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 so

fully 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, in _enforced 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 to the 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 still

continues, 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 to _separate_ prisoners from each other by a system of

_absolute 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 of _solitude 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 of

_solitary 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 to _suffer punishment by

SEPARATE or solitary confinement at LABOR_." 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 further

provision 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, the _Pennsylvania 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, is _separation 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 the

_absolute separation_ of all prisoners before trial.

2. A more perplexing problem arises with regard to convicts for short

terms. Here, it would seem, the principle of _absolute separation_

ought 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 of

_absolute separation_ may 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 occasion

for 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 under _six_

different heads.

[178] Revue Pénitentiare, 1844, p. 421.

[179] Prisons and Prisoners, p. 128.

_First._ It adduces against the Pennsylvania System the failure of

experiments in Maine, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, on the

principle of _absolute 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]

[180] Eighteenth Annual Report of the Prison Discipline Society,

p. 96.