



Produced by Larry B. Harrison, Wayne Hammond and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
book was produced from images made available by the
HathiTrust Digital Library.)









  NEW SERIES]                                 [NO. 2.

  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, 1863.

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

  1863.




CONSTITUTION

OF THE

Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public
Prisons.


When we consider that the obligations of benevolence which are founded
on the precepts and examples 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. From a conviction of
the truth and obligation of these principles, the subscribers have
associated themselves under the title of “THE PHILADELPHIA SOCIETY FOR
ALLEVIATING THE MISERIES OF PUBLIC PRISONS.”

For effecting these purposes, they have adopted the following
CONSTITUTION.


ARTICLE I.

The Officers of the Society shall consist of a President; two
Vice-Presidents, two Secretaries, a Treasurer, two Counsellors, and an
Acting Committee; all of whom shall be chosen at the stated meeting to
be held in the first month (January) of each year, and shall continue
in office until their successors are elected; but in case an election
from any cause shall not be then held, it shall be the duty of the
President to call a special meeting of the Society within thirty days,
for the purpose of holding such election, of which at least three days’
notice shall be given.


ARTICLE II.

The President shall preside in all meetings, and subscribe all public
acts of the Society. He may call special meetings whenever he may
deem it expedient; and shall do so when requested in writing by five
members. In his absence, one of the Vice-Presidents may act in his
place.


ARTICLE III.

The Secretaries shall keep fair records of the proceedings of the
Society, and shall conduct its correspondence.




  NEW SERIES.         NO. II.


  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, 1863.


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

  1863.




ANNUAL REPORT.


In accordance with the present arrangement which requires that
an Annual Report should be prepared of the proceedings of “The
Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons,”
the “Acting Committee” now proceed to exhibit to the Seventy-Seventh
Annual Meeting, such matters of interest as have resulted from the
action of the Society, or have come under its notice during the year
just past.

_Law Shortening Sentences._--As the proceedings of the Society in
procuring the passage of a Law shortening the sentences of prisoners
for good conduct, occupied considerable space in connection with the
last Report, which announced that the provisions of this Law had not
then been carried out in the Eastern State Penitentiary, it seems
proper that we should again advert to the subject, that those who
feel an interest in it may understand its present position. As the
authorities to whom the execution of the Law was delegated, declined
acting under it, for reasons which they deemed sufficient, the Society,
upon consultation with their counsel, concluded that the most amicable
mode of proceeding for the purpose of testing its constitutionality,
and the obligation resting upon these authorities to extend to the
prisoners the proffered boon, would be by _Habeas Corpus_, they
therefore had the cases of two prisoners believed by them to be
entitled to their discharge under the Law, brought before the Judges
of the Supreme Court. The decision was adverse, and the prisoners
were remanded to serve out the entire term of their sentences. The
ground taken by the Judges in their decision, was so broad as to make
it very difficult to frame a modification of the Law which would not
contravene the objections raised, and yet retain what were deemed to
be some of its most valuable features. Under all the circumstances,
it has been thought best to let the matter rest for the present. It
is hoped, however, that by the joint action of the Prison Society,
and the Inspectors of the Penitentiary, we may yet procure a Bill to
be enacted into a Law, which shall be so framed as to enable us, in
some measure at least, to effect our desired object. We should have
freely acquiesced in some verbal amendments to the Law, but much
regret that all of its provisions should thus have been rendered
inoperative, as we feel assured that the _principle_ contended for is
founded in justice, and that its practical effect on the prisoners
would be salutary as a part of the Prison Discipline,--not only by way
of prompting to obedience to the established rules, and to habitual
good conduct while in confinement, but also in aiding to promote their
actual and permanent reformation, by practically showing them, that as
it is evidently to their interest to conduct well while there, it must
doubtless be equally so when they are at large in the community; and
the habit thus acquired of looking to this motive, and practising this
restraint on their heretofore comparatively unbridled propensities,
must be of great service to them, on again going abroad into the world.
If this is the practical effect of the Law, it is plain, that it is
not only a boon to the prisoner, but that the community is equally
interested in its operation, as fewer of the prisoners will resume
their depredations on society after their discharge. Besides, is it not
the part of wisdom at least, if not of duty, in framing laws for the
temporal government of society, to follow the example of the Divine
Law-giver? We do not find his code to be a system of punishment only,
but also largely one of reward. If we have there placed before us a
fear of punishment for breaking the Divine Law, we have also exhibited
to our view, in most attractive form, the hope and assurance of reward,
if we do that which is right.

_Employment for the Prisoners._--Owing to the derangement of the
business affairs of the country, resulting from the existing Rebellion,
it seemed probable for a time, that many of those confined in the
Eastern State Penitentiary would be very much without work. The subject
of suitable and constant employment for the prisoners has therefore
claimed our attention during the past year, as one of considerable
importance. We have had under appointment, a Committee, whose special
duty it was to attend to this matter, and to devising means by which
healthful exercise might be secured, especially for the benefit of such
as might not have sufficient work to occupy their time. We view labor,
in connection with the prisoners, in a two-fold light. The possession
of it is a positive good, not only as a comfort and companion in their
solitary hours, but also as a reformatory agent. And the want of it
is not only a negative, but a positive evil, especially with those of
a low order of education and intelligence, who, being unable to read,
and possessing very little matter for reflection, have no resource
with which to occupy and interest the mind, and consequently there is
danger that by constantly preying upon itself, it may become diseased.
Besides, as idleness has been said to be the parent of crime, it would
be no small matter, if by furnishing employment, we could do nothing
more than establish habits of industry, which probably very few of
those confined in prisons had ever practised in their previous lives.
While at large, plotting or practising mischief and crime, labor has
appeared to them repulsive, and never having enjoyed its rewards,
they have shrunk from it,--but when their evil career has been thus
suddenly brought to a close, and social intercourse of every kind with
their fellowmen is very much restricted, and that with their former
associates is wholly cut off, labor is soon sought after, and is found
to be such an alleviation to their present condition, that they cherish
it as a blessing. And when to this is added the “hope of reward” which
it is most truly said “sweetens labor,” which the credit for “over
work,” granted to the prisoners in our Penitentiary, presents to them,
a powerful additional motive to application is brought into action
with most salutary results. One of the prisoners in the Penitentiary
recently informed a member of our Committee, that he had earned in one
month $17, by over work, after performing his allotted task,--that is
to say, $8 50 for himself, and the same amount for the Penitentiary,
for the use of the County from which he came, and he added, with an
appearance of much interest, that he expected at the end of the three
years he had yet to serve, to take out with him between three and four
hundred dollars. Many of them are thus soon brought to see and feel
that labor instead of being repulsive, as it had formerly appeared to
them, greatly alleviates the necessary discomforts of their present
condition, and also that it is a reliable resource for the maintenance
of those who apply themselves to it. Many also, who on entering had
no knowledge of any kind of trade, on leaving, take with them, not
only habits of industry, but also a pretty thorough acquaintance
with some one or more of the mechanic arts, such as shoe-making,
cane-seating of chairs, weaving, &c. They are thus qualified, upon
again going forth into the world, to take a reputable position in
society, and secure a livelihood without resuming their depredations
on the community. Estimating the value of labor for the prisoners as
we do, it is gratifying to us to know that they have recently been
pretty fully supplied with it. It is the intention and direction of
the Law, that it shall be thus supplied; and we believe, as will be
seen by our foregoing remarks, that it is a valuable adjunct in the
Pennsylvania or Separate System of Prison Discipline. In the early
period of the introduction of this system, some men, of undoubted
talent and philanthropy, strongly advocated separate confinement,
_without labor_, as being the true system, and this plan was actually
introduced and practically tested at the Western Penitentiary of this
State, established at Pittsburg; but it was soon found to be wrong,
and to have an injurious effect, both upon the mental and physical
health of the prisoners. It was also tried in the State Penitentiary at
Auburn, New York, in 1822, under accompanying circumstances however of
great cruelty, and of unfairness so far as it was intended as a test of
the effect of the Separate System on the mental and bodily condition of
those subjected to it.

William Crawford, who visited this country in 1833 and 1834, under
appointment by the British Government, to inspect the several
penitentiaries in the United States, with a view to applying at home,
any parts of the systems on which they were governed, which might
appear desirable, in the report of his labors and inquiries, which
he published after his return, makes the following statement: “In
America, the opponents of this (the Separate) System, have produced
very erroneous impressions by the publication of certain experiments
made a few years since, of solitude without labor; statements which
have also been widely circulated in England, to the great prejudice of
solitary imprisonment of every description. Having carefully inspected
the prisons in question, I feel bound to state my conviction, that
the fatal effects which have been described, were not the result of
solitude, but of the contracted dimensions and unhealthy condition of
the cells in which the experiments were conducted. A trial of solitary
confinement day and night, without labor, was made at Auburn in the
year 1822 for ten months, upon eighty of the most hardened convicts.
They were each confined in a cell only seven feet long, three feet and
a half wide, and seven feet high.[1] They were on no account permitted
to leave the cell during that long period, on any occasion, not even
for the purposes of nature. They had no means of obtaining any change
of air, nor opportunities of taking exercise. The most disastrous
consequences were the natural result. Several persons became insane,
health was impaired and life endangered. The discipline of the prison
at that period was one of unmixed severity. There was no moral nor
religious instruction of any kind communicated within its walls, nor
any consolation administered by which the convict was enabled to bear
up against the cruelty of this treatment. Nor was a trial of the
same description, which took place in the State of Maine, conducted
under more advantageous circumstances. The night rooms or cells at
this prison are literally pits, entered from the top by a ladder,
through an aperture about two feet square. The opening is secured by
an iron grate used as a trap-door; the only other orifice is one at
the bottom, about an inch and a half in diameter, for the admission of
warm air from underneath. The cells are eight feet nine inches long,
four feet six inches wide, and nine feet eight inches high. The gloom
is indescribable. The diet during confinement was bread and water
only. Thus immured, and without any occupation, it will excite no
surprise to learn that a man who had been sentenced to pass seventy
days in one of these miserable pits, hung himself after four days’
imprisonment. Another condemned to sixty days, also committed suicide
on the twenty-fourth day.” Our author goes on to speak of similar
experiments having been made in Virginia, where the cells were in fact
mere dungeons, being in the basement, and so dark as to require a lamp
in visiting them. They were not warmed at any season of the year, and
a prisoner’s feet were actually frozen during the confinement. In damp
weather the water stood in drops on the walls, &c. He then adds: “From
experiments of this character no just conclusions can therefore be
derived, unfriendly to solitary imprisonment of any kind, especially
when accompanied by employment, in large and well-ventilated cells, the
arrangements of which have reference to the preservation of the health,
regular employment, and the improvement of the mind of the offender.”

We are aware that the disastrous results of the treatment of the
prisoners, as set forth in these extracts, was not wholly owing to
their being deprived of labor, but it is evident from the manner in
which the subject is treated by the author, that the evil was greatly
aggravated by this circumstance. We here see, however, what monstrous
cruelty has been practised in the name of the “Separate System,” and
these deplorable but inevitable results were immediately seized by its
opponents and spread abroad through the length and breadth of the land,
both in Europe and America, as conclusive evidence, that these evil
consequences were necessarily inherent in, and a part of the system
itself. The consequence was, that many philanthropic and well meaning
persons beyond the limits of Pennsylvania, became prejudiced against
it to that degree, that there was no opening in their minds to hear
the truth, and on merely _naming_ the system to them they would almost
turn from you in disgust. This prejudice is largely operative to the
present time, and the much to be regretted result has been that this
system, truly humane as it is, when properly carried out (of which the
Eastern State Penitentiary of Pennsylvania may be taken as a practical
illustration), and superior, as we believe, to all others, has not made
one tithe the progress in the world which we feel assured it would have
done if its true character had been understood.

_The “Separate” and the “Silent” Systems compared._--It may be thought
that we have dwelt long enough on this branch of the subject; but as
its discussion has in some measure brought into view our particular
prison system, that of the entire separation of the prisoners from
each other, day and night, during the whole term of their confinement,
and by inference, if not directly, contrasted it with the “Auburn”
or “Silent” System, where they are separated only at night and at
their meals, but at other times are congregated in their workshops,
&c., under a peremptory rule of silence. We avail ourselves of
the opportunity to introduce two or three short paragraphs from
high authority, with a view to assisting those who may read this
report beyond the limits of our Society, in arriving at a correct
understanding of the important question at issue.

William Crawford, from whom we have already quoted, a commissioner
of the British Government, and a man distinguished for his humanity
and intelligence, who during more than twenty years had devoted his
time to visiting the prisons and penitentiaries in the United States
and England, in a report on the systems just referred to, made to the
British Parliament, places them in contrast in the following manner,
to wit: “In judging of the comparative merits of the two systems it
will be seen, that the discipline of Auburn is of a physical, that of
Philadelphia of a moral character; the whip inflicts immediate pain,
but solitude inspires permanent terror. The former degrades while it
humiliates, the latter subdues but it does not debase. At Auburn the
convict is uniformly treated with harshness, at Philadelphia with
civility; the one contributes to harden, the other to soften the
affections. Auburn stimulates vindictive feelings, Philadelphia induces
habitual submission. The Auburn prisoner when liberated, conscious that
he is known to past associates, and that the public eye has gazed upon
him, sees an accuser in every man he meets. The Philadelphia convict
quits his cell secure from recognition, and exempt from reproach.”
He also says, “It is a curious fact, that some of the strongest
testimonies in favor of individual separation, may be collected from
those who are the best acquainted with the operation of the Silent
System. We can assert with confidence, that there is not one of the
best conducted prisons, in which the Silent System is effectually
enforced, that we have not repeatedly visited and closely inspected;
and we can truly state, that with one exception only, the governors
of those prisons have acknowledged, that had they to decide upon the
merits of the respective plans, they would unquestionably give their
unqualified preference to the Separate System.”

The enlightened and excellent Count Gasparin, in a letter to George
Sumner of Boston, then in Paris, in commending the system (with the
practical operation of which in France he was perfectly familiar),
says, “Every government which in the actual state of society, and of
the progress of social science, adopts any other than the Separate
System, will expose itself to the necessity of having, before long, to
reconstruct its prisons.”

_Insanity._--In a short paragraph in our last Annual Report, we think
that we fully met and refuted the charge frequently made by the
opponents of the system, that its discipline is liable to produce
insanity, and relieved the humane feelings of those who were under a
sincere, but mistaken apprehension of this result, by referring to the
close and systematic observation which had for many years been directed
to this point, in the Eastern State Penitentiary of Pennsylvania,
which established the fact, that instead of the mental health of the
prisoners having been injured, it had in the aggregate been decidedly
improved during their confinement. We propose now, in support of
this position, to introduce the testimony of two acute observers of
the operation of the same system in France. First, the distinguished
Physician, _Dr. Lelut_, known in America as well as in Europe, by
his important work on Insanity, &c., in speaking of the results of
an examination of the prisons on the Separate System, which he had
made by direction of the French Government, states that there were
then in France twenty-three such prisons, and that he had examined
about half of them,--and goes on to say, “In all these houses, I have
confirmed _de visu_, what was previously declared by theory, that the
Separate System, independent of all the facilities which it offers, for
elementary and professional instruction, for the moral and religious
education of the prisoners, for religious exercises--independent of
the circumstance that it alone prevents prisoners from associating
with each other, and from corrupting each other--_that it causes
infinitely fewer cases of death and insanity than any other system
of imprisonment_. The actual condition of our cellular houses, their
history, which covers already a period of three, four, and five years,
the testimony of their directors, of their physicians, of their
visitors, do no leave any doubt upon this important point.”

The Prefect of the Department, in enclosing to the Government the
Reports of the Chaplain, Physician and Directors of the Prison of
Tours in France, writes thus: “These Reports establish in the most
complete manner, that in regard to the sanitary condition, and the
moral education of the prisoners, the system of total separation,
so violently and so unjustly attacked, produces the most remarkable
results. Of a total number of 1,626 persons who have entered the prison
since its inauguration, 16 only have been transferred to the hospital,
and one only has died,--and this single case of death was an old man of
seventy, who was laboring under a chronic affection of the lungs. If we
seek for the influence which it exercises on the intellectual faculties
of the prisoners, we must recognize, that far from disturbing their
reason, it produces on their minds the most salutary results. In proof
of this, I may mention, that not a single case of insanity has occurred
in the prison, and that many who have been condemned for a term which
require their removal to the _Maisons Centrales_, solicit as a real
favor, the permission to complete their imprisonment in their cell.”

_M. Moreau Christophe_, Inspector of French Prisons, _Dr. Julius_,
who visited the Penitentiaries of the United States as a Commissioner
from the Prussian Government, and _M. Ducpetiaux_, Inspector General
of the Prisons of Belgium, with many other eminent foreigners,
who had facilities for closely observing the working and results
of the Separate System, and of comparing it with the “Silent” and
other Systems of imprisonment existing in different places, have in
their various Reports given very interesting and instructive views,
confirmatory of the superior value of the system adopted by us, but we
must pass them by, and proceed with our Report.

_Tobacco._--The subject of the use of Tobacco in the Penitentiary has
again claimed our attention and care during the year now coming to a
close, as it did during the one which immediately preceded it. It will
no doubt be acknowledged by most, that the practice of using it is of
no real value to those who indulge in it, unless it be in the character
of medicine, in a very few cases, and consequently, if there was no
moral or physical evil resulting from it, its use should be discouraged
on the score of economy, and with a view to lessening the number of the
wants of individuals, and therefore, making it more easy to satisfy
them. But when, in addition to this, its use is very often attended
by serious physical and moral evils, such as impairing the bodily
health, and exciting a craving for the use of intoxicating drink, it
seems especially desirable that those who are clear on entering the
Penitentiary, shall not there be permitted to contract the habit, and
that an effort should be used to break the habit with those who have
brought it with them, and in fact, that it should be made a part of the
Prison Discipline, in teaching them habits of economy for their own
future good, during the period in which the law makes them subject to
the control of the prison authorities. Our care of the subject, which
has heretofore been in the way of moral suasion, with the prisoners,
and those who had the control of them, and which has been exercised
verbally, as suitable opportunities offered, has finally resulted
in the adoption of a Resolution, respectfully asking the Inspectors
wholly to prohibit its use in the Penitentiary, (as the Inspectors of
our County Prison have done there, with highly satisfactory results,)
unless it be in cases strictly medicinal. The quantity at present
used in the Penitentiary is much reduced, but this is done, as we
understand, as a matter of economy in conducting the Institution, as
the cost of the article has latterly been much enhanced.

_Pardons._--The very important subject of Pardons, and the manner in
which the power is exercised, (not only in our own Commonwealth, but
in most places where it exists,) has at different times occupied our
attention, though not specially within the past year, with desires
that some result might be reached by which the acknowledged evils of
the pardoning system might be at least in part remedied. It is a power
which should exist somewhere, and be exercised sometimes; but the good
of society, and even of the parties on whom it is to operate, requires
that it should only be applied to exceptional and rare cases, and with
great caution. We have not yet succeeded in maturing any plan which
it is believed would be likely to remedy, or materially lessen, the
existing difficulties.

_Abuses by Committing Magistrates._--We have again had under the care
of a Committee, the abuse of power by the Aldermen or Committing
Magistrates. This is an evil of great magnitude, and has claimed the
attention of the Society almost from its origin, but without yet making
much advance towards its suppression; nor do we hope to effect it, till
their mode of compensation is changed from fees to a stated salary from
the Public Treasury. As we shall have occasion to refer to this matter
again as we advance in our Report, this short notice may suffice here.

_Better Accommodations needed by the Society._--The books and papers
of our Prison Society are accumulating to such an extent, as to make
it difficult, with the accommodations we possess, to take proper care
of them. Many of them are so valuable as to make their preservation
almost an object of public interest. An ample and secure fireproof
would be very desirable, and also much more extensive book cases than
we now have. Our funds, however, are so limited at present, as to
be barely sufficient to meet our current annual outlay, such as the
appropriation towards the support of the “Prison Agency,” that to the
Prison “Association of Women Friends,” and for the aid of discharged
prisoners, and the amount required to meet our Room Rent, the
publication of our Journal, and various necessary incidental expenses.
We therefore have nothing to spare towards procuring a suitable
building or room of our own, which we think would be very desirable.
We would therefore commend the Society and its various interests to
the kindly notice of our many benevolent citizens who are blessed with
ample means, as being deserving of their consideration and attention,
both when making their current distribution from time to time of
surplus income, and when through the medium of a will, they are making
a final appropriation of their estates.

_The Prison Agent._--William J. Mullen, the Prison Agent, acting
under appointment and authority of the Inspectors of the County
Prison, and also on behalf of our Prison Society, has continued his
services in investigating cases of alleged oppressive and illegal
commitments to the County Prison, with unabated zeal and singleness
of purpose. He has, with the co-operation of the proper authorities,
succeeded in liberating during the year 1,223 of these from prison.
Amongst them were many very interesting cases, where the common
rights of individuals would have been successfully outraged, if they
had not been inquired into and relieved by the action of the agent.
And it should be remembered that the wrong and suffering in these
cases is by no means limited to the individuals who are incarcerated,
but that it often extends most cruelly to others connected with the
prisoners. What must be the situation of the poor wife and helpless
children, when the husband, the father, and provider for their urgent
necessities, is thus wrongfully torn from them? Some are arrested and
committed under mistake, but much of the wrong-doing in relation to
such commitments, arises from the cupidity of the Police-aldermen,
or committing magistrates, who many times, on the most frivolous
charges, and sometimes without sufficient evidence against them, commit
individuals to the prison from motives of gain. In some instances they
are content with the fees established by law, but there is ground to
believe that extortion is not unfrequently attempted to be practised,
and sometimes with success. The mode of compensating the aldermen, by
fees to be derived from the individual cases in which they act, gives
them an interest in thus oppressing the helpless, and has long been
a crying evil. Under this system, and in actual practice, there is
good reason to fear, that much of the income of many of them is not
merely “the gain of oppression,” but that of extortion also. There are
no doubt upright and honorable men among them, but until all fees for
such cases are taken away, and a fixed salary substituted, we need not
expect to find them as a class to be governed, in their official acts,
by high-minded and disinterested motives.

We propose here giving a synopsis of a few of the cases contained
in the monthly reports received from the agent during the year, of
individuals liberated through his investigations and attentions.

One was that of a venerable old gentleman, for many years President of
the Board of Commissioners of the Northern Liberties of Philadelphia,
who had retired from business, being worth a handsome independence.
He was in the habit of spending much of his time at the office of a
relative of his, a merchant on the wharf. The clerk of the merchant on
returning from bank, where he had been to make a deposit, found three
five dollar United States notes, which he handed to the merchant, who
advertised for the owner to come forward and identify the money, and it
would be given up. The merchant authorized his relative, the prisoner,
to act for him during his absence, and if anybody properly identified
the money, to take it from his desk and return it. Among the claimants
was an ignorant woman, who said that she and her husband had lost
$50 between Frankford and South Street, and they did not come up any
further in the city than Second Street; that the money they lost was
in one, two, and three dollar notes. The prisoner informed her that
neither the money she had lost, nor the place where she had lost it,
agreed with that which had been found, and therefore she could not have
it. She immediately went to an alderman and swore that the prisoner
said he had her lost money, but would not give it to her. Upon this
statement, accompanied by an affidavit from her husband (who had not
heard the prisoner say anything on the subject), a warrant was issued,
and he was arrested. On the hearing, the prisoner denied ever having
said what had been testified against him, and informed the alderman
that he had never seen the lost money, nor even either of the five
dollar notes which had been found. Upon a commitment being made out, he
asked the constable to go with him to get bail, which he refused to do.
He also informed the alderman that he was abundantly able to go his own
bail, which, however, he refused to take. The agent, seeing him in the
prison, procured bail to be entered, and soon had him released.

A second was that of a woman who was committed for larceny, being
charged with having stolen a box of jewelry of but little value. Upon
investigation of her case, the agent ascertained that her prosecutor
had previously robbed her of some bed ticking, and had brought this
charge against her to defeat the ends of justice. She was arrested
and imprisoned at the very time when she was required to be at Court
to testify in reference to her stolen property. Careful examination
enabled the agent to prove in Court that instead of the prisoner having
committed a larceny, the prosecutor had entered her house during her
absence, ripped open a pillow, and after placing the jewelry in it,
sewed it up with a peculiar kind of thread, such as the agent found in
the prosecutor’s house. In confirmation of this, when the officer, in
company with the prosecutor, was searching the prisoner’s house for the
jewelry, and could not find it, the prosecutor pointed out the very
pillow which contained it, and asked to have that searched.

A third case was that of an innocent woman who had been convicted
and sentenced to three months on a charge of “false pretence.” The
charge consisted in her having applied to a member of the St. Andrew’s
Society, of which her husband had been a contributing member, for
money to pay the funeral expenses of her deceased child, which had
been buried the day before. A police officer, who was near at the
time, arrested, and caused her to be committed, saying that she was an
impostor, and he did not believe her story about the child. When her
case came up for trial, the agent supplied her with competent counsel
who explained the case and defended her. She was, however, convicted
on the testimony of this officer, although she herself addressed the
Court, and protested against the testimony, explaining her case in a
simple, earnest, and truthful manner. Judge Ludlow, seeing her great
distress, humanely sympathized with her, and directed an officer of
the Court to accompany her to her home to ascertain the facts, see
the sexton of the ground where she said the child was buried, &c.,
promising to release her yet, although convicted, if her story proved
true, but if false, to increase her sentence. The officer, after going
a short distance with her, took her back to the Court, and reported
that she was unable to direct him to a single person who had known her
to have buried a child.

The judge then sentenced her for three months to the County Prison.

After this, the agent investigated the case, and found that every word
she had said to the Court was literally true, as to the death, and the
time and place of burial, &c. The physician was seen, who at the time
of its death had given the certificate; the sexton who had buried it
was also seen, and the clergyman who had authorized the burial, and
paid the charges of the undertaker, with the understanding that she
was to pay him again, he having perfect confidence in her promise to
do so. When the agent had given to the Court satisfactory proof of
these facts, Judge Ludlow reconsidered her sentence and discharged her
from prison. Thus, through the services of the agent, this poor but
respectable woman was saved not only from the pains and privations
of a three months’ imprisonment, but also from the odium of being an
impostor and a convict, which would probably have been attached to her
character during the remainder of her life.

We shall introduce one other case, for the purpose of illustrating
the value of this agency, beyond the mere liberating of persons from
prison, which is that of a “peacemaker” between the prosecutor and the
person whom he had procured to be committed, which is a frequent result
of the settlement of cases.

This was that of a German soldier who borrowed money from two different
persons for the purpose of getting a commission as captain in the army,
and promised to pay them as soon as his commission was obtained. He
failed, however, to procure one, and having expended the money, he was
unable to repay them. They therefore had him committed to prison on
the charge of “false pretence.” The man had a wife and seven children
in New York depending upon him for support. He had an abundance of
recommendations of good character. The agent saw his prosecutors, and
succeeded in getting them to go to the prison and talk with him. They
soon became very much interested in him, gave him some money, went to
the District Attorney and asked for his discharge, and paid all the
Court charges and expenses, becoming satisfied, upon reflection, that
nothing wrong was intended by the prisoner. They invited him to their
houses, and proffered him their friendship for the future.

Many other cases are almost equally entitled to a place in this Report,
as strikingly illustrating the value of the agency to the cause of
humanity, and also to the community, in the large annual saving of
expense to the County, resulting from the discharges effected by
it, before the cases reach the Court. The cost of maintenance and
of prosecution, thus saved in the year 1861, amounted to upwards of
$11,000. Its value is fully appreciated by the public authorities, as
the following paragraph from the Presentment of the Grand Jury for the
June Term, 1862, will testify. In speaking of their visit to the County
Prison, they say: “During a part of their visit through the prison they
had the company of the prison agent, William J. Mullen, and were glad
to find that he still continues in the discharge of his arduous duties,
thereby saving great expense to the County, as well as affording
protection to the rights of the poorer classes of society.”

_Lunatics._--We last year referred to the practice which prevailed of
committing lunatics to the County Prison, to the great disadvantage
of that institution, and stated that this Society was co-operating
in an application then about being made to the Legislature, which,
it was hoped, would result in relieving the prison of this class of
its inmates. The contemplated application was made, and a Committee
attended at Harrisburg to make such explanations as might secure the
favorable notice and action of the Legislature, but without success.
Subsequently, however, the prison agent, after considerable effort,
succeeded in inducing the Board of Guardians of the Poor to rescind
instructions which had been issued to the officers of the almshouse,
prohibiting the admission of persons sent from the County Prison,
so far as to give their President power to admit (under certain
restrictions) such persons as he might deem proper, on application of
the Inspectors of the County Prison, to that effect.

Under this arrangement, thirty-one insane persons, some of whom had
been imprisoned for years, have been sent from the prison to the Insane
Department of the Almshouse within the past year.

_House of Correction._--The establishment of a House of Correction, (an
institution intermediate to the almshouse, and prison,) was referred to
last year, as an object of much interest to the community, and a hope
was expressed that this highly important advance in the reformatory
movements of our Commonwealth, might, under the Act of March, 1860,
be soon carried into effect. It is cause for regret, however, that no
substantial advance has yet been made. The delay in purchasing the
ground, and erecting the necessary buildings, is understood to be
occasioned by the City Councils having failed to make an appropriation
of the requisite funds. The measure is so important, that we earnestly
hope that the different parties having the control of it, may, by
hearty and united action, be enabled to bring this long desired
establishment into early and successful operation.

_Prison Society’s Visitors and Visiting._--We propose now to refer
to the subject of visiting the prisons and the prisoners, the duties
of which we feel to be of constant obligation, and if faithfully
discharged, under right qualification, we believe to be of importance,
second to nothing else, which devolves upon the Society. As heretofore,
the Acting Committee, (consisting of the officers of the Society,
_ex officio_, and forty-four other members), has been divided into
two sub-committees: one of them being allotted as visitors to the
Eastern Penitentiary, and the other to the County Prison. These
Committees have been regularly organized, and each of them has held
Stated Monthly Meetings, at which Reports have been received from the
individual members, as to the character of their services during the
month, and these Reports, or a summary of them, have been transmitted
to the Monthly Meetings of the Acting Committee. From the accounts
thus received, there is reason to believe that the interest in this
service has in no degree abated, and that the duties of the visitors
are discharged with increased efficiency. Owing to the long continued
indisposition of one or two of the members of the Penitentiary
Committee, and the protracted absence from the city of others, the
aggregate number of visits paid there is not quite equal to that
reported last year. There have been, however, 175 written Reports
received from members of this Committee, by which we are informed that
656 visits were paid by them to that institution during the course of
the year, in which 7,031 interviews were had with the prisoners, 4,728
of which took place within the cells, and 2,303 at the cell doors. We
have no doubt but that many other visits were paid, but omitted to be
reported.

The manner of meeting the prisoners is in a kindly spirit, approaching
them not as convicts, but as men, the consequence of which is, that the
entrance of a member of the Committee into a cell proves, with rare
exceptions, a source of real satisfaction to the inmates; confidence
being by this means established, an avenue is opened to their better
feelings, and on being inquired of, they freely give a history of their
past lives, and state what were the immediate influences under which
the crime was committed, which resulted in their being confined in a
felon’s cell. The information thus obtained, has fully convinced us,
that a very large proportion of the vice existing, and of the crimes
committed, if traced to their root, will be found to spring from
Intemperance.

It must be remembered that this baneful influence is not limited to
those individuals who commit crimes while under the immediate effect
of the intoxicating draught, nor even to such, and those who by
their ruinous habits, have brought themselves into such a state of
destitution and degradation, that their necessities present strong
temptations, and at the same time their sense of the obligations of
integrity and the rights of their fellowmen, is so weakened, that the
fatal step is easily taken. But to these two classes must be added
the children of such, who, growing up under the influence of the evil
example of the parent, feeling the degradation which he has brought
upon his family, and suffering from the destitution which he has
entailed upon them, and at the same time, being without the benefit of
any sound moral and religious instruction, and permitted to roam the
streets in idleness, without the knowledge of any business, are easy
victims to the attacks of the tempter. When will the proper authorities
of the land, by the enactment of suitable and effective laws, lay the
axe to the root of this giant evil?

In these interviews with the prisoners, such counsel is given, as seems
suited to their condition, so far as the visitors feel themselves
qualified, not unfrequently, as we trust, seeking for Divine aid in
the performance of the service. We believe that _many_, during their
confinement, are improved in their _moral_ perceptions, and reach the
conviction that “honesty is the best policy,” and are thus brought to
resolve to endeavor to lead a correct life from the time of their
discharge, and we hope that not a few of these, with the Divine
blessing on their efforts, have not again relapsed into their former
course of vice and crime, and that some, even amongst those who may not
have yet attained to the true ground of reformation, an abhorrence of
themselves in the sight of God, may, through Divine mercy, before the
close of life, experience that change of heart which will render them
acceptable in His sight. And we feel assured, that we have witnessed
some instances of _true conversion_, which have resulted through the
co-operation of Divine grace, with the instrumentalities connected
with our prison system, and we cannot doubt but that the labors of our
Prison Society have had some agency in effecting this happy change.

One peculiarly interesting case of this kind has recently occurred,
which is thought to be of sufficient value to justify special reference
to it. This was a young man, No. 4,160, aged 17, sentenced January
6, 1860, for two years and six months. He had been a very bad boy,
and had been imprisoned before, (but not under our System,) without
being benefited. After being in the Penitentiary several months, he
was favored with a sense of the “exceeding sinfulness of sin,” and
of his need of a Saviour, and by yielding to the monitions of Divine
grace, he in due time, as we trust, experienced an entire change of
heart, and attained to a state of acceptance in the Divine sight.
Several months before the termination of his sentence, he was attacked
with consumption, which soon gave evidence that he was not long for
this world. During the remainder of his term, his disease steadily
progressed and he often suffered much, but he was entirely reconciled
to his condition, and felt comparatively happy, esteeming it as a
great mercy that he had been placed there, where as he said he had
found his Saviour. He only hoped that he might not die till he was
discharged, and reached the arms of his pious mother at a distance
from this city, for her comfort and his own. On the 6th of July last,
at the termination of his sentence, he was discharged. This occurred
on the first day of the week. A member of our Committee took him from
the Penitentiary to his own house, and kept him there until he could
be suitably forwarded to his mother. This member in referring to him
remarks, “One evening, after our family reading [of the Scriptures], I
went up with him to his chamber and knelt with him at his bedside in
prayer, when we each offered up a petition to the Throne of Grace. I
was about leaving the room when he said, ‘Don’t go yet, stay and have
a good talk.’ I did so, when we had a full and free interchange of
thought. I questioned him as to what he was resting his hopes of pardon
on, and found that it was on the only sure foundation,--Christ Jesus
and his atoning sacrifice.” He reached his mother, and was with her
nearly a month when he died on the 8th of August last. The following
is an extract from a letter written by her to the member referred to,
a few days after his decease: “I know you and Mrs. ---- will sympathize
with a sorrow-stricken mother. My darling child is no more. He sweetly
fell asleep in Jesus, at 4 o’clock on Friday, August 8th, after three
days’ great suffering, which he bore without one murmur. His answers
to all were surprising, his conversation humble and childlike. His
confidence in his Saviour never wavered; patient, gentle, and loving
to all, but to his poor mother he was all love. How hard I feel it
to say, Thy will be done! His consoling words to me were, ‘My dear
mother, don’t weep but look up.’ In the valley he felt his Saviour’s
presence.” Soon after, she addressed to the same another letter, from
which the following is an extract: “I did not know how dear I loved
him until we were called on to part. His patience under such suffering
was surely the work of grace, so gentle, so meek. For a week he seemed
to be getting somewhat better, and a ray of hope shot up, he would
be spared for some time at least. But four days before his death, ...
his agony was great, but not one word of complaint escaped his
lips. His whole conversation was his Saviour’s wonderful love. His
anxiety for the children’s conversion, especially his brother Thomas,
was great, and his prayer that God would make him the instrument in
converting one soul was lovely to me, nor have I one doubt but that
[his] prayers will be answered.... For the whole day before he
died, he kept on saying, ‘Dearest mother, look up but don’t weep.’ At
4 o’clock he called for his brothers and sisters to bid them farewell,
which he did, shook hands and kissed each one with a prayer, that his
Saviour would grant them grace so to live, as they would meet him in
heaven,--but to Thomas he said, ‘Kneel beside me, dear brother.’ Thomas
did so, and then James said, ‘Dearest Thomas, will you promise your
dying brother to seek the Lord, to give him your whole heart?’ Thomas
said he would try; then he lifted his dying eyes to heaven and said
distinctly, ‘O Saviour, grant him grace to keep this solemn promise.’
He seemed in great pain. I asked him how the Saviour appeared to him
in the dark valley. Aloud and clear he said, ‘Dearest mother, Jesus
is precious.’ These were his last words. He became insensible, and
continued in a sort of stupor until a few minutes before 4 o’clock,
when I whispered in his ear, ‘Do you know your mother, my son?’ He
turned such a lovely look of recognition, moved his lips for me to
kiss him, I did so, one gentle sigh, and all was over.”

In the introduction to this branch of the Report, we speak of visiting
the _prisons_ and the _prisoners_. The Law incorporating our Prison
Society, and that conferring on the Acting Committee the character
of Official Visitors, contemplate that in addition to the salutary
influence we may endeavor to exert upon the prisoners, by social
intercourse with them, and impressing upon them moral and religious
instruction, we should also observe the workings of our Prison System,
bring anything which appears to be wrong to the notice of the proper
authorities, that it may be remedied, and suggest any reforms or
improvements in the System which may appear to be desirable. Under this
view of our duties and privileges, our Committee, besides observing the
general condition of the Institution, as to good order, cleanliness,
healthfulness, &c., make special inquiries as to the supply of labor
furnished the prisoners, whether the ignorant and illiterate among them
receive proper attention from the teacher, how they are progressing
in their learning, and if those who can read are freely supplied
with books from the prison library, and have copies of the Sacred
Scriptures placed in their cells. All these inquiries have resulted
satisfactorily, excepting that the teaching force is not sufficient
to give such frequent lessons to those requiring them, as would be
desirable. The progress which many of them make is very gratifying,
and indeed surprising. The instances are frequent, where prisoners
who entered wholly without school-learning, that is to say, without
any knowledge of letters or figures, in a very few months, are able
to read, write, and cipher, with considerable facility, and a very
gratifying circumstance connected with this is, that most of them
highly value the knowledge they are thus acquiring.

The library is now in a very good condition, having been overhauled
during the year and a new catalogue prepared, after withdrawing several
hundred mutilated and imperfect volumes from the collection. It now
contains about 2,600 volumes, all complete and in a good state of
preservation, about 2,060 in the English, and 540 in the German and
French languages. While the library was regularly open, 11,526 books
were loaned, and in addition, considerable reading matter was furnished
during the several months in which they were engaged in examining and
re-arranging the books, of which no regular record was kept.

The various officers of the Penitentiary, by their general kindness
and good temper in their care of and intercourse with the prisoners,
evidence their fitness for their position, and as “like begets like,”
similar deportment is reciprocated by the prisoners towards them. This
is one of the excellent features of our System, which rarely, if ever,
calls for the exercise of harshness by the keepers, and, consequently,
instead of vindictive or bitter feelings being excited towards them,
on the part of those under their control, a mutual feeling of sympathy
is frequently brought into action. This was recently very pleasantly
exemplified in the presence of a member of our Committee. A keeper, who
had charge of about thirty prisoners in one of the corridors, received
intelligence of the death of a son in the army, and having obtained
leave of absence for a few days that he might go to Virginia to bring
home the remains, before leaving, called at the cell of each of those
under his care and bade them farewell. Both the words and deportment
of the prisoners evidenced that they sympathized with their caretaker
in his bereavement. It is also a general practice with the keepers in
the evening, as they pass from cell to cell to hand in a light and
lock the doors, to exchange a parting salutation with the inmates. We
think it must be self-evident, that such a condition of things is much
more favorable as a school of reform than that where the harshness of
discipline prevails, which is said to be inseparable from the _Silent_
System. The former is like the mellow soil moistened by the gentle
shower, which receiving the seed kindly, when deposited by the hand
of the husbandman, it soon germinates, and in due season brings forth
fruit, which abundantly rewards him for all his toil. Whilst the latter
is like the arid, indurated clay, upon which equally good seed may have
been scattered, but being dry and impenetrable, it either never springs
up, or at best it has a stunted growth, and its yield never compensates
for the labor bestowed upon it. The entire number of prisoners in the
Penitentiary during the year 1862 was 586. The largest number at any
one time was 451, on the first day of the year, and the smallest 353.
The number in confinement there on the first day of this year (1863)
was 369, to wit: white males 297, white females 18, black or colored
males 51, and black females 3. There were 6 deaths and 18 pardons in
the course of the year.

The Committee on the County Prison have attended faithfully to their
duty as visitors during the year, but the reports from them are not
so minute as those from the Committee on the Penitentiary, and,
consequently, we are unable to analyze them so as to set forth the
particulars of their services. One of the members so thoroughly devotes
his time to the duty, as to visit the prison more than 500 times during
the year, generally twice a day for more than 250 days. The other
members report having among them paid 419 visits in the course of the
year.

Under the care of the present judicious and efficient Board of
Inspectors, the prison has been satisfactorily conducted; but the
population is so unsettled (being largely composed of vagrants, the
untried, and those committed for petty offences), that it cannot be
considered to fairly illustrate the “Separate System,” and therefore
we think it proper to make more especial and extended reference to the
Penitentiary than to it.

The Prison “Association of Women Friends” (which is recognized by us as
an auxiliary in the good work), have continued to be diligent visitors
to the females confined in both prisons, and have entered on the
service under a full sense of its serious importance, and with desires
that their labors might be promotive of the temporal and eternal good
of the visited. In the course of the year they paid 987 visits to the
prisoners in the two institutions.

In addition to the moral and religious instruction communicated to
those confined in each of the institutions, through the medium of our
visitors and those of the association just referred to, the Eastern
Penitentiary has, as one of its regular officers, a “Moral Instructor,”
whose time is devoted to visiting the prisoners individually in their
cells, and there instructing them in those things which most nearly
concern their temporal and eternal interests. The present incumbent of
the office is John Ruth, a worthy minister of the Methodist persuasion,
who appears to be well fitted for the discharge of the duties of
his station. Ministers of different denominations also frequently
visit the Penitentiary, both for the purpose of having religious
opportunities with individual prisoners, and for the more general
and public discharge of the duties of their calling. In the County
Prison, although there is no regular officer employed for the purpose
as in the Penitentiary, yet the institution is pretty well supplied
with volunteer religious instructors from different sources, and, on
the first day of the week, the prison agent generally procures the
attendance there of one or more ministers.

In our Report last year, we informed that the Quarterly Journal,
which had been published by the Society for a number of years, was
discontinued, and an Annual Report and Journal substituted for it. The
principal reason then assigned for the change was, the large absorption
of our funds which its publication occasioned, while our means for
aiding discharged prisoners and sustaining other objects of practical
benevolence in carrying out the original object of our organization,
that of “Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons,” were entirely
too limited. The result, we think, has already confirmed the propriety
of the course then adopted. Our financial condition has considerably
improved, and our appropriations in 1862, in aid of discharged
prisoners, were upwards of fifty per cent. greater than in 1861.

  EDWARD H. BONSALL,  }
  JOSEPH R. CHANDLER, }   Committee on
  TOWNSEND SHARPLESS, } Annual Report, &c.
  CHARLES C. LATHROP, }
  ALFRED H. LOVE.     }

PHILADELPHIA, _1st Mo. (Jan.) 15, 1863_.




  For the Prison Journal.

MAGISTRACY.

The Magistrate must have his reverence, the laws their
authority.--BURKE.


Moses, in reply to the question of his father-in-law, “Why sittest thou
thyself alone and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?”
said, “Because the people, when they have a matter, come unto me; and
I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes
of God and his laws.” In him we have a model magistrate. But finding
the labor “too heavy” for him, by the advice of Jethro, he confined his
duties in this respect to those of an appellant judge, to be for the
people “Godward,” to “bring the causes unto God,” and to hear “every
great matter,” and he did “provide out of all the people, _able men,
such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness_, and placed such
over them to be rulers,” or minor magistrates, “and made them heads
over the people,” “and they judged the people at all seasons; the hard
cases they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged
themselves.” In this record of the first institution of the office
of the magistrate, and the qualifications considered as requisite in
the man to fill the position, we have a lesson that it becomes us
diligently to consider at the present day. If there has been degeneracy
of the world since the days of Moses, in no respect perhaps has it
been more forcibly felt, than in the mode of administering justice,
(or as it would be more properly termed _in_justice,) at the present
day, by the police or committing magistrates. The evils resulting to
the community, the cruelty done to the unfortunate being who falls
into their hands, by the system prevailing and carried out by many of
the magistrates, especially of this city, have become so aggravated
as to demand a thorough reformation. “Moses chose _able_ men,” whose
qualifications were known “out of all Israel.” Men who acted in the
“fear of God,” and “who hated covetousness;” or would not take “_fees_”
or levy severe contributions on their victims, or the victims of
others’ wrongs, or commit them to prison on false or trivial charges,
to exact the payment of “charges and costs.” He did not leave the
_election_ of the magistrate to any body of the people whom they were
to judge, much less to the worst or dissolute portion of them.

The very word “magistrate,” (from _magister_, master,) implying
control, direction, suggests to the mind the idea of equity, safety,
and purity. It excites reverence and a sense of exalted dignity, and
imposes such a power and responsibility as never should be exercised by
a bad or incompetent man.

In countries where the magistrate is _appointed_ by the head or ruling
power for his qualifications, and is _independent_ of the people over
whom he presides, this feeling or sentiment, as a general thing, has
been justified. The people living under the administration of such,
lay themselves down and sleep in peace, and arise and go to their
avocations, feeling that their rights, their property, and their lives
are secure, because the righteous magistrate dwells in the land!

Under our democratic ideas, that because “the people are sovereign,” we
must therefore permit them, in carrying out these ideas, to exercise
the power of electing all of our officials from the highest to the
lowest, we run a great risk of placing the liberty and the welfare
of the citizen, in the hands of bad and immoral men. However capable
the people may be _as a whole_ to judge of the qualifications and
fitness of any certain person for a magistrate, _if they would as a
whole exercise their sovereignty_, no one, we presume, will claim
that the portion of the “sovereigns” who congregate in “grog-shops,”
and act under the inspiration of intoxicating beverages, in procuring
nominations, are properly exercising the sovereign power, or that
“the voice of _the people_,” thus expressed, is “the voice of God.”
That _some_ good magistrates, as we truly have, are elected under the
present system, but illustrates the truth _that it is possible_ to
elect the right kind of men to office, if the better class of citizens
will but exercise the privilege of the franchise, which under our
theory of government it is the _bounden duty_ of every good man to do.

The evils arising from the magistracy, as at present administered, are
the results of two causes, which ought to be removed:

1st. The mode of selecting or making magistrates.

2d. The mode of compensating them.

From the nature and duties of their office, they should be removed as
far as possible from any dependence upon the favour, the votes, or the
fees of the people over whom they judge or rule.

Being a part of the ruling power, having delegated to them the
“mastery” over the people, they should receive their authority or
appointment from, and be dependent upon, the supreme authority or head
magistrate, or “Master” of the City or State, and his constituted
advisers, the council or senate, and removable only for cause. Being
thus appointed by him who represents the sovereignty of the people,
and by his position and responsibility to the people for his acts, we
might reasonably expect to find men appointed, capable of discharging
the duties, and worthy of the sacred trust of a magistrate. Again, as
to the second point, the magistrate should not in any way be dependent
upon, profited by, or have any portion of the “_fees_” of his office,
but should be appointed for a certain precinct, ward, or district,
and receive a certain _fixed_ compensation or salary from the public
treasury. All “fees” or charges, being the penalty for breaking or
infringing the laws, should be collected and paid over to the public
treasurer by the magistrate, leaving him free to act uninfluenced by
them, as the impartial agent of the law, as between the ruling power
or sovereignty of the people and the accused, and enable him to act
as a peacemaker, or reconciler of difficulties. Under the influence
of the “fees” to be derived from “committing” the person accused, is
there not danger that self-interest may sometimes induce the magistrate
to commit unnecessarily, or otherwise encourage bad feelings between
the accuser and the accused, when a more independent position might
lead the magistrate to secure a reconciliation and settlement of the
difficulty?

All persons thus appointed and acting, should have power to act not
only as committing magistrates of persons after examination, to be
tried by a higher court or magistrate for heinous offences, but
they should be authorized and required to try all trivial or minor
cases, summarily, and to decide upon the same, and pronounce sentence
accordingly, without appeal except in specified cases. A system similar
to this prevails in other cities, or did at least in New Orleans
before the rebellion, where Recorders or criminal magistrates acted or
presided over certain defined districts; justices of the peace acting
in civil cases only, one being entirely separated from the other,
and the same person not allowed to act in both positions. The system
was found to work to advantage there, though the incumbents of the
position, contrary to what we deem wise, were elected by the people.
As adjuncts to such a system, a Work-house for mature offenders and
vagrants, and a House of Industry (or Refuge) for juvenile ones, to
which the magistrate could sentence them, would be needed to relieve
our County Prison of the _surfeit_ of cases now sent there, and to
relieve the public, by the fruits of their labor, from their cost of
maintenance; and so situated as to lead as far as possible to their
reformation, and to the formation of habits of industry, regularity,
and temperance. Such institutions could, as elsewhere, be made to pay
a profit to the city, instead of as now maintaining the victims of the
magistrate at heavy cost, in idleness and amidst evil associations. The
workings of the present system prevailing in our city, are forcibly
presented by the Reports of the Inspectors of the County Prison, and
those of the prison agent of the same,[2] from the latter of which we
select only the following, which are but a sample daily occurring:

1. One of these cases is that of a young soldier committed [May 15th],
on the charge of homicide. The Agent went to Washington, visited the
camps, and saw that witnesses therefrom were brought here. These were
brought here under the charge of an officer, specially detailed by the
Court for the purpose, to prove an alibi in his behalf. It was not,
however, found necessary to present this evidence, as another witness
was found who testified to seeing the murder committed by a different
person. The prisoner, in consequence, was at once acquitted.

2. Another case was that of a United States marine, the victim of a
conspiracy, whose object was to have him arrested and imprisoned as a
deserter, in order to recover $30, which are usually allowed in such
cases by Government. The chief actors here--as it appeared--were a
sergeant and two tavern-keepers, who sued him before two different
aldermen for an indebtedness, amounting to $17 for board and for
money obtained--as they say--under false pretence, which consisted
in his promising to pay after receiving his wages from Government.
At the settlement the sergeant claimed $135 out of $140.80; exacting
one-fourth of the sum loaned for its use, and leaving but $5.80 for the
prisoner to cancel the $17 debt. This $135 was paid to the sergeant for
the use of $101.25 advanced to the prisoner within 19 days subsequent
to his being paid--all of which he had spent. A ten days’ furlough was
granted to him, and then he was imprisoned, as above mentioned.

In investigating the case, the Agent learned from the prosecutors,
that they intended to get paid by keeping him in prison till after
his furlough expired, and then getting the major to arrest him, as a
deserter, with a promise that he would see them paid out of money,
which the prisoner would eventually have to pay, after being put in
irons and confined, for three months, in the barracks--which is said to
be the customary punishment in such cases.

3. Another case was that of a United States Army captain, who was
imprisoned on the charge of _enticing_ soldiers out of a regiment in
one State into a regiment of another State. It appears that, from
patriotic motives, he had resigned the command of his company in
Virginia and went to New York to raise a regiment of which he was to be
major. While he was in Philadelphia the orderly-sergeant of his former
company sent him a letter, inquiring how he progressed in forming his
new regiment, and also informing him that, after pay-day, many of his
old command would quit their company.

This portion of the letter came to the knowledge of one of our city
aldermen, who construed it, as enticing soldiers from one company into
another, and thereupon unjustly committed the captain to prison.

On the Agent stating the truth of the case to the alderman, and asking
the prisoner’s immediate release, as his services were needed in our
country’s defence; the magistrate refused to discharge him, unless he
or his friends would pay the costs, and thus submit to the illegal
extortion of money, as also to the imputation of having violated the
laws. Whereupon the Agent, after consulting the United States Court
officers, applied to the Court of Quarter Sessions for a writ of habeas
corpus, had the case examined, and the prisoner was discharged by the
authority of Judge Thompson.

4. Another extraordinary case was that of a woman charged with
kidnapping and robbery. The alleged kidnapping--as was proved in
Court--consisted in her taking possession of her own son, of 16 years
old, a runaway, found by her in Schuylkill County, and the robbery
in the taking of his clothes, which she had a right to take, as was
shown by her acquittal in Court, at her hearing upon a writ of habeas
corpus, procured by the Agent; when the fact of his being her son was
established, not only by herself, his mother, but by his brother, of 19
years old, and by a respectable citizen and others, who had known him
from infancy.

5. Another case, presenting, perhaps, still more striking features, was
that of a woman committed, on a bail-piece issued by one of our city
aldermen, November 20th, and discharged November 21st, by bail being
entered for her appearance at Court. The original charge against her
was for assault and battery on a neighbor woman.

According to the prisoner’s account, she got into difficulty with this
neighbor about some children belonging to another party. They struck
each other, and then the prisoner was sued by the other woman before
an alderman, who granted a warrant gratis, as at the time she had no
money. The prisoner was required to give bail, or go to prison. She
then arranged with the alderman’s constable (at his suggestion) to pay
him $2 for being her bail, on her receiving money, which she expected
daily from her husband and son, who were in the United States Army. She
also agreed to pay the alderman $1.80. On her receiving, soon after, a
remittance from her son, she promptly paid the amount agreed upon.

She was then told, by the alderman and constable, that she must now
enter freehold bail for her appearance at Court. She replied, that she
thought that unnecessary, as she and her prosecutrix had settled their
quarrel, and were now as friendly and intimate as sisters, visiting
each other in their respective premises almost every hour in the day.
But, notwithstanding all this, and although, being a simple case of
assault and battery, it was fully within the magistrate’s power to
settle it, he would not do it, but insisted on having freehold security.

She then consulted a distinguished lawyer on the case, who addressed a
note to the alderman, requesting him to dismiss it. He would not comply
with the request, but persisted in exacting freehold bail.

The alderman’s constable then proposed getting his brother-in-law for
her bail, on condition that she would pay him $5 for the service.
Becoming frightened, as she had three small children, with no one but
herself to care for them, her husband and son being in the army, she
assented to his terms and paid him the money--which (be it noted) was
in addition to the $3.80 previously paid to the alderman and constable.

She was then allowed to depart for a few days, at the end of which the
constable visited her, early one morning, and told her the bail was
about to give her up unless she would pay some more money. She gave him
all she had, a half-dollar, which she at the time actually needed to
get food for her children. He took it, but said it was not enough, and
he must, therefore, have her husband’s coat, which was hanging within
view. She gave him this, and he then further insisted on having some
breakfast, which she also gave him.

He left, but not long after returned, and declared she must go to
prison, as her bail would incur no further risk unless he received more
money. She replied that she had no more money to give; but, instead
of this, she gave him her husband’s pantaloons and drawers, which he
took, and thereupon insisted on having her husband’s razor and shaving
apparatus, which she gave him. He concluded his call by demanding his
dinner, which she also gave him, and he went away.

A few days subsequently, his brother-in-law (the bail) called, and told
her he was going to surrender her to be sent to prison, unless she
either gave him more money, or complied with certain infamous proposals
of his. The latter she promptly refused, with the remark that she
would not dishonor her husband and son, who were then enrolled for the
defence of their country.

He then left, and went to the alderman and had her sent to prison,
cruelly separating her from her sucking infant, who was left at home
with her other two young children, and no one else.

The Agent, on learning these atrocious facts, at once saw that the
prisoner was released on bail, and permitted to return home to her
family.

6. Another case was that of a woman, the mother of a large family of
little children, who was committed by one of our aldermen on the vague
charge of misdemeanor. Her husband is a soldier in the United States
Army. It seems that her landlord wished to remove her from the house
she tenanted in a summary manner, and he appears to have formed a
conspiracy with the prosecutor for this object. She refused to leave
till she got a remittance from her husband. A quarrel ensued, and the
prosecutor struck and beat her most shamefully. A proof of this was
that her person, when she entered the prison, was black and blue with
bruises. After the prosecutor had done this, he went to the alderman
and sued her on the charge above named. This he did to secure himself
from being prosecuted by her for assault and battery.

Let the community arise! Let our City Councils and our State
Legislature act, and perfect such legislation as will remedy this
crying evil, and rid our beautiful city, so distinguished for progress
in arts, science, and benevolent institutions, of this polluted sore.

  C. C. L.




  For the Prison Journal.

IMPRISONMENT.


So far as we are acquainted with the actual condition of the various
countries of the civilized world, we are compelled to the painful
and humiliating conviction, that there are individuals amongst their
inhabitants who are prone to, and actually will interfere with, and
depredate upon the rights of others, unless they are subjected to moral
or physical restraint. This fact has made it necessary that measures
should be adopted to protect the general mass of society against the
wrong-doing of these evil-disposed persons. It must be evident to all,
that in originating and maturing these measures, or in framing and
perfecting laws for this purpose, an intimate acquaintance with human
nature, and a high order of wisdom, are essential pre-requisites to
fit those upon whom the duty should devolve, to enter upon the highly
important work. The instinct of self-protection would naturally, and
even properly suggest, that the first object should be to secure the
community against a repetition of the wrong-doing, by placing the
individual who has committed a serious offence under such physical
restraint as to make it impossible for him for a time to continue his
evil course. This object may be secured by a close confinement of the
culprit in a prison or penitentiary. But if we rest satisfied with
having accomplished this, we are taking a very narrow view of a very
broad subject. This same instinct, if its promptings are intelligently
pursued, will convince us that the punitive character of this restraint
or imprisonment should be such as to operate upon the fears of the
evil-disposed who are at large, and thus deter them from yielding to
temptations which may prompt them to commit offences against society
or individuals. And, also, as this imprisonment cannot be permanent,
the individual incarcerated should, through this source, as well as
others, be made to feel that “the way of the transgressor is hard;”
and from this experience (in the absence of any higher motive) be
induced to so conduct himself, after his liberation, as not to render
himself liable to be subjected to a repetition of these “pains and
penalties.” At the same time, however, that the imprisonment and
discipline provided, should embrace such elements as would subject the
convict to a full sense of punishment, they should be carefully guarded
from partaking of the character of vindictiveness or revenge. If this
care is not exercised, the higher and more enlarged action of Christian
philanthropy and duty, which should immediately follow that referred
to as being prompted by the instinct of self-protection, which is, the
temporal and eternal good of the offender, by his reformation, will be
entirely defeated.

We are aware that in some countries, in framing their penal laws and
discipline, the only object appears to be to prevent the continued
perpetration of offences by the imprisonment of those convicted as
offenders, and by the severity of their punishment to deter them from
a repetition of their crimes after their discharge; the example of
which punishment, it is desired, shall also operate to restrain others
from entering upon and pursuing an equally criminal course. This
object is effected, at the smallest possible cost to the community, by
constructing their prison buildings, almost exclusively, with reference
to the safe-keeping of the prisoners, making no arrangements for their
separation, but congregating them together in large masses, with very
little, if any, regard to difference in age or degrees of criminality.
The consequence is, that instead of the prisoners being reformed or
made better, by the discipline to which they are subjected, they are
almost inevitably made worse; and many times, those who were committed
on a charge of pocket-picking or some other minor offence, are fitted
for burglars or the commission of the highest class of crimes on their
discharge.

A valuable member of our Prison Society who has recently spent several
years abroad, during which time he became very familiar with the penal
system and the arrangement and manner of conducting the prisons of
one of the countries of Continental Europe, having frequently visited
and personally inspected the prisons, speaks of it as being generally
admitted amongst the people there, that reformation was no part of
their plan, and was never expected to result from the imprisonment of
criminals. We are happy, however, in the belief, that this system is
now viewed by nearly all countries as being a relic of the barbarism of
the dark ages, which, besides partaking of the character of cruelty,
evidences great short-sightedness and want of wisdom, if we consider
how its results affect the best interests of the community. Instead of
being a school of reform, through whose influence the number of those
from whom outrages might be apprehended would be lessened, if it does
not actually increase them, it at least makes life-long criminals of
the most hardened character, of a large proportion of those subjected
to its discipline, who, at the time of their first commitment, were by
no means steeped in wickedness; many of them when quite young, having,
in an unguarded moment, yielded to strong temptation to commit some
minor offence, of which having been convicted, they have been thrust
amongst the most abandoned outcasts of society, and soon lost to all
hope of restoration, when by a really humane and Christian course of
treatment they might have been led back from the by-paths into which
they had, without due consideration, stepped, and have been brought
to experience the happiness of a virtuous life, and to be a blessing
instead of a curse to society.

We believe that all reflecting men must be convinced that
the _reformation_ of criminals, besides being a question of
_expediency_, in which the community has a deep stake on the score of
self-protection, is one, the promotion of which, so far as is in our
power, is of the highest Christian obligation, in reference to both
the temporal and eternal good of those who, having by their criminal
conduct, forfeited the liberty enjoyed by the common mass of their
fellow men, have, for the security of society, been committed to
prison. In most Christian countries _reformation_, on the ground of
_expediency_ at least, and we trust, under some sense of Christian
duty, is now acknowledged to be properly _one_ of the elements of their
penal systems; and, consequently, some provisions, either theoretical
or practical, are adopted for the promotion of this object. It is much
to be regretted, however, that most of the existing prison systems are
such as greatly to interfere with, and many of them almost wholly to
defeat the accomplishment of this vitally important purpose. This state
of things exists to a great extent, not only in Europe, but throughout
most of the Commonwealths of the United States.

The systems are generally “_congregate_,” either with little, if any,
restraint from free social intercourse between the inmates, whatever
may be their different degrees of depravity, or with the imposition
of silence while together, and separation at night and at their
meals only. The former of these, in our judgment, wholly excludes
reformatory influences, unless it be through the immediate operation
of Divine grace and mercy, which, we freely admit, can overrule
obstacles however great; but this fact will not excuse us from doing
our best to facilitate this operation. At the same time, also, that
it excludes reformation, its attendant circumstances rapidly school
the young offender in the ways of depravity and crime, and harden the
more practiced in wickedness, and prepare them for the commission of
still darker deeds than any they had previously been guilty of. Whilst
the latter system, where _silence_ is imposed, though certainly a step
in advance of the former, as it cannot so extensively _propagate_
criminality, yet from the fact that the prisoners cannot be approached
separately, and that this system of silence and non-intercourse
amongst them, under the strong temptation to the indulgence of their
social propensities when placed in the presence of each other, is only
maintained by harsh and severe discipline; reformatory agencies can
hardly be brought to bear upon them, and efforts in this direction,
very rarely, indeed, produce the desired effect.

It seems to us that what is generally known as the “Pennsylvania
System,” which is that of entire cellular separation of the prisoners,
by which they are precluded from either seeing each other, or holding
any kind of intercourse by word or sign, is far in advance of any other
system of imprisonment yet introduced. We do not propose at this time
to go into a general explanation of its peculiar features, but may
merely advert to a few prominent points in support of this position.

First, as regards the effectual restraint of those found guilty of
crime from continuing their outrages upon the community; its security
against escape, is fully equal to, if not greater, than that under any
other existing prison system, and its punitive character, though really
humane and mild, is looked upon with much dread by the evil-disposed,
on account of their being subjected to separation from their fellow
convicts, and therefore it is potent in deterring from a criminal
course.

These primary objects of imprisonment being thus effectually secured,
we are next to consider what are its effects, evil or good, upon the
moral condition of those subjected to its discipline. And here the
results of our inquiries are pre-eminently satisfactory. From the
thorough isolation maintained, we think it must be evident, that no
prison under it can ever become a moral pest-house, where the depravity
and wickedness of one prisoner may be communicated to another, or, as
it were, prove contagious, and thus spread moral corruption around him.
As neither the words, countenance, nor gestures of one can be heard or
seen by another, it is clear, that those committed are not subjected to
such influences whilst in confinement, as will make them morally worse
on leaving, than when they entered.

Having thus demonstrated, as we trust, that our system, without doing
a moral wrong to the offender, thoroughly effects the purpose for
which society claims the _right_ to imprison--that of self-protection,
by placing him under secure restraint--we have next to consider what
is its adaptation to the higher and less selfish purpose, which
immediately follows as a Christian obligation, that of promoting
his reformation. In the first place, then, as there is nothing in
the working of the system which calls for harshness of treatment; it
is administered on principles of kindness, and consequently, instead
of the prisoners being hardened, and their vindictive and other evil
passions being called into action, they are softened, and the better
feelings of their nature (which with many had so long slept, that
the degraded beings were hardly aware that they possessed them) are
awakened. Under these favorable circumstances, those who are desirous
of communicating moral or religious instruction can visit each prisoner
in private in his separate cell, and when the service is accomplished,
leave him to his reflections, without being disturbed by the presence,
or deterred from a serious consideration of his condition by the scoffs
of depraved companions.

The purpose of this essay has not been to suggest the details of
any particular system of imprisonment, but to call attention to the
general principles which should control the subject. And especially
have we desired to impress upon the reader the vital truth, that if we
would hope to reform the prisoner, we must treat him with comparative
kindness. We must do nothing, which either is or seems to be, by way
of revenge or retaliation. Under the present dispensation we must not
exact “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” If we do this, the
prisoner feels that he is persecuted, and that as society is doing its
worst by him now, he will repay it upon his discharge. In effect, that
as every man’s hand is against him, his hand shall be against every man.

  E. H. B.


The following are the introductory remarks of a writer in the “North
British Review” for February, 1863, to “Observations on the Treatment
of Convicts in Ireland” and the Subject of Transportation, to wit:--

The public mind of England awakes periodically, and with a start, to
a sense of the danger it incurs by the presence of a large criminal
population in the very heart of the community, which is dealt with on
no rational or consistent system, watched by no adequate police, and
disposed of in no conclusive manner. We rave against the evil, we abuse
our rulers, we insist upon a remedy being found, we listen eagerly to
every quack and every philosopher, we discuss the subject passionately,
illogically, and superficially; and we end by adopting some fresh
plan which touches only a small fragment of the mischief, and darns
only a small rent in the tattered garment, and which is usually some
ill-digested and unworkable compromise between old habits and new
fancies. We then grow sick of the subject, ashamed of our panic, and
stupidly satisfied with our mild aperient and our emollient plaster,
and go quietly to sleep again for another term of five or seven years.
Meanwhile, however, there are two classes of men who never sleep: the
criminals, who are always at work to invent new modes of preying on
society and new dodges for evading justice; and the officials, who are
always, after the fashion of their kind, and by a sort of ineradicable
instinct, wriggling back into the old channels, and falling away
into their normal inertness. There was such an awakening as we have
described in 1853; there was another in 1857; there is another now. Let
us see whether this last cannot be made to yield some better and more
lasting fruit than its predecessors.

That the evil is a very great one no one can doubt. It amounts to
a positive insecurity of life and property which is disgraceful in
the richest, most civilized, most complicated society on earth.
At this moment, the number living by depredation and outrage, and
known to belong to the criminal class, is estimated to reach in
the United Kingdom to 130,000. In this year, 1863, a considerable
portion of the respectable inhabitants of London are reduced to carry
concealed weapons for their own defence; and this from no groundless
apprehensions, but because they _may_ any day be called upon to use
them, and often _are_. We annually commit to, and liberate from, our
county jails in England and Wales, at least 130,000 offenders, a very
large proportion, if not the majority, of whom are habitual pilferers,
burglars, or in other ways violators of the law, and recognized preyers
upon the industrious and peaceful part of the community. Besides these,
we turn loose every year, at the expiration of their sentence of penal
servitude, or shortly before its expiration, 3000 convicts, nearly all
of whom are professional, finished, hardened offenders, and all of
whom, with scarcely any exceptions worth naming, have been confined for
crimes in which ruffianism and dishonesty were combined. Of these 3000,
at least 2500 on an average are liberated in this country, and almost
invariably go back to their evil courses, more vicious, more skillful,
more irreclaimable than ever. Many of them have been convicted several
times, never dream of adopting an honest mode of life, and could not do
so if they wished. In a word, we have among us an army--very active,
very well trained, tolerably organized, very resolute, and in part
very desperate--of internecine enemies and spoliators, as numerous
as the troops of most European kingdoms, and more numerous than the
military and police forces in our own country combined. This is the
evil we have to deal with. It is an evil, in some degree and in some
form, incidental to every large and populous community; but the form
and degree depend entirely on our own management. We may reduce it to
the minimum which human temptation to wrong and the imperfection of
human powers of repression must always leave, a minimum which would be
seldom heard of and little felt, and which should be always tending
to decrease. Or we may suffer it, as we are in a fair way to do now,
to augment and intensify year by year till it reaches the maximum
compatible with a comfortable existence and a secure civilization.
Now what we affirm is, that, for the height to which it has reached
at the present moment, we have only ourselves to thank. For a long
time back, in spite of ceaseless warning, and ignoring all the lessons
of experience, physiology, and common sense, we have done little to
repress crime and much to encourage it. Our plans of dealing with it
have been based upon no clear understanding and no settled principle;
the changes we have introduced from time to time, have been either
inconsistent _nibblings_ or mutually destructive fluctuations; we have
neither aimed at felling the tree, nor at cutting off the nourishment
from its roots; we have simply pruned the branches, and contented
ourselves with wondering that it should flourish still. We believe that
all this is remediable still, though the mischief has assumed such vast
dimensions; but that which is imperatively needed before we can hope
to remedy it is, that we should boldly face all patent facts; that we
should courageously accept all undeniable conclusions from those facts;
that we should at once and for ever place sentiment under the control
and supremacy of sense; that no inconvenience should drive us to do
injustice to others; and that no expense should make us shrink from
doing justice to ourselves.

Criminals, the moment we look at them closely and analytically,
divide themselves into two distinct categories--the casual and the
habitual. Many of the more trifling, and some of the most heinous
offenders, belong to the former class. Temptation there will always
be; and this will be liable to increase with the progress and
complexity of civilization, as long as some are poor and some are
rich, and as long as the appliances of wealth are spread out in the
sight of the struggling and needy. Defective moral natures there will
always be--natures weak to resist and prone to fall; but these, it
is to be hoped, will diminish as comfort and instruction penetrate
among the masses. Passions will always exist among all ranks, and
passions will occasionally burst through the restraints of morality
and law. Boys will thieve who are no worse than idle, neglected,
and ill-trained. Poor men, who are habitually respectable, will
steal under circumstances of sudden and desperate necessity. Clerks
will occasionally forge or rob to avert exposure, to meet debt, or
to purchase vicious pleasures. Any man, in any rank, of violent
or malignant temper and ill-disciplined mind, may, in a moment of
provocation or of fury, be guilty of manslaughter; or, if he be
thoroughly bad and licentious, may outrage a defenceless woman, or
murder one whom he hates, or whose possession he desires. Crimes and
criminals of this sort, however, are not those that embarrass our
police, and perplex our rulers and philosophers; they do not constitute
the social problem we have to solve. They are the casual outbreaks
of human vice and passion, incidental to all stages and forms of
civilization, and incurable by any. But besides and independent of
these cases, we have among us a large population, numbered by thousands
and tens of thousands, who _live by_ outrage and depredation; to whom
crime is an employment and _profession_; who are brought up to it; who
have no other teaching, no other vocation, no other resource; to whom
the respectable and industrious portion of society is the oyster they
have to open; who prey upon the community, and sometimes hate it also.
They are simply the enemies of society; and the protection of society
against them constitutes precisely the difficulty which at this moment
our thinkers have to master, and the duty which our rulers have to
discharge.

Now we do not say that the obstacles and embarrassments with which
the solution of the problem is surrounded are not actually great,
because they are. But the problem itself is neither difficult nor
obscure, as soon as we take pains to place before ourselves distinctly
its precise nature and conditions. The thing to be done is simple
enough; the impediments in the way of doing it are nearly all of our
own creation, arising partly out of ignorance or thoughtlessness, and
partly out of willfulness; partly because we have not fully understood
what we had to do, and partly because we have been unwilling to
accept the consequences and incur the annoyance and expense of doing
it. Divested of all complications, our task is to _defend ourselves_
against the criminal population,--the professional criminals; to guard
society against their outrages and depredations in the most prompt,
effectual, and enduring fashion we can devise. That is all: we have
NOT to _punish_ them; and we shall only confuse our minds and perplex
our action if we try to do so. It is the almost universal neglect of
this vital distinction, more than any other error, which has led us
into such grotesque and inconceivable blunders. _Individuals_ may
regard these offenders in any light which harmonizes with their several
idiosyncracies. Some may look at them as objects of vengeance; some
as objects of compassion; some as subjects of conversion; some as
patients to be cured; some as unfortunate lunatics to be carefully
and comfortably confined; and there may be much truth in all these
different views, and they may be allowed to influence some of the
_details_ of the practical treatment of criminals in prison and on
their discharge from prison. But _the State_, as we said, has only
got to protect the community against them--to regard them as domestic
foes, against whom self-defence is legitimate and necessary. The reason
why it should not seek to _punish_ them, in the strict and proper
meaning of that word, is, that it has not the knowledge requisite for
the just discharge of that function. It cannot possibly apportion the
penalty it inflicts to the _guilt_ of the offender, which apportionment
constitutes the very essence of _punishment_. Neither the wisest judge,
nor the most patient and enlightened jury, nor the most omniscient
police officer, can do more than form a plausible conjecture as to the
_moral criminality_ of any convict; since this, it is obvious, must
depend on the organization which he inherited, on the antecedents which
have surrounded him from the cradle, on the degree of instruction he
has received, on the special nature and _adaptation_ of the temptation,
on a multitude of circumstances which we neither can know, nor could
estimate if we did. The State, too, is just as incompetent to estimate
the severity of the infliction as the guilt of the offence. How is
the legislator who awards, or the judge who pronounces, to ascertain
the weight and bearing of any given sentence upon any individual
culprit? The same penalty which to one man would be almost too lenient
for a theft, may, to a differently organized and differently trained
offender, be too severe almost for a murder. The educated convict,
whose ungoverned passion led him to a heinous but a single crime, would
be driven mad by the association and the _entourage_ which the habitual
and hardened ruffian would find congenial and even pleasant. Punishment
which _retributes_, like vengeance which _repays_, can, by its very
term, belong only to that higher intelligence which can estimate aright
both the debt to be repaid, and the intrinsic value of the coin in
which repayment is awarded.

The thing to be done, then, being ascertained, the next point for
consideration is how to do it. Now, society may protect itself against
habitual criminals in three ways, separately or in combination. It may
deal with him so as to _deter_ him, to _reform_ him, or to _get rid_ of
him. It may so arrange and contrive its penalties as to frighten him
from bad courses, or to incapacitate him from recurring to them, or to
persuade him to amend them. And, putting out of view the very few whom
it will or can hang, it has to effect these objects by such secondary
punishments as lie within its reach, as the public purse will pay for,
and public conscience and feeling will allow the State to inflict.




MEMBERS.


  Ashhurst, Lewis R.            Kintzing, William F.
  Armstrong, William            Kitchen, James, M. D.
  Anderson, V. William          Kneedler, J. S.
  Atmore, Frederick B.          Knight, Edward C.
                                Knorr, G. Frederick
  Brown, John A.                Klapp, Joseph, M. D.
  Brown, Frederick
  Brown, Moses                  Laing, Henry M.
  Brown, Thomas Wistar          Lambert, John
  Brown, Abraham C.             Landell, Washington J.
  Brown, N. B.                  Lathrop, Charles C.
  Brown, David S.               Latimer, Thomas
  Brown, Joseph D.              Leeds, Josiah W.
  Brown, Benneville D.          Lewis, Henry, Jr.
  Brown, Mary D.                Lewis, Edward
  Bell, John M. D.              Lippincott, John
  Biddle, William               Lippincott, Joshua
  Biddle, John                  Longstreth, J. Cooke
  Barton, Isaac                 Lovering, Joseph S.
  Burgin, George H., M. D.      Lovering, Joseph S., Jr.
  Bohlen, John                  Ludwig, William C.
  Binney, Horace, Jr.           Lynch, William
  Bayard, James                 Lytle, John J.
  Beesley, T. E., M. D.
  Beesley, B. Wistar            McCall, Peter
  Bowen, William E.             Meredith, William M.
  Bettle, Samuel                Milliken, George
  Bettle, William               Myers, John B.
  Baldwin, Matthias W.          Morris, Isaac P.
  Barcroft, Stacy B.            Massey, Robert V.
  Bailey, Joshua L.             Maris, John M.
  Baily, Joel J.                Morris, Charles M.
  Burr, William H.              Morris, Wistar
  Boardman, H. A.               Morris, Caspar, M. D.
  Bunting, Jacob T.             Morris, Anthony P.
  Bacon, Richard W.             Morris, Elliston P.
  Bacon, Josiah                 Montgomery, Richard R.
  Brock, Jonathan               Mercer, Singleton A.
  Barclay, Andrew C.            Mullen, William J.
  Brooke, Stephen H.            Megarge, Charles
  Baines, Edward                Martin, William
  Budd, Thomas A.               Martin, Abraham
  Bispham, Samuel               McAllister, John, Jr.
  Broadbent, S.                 McAllister, John A.
  Brant, Josiah                 McAllister, William Y.
  Beaux, John Adolph            Macadam, William R.
                                McAllister, F. H.
  Corse, J. M., M. D.           Marsh, Benjamin V.
  Cope, Alfred                  Morton, Samuel C.
  Cope, M. C.                   Merrill, William O. B.
  Cope, Henry                   Morrell, R. B.
  Cope, Francis R.              Mellor, Thomas
  Cope, Thomas P.               Mitcheson, M. J.
  Colwell, Stephen
  Caldwell, James E.            Norris, Samuel
  Caldwell, William Warner      Neall, Daniel
  Cresson, John C.              Needles, William N.
  Claghorn, John W.             Nesmith, Alfred
  Chandler, Joseph R.           Nicholson, William
  Carter, John                  Neuman, L. C.
  Carter, John E.
  Campbell, James R.            Ormsby, Henry
  Comegys, B. B.                Orne, Benjamin
  Childs, George W.
  Child, H. T., M. D.           Purves, William
  Chance, Jeremiah C.           Parrish, William D.
  Coates, Benjamin              Parrish, Joseph, M. D.
  Chamberlain, Lloyd            Poulson, Charles A.
  Conrad, James M.              Perot, William S.
  Cooke, Jay                    Perot, Francis
  Collier, Daniel L.            Perot, Charles P.
  Comly, Franklin A.            Perot, T. Morris
                                Patterson, Joseph
  Demmé, Charles R.             Patterson, Morris
  Ducachet, Henry W.            Patterson, William C.
  Dawson, Mordecai L.           Potter, Alonzo, D.D.
  Dorsey, William               Price, Eli K.
  Dutilh, E. G.                 Price, Richard
  Ditzler, William U.           Pearsall, Robert
  Dreer, Ferdinand J.           Pitfield, Benjamin H.
  Dickinson, Mahlon H.          Peters, James
  Davis, R. C.                  Peterson, Lawrence
  Derbyshire, Alexander J.      Potts, Joseph
  Derbyshire, John              Parry, Samuel
  Dennis, William H.            Palmer, Charles
  Duane, William                Perkins, Henry

  Earp, Thomas                  Quinn, John A.
  Evans, Charles, M. D.
  Evans, William, Jr.           Richardson, Richard
  Evans, Robert E.              Richardson, William H.
  Evans, J. Wistar              Robins, Thomas
  Erringer, J. L.               Robins, John, Jr.
  Edwards, William L.           Ritter, Abraham, Jr.
  Elkinton, Joseph              Rasin, Warner M.
  Elkinton, George M.           Read, W. H. J.
  Ellison, John B.              Robb, Charles
  Emlen, Samuel                 Rehn, William L.
  Eyre, Edward E.               Rutter, Clement S.
  Eyre, William                 Ruth, John
  Erety, George                 Roberts, Algernon S.
                                Ridgway, Thomas
  Farnum, John                  Robinson, Thomas A.
  Fraley, Frederick             Randolph, Philip P.
  Fullerton, Alex.              Rowland, A. G.
  Farr, John C.                 Richards, George K.
  Frazier, John F.
  Ford, William                 Smedley, Nathan
  Ford, John M.                 Shippen, William, M. D.
  Furness, William H.           Scull, David
  Field, Charles J.             Schaffer, William L.
  Fox, Henry C.                 Scattergood, Joseph
  Franciscus, Albert H.         Shannon, Ellwood
  Funk, Charles W.              Sharpless, William P.
                                Simons, George W.
  Garrett, Thomas C.            Smith, Nathan
  Griffin, E., M. D.            Stokes, Shmuel E.
  Greeves, James R.             Shoemaker, Benjamin H.
  Gilpin, John F.               Speakman, Thomas H.
  Grigg, John                   Starr, F. Ratchford
  Gummere, Charles J.           Saunders, McPherson
  Gardiner, Richard, M. D.      Stokes, Edward D.
                                Sloan, Samuel
  Hunt, Uriah                   Smith, Joseph P.
  Hockley, John                 Stone, James N.
  Holloway, John S.             Simes, Samuel
  Husband, Thomas J.            Stuart, George H.
  Hughes, Joseph B.             Stewart, William S.
  Homer, Henry                  Stevens, Edwin P.
  Homer, Benjamin
  Hancock, Samuel P.            Townsend, Edward
  Hand, James C.                Taylor, Franklin
  Hazeltine, John               Taylor, John D.
  Hastings, Matthew             Taylor, George W.
  Huston, Samuel                Trewendt, Theodore
  Hacker, Morris                Tredick, B. T.
  Hacker, William               Thomas, John
  Hunt, William, M. D.          Taber, George
  Hurley, Aaron A.              Troutman, George M.
  Harbert, Charles              Thornley, Joseph H.
                                Thissel, H. N.
  Ingersoll, Joseph R.
  Ingram, William               Van Pelt, Peter
  Iungerich, Lewis              Vaux, George

  Jackson, Charles C.           Wharton, Thomas F.
  Janney, Benjamin S., Jr.      Wood, Horatio C.
  Jeanes, Joshua T.             Wood, Richard, Jr.
  Jenks, William P.             Welsh, William
  Jones, Isaac C.               Welsh, Samuel
  Jones, Jacob P.               Welsh, John
  Jones, Isaac T.               Wetherill, John M.
  Jones, William D.             Williamson, Passmore
  Jones, Justus P.              White, John J.
  Jones, William Pennel         Wainwright, William
  Johnson, Israel H.            Wright, Samuel
  Johnson, Ellwood              Wright, Isaac
  Johnston, Robert S.           Willets, Jeremiah
  Justice, Philip S.            Wiegand, John
                                Wilstach, William P.
  Kaighn, James E.              Williamson, Peter
  Kane, Thomas L.               Warner, Redwood F.
  Kelly, William D.             Walton, Coates
  Kelly, Henry H.               Williams, Jacob T.
  Ketcham, John                 Wilson, Ellwood, M. D.
  Kiderlen, William L. J.       Woodward, Charles W.
  Kimber, Thomas                Whilldin, Alexander
  Kingsbury, Charles A., M. D.
  Kinsey, William               Zell, T. Ellwood
  Kirkpatrick, James A.


LIFE MEMBERS.

ON PAYMENT OF TWENTY DOLLARS AND UPWARDS.

  Barclay, James J.           Ogden, John M.
  Bache, Franklin, M. D.
  Bonsall, Edward H.          Perot, Joseph
  Besson, Charles A.          Perkins, Samuel H.
                              Parrish, Dillwyn
  Cope, Caleb                 Powers, Thomas H.
                              Potter, Thomas
  Ellis, Charles
                              Sharpless, Townsend
  Fotteral, Stephen G.        Sharpless, Charles L.
  Foulke, William P.          Sharpless, Samuel J.
                              Steedman, Miss Rosa
  Hacker, Jeremiah
  Horton, John                Turnpenny, Joseph C.
  Hollingsworth, Thomas G.    Townsend, Samuel

  Knight, Reeve L.            Whelen, E. S.
                              Willits, A. A.
  Learning, J. Fisher         Weightman, William
  Love, Alfred H.             Wilhams, Henry J.
  Longstreth, William W.      Wain, S. Morris

  Marshall, Richard M.        Yarnall, Charles
                              Yarnall, Benjamin H.


ARTICLE IV.

The Treasurer shall keep the moneys and securities, and pay all orders
of the Society or of the Acting Committee, signed by the presiding
officer and Secretary; and shall present a statement of the condition
of the finances of the Society at each stated meeting thereof.

All bequests, donations, and life subscriptions, shall be safely
invested; only the income thereof to be applied to the current expenses
of the Society.


ARTICLE V.

The Acting Committee shall consist of the officers of the Society,
ex-officio, and fifty other members. They shall visit the prison at
least twice a month, inquire into the circumstances of the prisoners,
and report such abuses as they shall discover, to the proper officers
appointed to remedy them. They shall examine the influence of
confinement on the morals of the prisoners. They shall keep regular
minutes of their proceedings, which shall be submitted at every stated
meeting of the Society; and shall be authorized to fill vacancies
occurring in their own body, whether arising from death, or removal
from the city; or from inability or neglect to visit the prisons in
accordance with their regulations. They shall also have the sole power
of electing new members.


ARTICLE VI.

Candidates for membership may be proposed at any meeting of the
Society or of the Acting Committee; but no election shall take place
within ten days after such nomination. Each member shall pay an annual
contribution of two dollars; but the payment of twenty dollars at any
one time shall constitute a life membership.


ARTICLE VII.

Honorary members may be elected at such times as the Society may deem
expedient.


ARTICLE VIII.

The Society shall hold stated meetings on the _fourth_ fifth-day
(Thursday) in the months called January, April, July, and October, of
whom seven shall constitute a quorum.


ARTICLE IX.

No alterations of the Constitution shall be made, unless the same
shall have been proposed at a stated meeting of the Society held not
less than a month previous to the adoption of such alterations. All
questions shall be decided where there is a division, by a majority of
votes; in those where the Society is equally divided, the presiding
officer shall have the casting vote.




OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY.


  PRESIDENT,--JAMES J. BARCLAY.

  VICE PRESIDENTS, { TOWNSEND SHARPLESS,
                   { WILLIAM SHIPPEN, M. D.

  TREASURER,--EDWARD H. BONSALL.

                   { JOHN J. LYTLE,
  SECRETARIES,     { EDWARD TOWNSEND.

                   { HENRY J. WILLIAMS,
  COUNSELLORS,     { CHARLES GIBBONS.


_Members of the Acting Committee._

  Charles Ellis,           Mahlon H. Dickinson,   Joseph R. Chandler,
  William S. Perot,        William Ingram,        Samuel Townsend,
  Thomas Latimer,          James Peters,          Albert G. Roland,
  John M. Wetherill,       Robert E. Evans,       Benj. H. Shoemaker,
  Abram C. Brown,          Charles Palmer,        Lewis C. Neuman,
  Benjamin H. Pitfield,    Charles P. Perot,      Wm. Warner Caldwell,
  James E. Kaighn,         Charles C. Lathrop,    Henry Perkins,
  Alfred H. Love,          William Dorsey,        George M. Elkinton,
  Jeremiah Willits,        Abram Martin,          William R. MacAdam,
  William H. Burr,         John Adolph Beaux,     J. M. Corse, M. D.,
  Jacob T. Bunting,        Wm. Armstrong, M. D.,  E. Griffin, M. D.,
  John C. Farr,            Wm. Nicholson,         William Hacker,
  George Taber,            Charles W. Funk,       John E. Carter.
  William L. J. Kiderlen,  Philip P. Randolph,


_Visiting Committee on the Eastern Penitentiary._

  Townsend Sharpless,    George Taber,            William Nicholson,
  Edward H. Bonsall,     William L. J. Kiderlen,  Charles W. Funk,
  John J. Lytle,         Mahlon H. Dickinson,     Samuel Townsend,
  Edward Townsend,       James Peters,            Albert G. Roland,
  Abram C. Brown,        Robert E. Evans,         Benj. H. Shoemaker,
  James E. Kaighn,       William R. MacAdam,      William Hacker,
  Alfred H. Love,        Charles Palmer,          J. M. Corse, M. D.,
  Jeremiah Willits,      William Dorsey,          E. Griffin, M. D.
  William H. Burr,


_Visiting Committee on the County Prison._

  William Shippen, M.D.,  John C. Farr,         Philip P. Randolph,
  Charles Ellis,          William Ingram,       Joseph R. Chandler,
  William S. Perot,       Charles P. Perot,     L. C. Neuman,
  Thomas Latimer,         Charles C. Lathrop,   Henry Perkins,
  John M. Wetherill,      Abram Martin,         George M. Elkinton,
  Benj. H. Pitfield,      John Adolph Beaux,    Wm. Warner Caldwell,
  Jacob T. Bunting,       Wm. Armstrong, M.D.,  John E. Carter.

👉 WM. J. MULLEN is Agent of the County Prison, appointed by the
Inspectors, and acting under their direction, and also appointed by the
Prison Society.




FOOTNOTES:

[1] Less than one-sixth the size of the cells in the corridors which
were then completed in our penitentiary, as described by the same
writer, to wit: eleven feet nine inches long, seven feet six inches
wide, and sixteen feet high to the top of the arched ceiling.

[2] William J. Mullen.


[Transcriber's Note:

Dialect, obsolete and alternative spellings were left unchanged.
Printing errors, such as backwards or upside down letters, were
corrected; duplicate words were deleted; missing punctuation was added.]





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Journal of Prison Discipline and
Philanthropy, January, 1863, by Anonymous

*** 