Produced by Larry B. Harrison, Carol Brown, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
book was produced from images made available by the
HathiTrust Digital Library.)









  NEW SERIES.]                                [NO. 1.

  THE JOURNAL
  OF
  PRISON DISCIPLINE
  AND
  PHILANTHROPY.

  PUBLISHED ANNUALLY
  UNDER THE DIRECTION OF “THE PHILADELPHIA SOCIETY FOR
  ALLEVIATING THE MISERIES OF PUBLIC PRISONS,”
  INSTITUTED 1787.

  JANUARY, 1862.

  PHILADELPHIA:
  HENRY B. ASHMEAD, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER,
  NOS. 1102 AND 1104 SANSOM STREET.
  1862.




  NEW SERIES.                                  NO. 1.

  THE JOURNAL
  OF
  PRISON DISCIPLINE
  AND
  PHILANTHROPY.

  PUBLISHED ANNUALLY
  UNDER THE DIRECTION OF “THE PHILADELPHIA SOCIETY FOR
  ALLEVIATING THE MISERIES OF PUBLIC PRISONS,”
  INSTITUTED 1787.

  JANUARY, 1862.

  PHILADELPHIA:
  HENRY B. ASHMEAD, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER,
  NOS. 1102 AND 1104 SANSOM STREET.
  1862.




TO THE READER.


This being the first number of the new series of “THE JOURNAL OF
PRISON DISCIPLINE AND PHILANTHROPY,” some reference to the action of
the Society in relation to the change from a “Quarterly” to an
“Annual” may be looked for here. We may, therefore, just say, that the
ground upon which the change was proposed, and the manner in which it
finally resulted, will be found to be fully set forth in the latter
part of the “Report,” which is the first and principal article in the
present number. This Report occupies so much space, that the
“Editorial Board” have not deemed it expedient to include in the
present issue much additional matter.




REPORT.


The Editorial Board, in the discharge of the duties assigned them,
have prepared the following “Annual Report,” which they beg leave to
present to the Society for its adoption:

_Introduction._—This being the first time that an Annual Report has
become a part of the regular proceedings of “The Philadelphia Society
for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons,” it seems a fitting
occasion to take a wider range than is generally done in the
preparation of such papers; and especially does it seem proper to
bring into view the origin of the Society—the motives which prompted
its organization, and some of the labors in which it has been engaged
since its establishment, with the fruit of those labors. It will be
seen that being but little known in the community, is not because it
has been without vitality during its existence of nearly three-fourths
of a century, but because it has steadily pursued its benevolent
course, quietly and unostentatiously, not proclaiming its doings, or
coming out before the public, excepting at such times as the
accomplishment of some object of special importance required it.

Before proceeding in the narration, it is proper to mention, that the
examination into the history of the Society during its earlier period,
has been facilitated by referring to a pamphlet which it published
about three years since, containing a sketch of its principal
transactions from its origin to that time.

_Origin and Organisation._—It appears that on the 2d day of February,
1776, a Society of a kindred character was organized in this city,
under the name of “The Philadelphia Society for Assisting Distressed
Prisoners,” which, though not identical with ours, was imbued with a
good measure of the same spirit, and may be fairly viewed as a
forerunner. It embraced among its members some of the most prominent
citizens of that day, and immediately commenced to carry out its
benevolent purposes, and extended relief to many prisoners; but in
September of the following year, the British army entered the city and
took possession of the jail, which caused a dissolution of the
Society, after an existence of nineteen months. The troubles resulting
from the Revolutionary War, prevented any further organized action in
the same direction for a number of years. But finally peace having
been restored, and public attention having been again called to the
condition of prisoners, and to the many abuses which existed, not only
in the manner of administering the penal laws, but also from a want of
proper statutory enactments—a number of benevolent citizens assembled
on the 8th day of May, 1787, and agreed to form themselves into an
Association to be called “The Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the
Miseries of Public Prisons.” This meeting was attended by twenty-five
persons, and was composed of men eminent in the community for their
general position, and their enlarged Christian benevolence; and, with
those who came into the arrangement immediately afterwards as original
members, embraced several who, through a continued career of virtue
and usefulness, attained to a good old age before they were gathered
to their fathers, and were consequently personally known to, and their
memory is pleasantly cherished by, many of those still active in the
Society; and it may be said, as regards their example, that, “though
dead, they yet speak.” A few of those who were longest spared to
continue their useful services to their fellow men, were William
White, (Bishop) Thomas Wistar, Zachariah Poulson, Dr. Benjamin Rush,
Thomas Harrison, Dr. Samuel Powell Griffitts, Isaac Parrish, William
Rogers, Jacob Shoemaker, Thomas Rogers, Tench Coxe, Charles Marshall,
and Joseph James.

The reasons which prompted the organization, and the basis of the
action contemplated, can hardly be better set forth than by here
introducing the simple, but eloquent preamble to the Constitution:—“When
we consider that the obligations of benevolence, which are founded on
the example and precepts of the Author of Christianity, are not
cancelled by the follies or crimes of our fellow creatures; and when
we reflect upon the miseries which, penury, hunger, cold, unnecessary
severity, unwholesome apartments, and guilt (the usual attendants of
prisons) involve with them, it becomes us to extend our compassion to
that part of mankind who are the subjects of those miseries. By the
aid of humanity, their undue and illegal sufferings may be prevented;
the links which should bind the whole family of mankind together under
all circumstances, be preserved unbroken; and such degrees and modes
of punishment may be discovered and suggested, as may, instead of
continuing habits of vice, become the means of restoring our fellow
creatures to virtue and happiness.”

The principles thus enunciated at the outset, have controlled the
plans and efforts of the Society from its origin to the present time,
and their truth and value have been abundantly confirmed by large
experience.

The late venerable William White (Protestant Episcopal Bishop of the
Diocese) was elected the first President of the Society, and held the
office until his death, on the 17th of July, 1836, a period of nearly
fifty years. The general sentiment of the community with regard to
this worthy man, was beautifully expressed in an editorial notice
published in one of our daily newspapers, shortly after his decease,
of which the following is an extract:—“If he went forth, age paid him
the tribute of affectionate respect, and children rose up and called
him blessed.”

_Abuses in Prisons._—In the year 1773, John Howard, emphatically
called “the Philanthropist,” entered on his course of self-sacrificing,
and almost unprecedented devotion to the interests of humanity,
particularly as connected with Prisons and Penal Institutions
generally. In the course of his examination into the condition of
these Institutions, which he did by personal visits to most of them,
not only in England, Ireland and Scotland, but in nearly all the
countries of Continental Europe—he discovered that some of the penal
laws in force were so erroneous in principle, and so evil and
oppressive in their practical operation, that he was convinced they
ought to be either wholly repealed, or so amended as to rid them of
their obnoxious features; and also that there was a great want of
salutary legal enactments, regulating the manner of construction and
arrangement of buildings for Prison purposes, and establishing rules
for their management when occupied. And in the Prisons he saw such an
amount of abuse in their administration, and of misery on the part of
those in confinement in them, as often shocked and deeply grieved him.
Many of the scenes which he witnessed, and facts he ascertained, were
truly heart-sickening. A few of which may here be briefly noticed.
Speaking of the dungeons in the Conciergerie in Paris, he says, they
“are totally dark, and beyond imagination horrid and dreadful. Poor
creatures are confined in them for weeks—for months together.” In
another of the Paris Prisons he states “that there are eight dungeons
which open into dark passages. In four of these, 10 feet 8 inches by 6
feet 8 inches, I saw sixteen prisoners, two in irons, and all lying
upon straw.” In the course of his account of the condition of things
at Liege, in Belgium, he says: “The dungeons in the _new_ Prison are
abodes of misery still more shocking; and confinement in them so
overpowers human nature, as sometimes irrecoverably to take away their
senses. I heard the cries of the distracted as I went down to them.
One woman, however, I saw, who (as I was told) had sustained this
horrid confinement forty-seven years, without becoming distracted. The
cries of the sufferers in the torture chamber may be heard by
passengers without, and guards are placed to prevent them stopping and
listening. A physician and surgeon always attend when the torture is
applied; and on a signal given by a bell, the gaoler brings in wine,
vinegar, and water, to prevent the sufferers from expiring. ‘_The
tender mercies of the wicked are cruel._’”

Let us for a moment look at the then condition of a few of the prisons
in England, where we might have hoped to find a better state of
things. Of Cheshire County Gaol, at Chester, he says: “Under the
pope’s kitchen is a dark passage, 24 feet by 9; the descent to it is
by twenty-one steps from the court. No window; not a breath of fresh
air; only two apertures (lately made), with grates in the ceiling,
into the pope’s kitchen above. On one side of it are six cells
(_stalls_), each about 7½ feet by three, with a barrack bedstead, and
an aperture over the door, about 8 inches by 4. In each of these are
locked up at night sometimes three or four felons.”

“In many gaols, and most bridewells, there is no allowance of bedding
or straw for prisoners to sleep on, and if by any means they get a
little, it is not changed for months together, so that it is offensive
and almost worn to dust. Some lie upon rags, some upon the bare floor.”

In the County Gaol at Carlisle,—in one room, he states,—“I saw three
men and four women lodged together.”

In the County Gaol at Gloucester, “there is no separation of the
women…. The licentious intercourse of the sexes is shocking to
decency and humanity. Many children are born in this gaol.” Many
similar instances of a violation of the rules of virtue and decency
are recorded by him.

_Evil of Association._—Howard early became sensible of the great evil
of associating together prisoners of all ages, and of all grades of
criminality, and frequently deplored its corrupting influences upon
the young and less hardened and practised in the ways of crime; and he
remarked that even debtors, when associated with the felons (as they
frequently were), soon became equally depraved with the worst of the
criminals. Seeing this, he urged separation, at night, as _essential_,
and at all times as _desirable_; but he does not seem to have matured
any plan of thorough separation, by which alone these influences could
be effectually guarded against.

Beside from the first, communicating freely the wrongs which he
discovered, as they came to his knowledge, in the year 1777 he
published, in a large volume, his “State of the Prisons.” Thus the
world was put in possession of facts, many of them of so horrible a
character as to awaken an intense interest, and enlist the sympathies
of the benevolent on behalf of the victims of such wrongs, many of
whom were really not guilty of crimes to warrant their incarceration;
and even when guilty, they were still human beings, objects of divine
mercy, and though they had by their conduct forfeited their
liberty,—if the makers of the laws, and those appointed to administer
them, did not feel the force of the Christian obligation, to endeavor
to promote their reform and to care for their souls,—it was but
reasonable to suppose that the common impulses of humanity would have
prompted to extend to them at least as much kindness and bodily
comfort, as are admitted to be due to the “beasts that perish.”

_Prompt action for relief._—By the year 1787, therefore, society
generally throughout the civilized world saw the necessity of a
thorough reform, and legislators were prepared to listen to and
favorably consider, propositions to enact laws, adapted to a wiser and
more humane policy, and consequently our Society was organized at a
time peculiarly favorable for the beneficent labors it contemplated;
and as an evidence of the promptness with which these labors were
commenced and practically carried out, for the relief of unjust
suffering, it may be noted, that at the very first meeting,
information being received through a member, that although an order
had been issued three days before from the Supreme Executive Council,
that a person who had been sentenced to death, but had been pardoned,
should be released from his irons,—they still remained on him,—the
subject was referred to an appropriate committee, who took instant and
successful measures to relieve the prisoner from his fetters, and
effect his discharge from confinement.

_Early contribution to the cause._—As a very gratifying practical
endorsement and encouragement, received by the young Society, just one
year after its establishment, it is proper to mention, that John
Dickinson and wife, then of Wilmington, Delaware (but previously of
Pennsylvania), by deed, dated in May, 1788, after reciting the
formation of the Society, and expressing their desire to promote its
benevolent designs, granted to the Institution some yearly ground
rents, issuing out of premises in Philadelphia, amounting in the whole
to fourteen pounds ten shillings ($38⅔) per annum, which sum (though
not in its original form), still contributes that much towards meeting
our annual expenditures. Several other benevolent individuals have, at
different periods since, contributed liberally towards our funds, both
by bequest and donation.

_Considerations in relation to Penal System._—There is no reason to
believe that the Society, when it first entered on its benevolent
labors, contemplated directing its efforts towards the introduction of
any new system, or effecting any general change in the then prevailing
principles of prison discipline; but as their arrangements for
securing efficient and comprehensive action within their own body
embraced from the outset, a standing committee to visit the prisons
and prisoners, they not only carefully examined and considered the
provisions of the penal laws, but they had full opportunity of
observing their practical operation upon the prisoners, and also of
judging whether the gaols were so constructed and arranged as to adapt
them to their proper purposes. On entering the prisons, the Committee
saw in close association those of the various ages, from the
comparatively far advanced in life, down to mere children; and from
those long practised and utterly hardened in crime, down to such as
had made their first serious misstep, which may have been more from
want of thought than from actual depravity of heart, and they soon
became convinced, that if the community desired the spread of vice and
wickedness, they here had schools admirably adapted to their purpose.
Exactly in accordance with their conviction of what must be the result
of this state of things, crimes were found to increase in number and
boldness, and this association of convicts was apparently the only
adequate cause which could be assigned for it. “This being the evil
(to adopt the language of the ‘Sketch’ referred to), _separation_ was
the obvious remedy; and on this, therefore, as we shall soon see, they
ultimately fixed, as the grand point to be aimed at. Thenceforth,
_separation_ and _employment_ were felt to be the cardinal features of
convict discipline; and even at that day it was maintained, that
though the structures which this principle demanded, might be somewhat
more expensive in the outset, they would, nevertheless, in the end,
pay for themselves with large interest. In saving in police force; in
the avoidance of conspiracies and insurrections; in the dispensing
with violent and exciting modes of punishment; in the power to adapt
the means of improvement and reformation to individual character and
circumstances; in the exemption of the discharged prisoner from
recognition by prison acquaintances; and in the moral and disciplinary
virtue of seclusion in itself considered, were to be found a generous
compensation for any extraordinary outlay.”

_Former severity of the Penal Code._—According to the penal code
existing in Pennsylvania at the commencement of the American
Revolution, nearly a score of crimes were subject to capital
punishment. In 1794, just eighteen years after the Declaration of
Independence, it was ordained that murder in the first degree should
be the only crime punishable with death,—a transformation truly
remarkable, as being accomplished in so short a time.

Many other features of the old code and its administration would, in
these days, be considered in Pennsylvania to be highly barbarous; such
as exposing the offender in the public streets, with the clogg and
chain upon the neck or leg, and not unfrequently on both, or punishing
by cropping or the branding iron, the pillory or the whipping-post,
all of which were at one time conspicuous features of the code and its
administration in our city; and thus the victim was exposed to the
gaze and taunts of the rabble, and almost necessarily hardened by the
cruel system, instead of being reformed. Ten years proved sufficient
to change all this, and instead of these relics of barbarity, to
introduce a more rational, humane, and Christian system, by which
restraints and “punishments were adopted, better fitted to reclaim the
transgressor, and not less effective in penal suffering.”

_Reforms Applied for._—On account of this odious state of things, so
abhorrent to the better feelings of humanity, the Society, as early as
August, 1787, appointed a committee to inquire into the effects
produced upon convicts, then at work in the streets, and also its
influence on society, and to collect such observations as might assist
in correcting any abuses suffered therein. As a result of their
inquiries, the Society adopted a memorial to the Legislature, asking
that private, and even secluded labor should be substituted for that
which had been public and disgraceful in the manner of its imposition.
They also suggested that the mingling of the sexes, and the use of
intoxicating drink in the prisons, were evils requiring legislative
remedy.

_Abuses Indicated._—In the autumn of 1788 the Society indicated the
following defects and abuses in the treatment of prisoners.

1. Insufficiency of clothing for the untried, and that clothes which
the Society had supplied to poor prisoners had been exchanged for rum.

2. The daily allowance to persons committed for trial was only a half
of a four-penny loaf, while those detained as witnesses had no
allowance at all.

A stranger accidentally present at the commission of a crime, without
friends to enter security for his appearance, was committed to jail
for the benefit of the community, and suffered more than the actual
criminal; and what added greatly to this grievance, he was afterwards
detained until he paid the jail fees! The Society earnestly protested
against this practice, and against detaining any prisoners for any
such cause after acquittal. This was one of the abuses which Howard
ranked amongst “enormities.”

3. No provision was made for decent lodging; the inmates of the jail
lying indiscriminately upon the floor, unless supplied with something
better by their friends. It will scarcely be believed that, in the
memory of persons now living, the male and female prisoners in the
jails of this city, were allowed a promiscuous association, and were
even locked up together in the rooms at night. The new Society
remonstrated loudly, and the men and women were soon after confined in
separate apartments. Almost equally incredible is the fact, that
prisoners complained that they were not allowed to purchase
intoxicating drinks where they could get them cheapest, but were
compelled to buy them in the jail at a considerable advance. To obtain
them, they not only stripped themselves, but when new prisoners were
brought in they took their clothing from them by force, and exchanged
it for rum.

4. The indiscriminate intermingling of criminals, untried prisoners,
and debtors, was another monstrous abuse, and led, in many instances,
to the conversion of debtors and innocent parties into criminals.

5. Parents were allowed to have their children with them in jail, and
young offenders were exposed to all the corrupting influences of
association with confirmed and reckless villains.

6. It was presented as a radical evil that a large proportion of the
prisoners were unemployed; and farther, it was maintained that labor,
even in the public streets, was preferable to sheer idleness within
the walls.

In view of these several considerations, and as the result of careful
observation, the Society resolved that “labor in seclusion, and the
interdiction of all intoxicating drinks, were the two principal
elements of the desired reform.”

_Publications; and Reform of Penal Code._—From an early period, the
Society had issued through the press, memorials and addresses in
behalf of its objects, and in 1790 a pamphlet was published, entitled,
“Extracts and Remarks on the Subject of Punishment and the Reformation
of Criminals,” 500 copies of which were distributed among the members
of the Legislature, and other persons prominently connected with the
government, with a view to preparing them to support such reforms as
the observations of the Society had suggested to be necessary. As a
result mainly due to the efforts of the Society, an Act was passed in
April, 1790, to reform the penal code of the State, by which the
principle of individual separation was recognized, though applied
strictly only to “more hardened and atrocious offenders, who are
sentenced for a term of years,” while the introduction of intoxicating
drinks was prohibited under severe penalties.

_Early Advantages of Separation._—Even this very partial separation
resulted so satisfactorily, that one of its early fruits was the Act
of 1794, by which it was intended that not only “the more hardened and
atrocious offenders,” but _all_ convicts should be subjected to
seclusion. But as the number of the cells was not equal to one-third
the average number of the convicts (say thirty of the former to one
hundred of the latter) the Inspectors were obliged to exercise their
discretion. Some of the prisoners, immediately on their admission,
were conducted to their separate cells, and remained in them until
their discharge; and the remarkable and most gratifying fact is on
record, (see Roberts Vaux’s Letter of Sept. 21st, 1827, to William
Roscoe, of Liverpool,) that _the cases thus treated were the only
instances of reformation which continued throughout the lives of the
individuals_, so far as they could be traced, or their condition
ascertained by diligent inquiry.

_Jailor’s Fees._—In the year 1796, the sore evil and reproachful
practice which existed, of the jailors exacting fees, as a condition
of liberation from imprisonment, was taken in hand, and an adequate
salary to the keeper was suggested as the best remedy, so that he
might have no personal interest in any question affecting the liberty
of the prisoner. This wholesome suggestion was not, however, at that
time, as fully accepted and acted upon as its importance demanded.

_Imprisonment of Debtors._—The broad and interesting question of
imprisonment for debt, in its various aspects, came up for
investigation and consideration by the Society in 1798, and resulted
in an Act of the Legislature in the same year, removing some of the
most objectionable features of the existing laws on that subject.

_Instruction of Prisoners._—In the same year, the duty of _instructing
ignorant prisoners in useful knowledge_, which previously to that time
had been almost wholly neglected, both in Europe and this country,
took such hold of our Society that it not only drew forth warm
expressions of sympathy in such efforts, but resulted in an agreement
to allow compensation for services rendered in that behalf.

_Vagrants._—In 1800, the _employment of Vagrants and Convicts_,
and the expense of their support, were made a subject of inquiry, and
resulted in some interesting statistical and other facts being brought
into view.

_Pardons._—The subject of Pardons, also, at this early stage of
reformatory movements, was discussed by the Society with much
interest, and it was its settled judgment that the exercise of the
prerogative at all, excepting in some rare and peculiar cases, was of
very doubtful expediency; and that in the manner in which, in point of
fact, it was generally exercised, it was a positive evil, both as
regards the prisoner and the community. Pardons, it is believed, are
nearly, if not quite, as frequently extended to undeserving, as to
deserving cases; and beside this objection, the mere impression on the
mind of the prisoner that, by effort and importunity, and the aid of
the requisite agencies, he may succeed in obtaining a discharge before
the expiration of his sentence, keeps him in a state of unsettlement,
which entirely unfits him for the wholesome influence which the prison
discipline is intended to exert.

_Prison Library._—One of the next prominent measures was the
establishment of a _prison library_. The Inspectors agreed to pay the
cost of a book-case, and a Committee of the Society was appointed to
purchase proper books and frame rules for their circulation. In referring
to the list reported, we find a large proportion of the selection was from
the higher and more refined department of didactic literature, which,
though intrinsically of undoubted value, we apprehend that many of the
volumes were not adapted to the greater part of the class of persons for
whose use they were intended. Even down to the present time, although the
press is so prolific in its issues, and great judgment has been displayed
in preparing books adapted to the various grades of mind, the task of
making a selection is found to be very difficult. A large proportion of the
prisoners, on entering, prove to be very nearly, if not quite, without
literary culture; and their previous associations have been such, that the
feelings and modes of expression which pervade refined society, are to them
totally incomprehensible. As regards many of these, although they have in
years fully attained to manhood, they are still merely children in mental
capacity and training, and consequently books of the most simple and
elementary character are alone suited to their condition.

_Bibles for the Prisoners._—In addition to establishing the Library,
it was at the same time agreed that the convicts and other prisoners
should be supplied with Bibles and Testaments, and a Committee was
appointed to report on their distribution and its results.

_Digest of Penal Laws._—In 1810, the subject of a general improvement
of prison discipline throughout the State was taken up, and a
Committee was appointed to prepare a suitable memorial; but soon
after, Jared Ingersoll, then Attorney General of the State, was
commissioned to prepare a digest of its penal laws, and the
suggestions of the Society were made to him.

_Sundry Abuses Revealed._—“In January, 1814, the Grand Jury of Bucks
County presented the scanty allowance to poor debtors, as a subject
deserving the attention of the public authorities. Fourteen cents a
day only were allowed for provision, clothing, bedding and fuel, and
even this niggardly allowance was withheld from the debtor until the
creditor received notice of his commitment. For some days, therefore,
they might be exposed to extreme suffering, unless the jailor or some
kind friend afforded them relief. The rations of convicts were one
pound of bread a day, and six cents’ worth of fuel, and one extra
blanket in extreme weather. The subjection of persons committed for
trial to the same fare as convicts, was also presented as a reproach
to the community. It was, moreover, urged, that the manner and amount
of the jailor’s compensation should be such as to remove from him all
temptation to benefit himself at the expense of his prisoner. This
position, which the Society assumed many years before, is one which
the most obvious principles of justice warrant. It extends to
magistrates and arresting officers, as well as jailors. To none of
them should there be offered the slightest temptation to distress or
annoy those in custody, for the sake of profit to themselves.”

_Measures to Obviate Them._—Resulting from the facts and suggestions
thus developed, measures were soon adopted by the Society for
ascertaining the condition of penal institutions in other States, and
steps were taken towards memorializing our own Legislature in behalf
of desired improvements; but definite action on the subject was
prevented, by various circumstances, until January, 1818, at which
time a memorial was adopted, setting forth “the crowded state of the
Philadelphia Prison, and the impracticability of reaching the true end
of all penal discipline therein, and urging the erection of
penitentiaries in suitable parts of the Commonwealth, for the more
effectual _separation and employment_ of prisoners, and so proving the
superiority of that system.”

_Western Penitentiary._—From the time that the principle of
individual separation of convicts was recognized by the Legislature,
in 1790, the legal provisions and the arrangements of the prison had
been so defective, that a full and fair trial of the system could not
be made; yet notwithstanding the impediments it encountered, its good
results were so evident, that the Society deemed it proper to call
public attention to the importance of extending it throughout the
State. This being done, in the same year (1818) the Act was passed,
authorizing the erection, at Pittsburg, of the Western State
Penitentiary, “on the principle of the solitary confinement of the
convicts, as the same is, or hereafter may be, established by law.” In
the passage of this Act, it is rather to be regretted that the term
“separate” had not been used, instead of “solitary,” as it would have
more accurately described what is now emphatically called “the
Pennsylvania System,” and would not have been so likely to aid in the
prejudice towards it, which is entertained by persons in other States
and countries.

_Inquiries from London._—About the same time Dr. Lushington, on
behalf of the London Society for improving the condition of Prisons,
then recently established, requested of our Society information as to
the results of the melioration of our Criminal Code. The reply
expressed strong confidence in the full success of the system, when
the difficulties were overcome which resulted from the construction of
the Philadelphia gaol, not allowing the fundamental principle of
separation to be observed except to a very limited extent, and when
the new Penitentiary, then in progress at Pittsburg, was completed,
the plan of construction of which being intended to especially adapt
it to entire separation of the prisoners from each other.

_Inquiries from New York._—About the same time, a series of
inquiries, tending to the same point, were addressed to us, by a
Committee of citizens of New York. The reply most fully sustained the
efficacy of our more lenient system, so far as facilities existed to
properly carry it out. “Were a Penitentiary established,” they say,
“sufficiently large, and so constructed as to keep the prisoners
separated from each other during work, meals, and sleep (in other
words, perpetual separation), and if no pardons were granted except in
extraordinary cases, its efficacy would soon be self-evident.”

They also referred to the difficulty of procuring suitable employment,
the frequency of pardons, and the deplorable condition of discharged
prisoners, as being very serious, but not really necessary evils. They
regarded the suggestion to extend capital punishment beyond its then
narrow limits, or to resort to transportation, as being evidently
inexpedient.

“The chain was also repudiated, and a fair trial of labor in seclusion
from other convicts, with moderate diet, under suitable agents, was
urged as the wisest, safest, most humane, most efficient, and in the
end most economical mode of dealing with criminals.”

_Memorial to the Legislature to establish an Eastern Penitentiary._—The
investigations of the Society, and their observations of the practical
effect of the reformatory suggestions which they had made from time to
time, so far as they had been carried out, so thoroughly convinced
them of the correctness of these views, that they addressed a memorial
to the Legislature of the State, in January, 1821, setting forth the
tendency of the degrading and sanguinary punishments formerly
inflicted to excite the malignant passions of offenders, instead of
bringing them to a better mind, and thus frustrating the great ends of
law; and then the various modifications of the system, designed to
obviate existing evils.

These modifications, they alleged, had proved quite as valuable as was
anticipated, and clearly demonstrated the superiority of the new
system, if it were fairly tried. They, therefore, urged “the erection
of a new Penitentiary for the Eastern District of the State, so
constructed as to admit of the constant separation and healthful labor
of the convicts.” This was promptly responded to, and in the following
May the law was passed for building the Eastern Penitentiary at
Philadelphia, which is now the model prison on the “Pennsylvania” or
“separate system,” and as such, at this day maintains a prominent
position among the penal institutions of the world, and stands as a
noble monument of the liberality, humanity, and wise economy of its
founders.

_Abuses by Committing Magistrates._—In 1820, and also in 1822, the
illegal and corrupt exercise of power by the Magistrates, which was
most oppressive on the poor and helpless, became again a subject of
inquiry, and a committee was appointed to confer with the Governor of
the State on the subject, and a memorial was soon afterwards presented
to the Legislature soliciting its interference to remedy the evil.

_Discharged Prisoners._—In November of the same year a committee was
raised to consider of and report on the project of establishing an
asylum for such discharged convicts as might be unable to obtain
employment, but it appearing that there were serious difficulties in
the way of carrying it out at that time, it was abandoned.

_Juvenile Offenders and “House of Refuge.”_—At a meeting of the
Society, held January 28, 1823, a committee was instructed to “inquire
into the condition of juvenile offenders, and what relief is needed in
their case.” This being a matter of deep interest, and requiring much
consideration, from its inherent difficulties, the inquiries which
were prosecuted from time to time, as opportunities presented, did not
reach any definite result till January 21st, 1826.

At this time the committee reported warmly in favor of an institution
for their reception, but expressed doubts whether the Society had the
needful means to establish it, or the legal powers that would be
required for its management. It was resolved to call a meeting of
citizens on the first day of February ensuing, before which the
subject should be fully opened. An address was agreed upon to be
submitted to the meeting, in which a brief history was given of the
melioration of the penal laws and institutions of the State, and of
the encouraging result, and a confidence was expressed in a still
further improvement on the completion of the two Penitentiaries—the
eastern and western. “But,” it was added, “as our true policy, as well
as our manifest duty, consists not less in preventing crime, and
checking the tendency to it, than in punishing and reclaiming the
overt offender, the restraint and reformation of children and youth
exposed to criminal habits, becomes an imperative obligation.” They,
therefore, earnestly commended the new project to the meeting of
citizens to be assembled under their call. These views were cordially
responded to by the meeting, and action being promptly taken, resulted
in the erection of a “House of Refuge for juvenile delinquents,” which
was opened for inmates on the 1st of December, 1828, and the benefit
the Institution has conferred on the community, and on the class for
whose reception it was intended, are generally felt and acknowledged.
And it is believed that many individuals, who are now reputable
members of the community, would have been at this time deeply steeped
in criminality, and degraded outcasts of society, if it had not been
for the protecting care and moral training of such an institution,
extended to them in their youthful days, when first tempted to turn
aside from the paths of virtue and rectitude.

_Proposed Improvements._—In July, 1827, in anticipation of the
approaching completion of the Eastern Penitentiary, the Society
appointed a committee to prepare a memorial to the Legislature,
setting forth the importance of carrying into full effect the
_principle of separation, &c._ And in July, 1829, another
memorial was forwarded, embracing the two following suggestions:—

1. That criminal courts be so organized, as that the prisons may be
speedily delivered of all persons held to answer for offences, &c.

2. That provision be made for the complete separation of all persons
committed for trial, or as vagrants, as well as those under sentence.

_Publications Respecting the Separate System._—About this time much
interest was manifested in relation to the character of the discipline
to be established in the new Penitentiary, and it was found that
conflicting views were entertained by persons prominent for their
philanthropy, and their promotion of the valuable reforms of the day.
Several of these advocated separation _without labor_ as being most
prompt and effectual in promoting the reformation of the criminal, and
as admitting of a shorter term of sentence. It may be mentioned,
however, as an interesting and important fact, that our Society never
sanctioned these views. Its whole history, almost from its origin,
contains abundant evidence that a union of _separation with labor_, if
not held to be a _sine qua non_, was at least deemed to be of the
highest importance. With a view to preventing this division of
sentiment on a collateral point, from in any way prejudicing the main
principle of the entire separation of the prisoners, which was
contemplated in the erection of the Penitentiary, a large edition of a
pamphlet, (by our fellow member, George Washington Smith,) clearly
vindicating what was known as the “Pennsylvania System,” showing its
humane and reformatory tendencies, was published and circulated.

_Opening of the Eastern Penitentiary._—At length the time had
arrived, by the opening of the Philadelphia Penitentiary, for the
reception of convicts, on the 25th of October, 1829, when the
principles of discipline steadily advocated by the Society for the
preceding forty years, were to be practically tested under their
immediate notice. Heretofore, the only instance of these principles
being approximately carried out in a building planned and erected for
the purpose, was at Pittsburg, a very inconvenient distance for
observation, and beside that, the attempt was there made to introduce
the system of separation _without labor_, which, as might have been
anticipated, did not result satisfactorily, and had been the occasion
of exciting considerable prejudice against the separate system both at
home and abroad.

Subsequently to the opening of the Penitentiary, some small defects in
the structure and mode of discipline were revealed by experience, and
promptly remedied as far as practicable. That some further
improvements may yet be called for, not involving the fundamental
principle of absolute separation, is not improbable, as we have never
claimed that our work was perfect. The Annual Reports of the
Inspectors placed in charge of the Institution, issued since its
opening, afford most satisfactory evidence of the soundness of the
principles recognized in its discipline, and our Prison Society, who
have with deep interest watched its workings for more than thirty-two
years, not only have never had misgivings in relation to it, but have
constantly to the present time, been strengthened in the conviction of
its being the true system. We are so well convinced of this, that it
is deemed worth while, at this point, to introduce a short notice of
the system itself; especially as we are aware that many persons both
in this country and in Europe, are opposed to its introduction,
mainly, as we believe, from a misapprehension of what the system and
its results really are. We are the more prompted to this, from a
belief that the cause of humanity and of Christian philanthropy, the
good of the prisoner and of the community alike unite in calling for
its general introduction. This notice, which from the character of the
occasion, must necessarily be very brief, may partly assume the form
of contrasting it with what is known as the “Auburn,” or “_Congregate,
silent system_,” which is generally believed to approximate most
nearly to it.

_What the Pennsylvania System is._—The basis of our system is, AN
INDIVIDUAL CELL FOR EVERY PRISONER, AND THAT EACH PRISONER SHALL BE
KEPT WHOLLY SEPARATE FROM EVERY OTHER PRISONER, DAY AND NIGHT, DURING
THE ENTIRE TERM OF CONFINEMENT. The thorough separation here spoken
of, must not be misunderstood, however, to mean, or to be, as has been
charged, “perpetual solitude,” or “total isolation from the whole
world.” The law never designed that it should be so, and its actual
character in its practical working is very different from this. It is
not society in itself, or intercourse with his fellow-men (excepting,
so far as its privation might be salutary as a punishment,) that is
denounced by the system, but it is association and companionship with
criminals,—with the depraved and wicked,—which it is believed, the
good, both of the criminal and of the community into which he is to
return upon the termination of his sentence, requires, should be
utterly prohibited. The social intercourse under this system, is, in
point of fact, abundantly sufficient for the health, both of body and
mind. Beside that which takes place between the prisoners and the
resident Officers and the Inspectors of the prison, by which means
each convict receives several visits every day. The following are
named by law as “official visitors,” who have a full legal right to
visit the penitentiary and enter the cells of the prisoners whenever
they shall think proper, to wit: “the Governor, Speaker and members of
the Senate, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives,
the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Judges of the Supreme Court,
the Attorney General and his deputies, the President and Associate
Judges of all the Courts of the State, the Mayor and Recorder of the
cities of Philadelphia, Lancaster and Pittsburg, Commissioners and
Sheriffs of the several counties, and the Acting committee of the
Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons.”
The last of these, as we shall see in the progress of this report,
availing themselves of this authority, are untiring in their efforts
to promote the social, moral and religious welfare of those confined
in our penitentiaries and jails. Thus, by our system, instead of the
society of the ignorant, the degraded and the criminal, whose efforts
would be directed to dragging them down to still lower depths of vice
and infamy, than they might yet have reached; we give them that of the
virtuous, the intelligent and the good, who not only make it their
business to see that they have the bodily comforts to which they are
entitled; but who are desirous of promoting their reformation with a
view to their own real good through the remaining term of their lives,
and to securing society against renewed depredations from them after
their discharge; and above all, that they may be instrumental, under
the divine blessing, in bringing these poor wanderers and outcasts,
into a true sense of their past sinfulness, that they may in
condescending mercy, be yet brought, by repentance and amendment of
life, to work out their soul’s salvation.

There is a keeper to every division of about thirty prisoners, and
these keepers are selected with special reference to their fitness, on
the score of morals, temper and intelligence. None of the keepers, or
other officers in the penitentiary, go armed in any way, there being
no occasion for it, as it is morally certain that no revolt, or
insubordination, threatening violence, can ever take place. Each
prisoner is fully sensible that an effort to escape, must necessarily
be unsuccessful, and therefore, he never broods over its possibility,
nor devises plans to subdue his keeper, or even murder him, if need
be, to effect it. On the contrary, the whole system is one of
kindness, it might almost be said, between the prisoners, the keepers
and the visitors. The prisoner, knowing he is powerless, becomes
passive, and there being nothing to rouse his vindictive or other evil
passions, he is soon brought, in his quiet retirement, to view his
past life in a very different light from what he ever did before. And
also, as the society of the bad, which he formerly coveted and
enjoyed, is shut out from him, his craving for companionship, soon
brings him to enjoy the company of the virtuous and good, which he
formerly despised; and consequently, the instruction and counsel which
is extended to him by his visitor, will meet with a reception and make
an impression, which under other circumstances, we might look for in
vain. And in the moment of contrition, when the poor outcast is
brought to abhor himself, and would fain pour out his soul before
God,—it may be in the presence of his visitor and religious
instructor,—there is no hardened and depraved associate with him, to
sneer at his supposed weakness and prompt him to reject the proffered
mercy.

Here, also, the rudiments of education can well be imparted, and as
there is nothing to distract the attention, the lessons make an
impression such as is never witnessed in the community at large, much
less in the congregate system of imprisonment. Our visitors to the
Penitentiary frequently witness examples of this, which are truly
remarkable. Many who had grown up without any literary culture, not
being able to write or even to read the simplest matter on entering
the Prison, in the course of even a few months have become capable of
writing quite a good hand, and of reading with facility. Some of them,
who in their previous lives had felt the process of education to be
altogether a repulsive task, and therefore had failed to make any
advance, and had even been brought to believe that the ability to read
and to write was a mystery, which was, and always must remain to be,
beyond their power to fathom—here find themselves to be capable of
comprehending the lessons presented to them; and as the curtain begins
to rise before this supposed mystery, they see, as it were, a new
world open before them—what was formerly a dreaded and repulsive
task, becomes a pleasant privilege, and they pursue with avidity the
path to knowledge which is thus opened to them. This change in their
condition improves their whole moral character. Also, as time would
hang heavily on the prisoners if without employment, they freely
perform the work allotted them, accepting it rather as a _privilege and a
blessing_, than as a _penalty_, as is the case under the congregate
system, whether _silent_ or otherwise. And, as it is with regard to
what may be called common school learning, so it is in respect to
acquiring a knowledge of the mechanic arts there introduced, being
necessarily a few only—such as shoemaking, cane-seating of chairs,
cabinet making and weaving. They soon become masters of these, and the
task allotted them being moderate—after the accomplishment of which
they are credited with “overwork”—some individual prisoners, on their
discharge, have been paid upwards of 250 dollars, which stood to their
credit on the books. In a recent instance, a prisoner, on his
discharge after a three years’ sentence, was so paid 213 dollars.

There is another point on which, we are aware, that many benevolent
minds, who have merely viewed the “Pennsylvania System” theoretically,
have felt much apprehension—which often amounts to a _conviction_—which
is, that the mental condition of the prisoners, under its discipline,
is liable to serious injury. This, we feel authorized to say, is a
_fatal_ mistake. We use the term _fatal_, because the adoption of this
view tends to prevent the general introduction of the system, which we
think is greatly to be regretted. A practical acquaintance with its
working, proves this apprehension to be wholly unfounded. Close
observation, specially directed to this point, with carefully prepared
tabular statements of the mental condition of each prisoner on
entering and on leaving the Eastern Penitentiary, (as also at
intermediate periods) kept for a series of years, have fully established
the fact, that the prisoners, instead of being injured, have been
decidedly improved in this respect.

_Its Result._—From the foregoing positions the result may thus be
summed up: That many of those who entered the Penitentiary without any
proper sense of their responsibility to their Creator, or their duty
to their fellow creatures, have, as we trust, through the Divine
blessing accompanying the instrumentalities surrounding them, attained
to clear views and conscientious convictions on these points, and have
gone forth into the world with firm resolves that—their Maker
strengthening them—they would thenceforth do nothing which would
grieve His Holy Spirit or wrong their fellow men. And that most of
those who entered nearly destitute of learning, even in its simplest
form, and without a knowledge of any trade by the pursuit of which
they might be able to secure an honest maintenance, have emerged
greatly improved in both these respects, and better fitted for the
duties and responsibilities of life.

_The “Auburn” or Congregate Silent System._—The principle of
“separation,” in the abstract, seems to be very extensively, if not
generally conceded, both in this country and in Europe; but, on
various pleas, it is but partially adopted in practice in the United
States beyond the limits of Pennsylvania, and therefore, as we
contend, fails in effecting the desired results. This partial adoption
under the “Auburn” system consists of confinement in separate cells at
night, but congregation in the workshops, or elsewhere, during the
day—under the positive injunction, however, that when together, the
prisoners shall have no communication with each other by word or sign
of any kind, and this injunction is enforced by the presence of armed
guards, and any breach of it is visited by heavy penalties. This system
is adopted on the strange plea that man is a social being, and he is
therefore entitled to society as a natural right, not seeming to be
aware that, by the restraints imposed, they entirely rob him of his
social character. It reminds one of the Fable of Tantalus, the “Lydian
King, who was condemned to be plunged in water, with choice fruits
hanging over him, without the power of reaching them to satisfy his
hunger or his thirst.” Notwithstanding, however, the strictness of the
watch maintained, the severity of the threatened penalty, and the
example of the actual punishment administered upon those who have in
any way violated this rule of silence, and non-recognition of each
other when together—from the almost irresistible craving for the
enjoyment of some of the rights of social intercourse, which is
stimulated by being brought into the presence of each other—considerable
intercommunication, by various methods ingeniously devised by them, it
is admitted, does, in fact, take place between the prisoners. To
enable the officers in charge effectually to prevent this, and to
maintain the general discipline of the Prison, corporal punishment, it
is believed, is deemed to be an essential part of the system, and this
is consequently frequently administered with great severity. At the
meeting of the American Prison Association, held in the city of New
York in the Autumn of 1860, (at which some of our members were present
as delegates) a New York gentleman, prominent as a philanthropist,
familiar with the character of their Prisons, and who had been one of
the regular visitors at Sing Sing, declared that their Prisons were
like menageries, in which the prisoners were kept and treated as so
many wild beasts, and that, a few years back, the severity of the
punishments at Sing Sing was such, that the stone at the foot of the
whipping-post was always wet with the blood of the victims of the
lash. We trust, however, the discipline is now maintained there by
means less severe. The regulations connected with our system, on the
contrary, entirely exclude the lash, and, excepting in solitary and
very extreme cases, admit of no more severe punishment than
imprisonment in a dark cell, with reduction of food; and we are
assured that a very few days only, of such discipline, are sufficient
to curb and subdue the most refractory—and even this mild punishment
has to be applied very rarely.

_Influences of the Systems Compared._—There is nothing, as we
believe, in the working of our system, which can make the prisoners
_worse_ than when they enter; but on the contrary there is much, the
direct tendency of which is to make them better. We are well aware that
_all_ are not reformed by it, though we thankfully trust that such is
the result with regard to many. Under the discipline of the “Auburn
System,” we can hardly see how reform amongst the prisoners can be
promoted. And we are convinced that there is a mistake in the
confident claim set up, that, as conversation between the prisoners is
almost wholly suppressed, they cannot corrupt each other, and
consequently, if not made better, they at least cannot be made worse.
The very fact that the prisoner, in daily, though silently, meeting in
the workshop a large mass of fellow-convicts, is sensible that he is
surrounded by, and on the same level with, the off-scouring of the
community, degrades him in his own estimation, and silently, perhaps
slowly, but almost inevitably, sooner or later, drags him down, till
he becomes sorrowfully demoralized. In confirmation of this, it may be
mentioned that one of our own members, in the course of a visit a few
months since, at the State Prison at Auburn, was informed by the officer
in attendance, that amongst their convicts there were ministers,
doctors, and lawyers. Upon this, our member inquired if they there
maintained a deportment consistent with their previous position in
society. The reply was: “For a short time they do; but they soon sink
to the level of the most degraded.”

Another point of much consequence, in comparing the “Congregate” and
“Separate” systems, is,—that by the former, each of the prisoners
becomes familiarly acquainted with the countenances of the others, and
consequently, on meeting after leaving the prison, an immediate
recognition takes place between them, and on the principle that “Birds
of a feather flock together,” they are united by a kind of sympathy,
which is anything but salutary; while by the latter, never having seen
each other during their incarceration, there is no danger of their
being drawn into evil association after their discharge.

_Reference to Publications._—Our time and space forbid our extending
this branch of our subject. Before leaving it, however, we think
proper to refer to two or three, amongst the many publications in
which interesting and valuable views may be met with on the subject of
prisons, particularly such as relate to what we have been endeavoring
to set forth as the “Pennsylvania _Separate_ System” of prison
discipline, and its practical working.

First. Those eminent men and close observers, De Beaumont and De
Tocqueville, who visited this country from France, a few years after
the opening of our Eastern Penitentiary, for the purpose of examining
into the character of our institutions generally, in their work,
entitled “Du Système Pénitentiaire Aux Etats-Unis” (the Penitentiary
System in the United States), give some very satisfactory views with
regard to the working of our Penitentiary, where they spent
considerable time, visiting all the prisoners by permission of the
authorities, and remaining in their cells in private sufficiently long
to obtain from the inmates a knowledge of the practical working of the
system upon them. This work, in the original French, and also an
English translation of it, by Professor Francis Lieber,—himself
eminent as a close observer, and deep thinker on the subject of penal
laws and penal institutions, and their systems of discipline,—are to
be found in the Society’s Library. The translation is accompanied by
some very valuable Notes by the translator, and in an Appendix to it
there is an Essay, by the same, treating specially on the
“Pennsylvania System,” republished from the Encyclopædia Americana. A
small volume, entitled, “Prisons and Prisoners,” by Joseph Kingsmill,
chaplain of the “Pentonville Prison,” near London, conducted very much
upon our system, is well worth reading. We would also refer to an
elaborate “Essay on Cellular Separation,” written by our
fellow-member, William Parker Foulke, under appointment by “the
American Association for the improvement of Penal and Reformatory
Institutions,” and read before that Association at the Annual Meeting,
held in New York, in the autumn of 1860, as being an able exposition
of our system. This Essay was published by our Society soon after its
preparation.

_Misstatements corrected._—In this connection, it is due to the cause
of truth to say that Charles Dickens, the novelist, in his report of
his visit to the Eastern Penitentiary, contained in his “American
Notes,” makes representations so palpably erroneous, as to appear to
those familiar with that institution and its government to be absolutely
absurd. But as he uses the form of a direct reference to particular
cases, strangers will more readily than they otherwise would adopt his
statements as setting forth the truth. It should be remembered,
however, that the celebrity to which this author has attained, is as a
writer of “fiction,” not of truthful narrative or history. In this
instance, (possibly without being aware of it), he has maintained the
consistency of his literary character. The late William Peter, the
worthy consul of Great Britain, residing in this city, soon after the
book of Dickens was published, made a personal examination into each
of the cases referred to, and in a letter to the late Job R. Tyson,
thoroughly refuted the misrepresentations.

_Application for County Prison granted._—In 1831, the Legislature
provided for the sale of the Walnut Street Prison, and for the
erection of a largely increased number of cells in the Eastern
Penitentiary, so as to be prepared for the reception of the inmates of
the former. The Society being apprehensive that the principle of
separation might be interfered with by the sudden introduction of so
large a number of prisoners, memorialized the Legislature to have
another prison erected on the same principle, for the use of the
county. A law was soon after passed, providing for the erection of one
for the use of the city and county of Philadelphia, capable of holding
at least three hundred prisoners, on the principle of separate
confinement.

_Bad condition of County Prisons._—The receptions into the Eastern
Penitentiary from other parts of the State, afforded constant evidence
of the miserable condition of the County Prisons. The prisoners
received from them were so injured by the abuses and bad management
and arrangements prevailing there, that it was very difficult to
maintain the consistency of the Penitentiary discipline, or to secure
its legitimate results in such cases, and it was, therefore, deemed
essential that the system of separation for all classes of commitments
should be introduced into all the County Prisons, and in 1832 a
Committee of the Society was appointed to investigate the condition of
these prisons throughout the State.

_Matrons._—In 1833, the Society represented to the Prison Inspectors,
the propriety of appointing matrons to have charge of the female
prisoners.

_Public Executions._—In 1834, the views of the Society were met, by
the passage of an act requiring all sentences of death to be executed
within the walls, or yard of the jail, limiting the number and
character of the witnesses allowed to be present, and forbidding the
attendance of any person under age.

_Care in relation to the New County Prison._—Early in the year 1835,
the new County Prison being nearly ready to be occupied, the Society
became much interested in the system of discipline to be there
adopted; for though the Act itself provided for individual separation,
it was feared that the character of the prisoners to be received might
lead to a relaxation of this essential principle. They, therefore,
appointed a committee to take the matter in charge.

_Plans for County Prisons._—Instructions were given to the Acting
Committee in 1836, to have plans prepared for the County Jails, on the
separate system. And upon their report in 1838, the legislature was
memorialized by the Society, to appoint commissioners to investigate
the condition of these jails.

_Annual County returns of Crime, &c._—In 1839 and 1840, the Acting
Committee of the Society was engaged by calling the attention of the
Executive to the subject, and otherwise, in endeavours, by legal
enactment, to secure an annual return being made to the Secretary of
the commonwealth, with regard to the condition of all the county
jails, and the proceedings in the criminal courts; giving full
statistics on all points of especial interest, with a view to aiding
in adapting legislation to the existing state of things in the
prisons, and improving the criminal code, where necessary. Although a
law was subsequently enacted, to effect this very desirable object, it
has been almost wholly without operation.

_Moral and Religious Instruction._—From its first introduction, moral
and religious influences, and instruction were considered to be
necessary adjuncts to the separate mode of discipline. This subject
was consequently referred to a committee of the Society in 1841, and
in 1843, the appointment of a special officer as a moral instructor
for the Philadelphia County Prison, was reported, his salary being
paid by private subscription. Such an officer had been appointed in
the Eastern Penitentiary in 1838.

_Quarterly Journal._—The Society had, at different times from its
rise, expended considerable sums of money in publishing pamphlets,
&c., with a view to enlightening the public mind, and thus furthering
the benevolent objects for which they had associated, and for the
promotion of which they were so constantly and zealously laboring;
and, finally in the autumn of 1844, it was deemed expedient to
commence the publication of a quarterly journal, as furnishing a means
by which they could embody in a more permanent form, the results of
their observation, inquiry and experience, and might also embrace
other kindred subjects. In pursuance of this conclusion, at the
beginning of the next year, the first number of the “Pennsylvania
Journal of Prison Discipline and Philanthropy” was issued, and, (with
the exception of one year,) has been continued until the close of last
year, (1861,) comprising in all 16 volumes.

“_House of Refuge._”—In 1845, after observing the successful progress
of the House of Refuge for juvenile delinquents for a period of nearly
twenty years, the practice of frequently sending boys of an older and
more hardened character, to be confined there with the younger and
less so, was seen to be an evil which ought to be remedied if
practicable. The subject was discussed by the Society from time to
time, and the suggestion was made that a prison on the separate plan,
somewhat modified from the penitentiary, should be erected for the
reception of this older class, but the heavy cost of such an
establishment seemed to be an insuperable difficulty in the way at
that time.

_Abuses in County Prisons._—In the autumn of 1846, one of the officers
of the Society, who had personally visited and inspected several of
the county jails, made a voluminous report of their condition. His
leading representations were, “the entire neglect of wholesome
discipline, the intermingling of prisoners of both sexes and all ages,
and every grade of crime, from murder to misdemeanor, and the idle and
vicious habits in which the prisoners were allowed to live, made it
almost a matter of doubt, whether the public would not, in the end,
gain by abandoning most of the jails. Cases were mentioned, in which
men had escaped and found honest employment, who, if they had staid
their time out in jail, would probably, have sunk irreclaimably
through the influence of such associations, as they must have
encountered there.”

_Vindication of our System._—In 1847 a volume was published in
Boston, under the title of “Prison Discipline in America,” which was
ably written, and though not _intending_ to misrepresent our system,
really did so very greatly, from a want of a correct knowledge of the
facts. The author being a gentleman of standing, and his work being
favorably noticed in two of the principal periodicals published in
that city, it was found that the prejudices previously existing
against the system we had adopted, were likely to be strengthened and
confirmed. To counteract this, and enlighten the public generally in
relation to the true character of the “Pennsylvania System,” a
pamphlet, written by one of our members, was published by our Society
in 1849, entitled “_An Inquiry into the Alleged Tendency of the
Separation of Convicts, one from the other, to produce disease and
derangement_,” by a citizen of Pennsylvania: 160 pp., 8vo. This work
had a wide circulation, and we trust has had a salutary influence in
removing unfounded prejudices, and correcting erroneous impressions.

_Colored Criminals._—In 1849, the Society entered into an
investigation of “what was alleged to be a marked difference between
the length of sentences passed on colored convicts, compared with
those passed on whites, and also the comparative mortality of the two
classes.” For the interesting results of this investigation, see the
first number of volume 5th of our Journal, January, 1850.

_House of Correction._—The Visiting Committee of the County Prison
became early sensible of the imperative necessity for some plan being
adopted by which to remedy the great evil to the prison and its proper
inmates, and burthen to the community, resulting from sending there a
vast multitude for vagrancy, intoxication, and disorderly conduct, of
which classes alone, the number committed in 1850 was 4,557. (The
number of these for 1860 was 16,793.) Many of these had sufficient
bodily strength and ability to earn their own living, but their idle
and dissolute habits would be continued so long as food and lodging
were furnished them, either in the almshouse or jail. “To mitigate, if
possible, this evil, and to relieve the community to some extent of
the burthen it imposes, the Society adopted a resolution in 1851, to
inquire as to the expediency of establishing a House of Correction, or
probation, intermediate to the Almshouse and Prison, for the reception
and employment of this large class of persons; and such measures were
adopted by the parties interested, as led to the passage of an act in
1854, establishing such an house. The appropriation for the object was
sufficient for an ample experiment, though the details of the bill
might be open to some grave objections.” It is much to be regretted
that from various considerations operating upon the different parties
on whom devolved the duty of executing this law, its provisions were
not carried out, and it consequently became inoperative.

Neither the Prison Society nor the public were satisfied with this
failure, and the subject being renewedly pressed on the attention of
the Legislature, a new act was passed in 1860, under which a Board of
Managers have been appointed, and from the character of their
preliminary action, there appeared to be ground to hope that this
highly important advance in the reformatory movements of our
Commonwealth would soon be carried into effect. There is great reason,
however, to apprehend that the present disturbance in the country may
retard it.

_Revision of the Criminal Laws._—In 1857 the Society memorialized the
Legislature to appoint a commission to revise and modify the criminal
laws of the State; and in 1858, a committee was appointed to proceed
to Harrisburg to promote the passage of the requisite law for the
purpose. The efforts of the Society in this behalf proved successful,
and resulted in such a revision and modification as must be productive
of much good, although the commissioners did not feel authorized by
the character of their appointment, to go into all the questions
suggested by our Society.

We have now accomplished what we designed in the projected plan of
this report, in tracing the history of our Society from its origin
down to quite a recent period; yet our sketch, extended as it has
been, fails to make anything approaching to a full exhibit of its
doings during that time.

It remains for us now to bring into view the principal transactions of
the last year or eighteen months, from which we think it will be
evident that “The Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of
Public Prisons,” is still alive to the interests of humanity connected
with its sphere of action, as in its early days, and standing as a
“watchman upon the walls,” both to detect abuses which may exist, and
use efforts for their removal, and to avail itself of every
opportunity which may present for furthering the progress of penal
reform, not only within our own City and State, but also amongst our
neighbors.

_Prison at Washington._—In 1860 we were informed that there was a
proposition to erect a new prison at Washington City, and our Society
immediately took action in relation to the subject, with a view to
communicating with the authorities there, and urging upon them the
importance of making their arrangements so as to adapt them to
introducing the system of cellular separation. Circumstances, however,
prevented this communication from being made, and we believe that no
actual steps have yet been taken by them to carry out their
proposition, and we have recently had accounts of a most deplorable
state of things in their jail. Shocking as the account is, we can only
appropriate space to introduce one short quotation, to wit, “In other
portions of the building are narrow passages, five feet wide by
twenty-five feet long, upon which open three cells. In each of these,
only _ten_ feet long by _eight_ wide, _ten_ prisoners sleep, and
during the day the whole _thirty_ have merely the liberty of moving
through the twenty-five feet of crowded and fetid passage-way, without
books, papers, work, or any mental distraction beyond the idle words
of their companions.”

_New Prison in New Jersey._—Learning also that a proposition to erect
a new Penitentiary in the eastern part of the State of New Jersey, was
likely to be brought before their Legislature last winter, our Society
adopted a memorial of a character very similar to that of the
communication intended to have been forwarded to Washington, and
appointed a committee to take charge of it. A part of this committee
visited Trenton, and in a very satisfactory interview with the
Governor, were assured of his cordial co-operation in promoting our
views. The memorial was duly presented to the Legislature. No action,
however, has yet been taken in reference to this important matter, and
it is feared that the terrible calamity which has overtaken our
beloved country will occasion its postponement.

_Proposed Change in Mode of Appointing Inspectors._—A movement having
taken place in our State Legislature in the session of 1861, to take
the appointment of the Inspectors of the Eastern Penitentiary from the
Supreme Court, where it had been placed by law; our Society immediately
forwarded a remonstrance against the proposed change. They apprehended
that the motive to this was, at least in part, political partisanship,
and whether so or not, the result, if successful, would almost
inevitably be to drag our noble Penitentiary and its government into
the arena of partisan politics, which would be a deplorable calamity.
The change was not made.

_Law for shortening Sentences._—At a stated meeting of the Acting
Committee, held October 18th, 1860, the following preamble and
resolutions were introduced, and being unanimously adopted, were
referred to a special Committee of five members, to take the subject
into consideration, and make report thereon to a future meeting. To
wit: “Whereas, the hope of reward is to the human mind one of the
strongest incentives to good conduct; and as, in this enlightened age,
such incentives are found to be more humanizing than punishment, which
partaking of the character of vengeance begets its like, as a natural
result, in the mind of its victim; and as under the present humane
mode of treatment of another class of sufferers, kindness and
consideration are found more effectual as remedial agents than chains
and dungeons, which were formerly resorted to. And whereas the
opportunity of doing overwork in the prisons of our city has been
attended with advantage, by promoting the benefit of the prisoner, and
contributing to the good order, as well as to the pecuniary profit of
the Institutions, thus giving reasonable ground for believing that
further service may be rendered to the cause of humanity, by taking
another step in a like direction, it therefore becomes those
interested in promoting the improvement of their kind, and in
relieving the miseries of public prisons, to consider whether there
be not a mode, by which those convicted of crime may be further
encouraged in a course of good conduct, and confirmed in habits of
morality and good order. Therefore—Resolved: That a Committee of ——
be appointed to take into consideration, and report, whether some plan
may not be suggested, by means of which the terms of sentences might
be somewhat shortened, dependent on a continued course of good conduct
of the prisoner; thus encouraging them in the practice, and perhaps
establishing the habit of subordination and submission to those in
authority, and to the laws of the community; and also to consider any
other plan likely to produce the same effect, that may occur to them,
or be presented for their consideration.”

At a stated meeting of the Acting Committee, held February 21st, 1861,
the Committee appointed to take into consideration the foregoing
Preamble and Resolution, made an elaborate and able report, signed by
four of the members, of which the following is an abstract. They
inform, that after first entering on the consideration of the subject,
they concluded to ask a conference with the Inspectors of the Eastern
Penitentiary, to ascertain their views in relation to the matter. That
their application to the Board was referred to the Visiting
Inspectors, with whom the desired interview was obtained, and the
result was sufficiently encouraging to induce the Committee to give
the subject further consideration. They subsequently concluded that it
was expedient to adopt the principle of the Preamble and Resolution
referred to them, and prepared a schedule of such apportionment of the
time proposed to be deducted as appeared to them suitable; and they
agreed to propose to the Society that an application should be made to
the Legislature for the enactment of a law to carry the same into
effect. This result was arrived at after much reflection on the
subject, and inquiring into the results of the practical working of
the system in five of the States of the Union, to wit: Massachusetts,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio, where the plan had been several
years in operation, and the testimony of the Inspectors and Wardens of
the prisons where it prevailed was highly approbatory.

The Committee also, in the course of the consideration of the subject
referred to them, applied to Judges Thomson, Allison, and Ludlow, of
the Court of Quarter Sessions of this county; Ex-Judge King, largely
experienced in criminal jurisprudence; Ex-Judge Lewis, of the Supreme
Court, and Wm. B. Mann, District Attorney, asking their opinion in
relation to the proposed measure. A written reply was received from
each of them, expressing favorable views.

[As it is proposed to publish this Report, with the letters of the
Judges and District Attorney, in an Appendix, in full, this synopsis
is deemed sufficient for our present purpose.]

The Committee appended to their report the following Resolution:

“Resolved, That a Committee of five be appointed to apply to the
Legislature for the passage of a law, in conformity with the
recommendation set forth, with authority to proceed to Harrisburg, to
endeavor to procure its enactment.”

They also appended thereto a schedule of the proposed deduction to be
made for continued good conduct on the part of prisoners.

The time of the meeting at which the report was received being so
occupied with other matters as not to allow of a full discussion of a
subject of such importance, it was concluded to adjourn for one week,
for this special purpose.

At the adjourned meeting, held February 28th, it was taken up and
freely discussed; but without taking the question on its adoption, it
was continued over to the next stated meeting, with an understanding
that it should then have precedence of all other business.
Accordingly, at this meeting, March 21, 1861, a full expression of the
views of the members, in regard to the measure, took place. After
which, the question was taken by yeas and nays, and resulted in its
adoption by a decided majority. And at the next meeting, one of the
members who had voted in the negative, asked and obtained leave to
have his name recorded in the affirmative, on the ground that he had
voted under a mistake. Thus, the final result was the adoption of this
important measure, by more than two votes in the affirmative, against
one in the negative. A memorial to the Legislature, asking for the
passage of a law to carry out these views of the Society, was
immediately adopted, and being duly signed by the President and
Secretary, a portion of the Committee attended with it at Harrisburg,
to represent the Society in making such explanations as might be
called for, and urging its passage. This was accomplished in the
Senate, about two weeks before the close of the Session, the bill sent
up by the Society having been by each House first referred to the
Judiciary Committee for examination and approval. Final action on it,
in the House of Representatives, did not take place till near the
close of the Session. The Act being passed, was approved by the
Governor, and became a law on the first day of May last. It is
intended to publish it in the Appendix hereto.

We understand that the Inspectors of our County Prison are acting under
this law, and we trust its salutary influences will soon become
apparent. At the Eastern Penitentiary we learn that no direct steps
have been taken towards carrying it into effect, unless the fact of
their having opened a book, in which cases of prisoners _sentenced
since its passage for a term of over ten years_, are entered with a
view to applying its provisions to them, may be viewed as such a step.
They have declined acting, on several pleas, which we think untenable.
One, that the Act is ambiguous and its true meaning not susceptible of
interpretation. Another, that such a law is unconstitutional. But we
submit whether this latter question should have been raised by them,
when the same body of gentlemen about the time this Act was passed,
that is, in their Annual Report issued in January 1861, recommended to
the Legislature the adoption of the following provisions, embracing
precisely the same legal and constitutional principles.

     _First._—“That in all cases of first conviction for crime,
     of minors, the term of imprisonment shall be terminated by
     the Inspectors, with the consent of the president judge of
     the court in which said minor was sentenced, when in their
     opinion the punishment has produced its expected results.”

     _Second._—“That in all cases of first conviction for crime,
     of persons between 21 and 25 years of age, the term of
     imprisonment shall in like manner be lessened, as a reward
     for good conduct, by the reduction of three days in every
     thirty, after the first twelve months of imprisonment.”

We, however, think that it would be illy worth our while on this
occasion, to enter into an elaborate defence of the law, especially,
as it is probable that measures will soon be taken to procure a
judicial interpretation of it. We shall, therefore, dismiss the
subject after merely putting ourselves right, in relation to some
erroneous ex parte statements with regard to our Society, unnecessarily
introduced into the recently published Special Report, in which the
committee of the Inspectors undertake to discuss and condemn the law
in question. First. In two or more instances, it is stated that the
passage of the Law was procured by “members” of the Society; in one,
the assertion is that “some _one or two of the Prison Society’s
Committee_ caused the Act, under examination, to be enacted into a
law.” The history of the whole business which we have just given, from
the first introduction of the measure to the notice of the Acting
Committee, till it became a Law of the State, abundantly proves that
it was the _Society_ which was acting; sometimes, in its associated
capacity, and sometimes, through its individual members, who were empowered
to act for it. The _Society_ appeared at Harrisburg by a _delegation_,
not in a _body_. Second. Certain paragraphs or passages are introduced
into their Report, which are said to have been extracted from an
article entitled, “Considerations respecting some recent legislation
in Pennsylvania, originally written for the Journal of Prison
Discipline, vol. 16, October 1861.” The extracts themselves present an
erroneous view of the proceedings of the Society, but, we are willing,
for the present, to let them pass. But the implication in the Report,
that the Society or its Acting Committee, had cognizance of the
article referred to, when offered for publication in their Journal, is
calculated to make an erroneous impression. Neither the Society nor
the Acting Committee had any responsibility, either for the acceptance
of the part published, or for the rejection of the remainder. It never
came under their notice, till after it was printed and circulated.

_Abuse of Power by Magistrates._—The corrupt and oppressive abuse of
power by the Committing Magistrates is a great evil with which our
Society has been battling almost from its origin, but without yet
vanquishing it, as the report of the Prison Agent for the last year
will abundantly prove. We have a committee under appointment in charge
of the subject.

_Pardons._—The pardoning power, and the manner in which it is
exercised, have also recently again claimed our attention.

_Tobacco._—The Inspectors of our County Prison have adopted a rule by
which the use of tobacco has been entirely excluded from the prisoners
confined there, unless it be in cases strictly medicinal. This rule
has been in force for upwards of two and a half years, and the
resident Physician, in each of his Annual Reports, has spoken in
strong terms of its salutary results. Its use has not yet been
prohibited by the Inspectors in the Eastern Penitentiary, though the
quantity allowed to be furnished has been much reduced. Our Society
has had under the care of a committee, the consideration of the
propriety of memorializing the Inspectors in favor of adopting a
similar rule to that in force in the County Prison, but no final
conclusion has yet been arrived at, so far as to justify any official
action. In the meantime, however, the visitors are encouraged to use
moral suasion amongst those using it, to abandon the practice. It is
very satisfactory to know that this course has been successful in
several instances, and that the individuals have since expressed their
conviction of the advantage of this change in their habits.

_Discontinuance of the Quarterly Journal._—The publication of the
Prison Journal, which was commenced in 1845, as heretofore stated in
regular course, was maintained at a heavy charge upon our funds, so
that after payment of the other current expenses incident to
conducting the Society, such as compensation to the Prison Agent,
room-rent, slates, copy books and other stationery for the use of the
prisoners, &c., the balance, to be appropriated to the relief of
discharged prisoners, and other practical objects properly having
claims on a “Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons,”
was very small, and as appeared to many, insufficient. They doubted
its being a legitimate appropriation of so large a portion of the
income, and individual members frequently conversed together on the
expediency of discontinuing the publication, the annual cost of which
was about $550. In 1858 a resolution to discontinue it was introduced,
and earnestly and largely discussed, but on a pledge given by those
desirous of continuing the publication, that they would take such
steps as would secure an ample addition to our annual income, it was
agreed that it should not be suspended at that time. Efforts were made
soon after, which resulted in an increase in the annual subscriptions
for one or two years, but each year since, a number of our subscribers
declined paying, and the calamitous war which has overtaken our
country, has occasioned such a reduction of our means, both actual and
prospective, as to make it evident that we must either suspend the
publication, or suspend the appropriation, which was already much too
small, for the relief of discharged prisoners. In this state of our
affairs, many of the members could not hesitate a moment which
alternative to choose, and therefore a resolution for its
discontinuance, and the substitution of a full Annual Report was
introduced and entered on the minutes, with notice by the mover that
it would be called up for consideration at the meeting to be held
three months after its introduction. At the meeting designated, it was
accordingly taken up and extensively discussed in the “Acting
Committee,” and a resolution referring it to the next stated meeting
of the _Society_, with the recommendation that the measure should be
there adopted, was passed by a large majority. Accordingly, after
being freely discussed by the Society at that, and also an adjourned
meeting, it was adopted in a modified form, by which the _Quarterly_
publication should be discontinued, and an _Annual_ Journal
substituted for it, which should contain an Annual Report, and such
essays or other matter as might be offered, and be deemed suitable by
an Editorial Board, to be elected for the service.

Before leaving the subject of the discontinuance of our Quarterly
Journal, it is proper to refer to its late editor, our fellow member,
Frederick A. Packard, who took charge of it a few years after its
commencement, and conducted the publication with marked ability from
that time till its close. The Society is indebted to his pen for many
valuable articles published in the Journal, and separately.

_Lunatics._—An evil of no small magnitude, in the consideration of
which the Society has been earnestly engaged, is the practice which
prevails of committing lunatics to our County Prison, some of whom
have been convicted on criminal charges, and others “picked up in the
streets, and committed for want of a better home,” as we are assured
by the Prison Agent. An application, in which our Society is
co-operating, is about to be made to the Legislature, which it is
hoped may result in an arrangement being made which may relieve the
prison of this class of its inmates.

_Prison Agent._—William J. Mullen, who has for several years been
under appointment by the Inspectors of the County Prison, and also by
our Society as “Prison Agent,” has been as indefatigable in the
discharge of his duties during the past year as heretofore. His
particular province is to take cognizance of, and inquire into all
cases of alleged oppressive and illegal commitments to the County
Prison; and in the course of his investigations he frequently procures
conclusive evidence that individuals have been committed on charges
which were utterly groundless, or at least frivolous and insufficient.
From his interesting Annual Report, embracing the year 1861, just
issued, we learn that he investigated 2,700 cases during the year, and
with the co-operation of the constituted authorities, succeeded in
liberating 1,182 of these from prison. He seems to have devoted his
whole life and energies to this service, the duties of which he
discharges with great fidelity.

_Prison Library._—The Library at the Penitentiary now contains about
2,900 volumes, of which about 680 are in the German and French
languages. The selection has been made with a view to furnishing
interesting and instructive reading, adapted to the various capacities
and tastes of the prisoners; and it is satisfactory to be able to
report that the books are extensively used. The number of volumes
loaned during last year was about 20,000. When we remember that the
average number in confinement during the year was not over 458, many
of whom were very degraded and ignorant, and wholly unable to read
when they entered, it becomes in our view, an interesting feature of
our system of discipline, not only that the opportunity for mental
exercise and enjoyment should be so freely presented, but that these
poor creatures should feel the inclination to avail themselves of it
so largely, whether it be for mere amusement or for instruction. There
is also a smaller Library at the County Prison of a similar character.

_Number in the Penitentiary in 1861._—The entire number of prisoners
in the Penitentiary during the year 1861, was 646. The largest number
at any one time was 485, and the smallest 431. The state of health
amongst them was generally good, and the per centage of mortality
exceedingly small, there having been only two deaths.

_Prison Society’s Visitors and Visiting._—We now come to speak of
what, under all considerations, is, we believe, the most important
part of the action and services of the Society—that which is
accomplished through the agency of the Visiting Committees. To give to
those who have not been on the appointment a clear view of the manner
and extent of the action in this direction, it may be best to mention
the preliminary arrangements. At the Annual Meeting of the Society
forty-four members are elected, who, with the officers ex-officio,
form the “Acting Committee.” After the election, this Committee
organizes and subdivides itself into two Visiting Committees, one of
them allotted to the County Prison, and the other to the Eastern
Penitentiary. These sub-Committees next organize and allot to each of
the members a certain division, or portion of a block or corridor,
containing only such a number of cells as will admit of his paying
frequent visits to each of the inmates. The Committees hold meetings
monthly, at which time each member is expected to make a report of the
number of visits he has paid to the prison, and the number of
interviews he has had with the prisoners, particularly designating
such as took place _inside of the prisoners cell_, which interviews
are considered to be much more likely to be serviceable than those at
the cell door. When any thing of especial interest occurs, it is
expected also to be added to the report. The reports, at least as
regards the Penitentiary Committee, are required by the rules to be in
writing, and 182 of such reports have been made by them during the
year just past, giving an account of 776 visits to the Penitentiary,
and of an aggregate of 8942 interviews with the prisoners—6149 of
which were inside of the cells, and 2793 at the cell doors. These
interviews are believed to average about fifteen minutes in length,
though each case is governed by its own circumstances. With some, very
little more than a friendly salutation seems called for, as there is
no ground to work upon, with hope of being serviceable; while, with
others, a half hour, or in some instances even an hour, may be
profitably spent. In performing these visits with the hope of doing
good, it is deemed essential to approach the prisoner in a spirit of
kindness, and thus convince him that, although the world may have cast
him off, and notwithstanding the degraded condition to which his
crimes and depredations on society have brought him, there is one at
least who cares for his soul, and who feels that, although he has
justly forfeited his liberty, he is still a fellow being, and a
candidate for Divine Mercy, and therefore entitled to such a measure
of the common comforts of life as the law allows him. When the
prisoner, by this means, becomes fully assured that the visitor has no
sinister purpose in view, but is alone prompted by desires for his
good, he becomes willing to hear freely, even if he does not assent to
the importance of such counsel as may be addressed to him. Under these
circumstances, the visits sometimes become deeply interesting
occasions, both to the visitor and the visited. Here, where no human
eye sees, and no human ear hears them, the overshadowings of Divine
Love are sometimes witnessed to soften that heart which had been so
long hardened, that even the criminal himself had believed that it
would never again be susceptible of feeling; and the visitor
acknowledges that, through the same influence which softened the heart
of the prisoner, he has been enabled to hand forth counsel suited to
the case before him. Some of these interviews, are mere kindly, social
opportunities, in which no religious instruction is attempted. The
prisoners are encouraged to be obedient to the rules of the prison,
and respectful in their deportment toward the officers; and in the
daily reverent reading of the Holy Scriptures, and committing portions
of them to memory. They are also recommended to adopt and maintain
habits of cleanliness, both in their persons and cells, which is
entirely in their power, as each one has a hydrant at his command.

Those who have had little or no school education, are urged to avail
themselves of the opportunity now afforded them, through the aid of
the teachers employed by the Institution, to acquire a knowledge which
will not only prove a source of enjoyment, but will be of real service
to them after leaving the prison walls. The results in some instances
are remarkable. Our space, however, will only admit of a short
reference to two cases, which are by no means solitary ones. One
visitor reports—“No. 4186, when I first visited him, did not know the
letters of the alphabet. He said he had tried to learn and could not.
I persuaded him to make another attempt, and endeavored to impress
upon his mind the necessity of at least learning to read his Bible,
that he might learn his duty and regulate his future life. He did make
the attempt, and can now read and write very well.” No. 4340, a German
prisoner, at the time of his entrance into the penitentiary, could not
read or write a word in the English language. Fifteen months
afterwards he could read in our language with such facility, that he
rarely met with words which he could not understand, and much of his
English writing was beautiful. The Visiting Committee of the Penitentiary
appoints a sub-Committee to attend to the cases about to be discharged
by the expiration of their terms of confinement. It is their duty to
see each prisoner before the expiration of his term, to inquire
generally into his condition and prospects, give him such counsel as
to his future course as seems to them suitable, supply him with such
articles of clothing as he requires, sometimes to give small sums of
money for their immediate necessities, and to aid them in obtaining
employment, or to get to their friends, as the case may call for. Some
of the more hopeful among them are encouraged to write to the
Committee, informing as to the manner of their getting along, &c. They
occasionally receive very satisfactory letters.

The importance of the visitors from our Society, in aiding to carry
out the intention of the law, that the prisoners should be frequently
seen by proper persons other than the keepers, will be better
appreciated when the fact is adverted to, that the law directs that
“the Inspectors, in their _weekly visits_ to the several places of
confinement, _shall speak to each prisoner_ confined therein.” And
with regard to the Warden, the law says, “he shall visit _every cell and
apartment_, and see _every prisoner_, under his care, _at least once
in every day_.”

In speaking on the subject of visiting, and the care extended to
discharged prisoners, we have more directly referred to the
Penitentiary than the County Prison, for particular reasons. A
prominent one is, that the Penitentiary illustrates the “Pennsylvania
System,” while the County Prison, on account of the crowds sent there
for vagrancy, intoxication, disorderly conduct, &c., does so very
imperfectly. Another is, that the population of the latter, being of a
less permanent and settled character, the same systematic course of
visiting cannot be carried out, and consequently a detailed record
of the proceedings there has not reached us. The visitors allotted to
that prison have discharged their duty very faithfully, and the
members, in the course of the year, have had numerous interviews with
those confined there.

“_The Association of Women Friends._”—The care of visiting the female
departments in both prisons has been left with “The Association of
Women Friends” (to whom our Prison Society makes an annual
appropriation), who have undertaken the service from a conscientious
sense of duty, and, we trust, with much benefit to the visited. In the
year 1861, they paid 1065 visits to the female prisoners in the
Penitentiary and County Prison, of which 499 were at the former, and
566 at the latter. They state in their report that they “are
encouraged from time to time, by many little evidences, that their
labors are not in vain in the Lord. In a few instances, apparent
amendment of life has been the result of His blessing on their feeble
efforts.”

_Death of Richard Williams._—Since our last annual meeting, Richard
Williams, who had long been pleasantly associated with us as a member
of the Acting Committee, and who had been a faithful, kind-hearted,
and useful visitor at the Eastern Penitentiary, has, in the ordering
of inscrutable wisdom, been removed from works, as we trust, to the
fruition of rewards amongst the blessed.

         EDWARD H. BONSALL,
         TOWNSEND SHARPLESS,
         CHARLES C. LATHROP,
         ALFRED H. LOVE.

  PHILADELPHIA, _1st Mo. (Jan.) 23, 1862_.




APPENDIX.


REPORT ON THE SUBJECT OF LAW SHORTENING SENTENCES.

The Committee to consider the expediency of applying to the
Legislature for a graduated diminution of sentences, dependent upon
the continued good conduct of prisoners, having conferred together,
and being favorably impressed with the advantages likely to arise from
the adoption of the plan, concluded to ask a conference with the
Inspectors of the Eastern Penitentiary.

Their application to the Board was referred to the Visiting
Inspectors, and an interview was accordingly had with them, at which
your Committee received sufficient encouragement to induce them to
give the subject further consideration.

At a subsequent meeting of your Committee, it was agreed that a Report
should be prepared in favor of an application to the Legislature; and
also a schedule of such apportionment of the time proposed to be
deducted, as might appear suitable. It was also agreed to prepare a
memorial for the consideration of the Acting Committee, addressed to
the Legislature, asking for a modification of the law in that
particular; and setting forth that several other States have adopted
the principle, and that in practice it appears to be cordially
approved by those who have administered the several laws under these
provisions. Both of which documents are herewith submitted.

The Committee have herein embodied a summary, showing the different
States which have enacted a law upon the subject, with their
respective gradations, with other information relating thereto: viz.,
in MASSACHUSETTS, the law says: For less than _three years’_
sentence, _one day in each month_ may be deducted for good conduct. For
sentences, from _three to ten years, two days in each month_; and for
_ten years and over, five days_. The _Inspectors now propose_ to
increase the time, and that for _less than three years, one day_ in
each month; _three to seven years, two days; seven to ten years, four
days; ten years and over, five days_. They say, as an aid to discipline,
it is of great value; affecting some, who are insensible to other
motives; and is a strong inducement to good behavior. The Warden fully
indorses this, and says, another year’s experience confirms it.

MICHIGAN says: For the _first year, one day in each month_; for the
_second year, two days_; and after that, _four days in each month_.
For a willful violation of the rules, Inspectors have the power to
deprive of any or of all the time gained. The Inspectors have recently
recommended to the Legislature, that it should be made _four days_ in
the month, _from the beginning_. The WARDEN commends this as a wise
measure. He says the law works _first rate_, and there is but little
punishment.

WISCONSIN says: At the end of each month, the Commissioner shall give
to each prisoner who has conducted well, a certificate, diminishing
his term, _not exceeding five days in each month_. All certificates to
remain on file, subject to being annulled for subsequent misconduct. A
certificate of good conduct, at the expiration of sentence,
_restores to citizenship_. The Warden recommends, that, after good
conduct for two years, _ten_ or _fifteen_, or _even twenty days_, for
_long sentences_, might be deducted from each month.

In IOWA, the law says: For the _first month, one day_ shall be
diminished for good conduct; at the end of the _second month, two days_
additional; _third month, three days_; and for the _fourth month, four
days_; and _four days for each subsequent month_ of such continued good
behavior.

In OHIO, the law of 1856 says: For the _first month, one day_ shall be
deducted for good conduct; _for the second, two days_; _for the third,
three days_; for the _fourth, four days_; and for the remainder of his
term, _four days in each month_. After three years’ experience, viz., in
1859, the law was further modified, increasing the number to _five days
in each month_. It is, however, provided, that the Directors may
diminish the time gained, either in whole or in part, for willful
violation of the rules. If their conduct be uniformly good, they shall
be entitled, at the expiration of their time, to receive a certificate
from the Warden, on presentation of which to the Governor, they shall
be restored to all the rights of citizenship.

The Inspectors say: “We cannot too strongly recommend that feature of
the ‘new law’ which offers a premium for good behavior, by deducting a
portion of their term of imprisonment.” They also say: “Banished as
they are from the social enjoyments of life, without some motive, the
mind naturally sinks into a stagnant indifference. The diminution of
sentence, and the restoration of all rights of citizenship, are
powerful incentives to good behavior.”

The Warden says: “Among the reforms already introduced (in Ohio), none
has evinced the power of controlling the wayward in so striking a
manner as that provision of our law allowing a diminution of time for
good conduct.” He says: “The former officers of this prison bear
testimony in their reports to the benefits derived from this law; but
I think,” he says, “they fail to express even a moiety of what is
really its due.” He further adds: “If it be a fact, and I presume none
will dispute it, that no person can continue to _do right_ (whether
forced or otherwise), for any considerable length of time, without
being to some extent permanently benefited—then whatever is the
greatest incentive to good conduct, is in my opinion the best
calculated to accomplish the greatest amount of good. That the
diminution of time _is this incentive_, none that have watched its
operations will feel disposed to dispute; and I know they will not
think of denying, that, combined with our _overwork system_, it has
done more to preserve order and restrain vicious passion than all
other incentives together. Language fails to describe its effects. Its
work must be seen to be appreciated.

He further says: “As no special provision was made for United States
prisoners, they received none of the benefits of this law; but on
application to the Attorney-General, an opinion was obtained, by which
these convicts also receive the same benefit.”

Your Committee, in arranging their schedule, have taken into
consideration, that a sentence of equal length, under the system of
separation, is a greater privation to the prisoner than under other
systems; and therefore the scale of abridgment is more liberal, and
particularly after the third year, and progressively so, according to
the increased length of sentence.

The advantages likely to result from the contemplated improvement,
commend themselves so fully to our better feelings, that little need
be said by way of illustration; but the expression of some views may
perhaps be important. In the preamble to the resolution of our
appointment, it is suggested that “_the hope of reward is to the
human mind one of the strongest incentives to good conduct_;” and in
the relation in which we are considering it, the principle may be
applied with its fullest force; from the fact that prisoners are shut
out from the ordinary sources of pleasurable influences. Everything,
therefore, partaking of the character of a reward is received and
dwelt upon by them with considerable interest. This, we think, must be
evident to those accustomed to visiting prisoners, in a friendly and
familiar manner. Many of them, who for the first time, find themselves
within the limits of a cell, of which they are to be the inmates for a
series of years, experience a shock, which operates with great force
upon their feelings; and whatever may have been their previous
condition in life, yet possessing the attributes and aspirations
common to our nature, they may be acted upon by like influences.

Separated from the world, and deprived of the enjoyments to which they
may have been accustomed, a feeling of despondence often covers the
mind; and the absence of the usual sympathies and incentives leads to
great discouragement.

Such of us as may have been deprived of our ordinary inducements to
exertion, even for a short period, can in some degree feel for those,
so completely shut out from such impulses. It is these influences that
usually stimulate and control most of our pursuits in life; without
them, existence to many would be a burthen.

A long and dreary confinement is before the prisoner, and whether the
sentence be for a greater or a less period, to his imagination it
seems to be of almost interminable length; and under present
circumstances, feeling that no effort on his part can diminish it, the
future seems enveloped in a cloud. The prospect, therefore, of even a
_brief abridgment of sentence_, would be looked forward to with great
delight. It would serve as a kind of morning star in his horizon, the
prospect of which would quicken the pulse and encourage to effort—or
as an anchor to fall back upon, when clouds of depression overshadow
the mind—or when a state of irritation or impatience, arising from
nervousness, might, like a storm, overcome his better judgment, and
drive him to some act of desperation.

In confirmation of the position, that rewards have a potent influence
on the inmates of Penal Institutions, it may be mentioned that one of
our Committee, in a recent tour in Europe, visited the Parkhurst
Prison (for lads and young men), in the Isle of Wight, when he was
informed by the Governor of the prison, that in the year 1849, when
there were no special rewards existing, that the number of offences
recorded were between five and six thousand. In the following year,
1850, a modified system in that particular having been introduced, the
number of offences were reduced 25 per cent., while, in the following
year, viz., 1851, a small amount of wages and other privileges being
allowed, the offences were reduced to 678; that is, from near 6000 to
about one-eighth of that number. The Governor of the Institution
added, there had also been an increased cheerfulness and greater
obedience to officers. Comment is unnecessary.

Your Committee may here remark, that the range of thought with
prisoners is often so limited, and their sources of enjoyment so few,
that everything of a pleasant character is dwelt upon with much
interest; so much so, that they can often tell the _precise day_ they
were last visited, and by whom, although weeks or months may have
elapsed; but a morbid feeling at times prevails with others. They
think that society has done its worst toward them; and under that
impression their minds are strongly embittered; and sometimes a
determined feeling of revenge is unhappily induced. But the abiding
consciousness that provision has been made by this _same community_,
by means of which they may materially shorten their term of
imprisonment, will, we think, serve to awaken a feeling of gratitude,
and keep before them continually a _door of hope_; which, whether
considered in a temporal or in a spiritual point of view, is so
essential to the happiness of all human beings.

     “Hope to the heart both strength and comfort give;
      But hope without an object cannot live.”

Besides, the _discipline of mind_ required for maintaining advantages
gained, will silently but steadily be doing its work: and the
_habitual_ observance of rules of good order, to which many have never
been accustomed, may open a new field of thought and of action; and
under the divine blessing cause a change of character. In addition to
which, the satisfaction derived from a correct course of conduct would
be a suitable subject for our Committees to enlarge upon, in their
visits; showing, that, by pursuing a similar course on their release
from prison, numerous advantages would probably follow.

Little circumstances often change a man’s course in life, and
sometimes cause a great improvement in conduct; and the simple
appliance of enabling them thus to shorten their sentence—giving
evidence of a disposition to temper justice with mercy, might produce
the desired reformatory effect; and your Committee, in view of the
experience gained in other institutions, can hardly doubt of its
beneficial results in our own. For who shall say what slight
incentive, or what word of kindness or encouragement, may not change
the whole man and his future destiny.

But an objection has been stated to the measure proposed; and that is,
that the worst men are generally well-behaved in prison; and that such
would derive more benefit than those disposed to reform. So far as
that might be the case, _even their good conduct_ would be a good
example to the others; _certainly it could do no harm_; and even the
worst of men might be benefited by bringing a new influence to bear
upon them. But this objection, as we conceive, is not of sufficient
force to prevent the adoption of what is proposed; if it were, our
public institutions might perhaps be closed, and even private
charities abandoned, because impostors sometimes partake of their
advantages. The Inspectors of the Massachusetts prison, as before
stated, say that this plan has an effect upon some who are insensible
to other motives.

Such things are not unfrequent in ordinary life, and many a wayward
youth has been diverted from the downward course by a gentle
admonition, or by a casual observation, perhaps not even intended for
his ear. And how many of _us_ have been preserved from allurements and
temptations to evil, by the kind and watchful care of a tender and
religious mother; a privilege which many of these unfortunates have
never enjoyed. Under like circumstances, can any of us say, that our
own lot might not have been like theirs; and indeed may not the happy
and salutary influences by which we have been surrounded, have been
the means of preserving us from a like unhappy condition? Many persons
are impressed with the idea, that a man convicted of crime, and sent
to a penitentiary, must necessarily be changed in his entire nature;
and that there is no hope of a restoration to usefulness. But it is
not all who are sent to prison that are deliberately and determinedly
depraved; as some of us know. Many of them have been the dupes of
designing men, who have escaped; others have been placed in
unfavorable circumstances, and through sudden temptation have fallen;
others, from indulgence in strong drink and exposure to evil company;
and others, perhaps, from the bad example or neglect of parents.

Their arrest and conviction, have brought many to a sense of their
folly; some of whom, no doubt, through humiliation and prayer, have
sought for and obtained forgiveness.

Is it not, therefore, wise in us to endeavor to do what we can, and
leave the result to Him “who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on
the good; and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust?” “In the
morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thy hand, for
thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that; or
whether they both shall be alike good.”

In conclusion, your Committee may state that they have desired to
possess themselves of such practical information as might be within
their reach, and have taken some pains to do so; all of which has but
confirmed their favorable feeling. Much of what has been thus
obtained, is the result of the experience of prison officers in other
States. But still further to satisfy themselves, one of their number
had interviews with two officers of long standing in one of our own
prisons, both of whom warmly commended the plan proposed, and desired
to see it carried out. If the proposed change be adopted, your
Committee are encouraged to believe, not only that the character of
the prisoners may be improved, but that, in time, the number of
applications for pardon may be materially diminished.

And finally, they are reminded, from high authority, that a persecutor
of the righteous, on his way to Damascus, was suddenly converted; and
that a touch of the Saviour’s garment healed an otherwise incurable
disease. While instances are on the same record, of others who, having
committed grievous offences, were, on repentance, graciously forgiven,
and through faithfulness made instruments for good in the hand of
their heavenly Master; so among these unfortunates there may be some
who, through the influence of divine grace, may yet prove as brands
plucked from the burning.

         TOWNSEND SHARPLESS,
         CHARLES ELLIS,
         CHAS. C. LATHROP,
         ISAAC BARTON.

  _Philadelphia, 2d Mo. 20th, 1861._

       *     *     *     *     *

LETTERS FROM THE JUDGES IN FAVOR OF THE MEASURE.

PHILADELPHIA, _March 18, 1861_.

DEAR SIR—I rejoice to learn from your letter of to-day, that the
Prison Society of our city have under consideration the propriety of
petitioning the Legislature for an act enabling those convicted of
crime, by a continued course of good conduct, to diminish their
sentences a few days in each month. The hope of reward, and the fear
of punishment, furnish the incentives to good conduct. All systems of
religion are founded on these incentives, and they influence all human
action. Their application to the imprisoned convict is nothing more
than the application of a well-tested principle to a more difficult
case to that to which it is ordinarily applied, and I have no doubt
that the policy will be productive of beneficial results. There are
many cases, I admit, where reformation is entirely hopeless—long
experience in the administration of justice forces me to make this
admission. But in all cases where there is any hope of reformation,
the system proposed must, in my opinion, produce beneficial results. I
regret that I am pressed for time so that I cannot say more at
present, than to add to what I have already said, the expression of
the hope that the proposed policy may be sanctioned by the Society and
by the Legislature under judicious regulations to be prescribed by law.

          Your’s very truly,
                    ELLIS LEWIS.


PHILADELPHIA, _March 20, 1861_.

DEAR SIR—The proposition to reduce monthly a portion of the sentences
of such convicts as conduct themselves with uniform propriety, is one
that meets my hearty concurrence; it is equally recommended by the
strongest consideration of policy and humanity. It is the very best
system of pardons which could be devised, since under it the remission
of the sentence of the law against the offender is not the result of
unjust favoritism or mistaken sympathy, but the fair reward of a
meritorious effort on the part of the convict to amend his conduct.
Such a system would be in entire harmony with our penal code, the
primary object of which is to reform the offender, and all effort in
that direction should be encouraged and rewarded.

          Respect’y your ob’t. servant,
                    EDW’D. KING.


PHILADELPHIA, _March 21, 1861_.

DEAR SIR—I am disposed to regard very favorably the proposition to
modify the extent of criminal sentences, by allowing the good
behaviour of the convict to work a reduction of the time of his
imprisonment. We all know that the hope of reward is a great incentive
to human conduct, and that it will produce its natural effects even in
the cell of a prison. The experience which has been obtained of such a
method of reducing sentences in several of the States where it has
been practically tested, seems to favor its adoption; and upon general
principles it appears to offer a method of meliorating the severity of
punishment, without affecting its desired results. I should be pleased
if the views expressed by you could be carried out by proper
legislation.

          Very truly your’s,
                    OSWALD THOMPSON.


PHILADELPHIA, _March 21, 1861_.

DEAR SIR—I wrote to you a short note yesterday, upon the subject of
our late interview, and entrusted it to one of the officers of the
Court for delivery. I am surprised that it did not reach you. I repeat
now, in substance, its contents. The plan suggested, of giving to
persons convicted and sentenced for crime, the power of shortening
their term of imprisonment, I think an admirable one; and one which, I
confess, had not suggested itself to my mind before its presentation
by you. One thus confined will feel that something is left to him
after the prison doors have closed upon him, for which he may strive.
Something he can do by which he will be personally benefited—that
_all_ is not hopeless; and as an inducement to good behavior,
self-control, and the foundation of habits to which, in many
instances, he was before a stranger, will not be without its present
and future benefit to him. I think the experiment well worthy of a
trial. It promises, in my judgment, beneficial results, not only to
the prisoner but to society, and if it should not answer the
expectations of its friends, it can at any time be abandoned.

          J. S. ALLISON.


WEST PHILADELPHIA.

DEAR SIR—Your note of 19th inst. has received attentive
consideration, and although I cannot, at this time, give to you my
reasons for the conclusions to which I have arrived, yet I can give
you these conclusions, as follows, viz.: As a matter of experiment the
act might be passed, subject to the following restrictions:

1st. That the time specified shall not exceed _three_ days in any
one month.

2d. That it shall only apply to cases of first conviction.

3d. That it shall expire by its own limitation, in say two or three
years, unless experience demands its re-enactment.

4th. That the act shall in no wise be considered as the beginning of a
system which has for its objects the enactment of a series of laws
intended in practical operations to discharge every prisoner when
supposed to be, or when he is in fact, reformed.

          Your’s truly,
  _March 20, 1861._      JAS. R. LUDLOW.


PHILADELPHIA, _March 20, 1861_.

MR DEAR SIR—I highly approve of the enacting of a law to enable those
convicted of crime to diminish their sentence by a continued course of
good conduct. Towards the close of prisoners’ terms the authorities
are often beset with applications to shorten it, and if the prisoner
knew that it was in his power to do it, the authorities would be
released from such application, and the prisoner, by adherence to good
conduct, would form habits of subordination and virtue that would go
far towards protecting him from perpetration of crime when released.

I should be in favor of extending the premium so as to reach
one-eighth of the term, starting with two or three days the first
month, and increasing as the prisoner improved. The plan is admirable,
and in my opinion should be put in immediate practice.

          Your’s very truly,
                    WM. B. MANN,
                    _Dist. Att’y._

       *     *     *     *     *

THE LAW.

_An Act relative to Prison Discipline._


SECTION 1.—_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General
Assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by authority of the same_,
That from and after the passage of this Act, it shall be the duty of
the wardens and superintendents of the several penitentiaries and
prisons of this Commonwealth in which criminals are confined, who have
been convicted and sentenced by any court of justice of this State to
undergo an imprisonment of more than six months, to keep a book, in
which shall be entered the name of each person so confined, and a
record of every infraction or violation by him or her of the printed
and published rules of such penitentiary or prison, with the
punishment (if any) inflicted on account thereof, which said book
shall be laid before the inspectors at their regular stated meetings,
for examination and approval.

SECTION 2.—That every prisoner or convict sentenced as aforesaid, who
shall have no such infraction or violation of the said rules recorded
against him or her during any month of the first year of his or her
imprisonment, shall be entitled to a deduction from the term of his or
her sentence of one day for the first month, of two additional days
for the second month, and of three additional days for the third and
each of the remaining months of the said first year of imprisonment,
and shall also be entitled for continued good conduct during the
second year, to a similar deduction of four days for each month during
which he or she shall not have violated the rules aforesaid, and to a
deduction of one additional day per month for each succeeding year
until the expiration of the tenth year, and to an additional deduction
of two days per month during each year of the remainder thereof:
_Provided_, That it shall be lawful for the inspectors of said
penitentiaries or prisons, if any such convicts or persons shall
wilfully infringe or violate any of said rules or regulations, or
offend in any other way, to strike off the whole or any part of the
deduction which may have been obtained previous to the date of such
offence.

SECTION 3.—That the said inspectors shall have full power and
authority to discharge the said criminals whenever they shall have
served out the term of their sentence, less the number of days to
which they are entitled under the provisions of this act.

SECTION 4.—That the said inspectors shall direct the warden or
superintendent to give to each prisoner, who may in consequence of
good conduct be discharged at an earlier period than he would
otherwise have been entitled to, a certificate thereof, stating
therein the number of days that have been deducted from his original
sentence for good conduct.

_Approved_ the first day of May, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred
and sixty-one.

       *     *     *     *     *

  MEMBERS.

  Ashhurst, Lewis R.
  Armstrong, William
  Anderson, V. William
  Atmore, Frederick B.
  Brown, John A.
  Brown, Frederick
  Brown, Moses
  Brown, Thomas Wistar
  Brown, Abraham C.
  Brown, N. B.
  Brown, Benneville D.
  Brown, Mary D.
  Bell, John M. D.,
  Biddle, William
  Biddle, John
  Barton, Isaac
  Burgin, George II., M. D.
  Bohlen, John
  Binney, Horace Jr.
  Bayard, James
  Beesley, T. E., M. D.
  Beesley, B. Wistar
  Bowen, William E.
  Bettle, Samuel
  Bettle, William
  Baldwin, Matthias W.
  Barcroft, Stacy B.
  Bailey, Joshua L.
  Baily, Joel J.
  Burr, William H.
  Boardman, H. A.
  Branson, Samuel
  Bunting, Jacob T.
  Bacon, Richard W.
  Bacon, Josiah
  Brock, Jonathan
  Barclay, Andrew C.
  Brooke, Stephen H.
  Brooks, Henry
  Baines, Edward
  Budd, Thomas A.
  Bispham, Samuel
  Broadbent, S.
  Brant, Josiah
  Bringhurst, George
  Beaux, John Adolph
  Collins, Issac
  Cope, Alfred
  Cope, Herman
  Cope, M. C.
  Cope, Henry
  Cope, Francis R.
  Cope, Thomas P.
  Colwell, Stephen
  Caldwell, James E.
  Caldwell, William Warner
  Cresson, John C.
  Claghorn, John W.
  Chandler, Joseph R.
  Carter, John
  Campbell, James R.
  Comegys, B. B.
  Childs, George W.
  Child, H. T., M .D.
  Caley, Samuel
  Cooper, Joseph B.
  Chance, Jeremiah C.
  Coates, Benjamin
  Chamberlain, Lloyd
  Conrad, James M.
  Cook, Jay
  Corlies, Samuel Fisher
  Clark, Robert C.
  Collier, Daniel L.
  Comly, Franklin A.
  Demmé, Charles R.
  Ducachet, Henry W.
  Dawson, Mordecai L.
  Dorsey, William
  Dutilh, E. G.
  Ditzler, William U.
  Dreer, Ferdinand J.
  Dickinson, Mahlon H.
  Dickinson, John M.
  Davis, R. C.
  Derbyshire, Alexander J.
  Derbyshire, John
  Donnel, Robert
  Dennis, William H.
  Duane, William
  Earp, Thomas
  Evans, Charles M. D.
  Evans, William Jr.
  Evans, Robert E.
  Evans, J. Wistar
  Erringer, J. L.
  Edwards, William L.
  Ellison, John B.
  Emlen, Samuel
  Eyre, Edward E.
  Eyre, William
  Erety, George
  Farnum, John
  Fraley, Frederick
  Foulke, William P.
  Fullerton, Alex.
  Farr, John C.
  Frazier, John F.
  Ford, William
  Ford, John M.
  Furness, William H.
  French, William H.
  Field, Charles J.
  Fox, Henry C.
  Franciscus, Albert H.
  Funk, Charles W.
  Garrett, Thomas C.
  Greeves, James R.
  Gilpin, John F.
  Grigg, John
  Gummere, Charles J.
  Gardner, Richard, M. D.
  Hunt, Uriah
  Hockley, John
  Holloway, John S.
  Husband, Thomas J.
  Hughes, Joseph B.
  Homer, Henry
  Homer, Benjamin
  Hancock, Samuel P.
  Holman, D. Shepherd
  Hand, James C.
  Hazeltine, John
  Hastings, Matthew
  Hollinshead, Benjamin M.
  Huston, Samuel
  Hacker, Morris
  Hurley, Aaron A.
  Harbert, Charles
  Heiskell, Coulson
  Ingersoll, Joseph R.
  Ingram, William
  Iungerich, Lewis
  Jeanes, Joshua T.
  Jones, Isaac C.
  Jones, Jacob P.
  Jones, Isaac T.
  Jones, William D.
  Jones, Justus P.
  Jones, William Pennel
  Janney, Benjamin S. Jr.
  Jackson, Charles C.
  Johnson, Israel H.
  Johnson, Ellwood
  Johnston, Robert S.
  Justice, Philip S.
  Kimber, Thomas
  Kaighn, James E.
  Kane, Thomas L.
  Kean, Joseph
  Kelly, William D.
  Kelly, Henry H.
  Kintzing, William F.
  Kneedler, J. S.
  Knorr, G. Frederick
  Klapp, Joseph, M. D.
  Kitchen, James, M. D.
  Ketcham, John
  Knight, Edward C.
  Kidderlin, William J.
  Kester, John Jr.
  Kinsey, William
  Latimer, Thomas
  Lambert, John
  Lovering, Joseph S.
  Lovering, Joseph S. Jr.
  Lewis, Henry Jr.
  Lewis, Edward
  Lippincott, John
  Lippincott, Joshua
  Lytle, John J.
  Longstreth, J. Cooke
  Ludwig, William C.
  Landell, Washington J.
  Laing, Henry M.
  Lesley, Robert
  Lathrop, Charles C.
  Lynch, William
  Luther, R. Morris.
  McCall, Peter
  Meredith, Wm. M.
  Myers, John B.
  Morris, Isaac P.
  Massey, Robt. V.
  Maris, John M.
  Morris, Charles M.
  Morris, Wistar
  Morris, Caspar, M. D.
  Morris, Anthony P.
  Morris, Elliston P.
  Montgomery, Richard R.
  Mercer, Singleton A.
  Mullen, William J.
  Megarge, Charles
  Martin, William
  Martin, Abraham
  McAllister, John Jr.
  McAllister, John A.
  McAllister, William Y.
  MacAdam, William R.
  McAllister, F. H.
  Marsh, Benjamin V.
  Morton, Samuel C.
  Merrill, William O. B.
  Morrell, R. B.
  Mellor, Thomas
  Mitcheson, M. J.
  Norris, Samuel
  Neall, Daniel
  Newal, William
  Needles, William N.
  Nesmith, Alfred
  Nicholson, William
  Newman, C. L.
  Ormsby, Henry
  Orne, Benjamin
  Packard, Frederick A.
  Purves, William
  Parrish, William D.
  Parrish, Joseph, M. D.
  Poulson, Charles A.
  Perot, William S.
  Perot, Francis
  Perot, Charles P.
  Perot, T. Morris
  Patterson, Joseph
  Patterson, William C.
  Patterson, Morris
  Potter, Alonzo, D. D.
  Price, Eli K.
  Price, Richard
  Perkins, Samuel H.
  Pearsall, Robert
  Pitfield, Benjamin H.
  Pearson, William H.
  Peters, James
  Peterson, Lawrence
  Potts, Joseph
  Parry, Samuel
  Palmer, Charles
  Richardson, Richard
  Richardson, William H.
  Robins, Thomas
  Robins, John Jr.
  Ritter, Abraham Jr.
  Rasin, Warner M.
  Read, W. H. J.
  Robb, Charles
  Rehn, William L.
  Rutter, Clement S.
  Roberts, Algernon S.
  Ridgway, Thomas
  Rice, John
  Rudman, William C.
  Robinson, Thomas A.
  Randolph, Philip P.
  Rowland, A. G.
  Richards, George K.
  Smedley, Nathan
  Shippen, William, M. D.
  Scull, David
  Schaffer, William L.
  Scattergood, Joseph
  Shannon, Ellwood
  Sharpless, William P.
  Simons, George W.
  Stokes, Samuel E.
  Shoemaker, Benjamin H.
  Speakman, Thomas H.
  Starr, F. Ratchford
  Smith, William H.
  Saunders, McPherson
  Stokes, Edward D.
  Sloan, Samuel
  Smith, Joseph P.
  Stone, James N.
  Simes, Samuel
  Stuart, George H.
  Stewart, William P.
  Townsend, Edward
  Taylor, Franklin
  Taylor, John D.
  Taylor, George W.
  Trewendt, Theodore
  Tredick, B. T.
  Thomas, John
  Taber, George
  Troubat, Raymond, M. D.
  Thompson, John J.
  Troutman, George M.
  Thornley, Joseph H.
  Thissell, H. N.
  Van Pelt, Peter
  Vaux, George
  Wharton, Thomas F.
  Wood, Horatio C.
  Wood, Richard Jr.
  Welsh, William
  Welsh, Samuel
  Welsh, John
  Wetherill, John M.
  Williamson, Passmore
  White, John J.
  Wainright, William
  Wright, Samuel
  Wright, Isaac
  Willets, Jeremiah
  Wiegand, John
  Wilstach, William P.
  Williamson, Peter
  Warner, Redwood F.
  Walton, Coates
  Williams, Jacob T.
  Whilldin, Alexander
  Zell, T. Ellwood


  LIFE MEMBERS.

  _On payment of twenty dollars and upwards._

  Barclay, James J.
  Bache, Franklin, M. D.
  Bonsall, Edward H.
  Besson, Charles A.
  Cope, Caleb
  Ellis, Charles
  Fotteral, Stephen G.
  Hacker, Jeremiah
  Horton, John
  Hollingsworth, Thomas G.
  Knight, Reeve L.
  Leaming, J. Fisher
  Love, Alfred H.
  Longstreth, William W.
  Marshall, Richard M.
  Ogden, John M.
  Perot, Joseph
  Parrish, Dillwyn
  Powers, Thomas H.
  Potter, Thomas
  Perkins, Samuel H.
  Sharpless, Townsend
  Sharpless, Charles L.
  Sharpless, Samuel J.
  Steedman, Miss Rosa
  Turnpenny, Joseph C.
  Townsend, Samuel
  Whelen, E. S.
  Willits, A. A.
  Weightman, William
  Williams, Henry J.
  Yarnall, Charles
  Yarnall, Benjamin H.





CONSTITUTION

OF THE

Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons.


When we consider that the obligations of benevolence which are founded
on the precepts and examples of the Author of Christianity, are not
cancelled by the follies or crimes of our fellow-creatures; and when
we reflect upon the miseries which penury, hunger, cold, unnecessary
severity, unwholesome apartments, and guilt, (the usual attendants of
prisons,) involve with them, it becomes us to extend our compassion to
that part of mankind, who are the subjects of those miseries. By the
aid of humanity, their undue and illegal sufferings may be prevented;
the links which should bind the whole family of mankind together,
under all circumstances, be preserved unbroken; and such degrees and
modes of punishment maybe discovered and suggested, as may, instead of
continuing habits of vice, become the means of restoring our
fellow-creatures to virtue and happiness. From a conviction of the
truth and obligation of these principles, the subscribers have
associated themselves under the title of “THE PHILADELPHIA SOCIETY
FOR ALLEVIATING THE MISERIES OF PUBLIC PRISONS.”

For effecting these purposes, they have adopted the following
CONSTITUTION.


ARTICLE I.

The Officers of the Society shall consist of a President, two
Vice-Presidents, two Secretaries, a Treasurer, two Counsellors, and an
acting Committee; all of whom shall be chosen at the stated meeting to
be held in the first month (January) of each year, and shall continue
in office until their successors are elected; but in case an election
from any cause shall not be then held, it shall be the duty of the
President to call a special meeting of the Society within thirty days,
for the purpose of holding such election, of which at least three
days’ notice shall be given.


ARTICLE II.

The President shall preside in all meetings, and subscribe all public
acts of the Society. He may call special meetings whenever he may deem
it expedient; and shall do so when requested in writing by five
members. In his absence, one of the Vice-Presidents may act in his
place.


ARTICLE III.

The Secretaries shall keep fair records of the proceedings of the
Society, and shall conduct its correspondence.

ARTICLE IV.

The Treasurer shall keep the moneys and securities, and pay all orders
of the Society or of the Acting Committee, signed by the presiding
officer and Secretary; and shall present a statement of the condition
of the finances of the Society at each stated meeting thereof.

All bequests, donations and life subscriptions, shall be safely
invested; only the income thereof to be applied to the current
expenses of the Society.

ARTICLE V.

The Acting Committee shall consist of the officers of the Society,
ex-officio, and forty-four other members. They shall visit the prison
at least twice a month, inquire into the circumstances of the
prisoners, and report such abuses as they shall discover, to the
proper officers appointed to remedy them. They shall examine the
influence of confinement on the morals of the prisoners. They shall
keep regular minutes of their proceedings, which shall be submitted at
every stated meeting of the Society; and shall be authorized to fill
vacancies occurring in their own body, whether arising from death, or
removal from the city; or from inability or neglect to visit the
prisons in accordance with their regulations. They shall also have the
sole power of electing new members.

ARTICLE VI.

Candidates for membership may be proposed at any meeting of the
Society or of the Acting Committee; but no election shall take place
within ten days after such nomination. Each member shall pay an annual
contribution of two dollars; but the payment of twenty dollars at any
one time shall constitute a life membership.

ARTICLE VII.

Honorary members may be elected at such times as the Society may deem
expedient.

ARTICLE VIII.

The Society shall hold stated meetings on the _fourth_ fifth-day
(Thursday) in the months called January, April, July and October, of
whom seven shall constitute a quorum.

ARTICLE IX.

No alterations of the Constitution shall be made, unless the same
shall have been proposed at a stated meeting of the Society held not
less than a month previous to the adoption of such alterations. All
questions shall be decided where there is a division, by a majority of
votes; in those where the Society is equally divided, the presiding
officer shall have the casting vote.




  OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY.


  PRESIDENT,—JAMES J. BARCLAY.

  VICE-PRESIDENTS, {TOWNSEND SHARPLESS,
                   {DR. WILLIAM SHIPPEN.

  TREASURER,—EDWARD H. BONSALL.

  SECRETARIES, {JOHN J. LYTLE,
               {EDWARD TOWNSEND.

  COUNSELLORS, {HENRY J. WILLIAMS,
               {SAMUEL H. PERKINS.

  _Members of the Acting Committee._

  Charles Ellis,
  W. S. Perot,
  Thomas Latimer,
  John M. Wetherill,
  Samuel Caley,
  Abram C. Brown,
  Benjamin H. Pitfield,
  Isaac Barton,
  James E. Kaighn,
  Alfred H. Love,
  Jeremiah Willits,
  William H. Burr,
  Jacob T. Bunting,
  John C. Farr,
  George Taber,
  William J. Kiderlen,
  Mahlon H. Dickinson,
  William Ingram,
  James Peters,
  Robert E. Evans,
  Albert H. Franciscus,
  William R. MacAdam,
  Charles Palmer,
  Charles P. Perot,
  Charles C. Lathrop,
  Thomas A. Robinson,
  Samuel Emlen,
  William Dorsey,
  Abram Martin,
  R. B. Morrell,
  John Adolph Beaux,
  Dr. Wm. Armstrong,
  F. B. Atmore,
  Wm. Nicholson,
  Charles W. Funk,
  Philip P. Randolph,
  Joseph R. Chandler,
  Samuel Townsend,
  A. G. Roland,
  Coulson Heiskell,
  Benj. H. Shoemaker,
  C. L. Newman.

  _Visiting Committee on the Eastern Penitentiary._

  Townsend Sharpless,
  Edward H. Bonsall,
  John J. Lytle,
  Edward Townsend,
  Samuel Caley,
  Abram C. Brown,
  Isaac Barton,
  James E. Kaighn,
  Alfred H. Love,
  Jeremiah Willits,
  William H. Burr,
  George Taber,
  William L. J. Kiderlen,
  Mahlon H. Dickinson,
  James Peters,
  Robert E. Evans,
  Albert H. Franciscus,
  William R. MacAdam,
  Charles Palmer,
  Samuel Emlen,
  William Dorsey,
  Robert B. Morrell,
  Frederick B. Atmore,
  William Nicholson,
  Charles W. Funk,
  Samuel Townsend,
  Albert G. Roland,
  Benj. H. Shoemaker.

  _Visiting Committee on County Prison._

  William Shippen, M. D.,
  Charles Ellis,
  William S. Perot,
  Thomas Latimer,
  John M. Wetherill,
  Benj. H. Pitfield,
  Jacob T. Bunting,
  John C. Farr,
  William Ingram,
  Charles P. Perot,
  Charles C. Lathrop,
  Thomas A. Robinson,
  Abram Martin,
  John Adolph Beaux,
  Wm. Armstrong, M. D.,
  Philip P. Randolph,
  Joseph R. Chandler,
  Coulson Heiskell,
  C. L. Newman.

☞ WM. J. MULLEN is agent of the County Prison, appointed by the
Inspectors, and acting under their direction, and also appointed by
the Prison Society.




Transcriber’s Note

Words and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like
this_. Dialect, obsolete and alternative spellings were left unchanged.
Printing errors, such as backwards or upside down letters, were corrected;
duplicate words were deleted; missing punctuation was added.

In the original book, the Society’s Constitution was split, printed on
the inside front and rear covers. The text of the front portion was
moved so that it is contiguous with the end portion.

The following items were changed:

  ‘Glocester’ to ‘Gloucester’ …the County Gaol at Gloucester…
  ‘indiscrimnately’ to ‘indiscriminately’ …lying indiscriminately upon…
  ‘Commonweath’ to ‘Commonwealth’ …parts of the Commonweath,…
  ‘Misstatments’ to ‘Misstatements’ …Misstatements corrected….
  ‘started’ to ‘stated’ …objection has been stated…