"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]
[181] Notes on the United States, Vol. I. p. 224.
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 is _favorable_ to 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. ELIOT here 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 it on 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 it _his opinion_.
_Thirdly._ We have already observed the timely opposition of William
Roscoe to the system of _solitude 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 for _minor 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 the _perpetration 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 an _accumulation of
sufferings which human nature can no longer bear_.'"[182]
[182] Eighteenth Annual Report of the Prison Discipline Society, p.
95.
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
of _solitude 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 the poor
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]
[183] Eighteenth Annual Report of the Prison Discipline Society,
pp. 95, 96.
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 his _opinion_ of that system words used with regard to
_solitude 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 introduce _solitude 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 evidently_
_suspended, 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 that
_nothing_ had 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 of _separation_, 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 the _maisons 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 of _separation_. 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 of _separation_ to all the _maisons de force_ throughout
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, _thirty_ prisons, 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, and Denmark. Its report was made in 1841. "Its
unanimous and _absolute_ advice 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 excluded _solitude_, separating the prisoners from
each other, and securing communication with good people. In the States
General there was only _one voice_ against 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, if the 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.