to obviate existing evils.

These modifications, they alleged, had proved quite as valuable as was anticipated, and clearly demonstrated the superiority of the new system, if it were fairly tried. They, therefore, urged “the erection of a new Penitentiary for the Eastern District of the State, so constructed as to admit of the constant separation and healthful labor of the convicts.” This was promptly responded to, and in the following May the law was passed for building the Eastern Penitentiary at Philadelphia, which is now the model prison on the “Pennsylvania” or “separate system,” and as such, at this day maintains a prominent position among the penal institutions of the world, and stands as a noble monument of the liberality, humanity, and wise economy of its founders.

_Abuses by Committing Magistrates._—In 1820, and also in 1822, the illegal and corrupt exercise of power by the Magistrates, which was most oppressive on the poor and helpless, became again a subject of inquiry, and a committee was appointed to confer with the Governor of the State on the subject, and a memorial was soon afterwards presented to the Legislature soliciting its interference to remedy the evil.

_Discharged Prisoners._—In November of the same year a committee was raised to consider of and report on the project of establishing an asylum for such discharged convicts as might be unable to obtain employment, but it appearing that there were serious difficulties in the way of carrying it out at that time, it was abandoned.

_Juvenile Offenders and “House of Refuge.”_—At a meeting of the Society, held January 28, 1823, a committee was instructed to “inquire into the condition of juvenile offenders, and what relief is needed in their case.” This being a matter of deep interest, and requiring much consideration, from its inherent difficulties, the inquiries which were prosecuted from time to time, as opportunities presented, did not reach any definite result till January 21st, 1826.

At this time the committee reported warmly in favor of an institution for their reception, but expressed doubts whether the Society had the needful means to establish it, or the legal powers that would be required for its management. It was resolved to call a meeting of citizens on the first day of February ensuing, before which the subject should be fully opened. An address was agreed upon to be submitted to the meeting, in which a brief history was given of the melioration of the penal laws and institutions of the State, and of the encouraging result, and a confidence was expressed in a still further improvement on the completion of the two Penitentiaries—the eastern and western. “But,” it was added, “as our true policy, as well as our manifest duty, consists not less in preventing crime, and checking the tendency to it, than in punishing and reclaiming the overt offender, the restraint and reformation of children and youth exposed to criminal habits, becomes an imperative obligation.” They, therefore, earnestly commended the new project to the meeting of citizens to be assembled under their call. These views were cordially responded to by the meeting, and action being promptly taken, resulted in the erection of a “House of Refuge for juvenile delinquents,” which was opened for inmates on the 1st of December, 1828, and the benefit the Institution has conferred on the community, and on the class for whose reception it was intended, are generally felt and acknowledged. And it is believed that many individuals, who are now reputable members of the community, would have been at this time deeply steeped in criminality, and degraded outcasts of society, if it had not been for the protecting care and moral training of such an institution, extended to them in their youthful days, when first tempted to turn aside from the paths of virtue and rectitude.

_Proposed Improvements._—In July, 1827, in anticipation of the approaching completion of the Eastern Penitentiary, the Society appointed a committee to prepare a memorial to the Legislature, setting forth the importance of carrying into full effect the _principle of separation, &c._ And in July, 1829, another memorial was forwarded, embracing the two following suggestions:—

1. That criminal courts be so organized, as that the prisons may be speedily delivered of all persons held to answer for offences, &c.

2. That provision be made for the complete separation of all persons committed for trial, or as vagrants, as well as those under sentence.

_Publications Respecting the Separate System._—About this time much interest was manifested in relation to the character of the discipline to be established in the new Penitentiary, and it was found that conflicting views were entertained by persons prominent for their philanthropy, and their promotion of the valuable reforms of the day. Several of these advocated separation _without labor_ as being most prompt and effectual in promoting the reformation of the criminal, and as admitting of a shorter term of sentence. It may be mentioned, however, as an interesting and important fact, that our Society never sanctioned these views. Its whole history, almost from its origin, contains abundant evidence that a union of _separation with labor_, if not held to be a _sine qua non_, was at least deemed to be of the highest importance. With a view to preventing this division of sentiment on a collateral point, from in any way prejudicing the main principle of the entire separation of the prisoners, which was contemplated in the erection of the Penitentiary, a large edition of a pamphlet, (by our fellow member, George Washington Smith,) clearly vindicating what was known as the “Pennsylvania System,” showing its humane and reformatory tendencies, was published and circulated.

_Opening of the Eastern Penitentiary._—At length the time had arrived, by the opening of the Philadelphia Penitentiary, for the reception of convicts, on the 25th of October, 1829, when the principles of discipline steadily advocated by the Society for the preceding forty years, were to be practically tested under their immediate notice. Heretofore, the only instance of these principles being approximately carried out in a building planned and erected for the purpose, was at Pittsburg, a very inconvenient distance for observation, and beside that, the attempt was there made to introduce the system of separation _without labor_, which, as might have been anticipated, did not result satisfactorily, and had been the occasion of exciting considerable prejudice against the separate system both at home and abroad.

Subsequently to the opening of the Penitentiary, some small defects in the structure and mode of discipline were revealed by experience, and promptly remedied as far as practicable. That some further improvements may yet be called for, not involving the fundamental principle of absolute separation, is not improbable, as we have never claimed that our work was perfect. The Annual Reports of the Inspectors placed in charge of the Institution, issued since its opening, afford most satisfactory evidence of the soundness of the principles recognized in its discipline, and our Prison Society, who have with deep interest watched its workings for more than thirty-two years, not only have never had misgivings in relation to it, but have constantly to the present time, been strengthened in the conviction of its being the true system. We are so well convinced of this, that it is deemed worth while, at this point, to introduce a short notice of the system itself; especially as we are aware that many persons both in this country and in Europe, are opposed to its introduction, mainly, as we believe, from a misapprehension of what the system and its results really are. We are the more prompted to this, from a belief that the cause of humanity and of Christian philanthropy, the good of the prisoner and of the community alike unite in calling for its general introduction. This notice, which from the character of the occasion, must necessarily be very brief, may partly assume the form of contrasting it with what is known as the “Auburn,” or “_Congregate, silent system_,” which is generally believed to approximate most nearly to it.

_What the Pennsylvania System is._—The basis of our system is, AN INDIVIDUAL CELL FOR EVERY PRISONER, AND THAT EACH PRISONER SHALL BE KEPT WHOLLY SEPARATE FROM EVERY OTHER PRISONER, DAY AND NIGHT, DURING THE ENTIRE TERM OF CONFINEMENT. The thorough separation here spoken of, must not be misunderstood, however, to mean, or to be, as has been charged, “perpetual solitude,” or “total isolation from the whole world.” The law never designed that it should be so, and its actual character in its practical working is very different from this. It is not society in itself, or intercourse with his fellow-men (excepting, so far as its privation might be salutary as a punishment,) that is denounced by the system, but it is association and companionship with criminals,—with the depraved and wicked,—which it is believed, the good, both of the criminal and of the community into which he is to return upon the termination of his sentence, requires, should be utterly prohibited. The social intercourse under this system, is, in point of fact, abundantly sufficient for the health, both of body and mind. Beside that which takes place between the prisoners and the resident Officers and the Inspectors of the prison, by which means each convict receives several visits every day. The following are named by law as “official visitors,” who have a full legal right to visit the penitentiary and enter the cells of the prisoners whenever they shall think proper, to wit: “the Governor, Speaker and members of the Senate, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and his deputies, the President and Associate Judges of all the Courts of the State, the Mayor and Recorder of the cities of Philadelphia, Lancaster and Pittsburg, Commissioners and Sheriffs of the several counties, and the Acting committee of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons.” The last of these, as we shall see in the progress of this report, availing themselves of this authority, are untiring in their efforts to promote the social, moral and religious welfare of those confined in our penitentiaries and jails. Thus, by our system, instead of the society of the ignorant, the degraded and the criminal, whose efforts would be directed to dragging them down to still lower depths of vice and infamy, than they might yet have reached; we give them that of the virtuous, the intelligent and the good, who not only make it their business to see that they have the bodily comforts to which they are entitled; but who are desirous of promoting their reformation with a view to their own real good through the remaining term of their lives, and to securing society against renewed depredations from them after their discharge; and above all, that they may be instrumental, under the divine blessing, in bringing these poor wanderers and outcasts, into a true sense of their past sinfulness, that they may in condescending mercy, be yet brought, by repentance and amendment of life, to work out their soul’s salvation.

There is a keeper to every division of about thirty prisoners, and these keepers are selected with special reference to their fitness, on the score of morals, temper and intelligence. None of the keepers, or other officers in the penitentiary, go armed in any way, there being no occasion for it, as it is morally certain that no revolt, or insubordination, threatening violence, can ever take place. Each prisoner is fully sensible that an effort to escape, must necessarily be unsuccessful, and therefore, he never broods over its possibility, nor devises plans to subdue his keeper, or even murder him, if need be, to effect it. On the contrary, the whole system is one of kindness, it might almost be said, between the prisoners, the keepers and the visitors. The prisoner, knowing he is powerless, becomes passive, and there being nothing to rouse his vindictive or other evil passions, he is soon brought, in his quiet retirement, to view his past life in a very different light from what he ever did before. And also, as the society of the bad, which he formerly coveted and enjoyed, is shut out from him, his craving for companionship, soon brings him to enjoy the company of the virtuous and good, which he formerly despised; and consequently, the instruction and counsel which is extended to him by his visitor, will meet with a reception and make an impression, which under other circumstances, we might look for in vain. And in the moment of contrition, when the poor outcast is brought to abhor himself, and would fain pour out his soul before God,—it may be in the presence of his visitor and religious instructor,—there is no hardened and depraved associate with him, to sneer at his supposed weakness and prompt him to reject the proffered mercy.