SPEECH BEFORE THE BOSTON PRISON DISCIPLINE SOCIETY, AT THE TREMONT
TEMPLE, JUNE 18, 1847.
At the anniversary of the Boston Prison Discipline Society, in Park
Street Church, May 27, 1845, Mr. Sumner was present, in company
with his friend, Dr. S.G. Howe. Listening to the Annual Report,
they were painfully impressed by its tone, and especially by the
injustice done to excellent persons in Philadelphia, sustaining
what was known as the Pennsylvania System. Without being an
advocate of this system, or committing himself to it in any way,
Mr. Sumner thought that it ought to be fairly considered, and
that there should be no harsh imputations upon its supporters.
With the encouragement of Dr. Howe, he came forward, and, in a
few unpremeditated remarks, sought to point out the error of the
Report, and concluded with a motion for a select committee to
review and modify it, with power to visit Philadelphia in the name
of the Society, and ascertain on the spot the true character of
the system so strongly condemned. The motion prevailed, and the
President, who was the Rev. Dr. Wayland, appointed Dr. S.G. Howe,
Mr. Sumner, Hon. S.A. Eliot, Hon. Horace Mann, Dr. Walter Channing,
Rev. Louis Dwight, Hon. George T. Bigelow, and Hon. J.W. Edmonds of
New York, as the committee. This was the beginning of a prolonged
controversy, little anticipated when Mr. Sumner first came forward,
where feeling was displayed beyond what seemed natural to such a
question.
The day after this meeting, Mr. Sumner received a friendly letter
from the President of the Society, thanking him for the remarks he
had made, and encouraging him to persevere. This letter will be
found in the speech preserved in this volume.
The Committee visited Philadelphia, where they were received
with honor and kindness by the gentlemen interested in Prison
Discipline, and examined the Penitentiary with every opportunity
that could be desired. An elaborate Report was prepared by Dr.
Howe. How this failed to be adopted as the Report of the Committee,
and to be embodied in the Annual Report of the Society, is narrated
in the speech below. It was afterwards published as a pamphlet,
entitled "An Essay on Separate and Congregate Systems of Prison
Discipline, being a Report made to the Boston Prison Discipline
Society," and is, beyond question, a most important contribution to
the science of Prison Discipline. The proper treatment of criminals
is here considered with singular power and sympathetic humanity.
Disappointed in the effort to obtain a candid hearing through
a Report, the subject was presented again at the anniversary
of the Society, May 26, 1846. Mr. Sumner made a speech of some
length, published in the newspapers, concluding with a motion for
the appointment of a committee to examine and review the former
printed Report of the Society, also the course of the Society, and
to consider if its action could in any way be varied or amended,
so that its usefulness might be extended. Mr. Sumner, George S.
Hillard, Esq., Bradford Sumner, Esq., Dr. Walter Channing, Rev.
Louis Dwight, and President Wayland were appointed the committee,
it being understood that they would not report before the next
annual meeting.
Meanwhile the controversy widened in its sphere, embracing
newspapers, and extending to Europe, where it excited uncommon
interest. The "Law Reporter," an important law journal, edited by
Peleg W. Chandler, Esq., thus referred to the late meeting, and to
Mr. Sumner's speech on the occasion.
"Mr. Sumner proceeded, in a strain of great eloquence and power,
to condemn the course which the Society had pursued in past years,
illustrating his points by facts which are by no means creditable
to the Society, averring, among other things, that the statements
contained in the Annual Reports had been pronounced false by public
reports in this country and in Europe, and that a letter from the
Hon. William Jay, an honorary Vice-President of the Society, and
also a letter from Dr. Bell, a corresponding member, in favor of
the Separate System, had both never been read to the Society, nor
published."[175]
[175] Law Reporter, July, 1846, Vol. IX. p. 98.
At the same time the Law Reporter translated and published a
German article by Dr. Varrentrapp, of Frankfort-on-the-Main, which
appeared originally in the _Jahrbücher der Gefängnisskunde und
Besserungs-anstalten_ (Annals of Prisons and Houses of Correction),
where the Reports of our Society were canvassed with great
severity.[176]
[176] Ibid., p. 99.
Mr. Sumner's speech was reprinted at Liverpool in a pamphlet.
Letters from England, France, and Germany attested the concern
in those countries. Among the eminent persons who watched the
discussion was M. de Tocqueville, whose letter on the subject will
be found at the end of the speech below. At home it called forth an
able pamphlet by Hon. Francis C. Gray, entitled "Prison Discipline
in America," which took ground against the Pennsylvania System.
At the succeeding anniversary, May 25, 1847, Mr. Sumner, for
himself and two of his associates on the Committee, (Dr. Wayland
and Mr. Hillard,) presented a Report, which was printed in the
newspapers. Its character will be interred from the Resolutions
with which it concluded.
"_Resolved_, That the object of our Society is to promote the
improvement of public prisons.
"_Resolved_, That our Society is not, and ought not to be
considered, the pledged advocate of the Auburn System of Prison
Discipline, or of any other system now in existence,--and that its
Reports should set forth, with strict impartiality, the merits and
demerits of any and all systems.
"_Resolved_, That we recognize the Directors of the Eastern
Penitentiary of Pennsylvania as sincere, conscientious, and
philanthropic fellow-laborers in the great cause of Prison
Discipline.
"_Resolved_, That, if any expressions of disrespect 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.
"_Resolved_, That our Society should strive, by increased action on
the part of its officers and of its individual members, to extend
its usefulness.
"_Resolved_, That the Board of Managers be requested to organize
a new system of action for the Society, which shall enlist the
coöperation of its individual members."
The adoption of these Resolutions being opposed, the meeting was
adjourned for their consideration till the evening of May 28th,
when Mr. Sumner supported them in a speech of some length, which
will be found in the newspapers. Other meetings followed, by
adjournment, on the evenings of June 2d, 4th, 9th, 11th, 16th,
18th, and 23d. These were all at the Tremont Temple, and were
attended by large and most intelligent audiences, evincing at
times a good deal of feeling. They were presided over by Hon.
Theodore Lyman, a Vice-President of the Society. The Resolutions
were supported by Dr. Howe, Mr. Hillard, Rev. Francis Parkman,
and Henry H. Fuller, Esq. They were opposed by Hon. S.A. Eliot
(the Treasurer of the Society), Rev. Louis Dwight (the Secretary),
Hon. Francis C. Gray, Bradford Sumner, Esq., Rev. George Allen,
Dr. Walter Channing, and J. Thomas Stevenson, Esq. On the evening
of June 18th, Mr. Sumner took the floor and reviewed the whole
debate. Other speeches by him are omitted. This is given at length,
as opening the main points of controversy, and especially the
principles involved.
Mr. President,--As Chairman of the Committee whose Report and
Resolutions are now under consideration, it becomes my duty to review
and to close this debate. The reapers have been many, and the sickles
keen; but the field is ample, and the harvest abundant; so that, even
at this late period, I may hope to be no superfluous gleaner.
Before entering upon our labor, let us refresh ourselves by the
contemplation of the unquestioned good accruing from these protracted
meetings. All will feel how well it is for our Society that its
attention is at last turned in upon itself, and that it is led to that
self-examination enjoined upon every good man, with a view to future
usefulness. All, too, will feel, whatever may be the immediate vote on
the question before us, that this discussion has excited an unwonted
interest in behalf of those who are in prison, and that under its
influences a sacred sympathy has vibrated from heart to heart. Thus
much for the unquestioned good.
Mr. President, I approach this discussion with regret, feeling that I
must say some things which I would gladly leave unsaid. I shall not,
however, decline the duty which is cast upon me. In its performance I
hope to be pardoned, if I speak frankly and freely; I trust it will
be gently and kindly. I will borrow from the honorable Treasurer,
with his permission, something of his frankness, without his temper.
As I propose to adduce facts, I shall be grateful to any gentleman
who will correct me where I seem to be wrong. For such a purpose I
will cheerfully yield the floor, even to the Treasurer, though his
sense of justice did not suffer him, while on the floor, to give me an
opportunity of correcting a misstatement he made of what I said on a
former occasion.
Let me begin by a reference--which I would rather avoid--to myself and
my personal relations to this inquiry. I was brought up at the feet of
our Society. My earliest recollection of anything like the cause to
which it is devoted does not extend beyond the period of its origin.
My early partialities were in favor of its course, and of the system
of Prison Discipline it has advocated. I had read its Reports, and
circulated them at home and abroad, and felt grateful to their author.
Other studies, and some acquaintance with the elaborate labors by which
the science of Prison Discipline has been advanced in Europe, led me
first to doubt the action of our Society, and finally to the conviction
that it was not candid and just, particularly in the treatment of the
Pennsylvania System. With this impression, I attended the anniversary
of 1845, where I listened to what seemed a discreditable Report from
the Board of Managers, in which this system was treated ignorantly,
ungenerously, and unjustly, while the officer of our Society whose
duty it was to read the Report, in words which fell from him while
reading it, seemed to impeach the veracity of the Inspectors of the
Penitentiary at Philadelphia. In concurrence with a friend on my right
[Dr. HOWE], I was emboldened to ask a reference of the Report
to a select committee, with power to review and modify it, and to visit
Philadelphia, in order to ascertain on the spot the true character of
the system of Prison Discipline there practised, _and to incorporate a
report of their proceedings in the next Annual Report of the Society_.
What I said was of the moment. I spoke in behalf of the absent, and, in
a certain sense, as the representative of the unrepresented, believing
that gross injustice was done to them and to their system. My aim was
to recall the Society to that candor and justice which self-respect, to
say nothing of its Christian professions, seemed to require.
Here let me indulge in a reminiscence. It is the custom to open our
meetings with prayer. By the records of our Society it appears that
at its earliest anniversary, as long ago as 1826, this service was
performed by an eminent clergyman, the deserved favorite of his own
denomination, and much respected by all others. This public profession
of interest in the cause was followed by other manifestations of it.
He became a manager of our Society. Subsequently, yielding to the call
of the University at Providence, he left Boston and became President
of that important seat of learning. His labors were not restricted to
academic duties. By his pen, and the wide influence of his remarkable
character, he was felt in various fields of labor throughout the
country. His interest in Prison Discipline was constant, and in 1843 he
was chosen President of our Society. Placing him at its head, we justly
honored one of our earliest and most distinguished friends. He was in
the chair on the anniversary to which I have referred. His sense of
the injustice to the gentlemen of Philadelphia was great. As the most
authentic expression of his opinions on that occasion, influencing, as
they have, the subsequent proceedings of those who seek a change in the
course of our Society, I read a letter from him, written on the evening
of that anniversary.
"PROVIDENCE, May 27, 1845.
"MY DEAR SUMNER,--I cannot resist the impulse to thank
you again for your remarks this morning. I had resolved, before
you rose, to return home and immediately resign office in the
Society; for I could not allow my influence, though ever so small,
to be used for the purpose of (as it seemed to me) vilifying the
intentions of good and honorable men. I cannot perceive how we can,
with any show of propriety, use language, in respect to absent
gentlemen, which, in the ordinary intercourse of society, would be
just cause of irreconcilable variance. I agree with you entirely
as to the object of the Society. It is to improve the discipline
of prisons, and it should hail, as fellow-laborers, all who are
honestly engaged in the same cause. The cause requires the trial
of various experiments, and our business is to collect, in good
faith, and with catholic liberality, the results of all, that
so, by the comparison of results, the best end may be attained.
I thank you over and over again for coming forward so nobly in
defence of the absent, and for placing the object of the Society
on its true basis, instead of allowing it to be a mere antagonist
to the gentlemen at Philadelphia. In all this, of course, I mean
no unkindness to any one. I only feel that by looking at an object
steadily and earnestly in only one light we are all liable to lose
sight of its wider relations.
"I am, so far as I see, in favor of the Auburn System; but I want
to know something of all of the systems, and am, I trust, anxious
to learn the facts. I wrote an article in the North American
Review, some time since, on the subject. I am inclined to the same
view still. But this is no reason why I should disparage the labor
of others.
"You seem interested in this matter, and I feel rejoiced at it. I
cannot but hope that good will come of it. Let me suggest a few
things, by way of indication, that may possibly be improved.
"1. Is it wise to have our Annual Reports so far _extempore_? What
we sanction should be _ipsissima verba_. Our character as men is
involved in what we hear and order to be published.
"2. It seems to me that our expenditure should be used with great
attention to results. The statistics which we have are important,
but I doubt whether they always bear so closely on our object as
they might. Why would it not be desirable to investigate the
great subject of _Pauperism_, and that of _Criminal Law_, which,
together, do almost the whole work of filling our prisons?
"3. Do the Executive Committee really take these subjects in hand,
and give direction to the labors of the Society? They have a very
responsible situation, and cannot discharge it by simply auditing
bills. Can they not be induced to labor earnestly in this matter?
"4. It seems that John Augustus, a poor man, has done much. We
praise him. This is well. Can we not take means for following his
example?
"These things have occurred to me, and I know that you will pardon
me for suggesting them. I believe that there is here a field for
doing great good. When I think of the good which Miss Dix, alone
and unaided, has done, I cannot but believe that we might do more.
To the gentlemen of your profession we specially look for aid in
this matter. Can you labor in any philanthropic object with better
prospect of success? Excuse my freedom. I have no right to set you
or any one else at work. I am ashamed to be president of a society
for which I do so little, and will gladly remove myself out of the
way, and have earnestly desired to do so. I, however, hold myself
ready to do anything that may be in my power to advance the cause
in which we are engaged.
"I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly,
"F. WAYLAND.
"C. SUMNER, Esq."
The committee appointed under the Resolution examined the Report of
the Managers, and visited Philadelphia. A Report prepared by their
chairman, Dr. Howe, was made a Minority Report by the votes of the
Treasurer and Secretary, officers of the Society, and both of them,
as appears from the records, involved in the authorship of the
original Report which gave occasion to the inquiry, and therefore,
it would seem, in the light of propriety, if not of parliamentary
rules, hardly competent to sit on the committee. It was next proposed
that the Report, although by a minority, should, in pursuance of the
instruction in the original Resolution, "be incorporated in the next
Annual Report." This, it appears from the records, was submitted to the
Board of Managers, May 7, 1846, where it was opposed by the Treasurer.
On May 21st it was referred to a meeting of the whole Society, convened
at the dwelling-house of the Secretary: for our association dilates
at times to dimensions ample as this large audience, and then again
shrinks, if need be, to the narrow space occupied by its Secretary. At
this meeting, on motion of the Treasurer, still another impediment was
thrown in the way of printing the Report, in pursuance of the original
Resolution. At the business meeting of the Society, May 25th, on the
day preceding the anniversary, I made still another ineffectual attempt
to have this Report appear among the transactions of the Society. This
was followed by a Resolution, on motion of Mr. Nathaniel Willis, a near
connection of the Secretary, as follows:--
"_Voted_, That it is not expedient to discuss the subject at the
anniversary meeting."
It was at the anniversary meeting, however, that I was determined to
discuss the subject, being assured, that, in the presence of a wakeful
public, the will of one or two individuals could not control the course
of the Society. Accordingly I took the floor and proceeded to speak,
when I was strangely encountered by the Secretary, who ejaculated:
"Mr. President, the annual meeting was interrupted in this manner last
year; there are gentlemen present who are invited by the Committee of
Arrangements to address us." On this remarkable fragment of a speech
I made no comment at the time. I shall make none now; but I cannot
forbear quoting the words of the able editor of the Law Reporter with
regard to it. "It would seem," he says, "that the addresses at the
public meetings of this Society are all cut and dried beforehand, made
to order,--a fact that might as well have been kept back, under the
circumstances, for the credit of all concerned."[177] Notwithstanding
this interference, I proceeded to expose the prejudiced and partisan
course of the Society, and its consequent loss of credit, concluding
with a motion for a committee to consider its past conduct, and the
best means of extending its usefulness. The motion, though opposed at
the time, was adopted. It is the Report of that committee which is now
before you.
[177] Law Reporter, July, 1846, Vol. IX. p. 98.
This Report, when offered to the Society, was first opposed on grounds
of _form_. It is now opposed on other grounds, hardly more pertinent,
though not of form only. Thus at every step have honest efforts to
elevate the character of the Society, and to extend its usefulness,
been encountered by opposition. Under the auspices of the Treasurer
and Secretary, the Society shrinks from examination and inquiry. Like
the sensitive leaf, it closes at the touch. Nay, more: it repels
all endeavor to wake it to new life. It seems to have adopted, as
its guardian motto, that remarkable epitaph which for more than two
centuries has preserved from examination and intrusion the sacred
remains of the greatest master of our tongue:--
"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 vanity
or 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.