"Good friend, for Jesus' sake, forbearTo dig the dust enclosed here!Blest be the man that spares these stones,And curst be he that moves my bones!"
"Good friend, for Jesus' sake, forbearTo dig the dust enclosed here!Blest be the man that spares these stones,And curst be he that moves my bones!"
"Good friend, for Jesus' sake, forbearTo dig the dust enclosed here!Blest be the man that spares these stones,And curst be he that moves my bones!"
"Good friend, for Jesus' sake, forbear
To dig the dust enclosed here!
Blest be the man that spares these stones,
And curst be he that moves my bones!"
The Boston Prison Discipline Society is not William Shakespeare; nor is it yet dead. But the maledictions of the epitaph have fallen upon those of us undertaking to "move its bones."
The Treasurer has impeached our motives. Sir, I impeach no man's motives; but I do submit, that, if the motives of any person are drawn in question, it cannot be those of gentlemen originating this inquiry, but rather of those few whose pride of opinion is intertwined with the whole course of the Society. Again, it is said that we are "intruders." That was the word. Is your predecessor, Sir, the Rev. Dr. Wayland, who is one of the authors of the report, an intruder? Are the gentlemen sustaining the Report in this debate intruders? Are we not all members of this Society, and as such bound to exertion, according to our abilities, in carrying forward its objects? Who shall call us intruders? Sir, I apply this term to no man, and to no set of men; but I cannot forbear saying, that, if its injurious suggestion be applicable to anybody, it cannot be to those honestly striving to elevate the character of the Society, and to extend its usefulness, but rather to those who meet these efforts with constant opposition, and declare, as has been done in this debate, that "it is the policy of the Society to act by one man only." It is also insinuated that one of the gentlemen supporting the Report, a valued friend of mine, has shown undue confidence in his own opinions: I do not remember the word employed. Sir, his modest character and services, which have been gratefully recognized in both hemispheres, and his intimate acquaintance with the subject, entitle him to speak with firmness. I do not charge the gentleman who dealt this insinuation with vanityor self-esteem, though it did seem to me that it came with ill grace from one who in the course of a short speech contrived to announce himself as Treasurer of the Boston Prison Discipline Society, next as Treasurer of Harvard College, and, not content with this, told us that he had once been a member of the City Government, and a Senator of the Commonwealth! I will not follow these personalities further. I allude to them with regret. They are a part of the poisoned ingredients—"eye of newt and toe of frog"—which the Treasurer has dropped into the caldron of this debate.
I now pass to the question. The Report and the accompanying Resolutions present three principal points:first, the duty and pledge on our part of candor and impartiality between the different systems of Prison Discipline;secondly, the duty of offering some expression of regret to our brethren in Philadelphia on account of the past;thirdly, the duty of our officers to make increased exertions, particularly by enlisting the coöperation of individual members.
To these several propositions we have had various replies, occupying no inconsiderable time. We have listened to the humane sentiments of my friend on the left [Dr.Walter Channing], to the inappropriate twice-told statistics of my other friend [Mr.F.C. Gray], to the labored argument of my professional brother [Mr.Bradford Sumner], to the two addresses of the reverend gentleman from Worcester [Rev.George Allen]. Let me say, that I have many sympathies with this gentleman. With admiration and delight I have recently read a production of his, entitled "Resistance to Slavery Every Man's Duty." Here his own powers answered to the grandeur of his cause. If he has failed in the present debate, it cannot be from lack of ability or from shortness of time. Lastly, we have been made partakers of that singular utterance from our Treasurer, which abounded so largely in the excellence that Byron found in Mitford, the historian of Greece, and which he said should characterize all good historians,—"wrath and partiality."
It is my purpose to consider and sustain the positions of the Report and Resolutions, and, in the course of my remarks, to repel the objections raised against them. In doing this, I shall confine myself to the topics which occupied the attention of the Committee. This will lead me to put aside one suggestion, of an irrelevant character, introduced into this debate by a friend not of the Committee: I refer to the charge of Sectarianism. This did not enter into the deliberations of the Committee, and formed no part of the Report. If there be in the past course of the Society any ground for this charge,—and on this I express no opinion,—it will doubtless find a corrective in what has been said here. As I do not ask your acceptance of the Report and Resolutions on this ground, so I appeal to your candor in their behalf irrespectively of any considerations arising from the introduction of this topic.
I.
The first point for consideration is the duty and pledge on our part of candor and impartiality between the different systems of Prison Discipline. Here I might, perhaps, content myself with a bare enumeration of these systems, and ask the Society if they are sofully convinced with regard to the comparative merits of each as to embrace one, and to reject, absolutely, all the others. For instance, I mention four different systems.First, that of Pennsylvania, so much discussed, the principal feature of which is separation of prisoners from each other both by day and night, with labor in cells.Secondly, that of Auburn, where the prisoners are in separate cells by night, but labor in common workshops, inenforced silence, by day.Thirdly, a system compounded of these two, according to which certain prisoners are treated as at Auburn, and certain others as in Pennsylvania,—sometimes called the Mixed System, and sometimes that of Lausanne, from the circumstance that here, in Switzerland,—interesting to us as the place where Gibbon wrote his great history,—there is a prison of this character.Fourthly, there is still another system,—or, perhaps, absence of system,—which is followed at Munich, and is called after Obermaier, the benevolent head of the prison in that place, who has rejected the separate cell of Pennsylvania by day, and also the corporal punishment and enforced silence of Auburn. Our own prison at Charlestown, also marked by absence of system, seems to me not unlike that of Obermaier. A similar benevolence emanates from the head of each of these institutions.
In each and all of these systems there is, doubtless, much that we should hesitate to condemn, and which it becomes us, as honest inquirers, to examine carefully and seek to comprehend. Calling upon our Society for a pledge of candor and impartiality, it will not be disguised that there are special reasons from its past course. Properly to appreciate this course, and to understand the unfortunate position of ungenerous antagonism tothe Pennsylvania System which we now occupy, it will be necessary to consider the origin and true character of that system. This will lead to some minuteness of historical detail.
Turning our eyes to the condition of prisons during the last century, we perceive that scarcely a single ray of humanity had then penetrated their dreary confines. Idleness, debauchery, blasphemy, brutality, squalor, disease, wretchedness, mingled in them as in a hateful sty. All the unfortunate children of crime, the hardened felon, whose soul was blotted by continual guilt, and the youthful victim, who had just yielded to temptation, but whose countenance still mantled with the blush of virtue, and whose soul had not lost all its original brightness, were crowded together, without separation or classification, in one promiscuous, fermenting mass of wickedness, with scanty food and raiment, with few or no means of cleanliness, a miserable prey to the contagion of disease, and the worse contagion of vice and sin. The abject social degradation of the ancient Britons, in the picture drawn by Julius Cæsar, excites our wonder to a less degree than the well-authenticated condition of the poor prisoners in the polished annals of George the Third.
Of all the circumstances which conspired to produce this wretchedness, it cannot be doubted that the promiscuous commingling of the prisoners in one animal herd was the most to be deplored. This evil arrested general attention. In France it enkindled the burning eloquence of Mirabeau, as in England it inspired the heavenly charity of Howard. It was felt not only in Europe, but here in our own country. Nay, it stillcontinues, the scandal of this age and place, in the present jail of Boston!
In the effort to escape from this evil, persons with best intentions, but by a not unnatural error, rushed to the opposite extreme. It was proposed toseparateprisoners from each other by a system ofabsolute solitude, without labor, books, or solace of any kind. This was actually done in Maine, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Without referring particularly to other States, I ask you to follow the course of things in Pennsylvania. In 1818 a law was passed authorizing the building of a penitentiary at Pittsburg "on the principle of solitary confinement of the convicts," and "provided always that the principle of the solitary confinement of the prisoners be preserved and maintained." In 1821 another law was passed authorizing the same at Philadelphia. Both of these prisons were conceived in a system ofsolitude without labor.
As such, they were justly obnoxious to criticism and censure. Thanks to the good men who interfered to arrest this design! Thanks to our Secretary, whose early energies were rightly directed to this end! The soul shrinks with horror from the cell of constant and unoccupied solitude, as repugnant to unceasing yearnings in the nature of man. The "leads" of Venice, the cruel cages of state prisoners, inspire us with indignation against that heartless republic. The terrors of the Bastile, whether revealed in the pictured page of Victor Hugo, or in the grave descriptions of dungeons where toads and rats made their home, contain nothing to fill us with such dread as the unbroken solitude which was the lot of many of its victims. Lafayette—whose own experience at Olmütz should not be forgotten—has furnished his testimony of its melancholy influence, as apparent in the condition of those who suddenly came forth, on the morning which dawned upon the destruction of that gloomy prison. Almost in our own time their sufferings have been revived in the Austrian dungeons of Spielberg; and Silvio Pellico has left to the literature of mankind the record of horrors filling the perpetual solitude of his cell, which he vainly strove to relieve by crying out to the iron bars of his window, to the hills in the distance, and to the birds which sported with freedom in the air.
A system of absolute solitude excludes every rational idea of health, improvement, or reformation. It is an engine of cruelty and tyranny kindred to the iron boot, the thumb-screw, the iron glove, and other terrible instruments of a vengeance-loving government. It hardens, abases, or overthrows the intellect and character. Such a punishment is justly rejected in a Christian age, learning to temper justice with mercy, and to regard the reformation of the offender among its essential aims.
Under the pressure of these arguments, in those States where this system had been adopted the subject was reconsidered. The discussion was affected materially by the opinions of two remarkable men,—William Roscoe, and Lafayette. The former is cherished as the elegant historian of Lorenzo de' Medici and Leo X.; though, perhaps, he should be more justly dear for those labors which crowned the close of his life, in the fields of humanity. Lafayette—on his visit, in 1825, to the country which had been the scene of his youthful devotion—was induced, by a letter from Roscoe, to interest himself in Prison Discipline. He did not surrender himself merely to the blandishments of that unparalleled triumph,—a more than royal progress, forming one of the most touching incidents in history,—when in advanced years he received the gratitude of the giant republic whose feeble infancy he had helped to cradle and protect. From his correspondence it appears that he strove, by conversation in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and particularly in Pennsylvania, to influence public opinion on the subject of Prisons, and most especially against the system ofsolitary confinement, which he justly likened to the Bastile. His own opinions, and those of Roscoe, were widely circulated, and were quoted in official documents. Their precise influence it is impossible to calculate. The system so abhorrent to our feelings, after brief experiment, was discarded in those States where it had been in operation; and in New York, that of Auburn, consisting of solitude by night with labor in common by day, was confirmed, to the great joy of Roscoe, who feared that it might yield to that of absolute solitude, which had been tried there in 1822.
In Pennsylvania this important change took place previously to the occupation of the new penitentiary at Philadelphia. By a law bearing date April 23, 1829, it was expressly provided, that, after July 1, 1829, convicts should, "instead of the penitentiary punishments heretofore prescribed, be sentenced tosuffer punishment bySEPARATEor solitary confinement atLABOR." It is further provided, that the warden "shall visit every cell and apartment, and see every prisoner under his care, at least once in every day,"—that the overseers shall "inspect the condition of each prisoner at least three times in every day,"—that "the physician shall visit every prisoner in the prison twice in every week"; and furtherprovision is made for "visitors," among whom are "the acting committee of the Philadelphia Society for the Alleviation of the Miseries of Public Prisons." Here is the first legislative declaration of what has since been called, at home and abroad, thePennsylvania System. As administered there and elsewhere, it is found to have, in greater or less degree, the following elements: 1. Separation of the prisoners from each other; 2. Labor in the cell; 3. Exercise in the open air; 4. Visits; 5. Books; 6. Moral and religious instruction. Its fundamental doctrine, and only essential element, isseparation of prisoners from each other, on which may be ingrafted solace of any kind needful to health of body or mind. In 1840, M. de Tocqueville, in his masterly report to the French Chamber of Deputies, recommending the adoption of this system throughout France, accorded to it these characteristics.
In the history of this system, its origin is often referred to different places. It is sometimes said to have been first recognized at Rome by Clement XI., as long ago as 1703, in the foundation of a House of Refuge; and again it is said to have appeared some time during the last century in a prison of Holland,—also in one at Gloucester, in England; while it seems to be described with tolerable clearness in the preamble to the fifth section of an Act of Parliament drawn by Howard, in conjunction with Sir William Blackstone, as early as 1779. Whatever may be the claims of these different places, it is now admitted that this system was first reduced to permanent practice, on an extended scale, in Pennsylvania. Indeed, this State is hardly more known in Europe for shameful neglect to pay the interest of her public debt than for her admired system of Prison Discipline.
Now, waiving for the present, as entirely irrelevant, the question whether this system can be practically administered so as to be consistent with health, all must admit that it is not the constant, unoccupied, cheerless solitude of the Bastile. Its main object is not solitude, but separation of prisoners from each other, and bringing them under good influences only.
In considering the Pennsylvania or Separate System, as now explained, several questions properly arise.
1. Shall it be applied before trial? Here the answer is prompt. It is the right of every person whom the law presumes innocent, as is the case with all before trial, to be kept free from the touch or contamination of those who may be felons. I well remember the indignation of the late William Ellery Channing at an incident which occurred in our streets, where a stranger who had fallen under suspicion, but who proved to be innocent, was marched from the jail handcuffed, in company with a hardened offender. He held it the duty of the State to prevent such outrage. The principle of justice and humanity which led him to his conclusion in this case requires theabsolute separationof all prisoners before trial.
2. A more perplexing problem arises with regard to convicts for short terms. Here, it would seem, the principle ofabsolute separationought to prevail.
3. It is a question of greater doubt how to treat juvenile offenders. When we observe the admirable success of the House of Reformation at South Boston, and of the Penal Colony at Mettray, in France, both conducted on the social principle, we may well hesitate; though, on the other hand, the marked success of the institution of La Roquette, at Paris, under peculiar difficulties, shows that the principle ofabsolute separationmay be applied even to this class of offenders. Here certainly is a question worthy of consideration.
4. Shall the Separate System be applied in any case to women? The authority of Mrs. Fry, in England, who at first disapproved the system, but at the close of her valuable life approved it, even for her own sex, also that of Mademoiselle Josephine Mallet, in France, who has declared herself warmly for this system, entitle this question to careful attention.
5. And, lastly, shall the Separate System be applied to convicts for long terms? This is, indeed, the crucial question, involving statistics of health and insanity, and many other considerations, on which much light is shed by the experience of Europe, as well as our own country, and also by writings of eminent characters devoted to this subject. Here we may well hesitate, and open our minds to influences from all quarters.
The way is now prepared to consider whether our Society, in unfolding what may be called the science of Prison Discipline, has treated the Pennsylvania System, involving the several questions already stated, with candor and justice. The question is not whether this system is preferable in all cases to every other, or whether there is any other preferable to this, but simply, Has our Society been candid and just? An examination of its course furnishes an easy answer.
It appears that our Society has failed to make any discrimination with regard to the different classes of cases which I have set forth, indulging in one constant, sullen, undistinguishing, uncompromising opposition to the system in all cases,—so much so as to give occasionfor an eminent foreign writer to say that it had sworn against it "war to the knife." Early in its existence it gave its adhesion to the Auburn Prison, saying, "Here, then, is exhibited what Europe and America have been long waiting to see,—a prison which may be made a model for imitation." This adhesion was confirmed by the declaration of an officer of our Society, at a public anniversary in 1837, that the System of Auburn was "our system," and still more by a resolution of similar effect offered in 1838 by the Treasurer, who now opposes, not unnaturally, the efforts to release the Society from the bands he helped to tie.
I do not found complaint merely on the character of advocacy which our Reports have assumed, though it were well worthy of inquiry whether this is not improper in an association like ours. I go further. I wish to state distinctly, that, in the zeal of devotion to Auburn, and in the frenzy of hostility to Pennsylvania, we have been betrayed into a course which no candid mind can hesitate to regret. I will not dwell on language that fell from our Secretary at the anniversary of 1845, which was in part the occasion of the letter from President Wayland already read; nor am I able to review all our Reports. One will be enough. I confine myself to the Eighteenth Report, which appeared in 1843.
This Report has already been the subject of much remark here and elsewhere. A French writer of authority, M. Moreau-Christophe, Inspector-General of Prisons in France, has characterized it as "a perversion of truth";[178]while an English author has spoken of it in stronger terms. "With the nature of framing recurring documents connected with public institutions we are not unacquainted," says Mr. Adshead, "and we believe a more flagrant instance of trickery has never come within the range of our experience."[179]I am unwilling to adopt this language; but I cannot forbear terming the Report uncandid and unjust. This I shall show; and I am especially moved to do so, since the Treasurer has undertaken to vindicate it, and to vouch for the accuracy of its quotations. I shall consider it undersixdifferent heads.
First.It adduces against the Pennsylvania System the failure of experiments in Maine, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, on the principle ofabsolute solitude without labor, which, of course, were entirely inapplicable in the discussion of a system recognizing labor and many other solaces as essential parts of the system. Was this candid? Was it just?
Secondly.Here is a more pungent instance, though not more objectionable. The Report adduces the authority of Mr. George Combe against "the Pennsylvania System." The article or chapter on this point is entitled, in capitals, "Dr. [Mr.] Combe's Opinion of the Pennsylvania System." Under this head are extracts from his book of travels in America, where this eminent phrenological observer considers the character of this system. But will the Society believe that one at least of these extracts is garbled, so as not to express his true and full opinion of the system? The Eighteenth Report quotes from Combe as follows:—
"The Auburn system of social labor is better, in my opinion, than that of Pennsylvania, in so far as it allows of a little more stimulus to the social faculties, and does not weaken the nervous system to so great an extent."[180]
"The Auburn system of social labor is better, in my opinion, than that of Pennsylvania, in so far as it allows of a little more stimulus to the social faculties, and does not weaken the nervous system to so great an extent."[180]
The sentence in Combe is as follows:—
"The Auburn system of social labor is better, in my opinion, than that of Pennsylvania, in so far as it allows of a little more stimulus to the social faculties, and does not weaken the nervous system to so great an extent;but it has no superiority in regard to providing efficient means for invigorating and training the moral and intellectual faculties."[181]
"The Auburn system of social labor is better, in my opinion, than that of Pennsylvania, in so far as it allows of a little more stimulus to the social faculties, and does not weaken the nervous system to so great an extent;but it has no superiority in regard to providing efficient means for invigorating and training the moral and intellectual faculties."[181]
Thus does our Report, while pretending to give Combe's "Opinion of the Pennsylvania System," stop at a semicolon, and omit the latter branch of a sentence, where the opinion isfavorableto the system. And yet the Treasurer vouches for the accuracy of this quotation. "I think I can read English," he says, "and I think the extract from Combe properly made."
Mr.Eliothere rose and said, "I did not mean to vouch for the verbal accuracy of the quotation, but that it gave the substance of Mr. Combe's opinion, which was against the Pennsylvania System."
Mr.Sumner. The Treasurer, then, relies upon Mr. Combe's authority as adverse to the Pennsylvania System. I hold in my hand a letter from that gentleman, dated Edinburgh, March 24, 1847, addressed to the author of the Minority Report to this Society [Dr.Howe], since published as an essay, and which has been characterized in this debate as an uncompromising plea for that system. In this letter Mr. Combe says:—
"I have read every word of your Prison Essay with attention, and do not perceive any difference of principle between your views and mine. Your Essay is a special pleading in favor of the Pennsylvania System; but I do not object to iton this account. Such a pleading was called for in the circumstances mentioned in your preface; it was the thing needed to make an impression; and while it states strongly and eloquently the advantages of the Separate System, it does not conceal, although it does not dwell upon, its defects."
"I have read every word of your Prison Essay with attention, and do not perceive any difference of principle between your views and mine. Your Essay is a special pleading in favor of the Pennsylvania System; but I do not object to iton this account. Such a pleading was called for in the circumstances mentioned in your preface; it was the thing needed to make an impression; and while it states strongly and eloquently the advantages of the Separate System, it does not conceal, although it does not dwell upon, its defects."
And yet Mr. Combe is pressed by our Report, and now by our Treasurer, in opposition to this system; and the work is aided by publishing a truncated sentence, and entitling ithis opinion.
Thirdly.We have already observed the timely opposition of William Roscoe to the system ofsolitude without labor, which promised to prevail extensively in the United States. From his publication on this subject, in 1827, our Eighteenth Report, in 1843, draws forth a passage, and entitles it, in capitals, "Mr. Roscoe's Opinion of the Pennsylvania System." I will give the whole article or chapter. It is as follows.
"Mr. Roscoe's Opinion of the Pennsylvania System."Mr. Roscoe, of Liverpool, said, before the new Penitentiary was built,—"'At Philadelphia, as has before been observed, it is intended to adopt the plan of "solitary confinement in all cases," "the duration of the punishment to be fixed," and "the whole term of the sentence to be exacted," except in cases where it shall be made to appear, to the satisfaction of the governor, that the party convicted was innocent of the charge."'By the establishment of a general system of solitary confinement, a greater number of individuals, imprisoned forminor offences, will probably be put to death, by the superinduction of diseases inseparable from such a mode of treatment, than will be executed through the whole State, for theperpetration of the most atrocious crimes; with this remarkable difference, that the law has provided for the heinous offender a brief, and perhaps an unconscious fate, whilst the solitary victim passes through every variety of misery, and terminates his days by anaccumulation of sufferings which human nature can no longer bear.'"[182]
"Mr. Roscoe's Opinion of the Pennsylvania System.
"Mr. Roscoe, of Liverpool, said, before the new Penitentiary was built,—
"'At Philadelphia, as has before been observed, it is intended to adopt the plan of "solitary confinement in all cases," "the duration of the punishment to be fixed," and "the whole term of the sentence to be exacted," except in cases where it shall be made to appear, to the satisfaction of the governor, that the party convicted was innocent of the charge.
"'By the establishment of a general system of solitary confinement, a greater number of individuals, imprisoned forminor offences, will probably be put to death, by the superinduction of diseases inseparable from such a mode of treatment, than will be executed through the whole State, for theperpetration of the most atrocious crimes; with this remarkable difference, that the law has provided for the heinous offender a brief, and perhaps an unconscious fate, whilst the solitary victim passes through every variety of misery, and terminates his days by anaccumulation of sufferings which human nature can no longer bear.'"[182]
With regard to this several things are to be observed. 1. It sets forth, as Mr. Roscoe's opinion of the Pennsylvania System, what, in fact, was not his opinion of that system, but of another system, that ofsolitude without labor, and was written two years before the Pennsylvania System came into existence,—misapplying his opinion, and therefore misrepresenting it. 2. It withholds or suppresses the date of the extract, and the source whence it is drawn. In point of fact, it was written before the new penitentiary was built; but it is nevertheless entitled "Mr. Roscoe's Opinion of the Pennsylvania System," so that the reader unfamiliar with the subject would suppose it in reality his opinion of that system. 3. It omits an important passage after the word "charge," without any asterisks or other mark denoting omission,—which, if printed, would have shown conclusively that Roscoe's remarks did not apply to the existing Pennsylvania System, but to a system of absolute solitude, without solace of any kind. Is it not proper, then, to say that this passage is garbled? And yet the Treasurer's voucher for the accuracy of the quotations extends to this also.
Fourthly.The opinions of Lafayette receive similar treatment to those of Roscoe; though this case is still stronger against that most discreditable Eighteenth Report. The article or chapter in which this is done is as follows.
"Gen. Lafayette's Opinion of the Pennsylvania System."'As to Philadelphia,' says the General, in a letter to Mr. Roscoe, 'I had already, on my visit of the last year, expressed my regret that the great expenses of the new Penitentiary building had been chiefly calculated on the plan of solitary confinement. This matter has lately become an object of discussion; a copy of your letter, and my own observations, have been requested; and as both opinions are actuated by equally honest and good feelings, as solitary confinement has never been considered but with a view to reformation, I believe our ideas will have their weight with men who have been discouraged by late failures of success in the reformation plan. It seems to me, two of the inconveniences most complained of might be obviated, in making use of the solitary cells to separate the prisoners at night, and multiplying the rooms of common labor, so as to reduce the number of each room to what it was when the population was less dense,—an arrangement which would enable the managers to keep distinctions among the men to be reclaimed, according to the state of their morals, and their behavior.' 'In these sentiments,' says Mr. Roscoe, 'I have the pleasure most fully to concur; and I hold it to be impossible to give a more clear, correct, and impartial decision on the subject.'"'The people of Pennsylvania think,' said Lafayette, 'that the system of solitary confinement is a new idea, a new discovery. Not so;—it is only the revival of the system of the Bastile. The State of Pennsylvania, which has given to the world an example of humanity, and whose code of philanthropy has been quoted and canvassed by all Europe, is now about to proclaim to the world the inefficacy of the system, and to revive and restore the cruel code of the most barbarous and unenlightened age. I hope my friends of Pennsylvania will consider the effect this system had on thepoor prisoners of the Bastile. I repaired to the scene,' said he, 'on the second day of the demolition, and found that all the prisoners had been deranged by their solitary confinement, except one. He had been a prisoner twenty-five years, and was led forth during the height of the tumultuous riot of the people, whilst engaged in tearing down the building. He looked around with amazement, for he had seen nobody for that space of time, and before night he was so much affected, that he became a confirmed maniac, from which situation he has never [never was] recovered.'"[183]
"Gen. Lafayette's Opinion of the Pennsylvania System.
"'As to Philadelphia,' says the General, in a letter to Mr. Roscoe, 'I had already, on my visit of the last year, expressed my regret that the great expenses of the new Penitentiary building had been chiefly calculated on the plan of solitary confinement. This matter has lately become an object of discussion; a copy of your letter, and my own observations, have been requested; and as both opinions are actuated by equally honest and good feelings, as solitary confinement has never been considered but with a view to reformation, I believe our ideas will have their weight with men who have been discouraged by late failures of success in the reformation plan. It seems to me, two of the inconveniences most complained of might be obviated, in making use of the solitary cells to separate the prisoners at night, and multiplying the rooms of common labor, so as to reduce the number of each room to what it was when the population was less dense,—an arrangement which would enable the managers to keep distinctions among the men to be reclaimed, according to the state of their morals, and their behavior.' 'In these sentiments,' says Mr. Roscoe, 'I have the pleasure most fully to concur; and I hold it to be impossible to give a more clear, correct, and impartial decision on the subject.'
"'The people of Pennsylvania think,' said Lafayette, 'that the system of solitary confinement is a new idea, a new discovery. Not so;—it is only the revival of the system of the Bastile. The State of Pennsylvania, which has given to the world an example of humanity, and whose code of philanthropy has been quoted and canvassed by all Europe, is now about to proclaim to the world the inefficacy of the system, and to revive and restore the cruel code of the most barbarous and unenlightened age. I hope my friends of Pennsylvania will consider the effect this system had on thepoor prisoners of the Bastile. I repaired to the scene,' said he, 'on the second day of the demolition, and found that all the prisoners had been deranged by their solitary confinement, except one. He had been a prisoner twenty-five years, and was led forth during the height of the tumultuous riot of the people, whilst engaged in tearing down the building. He looked around with amazement, for he had seen nobody for that space of time, and before night he was so much affected, that he became a confirmed maniac, from which situation he has never [never was] recovered.'"[183]
With regard to this, also, several things are to be observed. 1. It invokes the authority of Lafayette against the Pennsylvania System, and quotes as hisopinionof that system words used with regard tosolitude without labor, as in the Bastile. In fact, Lafayette never condemned what in 1843 was known as the Pennsylvania System, nor ever expressed any opinion impugning it in any degree. His family are at this moment among its warmest advocates in France. 2. It withholds or suppresses the date of the extract, and the source whence it is drawn, and does not in any way disclose to the uninformed reader that it was actually written before the origin of the Pennsylvania System. 3. The extract purports to be from a letter of Lafayette to Roscoe; whereas this is true only of the first paragraph. The second is from an anonymous letter from Paris, in the "National Intelligencer" of November 17, 1826, where the writer relates a conversation with Lafayette concerning the prison then building in Philadelphia, in which it was proposed to introducesolitude without labor. 4. After the words "unenlightened age," in the very heart of this extract, an important passage is omitted,—without asterisks or other mark denoting omission,—which, if inserted, would have shown conclusively that Lafayette's opinion was directed to a system of solitude, "without the least employment, and without the use of books." May it not be said justly, that the opinions of Lafayette are misrepresented and garbled?
Fifthly.Here I can only glance at a matter to which I alluded on a former occasion. Our Eighteenth Report sets forth at length disparaging pictures by Mr. Dickens of the Pennsylvania System, while it makes no mention of opinions by Captain Hamilton (the accomplished author of "Cyril Thornton"), Miss Martineau, Dr. Reed, Dr. Matheson, Dr. F.A. Cox, Dr. Hoby, Captain Marryat, Mr. Buckingham, and Mr. Abdy, all of whom have expressed themselves with more or less distinctness in favor of that system. Nor does it make any allusion to authoritative opinions by different commissioners from foreign governments: as Crawford, from England, in 1834; Demetz and Blouet, from France, in 1837; Pringle, from England, in 1838; Julius, from Prussia, in 1836; and Neilson and Mondelet, from the Canadian government, in 1836,—all of whom reported emphatically in favor of the Pennsylvania System. Surely it was not candid and just to neglect all that these travellers and commissioners had reported, while bringing forward the imaginings of Mr. Dickens, and unearthing dateless letters of Roscoe and Lafayette, to employ them in a cause for which they were never written.
Sixthly.Our Eighteenth Report is open to another objection, either of gross ignorance or most uncandid withholding of information. It employs these words, which appear remarkable when we consider the actual facts: "What will be done in other countries is evidentlysuspended, in a great degree, on the results of more experience in regard to the effects of the system." Nothing more is said of what had been done in other countries, and the reader is left to infer thatnothinghad been done. This was in May, 1843. Now what,at that time, had been done in other countries?
In England the inspectors of public prisons had made two or more able and extensive reports in favor of the Separate System, where the principles on which it is founded are developed with fulness and clearness. Parliament had passed a law authorizing the creation of a model prison on this system at Pentonville. This had been built, and also other prisons on the same system in different parts of the kingdom.
Mr.Dwight. Will the gentleman please to state the difference between the prisons at Philadelphia and Pentonville?
Mr.Sumner. With great pleasure, so far as any exists. The two are founded on the same principle ofseparation, though that of Pentonville is probably administered with less austerity than that of Philadelphia. They may differ in degree, but not in kind.
I return to a review of what had been done in 1843, when I was interrupted.
In France the subject had undergone most thorough discussion, in journals, in pamphlets, among professional men, and in official documents. The Government and the highest authorities in state and in medicine had declared in favor of the Separate System. Their conclusions were founded on ample inquiries by commissions visiting America, England, Scotland, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Prussia, Spain, and even Turkey. In 1836, Count Gasparin, Minister of the Interior, wrote a circular informing the prefects of the departments that the Government had decided to adopt exclusively the Separate System in themaisons d'arrêt, or what may be called the county jails. In 1839 the grave question of the influence of this system on health, bodily and mental, was submitted to the highest living authority, the Academy of Medicine, who referred it to a committee consisting of MM. Pariset, Moré, Villermé, Louis, and Esquirol. Their report, drawn up by the last named distinguished authority, expressly declared that "separate imprisonment by day and night, with labor, and conversation with the overseers and inspectors, does not abridge the life of the prisoners, nor compromise their reason." This report afterwards received the sanction of the learned body to which it was addressed. In 1840, M. Rémusat, Minister of the Interior, submitted the project of a law for the building of prisons on the principle ofseparation. This was sustained by a masterly report from M. de Tocqueville, dated June 25, 1840. It was followed in 1841 by another circular from the Home Department, communicating an atlas of plans to the departments as their guide in building prisons. I hold one of them in my hand now.
Mr.Dwight, looking at the atlas, said, "The cells here are on a circumference, whereas in Philadelphia they are on radii."
Mr.Sumner. In some of the plans the cells are on a circumference, and in some on radii. Does this make any difference in the system?
I will proceed. In 1843, 17th April, Count Duchatel, in behalf of the Government, introduced a bill providing for the extension of the principle ofseparationto all themaisons de forcethroughout France. It was calculated that this could not be carried into execution at an expense less than one hundred and seven millions of francs, or nearly twenty millions of dollars. At the same time it appeared that the extensive prison La Roquette, in Paris, had been for several years in most successful operation. Still further, in 1843, it was stated by M. de Tocqueville, that, since 1838,thirtyprisons, containing two thousand seven hundred and forty cells on the Separate System, had been built, or were in an advanced state of building, in the departments of France. Yet nothing of all this is in our Report.
In Poland, it appears that a prison on the Separate System was commenced as long ago as 1831, and has been in successful operation since 1835, while in 1843 appropriations were made to build three more. Nothing of this appears in our Report.
In Denmark, after an elaborate report from a committee, a royal ordinance declared, in 1841, that "all houses of detention to be built for the accused shall be on the Separate System, and that all new constructions or reconstructions which the old prisons shall require shall be on this system, to prepare for its general adoption." Again, another ordinance followed, June 25, 1842, on the report of a commission that had visited England, directing the building of certain prisons on this system. Our Report contains nothing of this.
Look at Norway. In 1838 a commission from this region was sent to visit the principal prisons in England, Ireland, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Germany, andDenmark. Its report was made in 1841. "Its unanimous andabsoluteadvice was, to demand the introduction into the prisons of Norway of the Pennsylvania System." Here again our Report is silent.
In Sweden, the States General declared, in 1841, that the Separate System was the most rational, and voted 1,300,000 florins for the construction of new prisons on this system. Already before this time, the present King of Sweden, then Crown Prince, had secured a new honor for his throne by writing a book on prisons, where he compared the Auburn and Pennsylvania Systems, and gave his preference to the latter. Of this our Report says not a word.
Here, as I refer to this royal author, let me pause to offer him my tribute of gratitude. His work, originally written in Swedish, has been already twice translated into German, twice into French, once into Norwegian, and once into English. It deserves to be translated into every language of the globe. Such words from a throne find no parallel in history. All the productions from the eighteen royal authors of England, and the five of Scotland, mentioned in Walpole's Catalogue, could not confer the same true honor as these few pages. Not the "prettie versse" of Henry the Sixth; not the volume of Henry the Eighth, which has secured to his royal successors the unchangeable title of "Defender of the Faith"; not the "Counterblast to Tobacco," and other writings, teeming with pun, pedantry, vanity, Scripture, and prerogative, of James the First; not the ballads, songs, rondeaus, and poems of the four Jameses of Scotland. A work on "Punishments and Prisons" by a king, written in a spirit of simplicity and gentleness, with sympathy for the poor, the humble, the sinful, teaches us to appreciate forms of grandeur higher than any in the ordinary pursuits of royal ambition. Oscar is the son of Bernadotte, a marshal of the French Empire, and elected king of Sweden; but—pardon me while I speak what my heart feels—the author of this little book of humanity and wisdom inspires a warmer glow of admiration than the commander of the centre in the victory of Austerlitz, or of the timely succors that hurried the close of the giant struggle at Leipzig. He sits on a throne illustrated by two of the greatest sovereigns in modern Europe; but his is a truer glory than that of Gustavus Vasa in the mines of Dalecarlia, or of Gustavus Adolphus on the field of Lutzen.
In Holland, the penal code established in 1840, as the basis of prison discipline, separation by night and labor in common by day. "But they were not slow to recognize the insufficiency of this," says one of the eminent authorities. Wherefore the States General ordered the system of separate imprisonment, as practised at Philadelphia, with the modifications which excludedsolitude, separating the prisoners from each other, and securing communication with good people. In the States General there was onlyone voiceagainst this system. Again is our Report silent.
And lastly, at Geneva, in Switzerland, a plan of a prison on the Separate System was adopted in 1842. I have here the atlas containing a full representation of this prison in all its parts. But of this, too, our Report says nothing.
In view of all these things, is it not humiliating that our Society should have put forth the statement it did with regard to "other countries"? Most certainly, ifthe authors of the Eighteenth Report were ignorant of the extensive adoption in Europe of the Pennsylvania System, their ignorance was reprehensible, and not to be vindicated by the apology of the Secretary, that he could not read French. If uncandidly they withheld or suppressed this information, as I cannot suppose, they are equally reprehensible.
Such is the Eighteenth Report of our Society! And yet this document, seamed and botched with error and uncandid statement, injuriously affecting the Pennsylvania System, was sent by our Society, as I have been credibly informed, to every member of the Legislature of that State. Surely we need not wonder that the humane and upright gentlemen connected with the administration of prisons there felt that we had done them wrong.
II.
I now come to the second proposition in the Report and Resolutions under consideration; and here I shall be brief. It is proposed that we shall recognize the directors of the Eastern Penitentiary of Pennsylvania as sincere fellow-laborers in the cause of Prison Discipline, and shall declare, that,ifexpressions have appeared in our Reports, or been uttered at any of our public meetings, which have justly given pain to our brethren, our Society sincerely regrets them. Is not this a proper and most Christian resolution? What candid or generous mind can hesitate with regard to it, particularly after becoming acquainted with the course of our Society towards those gentlemen and the system they have administered? But here again we encounterthe Treasurer, the Achilles of this debate, according to the description of that martial character by Horace,—
"Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer."
The Treasurer, with passionate emphasis, objects to any expressions of confidence in the gentlemen of Philadelphia. He is not personally acquainted with all of them. He is conscientious on the point. He will not commit our tender Society by any such extravagant declaration. To be sure, he made no opposition, when our association passed a formal vote in its own favor, declaring nothing less than that it was "entitled to the thanks of every friend of humanity for its successful efforts in the cause of Prison Discipline."[184]It was all right for us to praise ourselves; but the Treasurer cannot praise the gentlemen of Philadelphia. He never objected to any of the hard words we have employed with regard to them and their system. It is those soft words, turning away wrath, which disturb his propriety.
Then, again, he dislikes what he calls an hypothetical apology. He is startled by theif. He cannot say, "Ifhave uttered words which have justly given pain to my brother, I sincerely regret it." There is too much for him in thatif. It is no better thanbut yetin Shakespeare, which was