Part 3

Here, also, the rudiments of education can well be imparted, and as there is nothing to distract the attention, the lessons make an impression such as is never witnessed in the community at large, much less in the congregate system of imprisonment. Our visitors to the Penitentiary frequently witness examples of this, which are truly remarkable. Many who had grown up without any literary culture, not being able to write or even to read the simplest matter on entering the Prison, in the course of even a few months have become capable of writing quite a good hand, and of reading with facility. Some of them, who in their previous lives had felt the process of education to be altogether a repulsive task, and therefore had failed to make any advance, and had even been brought to believe that the ability to read and to write was a mystery, which was, and always must remain to be, beyond their power to fathom—here find themselves to be capable of comprehending the lessons presented to them; and as the curtain begins to rise before this supposed mystery, they see, as it were, a new world open before them—what was formerly a dreaded and repulsive task, becomes a pleasant privilege, and they pursue with avidity the path to knowledge which is thus opened to them. This change in their condition improves their whole moral character. Also, as time would hang heavily on the prisoners if without employment, they freely perform the work allotted them, accepting it rather as a _privilege and a blessing_, than as a _penalty_, as is the case under the congregate system, whether _silent_ or otherwise. And, as it is with regard to what may be called common school learning, so it is in respect to acquiring a knowledge of the mechanic arts there introduced, being necessarily a few only—such as shoemaking, cane-seating of chairs, cabinet making and weaving. They soon become masters of these, and the task allotted them being moderate—after the accomplishment of which they are credited with “overwork”—some individual prisoners, on their discharge, have been paid upwards of 250 dollars, which stood to their credit on the books. In a recent instance, a prisoner, on his discharge after a three years’ sentence, was so paid 213 dollars.

There is another point on which, we are aware, that many benevolent minds, who have merely viewed the “Pennsylvania System” theoretically, have felt much apprehension—which often amounts to a _conviction_—which is, that the mental condition of the prisoners, under its discipline, is liable to serious injury. This, we feel authorized to say, is a _fatal_ mistake. We use the term _fatal_, because the adoption of this view tends to prevent the general introduction of the system, which we think is greatly to be regretted. A practical acquaintance with its working, proves this apprehension to be wholly unfounded. Close observation, specially directed to this point, with carefully prepared tabular statements of the mental condition of each prisoner on entering and on leaving the Eastern Penitentiary, (as also at intermediate periods) kept for a series of years, have fully established the fact, that the prisoners, instead of being injured, have been decidedly improved in this respect.

_Its Result._—From the foregoing positions the result may thus be summed up: That many of those who entered the Penitentiary without any proper sense of their responsibility to their Creator, or their duty to their fellow creatures, have, as we trust, through the Divine blessing accompanying the instrumentalities surrounding them, attained to clear views and conscientious convictions on these points, and have gone forth into the world with firm resolves that—their Maker strengthening them—they would thenceforth do nothing which would grieve His Holy Spirit or wrong their fellow men. And that most of those who entered nearly destitute of learning, even in its simplest form, and without a knowledge of any trade by the pursuit of which they might be able to secure an honest maintenance, have emerged greatly improved in both these respects, and better fitted for the duties and responsibilities of life.

_The “Auburn” or Congregate Silent System._—The principle of “separation,” in the abstract, seems to be very extensively, if not generally conceded, both in this country and in Europe; but, on various pleas, it is but partially adopted in practice in the United States beyond the limits of Pennsylvania, and therefore, as we contend, fails in effecting the desired results. This partial adoption under the “Auburn” system consists of confinement in separate cells at night, but congregation in the workshops, or elsewhere, during the day—under the positive injunction, however, that when together, the prisoners shall have no communication with each other by word or sign of any kind, and this injunction is enforced by the presence of armed guards, and any breach of it is visited by heavy penalties. This system is adopted on the strange plea that man is a social being, and he is therefore entitled to society as a natural right, not seeming to be aware that, by the restraints imposed, they entirely rob him of his social character. It reminds one of the Fable of Tantalus, the “Lydian King, who was condemned to be plunged in water, with choice fruits hanging over him, without the power of reaching them to satisfy his hunger or his thirst.” Notwithstanding, however, the strictness of the watch maintained, the severity of the threatened penalty, and the example of the actual punishment administered upon those who have in any way violated this rule of silence, and non-recognition of each other when together—from the almost irresistible craving for the enjoyment of some of the rights of social intercourse, which is stimulated by being brought into the presence of each other—considerable intercommunication, by various methods ingeniously devised by them, it is admitted, does, in fact, take place between the prisoners. To enable the officers in charge effectually to prevent this, and to maintain the general discipline of the Prison, corporal punishment, it is believed, is deemed to be an essential part of the system, and this is consequently frequently administered with great severity. At the meeting of the American Prison Association, held in the city of New York in the Autumn of 1860, (at which some of our members were present as delegates) a New York gentleman, prominent as a philanthropist, familiar with the character of their Prisons, and who had been one of the regular visitors at Sing Sing, declared that their Prisons were like menageries, in which the prisoners were kept and treated as so many wild beasts, and that, a few years back, the severity of the punishments at Sing Sing was such, that the stone at the foot of the whipping-post was always wet with the blood of the victims of the lash. We trust, however, the discipline is now maintained there by means less severe. The regulations connected with our system, on the contrary, entirely exclude the lash, and, excepting in solitary and very extreme cases, admit of no more severe punishment than imprisonment in a dark cell, with reduction of food; and we are assured that a very few days only, of such discipline, are sufficient to curb and subdue the most refractory—and even this mild punishment has to be applied very rarely.

_Influences of the Systems Compared._—There is nothing, as we believe, in the working of our system, which can make the prisoners _worse_ than when they enter; but on the contrary there is much, the direct tendency of which is to make them better. We are well aware that _all_ are not reformed by it, though we thankfully trust that such is the result with regard to many. Under the discipline of the “Auburn System,” we can hardly see how reform amongst the prisoners can be promoted. And we are convinced that there is a mistake in the confident claim set up, that, as conversation between the prisoners is almost wholly suppressed, they cannot corrupt each other, and consequently, if not made better, they at least cannot be made worse. The very fact that the prisoner, in daily, though silently, meeting in the workshop a large mass of fellow-convicts, is sensible that he is surrounded by, and on the same level with, the off-scouring of the community, degrades him in his own estimation, and silently, perhaps slowly, but almost inevitably, sooner or later, drags him down, till he becomes sorrowfully demoralized. In confirmation of this, it may be mentioned that one of our own members, in the course of a visit a few months since, at the State Prison at Auburn, was informed by the officer in attendance, that amongst their convicts there were ministers, doctors, and lawyers. Upon this, our member inquired if they there maintained a deportment consistent with their previous position in society. The reply was: “For a short time they do; but they soon sink to the level of the most degraded.”

Another point of much consequence, in comparing the “Congregate” and “Separate” systems, is,—that by the former, each of the prisoners becomes familiarly acquainted with the countenances of the others, and consequently, on meeting after leaving the prison, an immediate recognition takes place between them, and on the principle that “Birds of a feather flock together,” they are united by a kind of sympathy, which is anything but salutary; while by the latter, never having seen each other during their incarceration, there is no danger of their being drawn into evil association after their discharge.

_Reference to Publications._—Our time and space forbid our extending this branch of our subject. Before leaving it, however, we think proper to refer to two or three, amongst the many publications in which interesting and valuable views may be met with on the subject of prisons, particularly such as relate to what we have been endeavoring to set forth as the “Pennsylvania _Separate_ System” of prison discipline, and its practical working.

First. Those eminent men and close observers, De Beaumont and De Tocqueville, who visited this country from France, a few years after the opening of our Eastern Penitentiary, for the purpose of examining into the character of our institutions generally, in their work, entitled “Du Système Pénitentiaire Aux Etats-Unis” (the Penitentiary System in the United States), give some very satisfactory views with regard to the working of our Penitentiary, where they spent considerable time, visiting all the prisoners by permission of the authorities, and remaining in their cells in private sufficiently long to obtain from the inmates a knowledge of the practical working of the system upon them. This work, in the original French, and also an English translation of it, by Professor Francis Lieber,—himself eminent as a close observer, and deep thinker on the subject of penal laws and penal institutions, and their systems of discipline,—are to be found in the Society’s Library. The translation is accompanied by some very valuable Notes by the translator, and in an Appendix to it there is an Essay, by the same, treating specially on the “Pennsylvania System,” republished from the Encyclopædia Americana. A small volume, entitled, “Prisons and Prisoners,” by Joseph Kingsmill, chaplain of the “Pentonville Prison,” near London, conducted very much upon our system, is well worth reading. We would also refer to an elaborate “Essay on Cellular Separation,” written by our fellow-member, William Parker Foulke, under appointment by “the American Association for the improvement of Penal and Reformatory Institutions,” and read before that Association at the Annual Meeting, held in New York, in the autumn of 1860, as being an able exposition of our system. This Essay was published by our Society soon after its preparation.

_Misstatements corrected._—In this connection, it is due to the cause of truth to say that Charles Dickens, the novelist, in his report of his visit to the Eastern Penitentiary, contained in his “American Notes,” makes representations so palpably erroneous, as to appear to those familiar with that institution and its government to be absolutely absurd. But as he uses the form of a direct reference to particular cases, strangers will more readily than they otherwise would adopt his statements as setting forth the truth. It should be remembered, however, that the celebrity to which this author has attained, is as a writer of “fiction,” not of truthful narrative or history. In this instance, (possibly without being aware of it), he has maintained the consistency of his literary character. The late William Peter, the worthy consul of Great Britain, residing in this city, soon after the book of Dickens was published, made a personal examination into each of the cases referred to, and in a letter to the late Job R. Tyson, thoroughly refuted the misrepresentations.

_Application for County Prison granted._—In 1831, the Legislature provided for the sale of the Walnut Street Prison, and for the erection of a largely increased number of cells in the Eastern Penitentiary, so as to be prepared for the reception of the inmates of the former. The Society being apprehensive that the principle of separation might be interfered with by the sudden introduction of so large a number of prisoners, memorialized the Legislature to have another prison erected on the same principle, for the use of the county. A law was soon after passed, providing for the erection of one for the use of the city and county of Philadelphia, capable of holding at least three hundred prisoners, on the principle of separate confinement.

_Bad condition of County Prisons._—The receptions into the Eastern Penitentiary from other parts of the State, afforded constant evidence of the miserable condition of the County Prisons. The prisoners received from them were so injured by the abuses and bad management and arrangements prevailing there, that it was very difficult to maintain the consistency of the Penitentiary discipline, or to secure its legitimate results in such cases, and it was, therefore, deemed essential that the system of separation for all classes of commitments should be introduced into all the County Prisons, and in 1832 a Committee of the Society was appointed to investigate the condition of these prisons throughout the State.

_Matrons._—In 1833, the Society represented to the Prison Inspectors, the propriety of appointing matrons to have charge of the female prisoners.

_Public Executions._—In 1834, the views of the Society were met, by the passage of an act requiring all sentences of death to be executed within the walls, or yard of the jail, limiting the number and character of the witnesses allowed to be present, and forbidding the attendance of any person under age.

_Care in relation to the New County Prison._—Early in the year 1835, the new County Prison being nearly ready to be occupied, the Society became much interested in the system of discipline to be there adopted; for though the Act itself provided for individual separation, it was feared that the character of the prisoners to be received might lead to a relaxation of this essential principle. They, therefore, appointed a committee to take the matter in charge.

_Plans for County Prisons._—Instructions were given to the Acting Committee in 1836, to have plans prepared for the County Jails, on the separate system. And upon their report in 1838, the legislature was memorialized by the Society, to appoint commissioners to investigate the condition of these jails.

_Annual County returns of Crime, &c._—In 1839 and 1840, the Acting Committee of the Society was engaged by calling the attention of the Executive to the subject, and otherwise, in endeavours, by legal enactment, to secure an annual return being made to the Secretary of the commonwealth, with regard to the condition of all the county jails, and the proceedings in the criminal courts; giving full statistics on all points of especial interest, with a view to aiding in adapting legislation to the existing state of things in the prisons, and improving the criminal code, where necessary. Although a law was subsequently enacted, to effect this very desirable object, it has been almost wholly without operation.

_Moral and Religious Instruction._—From its first introduction, moral and religious influences, and instruction were considered to be necessary adjuncts to the separate mode of discipline. This subject was consequently referred to a committee of the Society in 1841, and in 1843, the appointment of a special officer as a moral instructor for the Philadelphia County Prison, was reported, his salary being paid by private subscription. Such an officer had been appointed in the Eastern Penitentiary in 1838.

_Quarterly Journal._—The Society had, at different times from its rise, expended considerable sums of money in publishing pamphlets, &c., with a view to enlightening the public mind, and thus furthering the benevolent objects for which they had associated, and for the promotion of which they were so constantly and zealously laboring; and, finally in the autumn of 1844, it was deemed expedient to commence the publication of a quarterly journal, as furnishing a means by which they could embody in a more permanent form, the results of their observation, inquiry and experience, and might also embrace other kindred subjects. In pursuance of this conclusion, at the beginning of the next year, the first number of the “Pennsylvania Journal of Prison Discipline and Philanthropy” was issued, and, (with the exception of one year,) has been continued until the close of last year, (1861,) comprising in all 16 volumes.

“_House of Refuge._”—In 1845, after observing the successful progress of the House of Refuge for juvenile delinquents for a period of nearly twenty years, the practice of frequently sending boys of an older and more hardened character, to be confined there with the younger and less so, was seen to be an evil which ought to be remedied if practicable. The subject was discussed by the Society from time to time, and the suggestion was made that a prison on the separate plan, somewhat modified from the penitentiary, should be erected for the reception of this older class, but the heavy cost of such an establishment seemed to be an insuperable difficulty in the way at that time.

_Abuses in County Prisons._—In the autumn of 1846, one of the officers of the Society, who had personally visited and inspected several of the county jails, made a voluminous report of their condition. His leading representations were, “the entire neglect of wholesome discipline, the intermingling of prisoners of both sexes and all ages, and every grade of crime, from murder to misdemeanor, and the idle and vicious habits in which the prisoners were allowed to live, made it almost a matter of doubt, whether the public would not, in the end, gain by abandoning most of the jails. Cases were mentioned, in which men had escaped and found honest employment, who, if they had staid their time out in jail, would probably, have sunk irreclaimably through the influence of such associations, as they must have encountered there.”

_Vindication of our System._—In 1847 a volume was published in Boston, under the title of “Prison Discipline in America,” which was ably written, and though not _intending_ to misrepresent our system, really did so very greatly, from a want of a correct knowledge of the facts. The author being a gentleman of standing, and his work being favorably noticed in two of the principal periodicals published in that city, it was found that the prejudices previously existing against the system we had adopted, were likely to be strengthened and confirmed. To counteract this, and enlighten the public generally in relation to the true character of the “Pennsylvania System,” a pamphlet, written by one of our members, was published by our Society in 1849, entitled “_An Inquiry into the Alleged Tendency of the Separation of Convicts, one from the other, to produce disease and derangement_,” by a citizen of Pennsylvania: 160 pp., 8vo. This work had a wide circulation, and we trust has had a salutary influence in removing unfounded prejudices, and correcting erroneous impressions.

_Colored Criminals._—In 1849, the Society entered into an investigation of “what was alleged to be a marked difference between the length of sentences passed on colored convicts, compared with those passed on whites, and also the comparative mortality of the two classes.” For the interesting results of this investigation, see the first number of volume 5th of our Journal, January, 1850.

_House of Correction._—The Visiting Committee of the County Prison became early sensible of the imperative necessity for some plan being adopted by which to remedy the great evil to the prison and its proper inmates, and burthen to the community, resulting from sending there a vast multitude for vagrancy, intoxication, and disorderly conduct, of which classes alone, the number committed in 1850 was 4,557. (The number of these for 1860 was 16,793.) Many of these had sufficient bodily strength and ability to earn their own living, but their idle and dissolute habits would be continued so long as food and lodging were furnished them, either in the almshouse or jail. “To mitigate, if possible, this evil, and to relieve the community to some extent of the burthen it imposes, the Society adopted a resolution in 1851, to inquire as to the expediency of establishing a House of Correction, or probation, intermediate to the Almshouse and Prison, for the reception and employment of this large class of persons; and such measures were adopted by the parties interested, as led to the passage of an act in 1854, establishing such an house. The appropriation for the object was sufficient for an ample experiment, though the details of the bill might be open to some grave objections.” It is much to be regretted that from various considerations operating upon the different parties on whom devolved the duty of executing this law, its provisions were not carried out, and it consequently became inoperative.

Neither the Prison Society nor the public were satisfied with this failure, and the subject being renewedly pressed on the attention of the Legislature, a new act was passed in 1860, under which a Board of Managers have been appointed, and from the character of their preliminary action, there appeared to be ground to hope that this highly important advance in the reformatory movements of our Commonwealth would soon be carried into effect. There is great reason, however, to apprehend that the present disturbance in the country may retard it.

_Revision of the Criminal Laws._—In 1857 the Society memorialized the Legislature to appoint a commission to revise and modify the criminal laws of the State; and in 1858, a committee was appointed to proceed to Harrisburg to promote the passage of the requisite law for the purpose. The efforts of the Society in this behalf proved successful, and resulted in such a revision and modification as must be productive of much good, although the commissioners did not feel authorized by the character of their appointment, to go into all the questions suggested by our Society.

We have now accomplished what we designed in the projected plan of this report, in tracing the history of our Society from its origin down to quite a recent period; yet our sketch, extended as it has been, fails to make anything approaching to a full exhibit of its doings during that time.