The third and last proposition involved in the Report and Resolutions
is, that our Society, by its officers and individual members, ought
to strive for increased usefulness; and it is particularly urged upon
the Managers to enlist the coöperation of individual members. This,
too, is opposed violently, as if it were not the duty of all to seek
new opportunities of doing good. The Treasurer, of course, is ardent.
He does not ask the coöperation of others. It is the policy of the
Society, he says, to act by one mind only.
Look at our grandiose organization. We have a President with forty
Vice-Presidents,--or, borrowing an illustration from Turkey, "a pacha
with forty tails." Then we have a large body of foreign correspondents,
whose names we print in capitals,--"fancy men," as they have been
called, because they are for show, I suppose, like our Vice-Presidents.
Then there are scores of Directors, and a Board of Managers. Now I
know full well, that, of these, very few interest themselves so much
in our Society as to attend its sessions. At the meeting last year for
the choice of officers there were _ten_ present. We _ten_ chose the
whole array of Vice-Presidents and all. And then, too, the Secretary
politely furnished us printed tickets bearing their names and his own.
Certainly, Sir, something should be done to mend this matter. We must
cease to have so many officers, or they must participate actively in
the duties of the Society.
Look now at our annual income. Notwithstanding the special pleading of
the Treasurer, I must insist that this is upwards of $3,000, derived
partly from interest on our capital stock of $7,000, and the remainder
from subscriptions obtained through the solicitations of the Secretary.
* * * * *
Mr. DWIGHT. But this is not a permanent income. It is derived
from the charity of Boston.
* * * * *
Mr. SUMNER. And is not the charity of Boston permanent? I have
stated facts precisely as they are. Now it becomes a society so richly
endowed to do much for the cause to which it professes devotion. It
should make itself felt widely, not only in our own State, but wherever
Prison Discipline claims attention.
But what does it accomplish? On looking at its journal for the last
three years, it appears that the chief business of the Managers, who
have met some three or four times in the year only, has been to vote
a salary of seventeen hundred dollars to the Secretary, with fuel and
rent for his office sometimes, and also to vote him a vacation of four
months in the country during our pleasant summers. This, certainly,
so far as the Managers are concerned, is not doing much for Prison
Discipline. But the Managers are responsible for the Annual Reports of
the Society. I think it may be safely said, that, for several years,
our Society has done little besides publishing these Reports. Its
annual income and the labors of its official galaxy are all absorbed in
these. I would not disparage these documents; but, professing, as I do,
some familiarity with the kind of labor required in their preparation,
I cannot forbear repeating what I have said before, that, if we take
our last Report for an example, one month would be a large allowance of
time for its production by any one competent man. But the Treasurer
says our Society has devised a plan for a new jail in Boston, which
of itself is no inconsiderable labor,--and the Treasurer praises this
plan. My own judgment with regard to it is of very little consequence;
but I have here a letter from Dr. Julius, of Prussia, one of the
highest living authorities on the subject,--to whom the plan has been
shown,--who expresses an opinion different from that of the Treasurer.
Certainly, Sir, our Society must do more. It becomes us to imitate
sister associations in Philadelphia and New York, whose incomes are
less than ours, and whose array of organization is not so imposing, but
who, by committees and sub-committees, and committees of ladies too,
make their beneficence practically felt by those who are in prison,
while by their influence they widely affect public opinion. It becomes
us also to imitate the Board of Education in our own Commonwealth,
which not only publishes an Annual Report, but by its Secretary makes
annual visits to every part of the State, and by lectures and speeches,
by the glowing pen and the living voice, arouses the indifferent and
confirms the wavering. I trust soon to hear of lectures on Prison
Discipline, and of local societies under our auspices in every county
of the State.
Ours is a large and powerful organization, abounding in resources of
all kinds, plenteously supplied by never-failing streams of charity.
We must administer it in the spirit of charity, that we may promote
the greatest good of those who are its objects. The contributions of
which we are almoners should not run to waste. All must join in effort
to give them the widest influence. All must help place our Society in
cordial fellowship with other laborers in the same pursuits. Let me
ask you, Mr. President, to unite with your honored predecessor [Rev.
Dr. WAYLAND] in promoting these worthy objects. Commence your
new duties by guiding us in a path where we may find that universal
confidence now somewhat forfeited, and where the blessings of those in
prison, who have felt our kindness, may be ours.
* * * * *
I believe I might leave the Report and Resolutions here, feeling that
they stand on impregnable ground. But there are two objections, each
brought by different speakers, which I have reserved to the close: one
founded on the private character of the Secretary of our Society; the
other, on the alleged superiority of the Congregate System over the
Separate System.
In interposing the private character of the Secretary, a new issue
is presented, entirely immaterial to the question on the adoption of
the Resolutions. This is discerned merely by repeating the grounds of
these. _First_, our Society ought to be candid and just; _secondly_,
it should offer a hand of fellowship to our brethren in Philadelphia;
_thirdly_, it should be more useful. These propositions are not
answered, when we declare, in eloquent phrase, that the private
character of the Secretary is good. I, too, give my homage to his
private character. I have never failed to render my tribute to his
early merit in founding and organizing this Society; nor in this
discussion, painful as it has been, and calling for severe criticism
of matters with which he is intimately connected, have I made any
impeachment of the motives by which his course is controlled. It is
my earnest desire, that the Society, under his auspices, may be more
widely felt, and develop new capacities for useful.
The other remaining objection is, that the Congregate System is
superior to the Separate System, and that the acceptance of the Report
and Resolutions will be giving adhesion to the latter. This conclusion
is not correct. Your Committee ask for candor and justice; they do
not ask for adhesion to any system. On the contrary, they expressly
disclaim such desire. But it may well be asked--and I allude to this
point not because I regard it as material to the issue--whether
_experience_ does conclusively establish the superiority of the
Congregate System. My learned friend [Mr. GRAY] who first
introduced this topic founds his conclusion mainly on a comparison
of the prisons at Philadelphia and Charlestown, where the statistics
are said to show a much larger proportion of mortality and insanity
in the former than in the latter. Admitting that the statistics
adduced are accurate (and I do not propose to question them), it is
very hasty in my friend to adopt his conclusion with regard to the
comparative merits of the two systems. In the first place, the limited
experience of these prisons, or any small number of prisons, may be
affected by circumstances irrespective of the two systems,--as, for
instance, their administration, which may be more or less defective.
And permit me to say, that the argument of my friend seems rather to
show a defect in the administration of the system at Philadelphia
than in the system itself. The system has but _one essential idea_,
the absolute separation of prisoners from each other. But it is said
that this cannot be practically carried out, consistently with health
of body and mind. It may be so. But here the highest authorities have
affirmed the opposite. The College of Medicine in France, and the
Scientific Congress at Padua in 1843, and of Lucca in 1844, pronounce
it practicable. But my friend urges, that each prisoner should be
indulged with at least two hours of society daily, and that this
is impracticable. I doubt if so much is requisite. But if this and
much more be needed, to secure for our prisons those influences most
conducive to the reformation of offenders, will it not be found? There
are Christian clergymen who find time to bless with their presence,
with prayers and texts, the gaudy celebrations of military companies;
there are young men who partake of these pomps. Cannot as many be found
who will visit those in prison?
In the next place, the conclusion is fallacious, as it is founded on
a comparison of prisons in different places, under the influence of
different circumstances of climate and situation; whereas, to render
the comparison exact, it should be between prisons in the same place,
and under the same circumstances. This I am enabled to make. There are
now at Geneva two prisons, one on the Auburn System, built in 1825, and
the other on the Pennsylvania System, built in 1843. M. Ferrière, the
chaplain of both these prisons,--and therefore, it must be supposed,
equally conversant with both,--presented to the Penitentiary Congress
at Frankfort a comparison between these two, which he states to be in
the same locality, with a unity of conditions in all respects, except
what touches the system itself. He gives the preference in every
particular to the Pennsylvania prison, and expressly declares that
there are always persons in the Auburn prison who are insane, while,
down to the present time, there have been none in the other prison.
Lastly, the conclusion of my friend is fallacious, inasmuch as it is
founded on a too narrow induction, closing his eyes to the experience
of Europe. There is the prison of Warsaw, on the Separate System,
which has been in operation since 1835. During the twelve years since
its occupation there have been only two cases of mental alienation,
one of which declared itself on the morning after the arrest, and the
other was caused by too hasty treatment of the _plica_. In France, as
we learn from an address before the Penitentiary Congress, there are
nineteen prisons on the Separate System, which have been _occupied_
since 1843. "The experience," it is said, "is not of long duration, but
it is sufficient to assure the spirits of the most fearful. The most
harmonious unanimity prevails in the observations of the physicians.
All recognize that maladies are less frequent, and shorter in duration.
It is the same with mental alienation, in the period of one to four
years to which the observations relate. No cause of insanity is
attributed by the physicians to the Separate System, as it is practised
in France, with frequent visits, labor, and an hour at least of
exercise in the open air." In England there are at this moment _thirty_
prisons on the Separate System, with thirty-five hundred cells, which
are so successful in their influences that upwards of three thousand
additional cells are to be constructed. On the Continent there are
many directors of Auburn prisons who have become dissatisfied with
their operation, and openly pronounce in favor of the Pennsylvania
System. I might dwell on the experience of Europe till the chimes of
midnight sounded in our ears; but I forbear. I cannot dismiss this
topic, however, without alluding to one suggestion, which came in such
a questionable shape that I am at a loss how to treat it.
The sentiment of patriotism is invoked, and we are gravely told that
the reference to European authority and experience which has occurred
in this debate is not consistent with a proper regard to our own
country. It is natural, Sir, for us to love our country, and to take
pride in its institutions. Whatever is done among us finds special
favor, if it be associated in any way with our country. But this
sentiment must not become a prejudice. It must not become a malign
influence to interrupt the course of truth, or interfere with questions
to which it is alien. The subject now before us belongs to science and
philanthropy, and I have yet to learn that the prejudices of patriotism
have any just foothold in these sacred demesnes. Let us welcome
knowledge, wherever it may be found. Hail holy light! from whatever sun
or star it may pour upon the eyes, from whatever country or clime it
may penetrate the understanding or the heart!
Again let me say that our Report and Resolutions stand on impregnable
grounds. And now, Mr. President, as I conclude, let me render to you
just thanks for the impartiality and amenity with which you have
presided over these debates, and may these high qualities be reflected
in the future course of our Society. Let us all unite in efforts for
increased usefulness, in harmony with one another, and with kindred
associations of our own country and of other lands. And if, from the
collisions of this discussion there have been any sparks of unkindly
feeling, may they all be quenched in the vote which is now to be taken.