M76\ 1833 %U,- (Vli.il' !• . V'- » ,-. > >■ '>' r >: < iky t wasp >- x i 811 IVNOIIVN 1NDI03W JO A1Y11M l»NOIl»N J N I 3 I 0 1 V. JO A a V * B I 1 1 V N O 11 V N JN ■ 111 IVNOIIVN 3NI3I03W JO A. a V e « U IVNOIIVN 1NI3I09W JO A a V a S 11 IVNOIIVN 9K f /^H OF MEDICINE NE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NA \mk>\ >lll IVNOIIVN 3NI3I03W JO AaVaSIl IVNOIIVN 3 N I 3 I 0 3 W J O A II V .« I 1 1 V N O I 1 V N IN ■ 111 IVNOIIVN 3NI3IQ3W JO AdVllSn IVNOIIVN 3 N I 3 I 0 3 W J O A B V « 8 I 1 1 V N O I i V N 3N -X \Jf\/ i avian ivnoiivn I OF medicine national library OF MEDICI ne national library of medicine n, imm ' X ay?sP i • s z 1 /^i \Jjar- ^ 7 '-£ i\ „n ivnoiivn 3NI3I03W jo Aavaan ivnoiivn in i 3 10 3 w jo a«v aa n ivn o ii v n b U ^s/ i IY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE N 7 » \\! aan ivnoiivn jn is io 3w jo Aavaan ivnoiivn 3n i 3 ia 3w jo abv aa n i vnouv n 3 fe^C^ \ XFK/ s RY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE * n the kitchen, nine in the hospital, fifteen abZ"he 23 cells, six in the wash-room, and two in the personal service of the warden; and the only restriction on their intercourse in all these places and occupations, is the eye of the inspector or overseer. If they can elude this they are safe; if they cannot elude it they must be fools.* The smile, the frown, the sneer, the wink, the cock of the eye or of the ear, the whisper, every look, every motion has its significancy. If it is objected to the Pennsylvania system that it does not preclude social inter- course while the weavers in the adjoining cells can hear each other's shuttles, what shall we say of the Auburn system under which convicts can hear each other breathe! The testimony we have thus far considered is produced to prove that the Pennsylvania system does not separate the pri- soner. "Inasmuch as the reasoning in favour of the Pennsyl- vania system all proceeds upon the supposition of the superior reformatory effect of solitary confinement, the argument is clearly inconclusive until it can be shown that it is practicable to render confinement solitary. If this be impossible, the whole system, so far as it respects its distinctive excellence, fails."t The Reviewer then undertakes to show that they have not suc- ceeded even in the Eastern Penitentiary in precluding social in- tercourse among their prisoners. "So far then as the evidence on this subject has been presented, we are constrained to believe that it is an extremely difficult undertaking, if indeed it be not actually impossible to build cells in such a manner as to pre- vent communication."* And what is the evidence which con- strains him to this conclusion? Apart from the testimony of "Charles Robbins, Esq.," he only proves that nearly five years ago a Mr. M'Elwee was on a visit to the Eastern Penitentiary, and says he discovered a defect in the construction of some pipes, by reason of which the convicts did communicate with * "This intercourse, however slight and occasional, materially contributes to destroy that feeling of loneliness which is the greatest of all moral punish- ments, and which absolute and unremitted seclusion cannot fail to inspire. Crawford's Report, (1634,) p. 19. f Rev. p. 35. X Rev- P- 34" 24 each other, and he adds that this defect would be supplied at once, if it was not supplied even before he told the story! We submit with confidence that this is the very sum and substance of all the evidence which is produced by the Reviewer to sup- port this grand, leading point of his case. But even if Mr. Robbins' stories were believed, they prove nothing to affect this question. They are matters of private opinion, formed upon very slight and hasty observation, without judgment or experience, upon very partial and vague information, and evi- dently with a view to answer the purposes of the Prison Dis- cipline Society. It is fortunate that the imposition is so gross as to be harmless. As to Mr. Newcomb's testimony it expresses only his pri- vate opinion upon the physical impossibility of admitting the passage of air, and at the same time excluding the passage of sound. For ventilation there must be an opportunity for air to pass into the cells and to escape, and where air will pass sound will pass—ergo, the convicts in adjoining cells must talk or die. There's logic! Mr. Newcomb does not pretend that he ever saw a prison the discipline of which was administered on the Pennsylvania principle. He may be a philosopher and a logician, but he claims no credit for his knowledge of prac- tical prison discipline. Why Dr. Lieber is introduced we know not, unless it be to confirm Mr. Newcomb's axiom, that where air will pass sound will pass also. But unfortunately for the Reviewer, Dr. Lieber's sentence is so constructed that he cannot divide that which makes for him from that which makes against him. The bitter must be taken with the sweet. He con- firms Mr. Newcomb's premises, but he annihilates the con- clusion to which it was evidently intended to lead; for he positively testifies to two instances within his personal know- ledge where air and sound both passed between adjoining cells, yet the prisoners occupying them had no knowledge of each other! The separation was complete—the insulation perfect— 25 the confinement strictly solitary—communication impractica- ble. This seems to settle the point. The Reviewer, however, cuts what he cannot untie. He uses so much of Dr. Lieber's testimony as supports his case and flatly contradicts the rest; and what is much less excusable, he detracts materially from the weight of the Doctor's testi- mony by misrepresenting the source of his information. The whole paragraph from Dr. Lieber is as follows: "I once found a prisoner in the Philadelphia Penitentiary who told me that it was music to his ears to hear the shuttle of his neighbour, and that without knowing who he was, he used to vie with him in the swiftness of using it. I once heard, in visiting a cell, an indistinct knock against the wall. I asked what it was and who was the neighbour? The prisoner an- swered he did not know, as was the fact; but once in a while his neighbour knocked and he answered. And for what purpose, I inquired; is it a sign? No, sir, he replied. Of what should we give signs? It is only that he says here am I, and I answer I am here. He owned he had been told not to do it, and it was always at the risk of the keeper's hearing it, still they did it now and then."* The Reviewer, for obvious reasons, omits all the explana- tory paragraph after the word "answered," and remarks as follows upon the fragment that he uses. "We cannot bring ourselves to adopt the persuasion of Dr. Lieber, that where shuttles can be heard so distinctly as to be made to vie with each other, the voice of a man could not be heard; nor can we rely with him upon the declaration of the convicts, that '(such is the fact." Credat JudaeusA We use the Italics and quotations as they appear in the Review. Did Dr. Lieber rely on the declaration of the convicts that "such was the fact?" No such thing. On the contrary, he studiously excludes any such conclusion. He asserts it as a distinct circumstance, independent entirely of what the pri- * Lieber's Essay, pp. 67, 88. f Rev. p. 31. 4 26 soncr had said. To the question who occupied the contiguous cell—the prisoner answered, I do not know; and Dr. Lieber says of his own information and authority, "that this was the fact." He might have derived his knowledge from the warden or keeper, or from any one of a thousand circumstances that would establish the point beyond question, and yet the Reviewer employs this sly mode of conveying the false im- pression that Dr. Lieber was weak enough to rely on the decla- ration of the convict! Has the Reviewer, then, made out the first point of his case? Has he established by credible evidence a single important fact to show that it is "extremely difficult, if indeed it be not actually impossible, to build cells in such a manner as to pre- vent communication?" Has he even rendered it very doubtful whether any such cells have yet been constructed? We think not. II. But suppose it should be admitted on all hands that the Pennsylvania system does literally insulate the prisoner and cut off all and every kind of intercourse between him and his fellow convicts; still the Reviewer maintains that the Auburn or silent system is to be preferred, and chiefly because it is "the most successful as a school of reformation." To prove this, reference is had to the number of re-commitments. "The better and the more reformatory the system," he says, "the fewer convicts would manifestly return to require the benefit of its discipline."* To our great disappointment, however, he contents himself with a single item of evidence on one side, and with his own unsupported assertion on the other. We could supply him with a bundle of statistical documents on this subject which we would use ourselves if they contributed at all to elucidate the point; but we by no means agree to the position of the Re- viewer, if he means, as we presume he does, that the reforma- tory influence of a prison is shown by the number of convicts ■'* Rev. p. 35. 27 committed to it a second time. The true question would rather be, what portion of those who undergo the reformatory discipline of these prisons respectively are re-committed to any prison. The injustice of the other test may be made apparent by a single fact: "In the year 182S," says Mr. Crawford, "the superintendent of the Auburn Penitentiary published a work in which he gave a list of one hundred and sixty convicts, four- fifths of whom were stated on their liberation to have become honest and respectable. On my visit to the Penitentiary at Sing Sing, I found that thirty of these persons were then in that prison, and I was assured that an additional number of twenty had also been there since the appearance of that publication."* In the reports of the Sing Sing prison, not one of these fifty convicts appears as re-committed, because he never was in Sing Sing before, and in the reports of the Auburn prison they would appear among the fruits of reform! What could be farther from a true representation of the case? So far, therefore, as re-commitments, under either system, furnish a test of its reformatory power, they must be ascer- tained upon a much larger scale than our Reviewer has adopted.t The prisoners under the Auburn system having the opportu- nity, while together, to form new acquaintances, to digest their plans, and to select the theatre of their future operations with a view to more security and better success, are found scattered * Crawford's Report, 1834, p. 19. f Experience in England has furnished striking evidence that the absence of re-commitments is no proof of the deterring or purifying effects of the im- prisonment—some of the best prisons having more re-commitments than others which are remarkably defective, owing to the former being situated amidst a dense population where the inducements to commit crime are more powerful than in agricultural districts; but proofs are still more abundant in America, in which extraordinary facilities exist for travelling to great dis- tances, and where convicts can, on their liberation, leave one State with the utmost ease to pursue their old habits in another. In my visits to the several penitentiaries, I constantly met with prisoners who had been inmates of the jail, the keepers of which were ignorant of their conviction." (Crawford's Report, 1834, p. 14.) 28 all over the country. There is scarcely a State prison in the Union where from two to twenty prisoners are not found who have been in one or more of the New York Penitentiaries. We do not however regard this circumstance, by itself, as show- ing the inadequacy of their system to reform the convict. When it is considered how few penitentiaries we have on the Pennsylvania plan, it would be passing strange if the larger proportion of re-commitments were not from the Auburn prisons; and, on the contrary,it would be a natural and proba- ble result of the Pennsylvania discipline, that its subjects, if not reformed, should be returned to their old homes. Their perfect insulation from society for a series of years breaks up all their plans and associations. Even if the desire to return to scenes of depredation and licentiousness predominates, their long abstinence is of itself a temporary barrier to indulgence. They must recover the skill in duplicity and knavery, which is never laid aside where prisoners associate, but for which there is no occasion where they are insulated—and this takes time. Their circle of companions must be formed anew, and the habits of open and outrageous crime are not resumed with- out much embarrassment after so long and complete interrup- tion. The prisoner when leaving the Eastern Penitentiary finds himself alone. If there are none to sympathise with him, neither are there any to tempt and torment him. He looks around for the means of honest employment or of self-indul- gence; but there is nothing to urge him to some distant place. He is as little known in the vicinity of the prison as at any place in the wide world. Not so at Auburn, Sing Sing, Wethersfield, Charlestown and other prisons where social discipline is employed. There the convict may keep alive his criminal associations and connexions up to the very hour of his discharge. Innumerable methods of communication which elude the most practised eye may be employed to preserve and extend a knowledge of each other's person, history and plans. But the Reviewer would have us believe that this advantage which we claim for the separate 29 system, is altogether imaginary. He says, "the inmates of penitentiaries have served a regular apprenticeship in crime, they have been publicly arraigned, tried, convicted and sen- tenced over and over again in the lower courts, and are ac- quainted with all the men of their own profession in the dis- trict in which they live. We cannot make men forget public and notorious transactions. What is in all the newspapers cannot surely be a secret. We cannot make the convict forget all his old associates. It seems to us therefore to be assumed that solitude can do what is manifestly impossible to be done."* It would be difficult to compose another paragraph of the same length which should betray a more profound ignorance of the Pennsylvania system and its effects, and indeed of the ordinary facts of criminal history, than this. A man is arrested in Philadelphia for forging a bank check. He belongs to a party of accomplished villains who lately left New Orleans, and who are scattered, for a season, with the pros- pect of resuming business at the south at a future day. The prisoner is immediately conveyed to a solitary cell to await his trial, which shall take place in the shortest possible time after his arrest. The papers mention the case and give the assumed name of the culprit with half a dozen aliases. This notice, if it should be copied into other papers, and fall under the eye of some of the prisoner's associates, (if perchance they belong to the few of this class who read newspapers,) will furnish no clue to the fate of their unfortunate companion. He is at length tried alone. Perhaps some of his quondam friends are among the spectators, but it is not for the interest of either party that the slightest recognition should take place there. He is con- victed°by his own confession or by verdict, and is forthwith conveyed to a solitary cell in the Eastern Penitentiary. Here he remains five years without the remotest intercourse with the world by letters or newspapers, signs or sounds, and is of course as perfect a stranger to the criminal circles of the place to which * Rev. pp. 37, 38. 30 he is introduced at his discharge, as if he had spent the same period in the caverns of the ocean. Another of the gang is arrested six weeks after, in the same city, if you please, passes through the same process, and is com- mitted to some other cell of the same penitentiary. Now, sup- pose the separation to be actually effected, which this institu- tion professes to effect, what is the probability of their recog- nising each other after their discharge? By the terms of the proposition neither of them knows the fate of the other—the place, nor term of his imprisonment, nor the time of his dis- charge. Supposing both to have received the same sentence, by the time the confinement of the last terminates, the first, having six weeks' start, is perhaps hundreds of miles from Philadelphia, and when the last is discharged of whom shall he inquire, or in what direction shall he look for his former associate? Does the Reviewer suppose that five or even two years make no changes in the relations and associations of blacklegs, pickpockets, and horse-thieves? Does he suppose they maintain their position in society from year to year? Does he not know that it is the very chef-d'oeuvre of a police officer to trace their evolutions, and keep sight of them in their endless variety of shifts and disguises? And does he suppose that the convict, upon his discharge from a confinement of several years, will find his accustomed haunts undisturbed and the band of his former associates unbroken? Will he call to mind newspaper paragraphs, or consult a publisher's file to aid his recollection of "those who were tried, convicted and sen- tenced over and over again in the lower courts?" How prepos- erous the reasoning of the Reviewer! How utterly at war with facts and daily experience! But let it be remembered again, that the question turns uoon comparand merit, The Reviewer doubts whether the 3 ration we have supposed is attained, and if attained T" possibility of securing the advantages which area^' TT *' or any benefits which the social principle cannot con',*** * *' thenlookatthesameexamp^ 31 Auburn discipline. These two convicts might spend the whole period of their confinement in sight of each other—nay, they might work at the same forge, or upon the same bench; and in this position what human power can prevent their signifying to each other their respective offences and sentences? As the end of their term approaches, there are but six weeks' separa- tion to be provided for, and then they may meet when and where they please. With a knowledge—not of each other only—but of their associates in durance who have been, or shall be from day to day discharged, for weeks and months be- fore and after their own release. Will any man in his sober senses maintain that the former mode of discipline (supposing it to effect the perfect seclusion of the prisoner) is not incom- parably superior to this, as it respects the opportunity it affords for acquaintance and intercourse while in prison, and the facili- ties of recognising each other after their liberation? The ground taken by the Reviewer upon this point of the discussion cannot be held without violating every principle of truth, candour and common sense. We think we have shown, then, that the Eastern Peniten- tiary does effectually separate the convict and intercept all communication with his fellows, and that this feature of its discipline gives it an essential and inestimable advantage over the Auburn or social system. III. The friends of separate discipline maintain that from the very nature of things we can dispense with the severity and brute force which is employed, and which is probably essential to the maintenance of subordination, where the convicts asso- ciate for daily labour and other purposes. In the words of the Reviewer, "As it (the separate system) never requires the in- fliction of severe punishments, it is the more merciful."* We do not say that it is impossible for the warden of the Eastern Penitentiary to enter the cell of a convict and put him to death; nor do we say that every man in the Auburn or Sing Sing * Rev. p. 31. 32 prison receives a certain number of lashes periodically, as regu- larly as he receives his meals; but we do say, without qualifi- cation, that a severe and harsh discipline is much more neces- sary to keep four or five hundred convicts under control when they are collected in an open yard or in a range of work-shops, than when each man is securely confined in his own cell. No man can visit a prison of the Auburn construction, and mark the eye, the countenance and the motions of the keepers with- out perceiving that their power lies in the bodily fear with which they inspire the convicts. A sense of their own superior phy- sical strength must occur to the prisoners at every glance over a work-shop or a quarry, but each man knows that his life, and perhaps many lives, must be sacrificed in a revolt; and this per- sonal fear, without the certain prospect of personal advantage, is the restraining principle. Hence every part of the discipline is designed to cherish and increase this fear. Nothing degrades a man and tries his spirit of resistance like a flogging, and the submission of the convict, time after time, to this humiliating discipline, involves an acknowledgment of the despotic power of the keeper. All this the Pennsylvania discipline avoids. Whatever dis- cipline is necessary there to correct and subdue, may be quietly and silently imposed. The angry passions are not stirred up, nor a sense of personal degradation forced on the helpless con- vict. To abuse a prisoner under such circumstances, would evince a barbarity rarely seen in the worst of men. There is no temptation to do it. There is nothing gained by it. But the Reviewer finds us at fault here: "The assertion," that the Pennsylvania system is more merciful, "is not sus- tained by evidence. It is granted that at Auburn and at Sing Sing great severity has at times been used.*** On the other hand, vve have seen that resort has been had to severe punish- ments under the Pennsylvania system.*** In the Eastem Penitentiary the punishments were at one period such as to call for legislative inquiry."* Rev. pp. 36, 37. 33 If the Reviewer had spread out the facts of the ease, (as he unquestionably would have done if his mind were free from prejudice,) the impression left on the minds of his readers would have been much more in accordance with the truth. Why does he not give us the result of the "legislative in- quiry." He tells us "that in one case a man died under the infliction of the gag." Why does does he not tell us that the "legislative inquiry" showed that the death of the convict was not caused by the use of the gag, but by a chronic disease."* He tells us that "another convict was seriously injured by the profuse dashing upon him of cold water in mid winter." Why does he not tell us that the "legislative inquiry" showed, that no ill consequence followed.! He tells us that "other cases existed of the excessive use of the strait-jacket," &c. Why does he not tell us that the "legislative inquiry" showed, that no improper use was made of the strait-jacket, &c. J Why this concealment—this palpable and continued perversion of truth and fact? But turn the tables. Compare these groundless charges of severity under the separate system, which the Reviewer knew or ought to have known were made in ill-blood, from motives of resentment and had been moreover completely disproved—com- pare these with the facts set forth in a report of a committee of the New York Legislature appointed to visit the Sing Sing prison (on the Auburn plan) in the winter of 1838-9, and which is copied in a supplementary note to the Review now before us. "It also appeared in evidence," (says the Report,) "that the convicts under this system were not supplied with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food; that during the year 1837-8, con- victs failed to perform their usual tasks, and when reprimanded for such omissions, they would allege, with tears in their eyes, their inability, arising from want of food to sustain them; that when they applied for additional food, they were frequently * Pacre 14 of the Legislative Report. | Page 13 of the Legislative Report. | Pacre 15 of the Legislative Report. 31 beaten away by the superintendent of the kitchen without it; that instead of the legal rations of beef and pork, codfish had been substituted at one time from August to January, and that instead of molasses with mush, the grease skimmed from the pots was substituted, and that the convicts were on various occasions seen snatching offal from the swill-barrel in order to satisfy the cravings of hunger. It was also proved before the committee that cruel and unreasonable punishments have been often inflicted within the prison. For small offences 80 or 100 strokes upon the bare back and legs have been given by an instrument which multiplies every stroke by six, that severe punishments have been inflicted on persons manifestly insane; in one case 1000 lashes were inflicted on a woman in the space of a week. Convicts have been disabled by scourging so as to require treatment at the hospital—assistant keepers have stripped and whipped a convict, for insults offered such officers before conviction—discharged convicts have been seized and compelled to work again at the will of officers." And will it be believed, that during this very same period, when the miserable famished convicts were lifting up their tearful eyes to their keepers for food—when they were sup- plied with codfish instead of beef and pork, and grease instead of molasses—when they were actually snatching offal from the swill barrel to satisfy the cravings of hunger, the great State of New York was reaping a profit of upwards of $17,000 from the earnings of these very men! Yes, and they, poor fellows, had their chaplain, and their public worship, and their evening prayers; and while they were writhing under the tormentor's lash and fainting with hunger, the profits of their labour, ex- torted by such appalling cruelty, were carried to the cred'it of the State Treasury! The contrast is perfect. On one side we have an account of a mysterious box in the Western Penitentiary which, so far as the evidence goes, has never been seen, and we are also told of three specific instances of severe punishment in the Eastern Penitentiary, which, upon legislative investigation, were found 35 never to have occurred; while, on the other side, we have a statement of facts proved to the satisfaction of a committee of the New York Legislature, showing cruelties more barbarous and revolting than language can describe; inflicted without cause or pretence, and that too upon the defenceless victims of insanity! And yet the Reviewer strokes his chin, and gravely tells us that "both systems are liable, perhaps equally, to abuse. Nay, if there be any difference in this respect, we fear it will be against the solitary system; since under this system cruelty may be indulged with but few witnesses, and those altogether under the influence of the oppressor."* In describing the condition of our prisons before the modern improvements were introduced, the Reviewer says, "The pri- soners were sometimes beaten with the lash, and in general the government of the prison was left, without much responsibility, to the warden and keepers.*** That in this protracted struggle for supremacy the heart of the keeper should become steeled, and all the fountains of his sympathy dried up, was of course to be expected. It would be a miracle were it otherwise. His will must become an iron will—his word must be law—his authority would be endangered by any manifestation of tender- ness. Knowing that he has to do with men on whom, in their present situation, no moral or social motive would produce effect, he must govern by a perpetual appeal to personal fear. Can any one doubt whether with the degree of virtue which falls to the share of ordinary men, there is one out of a thousand who would not, under such circumstances, become a tyrant? The effect of this treatment upon prisoners may easily be conceived. The criminal believed himself to be used with unfeeling harsh- ness, and he hated the jailer who restrained him, but most of all society by whose authority the jailer acted, "t Let any man read the revolting details of suffering endured by the convicts at Sing Sing as above set forth, and then say whether the system of prison discipline under which they * Rev. p. 37. f Rev. pp. 10—12. 36 occurred is an essential improvement in this respect upon the discipline which the Reviewer describes as belonging to a past age. IV. The next topic of remark in the Review is the compa- rative healthiness of the two systems. The writer admits that "the danger of solitary confinement with labour has certainly been overrated;* but still he asserts that the average mortality at the Eastern Penitentiary for eight years exceeds by about one per cent, the average mortality at other prisons. This is not attempted to be proved, and could not be proved if the attempt were made, and if proved would not support the Re- viewer's position. A thousand causes may increase or diminish the per centage of deaths in a prison, none of which have the most remote relation to the particular mode of discipline, whether silent or separate. The location of the building—the quality of the water—the cleanliness of the convicts—the nature of their employment- food, &c, are a few of the thousand. It is perfectly obvious, however, that so far as contagious diseases are concerned the separate or solitary system must have altogether the advantage. And as to the abuses of person, to which the Reviewer would have us think the separate system "peculiarly liable," it is equally obvious, we apprehend, that the excitements to such abuses are no less where the prisoners associate, and where the prison is open daily to a throng of visiters of both sexes; and as to the opportunity of indulgence, both systems furnish it in an equal degree, though perhaps not for an equal length of time In respect to comparative healthiness, therefore, there is at least no evidence to turn the scale in favour of the Auburn system. .ta« Jf'!? agai" " giVCS "S Pai" '° adTCrt <° -other in- stance of d,slngcnnousness on the part of the Review A note upon the paragraph respecting the health of prisoners onder the two modes of discipline, i„forms us> that ~a™ * Rev. p. 38. 37 and Tenth Annual Report of the new penitentiary in Phila- delphia is awful in its results. The average number of pri- soners was 402; the deaths 26, or 61- per cent." Now a man who was disposed to furnish the community with information to be relied upon in determining grave and interesting ques- tions of public policy, would not have left an utterly erroneous impression on this point. With the Report before him, he would have felt constrained, in common honesty, to say some- thing like this: "The tenth and last Annual Report of the Eastern Peniten- tiary contains facts on the subject of prison-health which are well worthy of consideration. The mortality there the past year has been greater than in any previous year. But the increase is accounted for by the prevalence of small pox and chronic diseases among the coloured prisoners. Nearly three- fourths of the per centage of deaths have been among this class of prisoners. The per centage among the whites is only one per cent, more than the ordinary degree of mortality in the community at large; while among the coloured convicts the per centage is more than double the ordinary degree of mor- tality among the same class out of prison. There is no suffi- cient reason to believe that this unusual mortality is in any degree the result of peculiar discipline, but is probably owing to the unusually large proportion of coloured prisoners whose health and habits are known to be degraded and vicious to the last degree. Of two thousand prisoners in Sing Sing, Auburn, Charlestown and Wethersfield in 1S37, only two hun- dred were coloured, while of three hundred and eighty six in the Eastern Penitentiary, one hundred and fifty-four were coloured. These facts are considered sufficient to show that not the peculiarity of the discipline, but a peculiarity in the class of prisoners, swells the bill of mortality at the Eastern Penitentiary. With all this disadvantage, the physician's re- port states that "55.5 per cent, only of the admissions were in good health, whilst the dismissions in good health are as high as 75.20 per cent. Showing a surplus of health from the insti- 38 tution of 20.15 per cent.; and again, 44.27 per cent, of the admissions were in imperfect health, while the dismissions in imperfect health were only 24.70 per cent., a surplus of ill health from the community of 19.48 per cent.—that is, the Penitentiary has been the recipient of disease and the dis- penser of health.'** "We might add also in regard to the effect of the separate system upon the mind, this report furnishes very satisfactory evidence that no evil is to be apprehended on this score. It shows that the cases of mental disorder are mostly among the coloured prisoners; are of short duration, and arise from a known cause common to all prisons, almshouses, and even much more respectable establishments. It appears that the cases of disordered intellect were thrice as many among the coloured as the white prisoners; and that in more than half the cases, whatever disease of mind there was, appeared within an average of five months and twelve hours from their commit- ment. This is accounted for by the physician from the fact, that in the early period of separation from the low forms of sensuality to which prisoners of this class have been accus- tomed, they are strongly disposed to the habit that first pro- duces diseases of the body, and then weakness or aberration of mind. "Remove this cause," says the report of the physi- cian, "and the diseases of this penitentiary will be chiefly those brought into the institution." "We do not say how far these conclusions may be borne out in the subsequent history of the Eastern Penitentiary, but cer- tainly the facts here stated, upon the best authority, do very clearly show that the discipline which is employed there com- pares very favourably with that at prisons on the Auburn plan so far at least as it respects the physical and mental health of the subjects." This, we submit, would be substantially the course of re- * Tenth Annual Report of the Inspectors of the Eastom t> •. . page 131. astern Penitentiary, 39 mark on this topic which a fair, ingenuous mind would pursue. To say less is to suppress the truth; to say more would not be necessary to vindicate fully, upon these points, the separate system of discipline. V. The only remaining topic of inquiry treated in the Re- view is the comparative expensiveness of the two systems; and on this subject it will probably be admitted that the annual profits of prison labour, under any discipline, may be very con- siderable, while the State is, on the whole, a great loser. Two or three men let loose upon society, exasperated and maddened by years of oppression and abuse under cover of law, will soon make accounts even with the government, and throw a fearful balance to the opposite side. That the Auburn, and indeed any system of prison discipline, can be made to yield a present profit to the State, is beyond all question. Such a system of retrenchment as was pursued at Sing Sing—the mere substitution of pot grease for molasses, and codfish for beef and pork—with a corresponding reduction in the quantity of rations, together with the vigorous use of the lash to goad the fainting convicts to their required tasks, could scarcely fail to show a profit to the State in dollars and cents. But the Auburn system is not perfected yet—it is im- possible to conjecture what the expense will be when the plan is completed, "whether we consider the original cost of the ar- rangements, or the amount required for the annual maintenance of the prisoners." It is admitted by the Reviewer that intercourse between pri- soners, under the Auburn discipline, must take place. "The weakest point, as it seems to us, in the other (Auburn) system, is the liability to intercourse between the prisoners, which we think must exist in the work-shops."* How much more in the kitchen, in the hall, in the chapel, in the Sunday school, and in the marchings and countermarchings to and from their cells' "This might, to a much greater degree, be remedied. * Rev. p. 12. 10 As it is now "the workshops seem not to have been built with any special intention to prevent intercourse between the pri- soners."* Certainly not. The grand object is to construct the buildings and arrange the work and the workmen so as to secure the largest possible revenue. But what is the remedy? Why, obviously to change the construction of the buildings. "The main point in them" (the buildings) "should be to prevent intercourse." To this end they should be smaller and more numerous."! This is the very characteristic of the Pennsylvania system. The main point regarded in the construction of shops is to prevent inter- course; and to this end they are made of such size and number that each man can have a shop to himself. Is not this the perfec- tion of the Reviewer's scheme, provided it would only yield a profit that should make the system popular? When the work- shops are increased in number and reduced in size so as most effectually to prevent intercourse between the operatives, we shall find "the original cost of the arrangements" of an Au- burn prison to be equal, dollar for dollar, to the original cost of the arrangements of a Pennsylvania prison, of equal capacity. And then as to "the amount required for the annual main- tenance of the prisoners," the same uncertainty exists; for the Reviewer admits that "to remedy in a greater degree" the pre- sent liability to intercourse between the prisoners on the Au- burn system, "the proportion of overseers should be greater."* How much greater he does not say. One overseer to every convict would not prevent their intercourse, if they were in the same apartment. One overseer to every ten convicts would absorb the largest annual balance which any Auburn prison has ever yet earned And after all, "the liability to intercourse" is no^removed; it is only "remedied in a much greater de- gree. Jt is diminished, not intercepted. But besides this, the trades must be changed. The nrofi.,r..P businessof stone hammering, coopering, £, musTbe g^ • P- 42. f Rev. p. 42. J Rev. p. 41 and to remedy in a greater degree this liability to intercourse "the most noiseless trades" must be introduced, "so that con- versation can be most easily detected."* To accomplish this the shops must become what the Reviewer's theory contemplates, "calm and voiceless as the movement of the spheres." This would work a prodigious change in "the original cost of the arrangements" of an Auburn prison, and would marvellously affect the footing of their annual accounts "for the maintenance of their prisoners." We see then, as it respects the item of expensiveness, that the loss or gain on a year's business is no criterion by which to judge of the merits of any system of prison discipline—that if it were a criterion, we have no data at present by which to judge of the result of the two systems under consideration— inasmuch as a defective administration may produce a favour- able or unfavourable result, which will prove nothing respecting the economy of the system when properly administered; and moreover the Auburn system is as yet but imperfectly devel- oped, so that when its acknowledged defects and weaknesses are supplied, the probability is it will equal, if not exceed, both the original cost and the annual expenses of the Pennsylvania system. If it were our object in these remarks to commend the Penn- sylvania system to public favour, we should show in this con- nexion that the number of its subjects can be increased indefi- nitely, without any considerable increase of police expenses, and without danger from the accumulation of physical power. It is the settled and oft repeated opinion of those who are prac- tically acquainted with the Auburn system, that not over four hundred convicts should ever be under discipline at the same time at one prison. When the increase of population and crime shall require much more extensive accommodations for delin- quents, we shall see the comparative economy of the rival sys- tems more perfectly exemplified. * Rev. p. 12. 42 For the benefit of the reader, as well as for the sake of the contrast it affords, we will transcribe the Reviewer's outline of a system of effective prison discipline. "In the first place the man has probably been for years under the influence of passions rendered ungovernable by habitual intemperance and uninterrupted vicious associations. He must then be removed as far as possible from every such excitement. Nothing that can intoxicate or that can recall the remembrance of intoxication (as tobacco for instance) should enter the walls of a prison. There should be no noise, no altercation, no loud speaking, no exhibition of excited passion, but all should be calm and voiceless as the movement of the spheres."* Who that has visited the Eastern and the Auburn peniten- tiaries will hesitate to say, under which mode of discipline the passions are most likely to be excited, or which government most resembles "the calm and voiceless movement of the spheres?" "In the next place," continues the Reviewer, "since much of every man's wickedness is to be traced to intercourse with the wicked, this cause of contamination is to be removed. The prisoners, instead of being allowed to confer with each other, should be kept in ignorance of each other's history, and be deprived of the opportunity of forming each other's ac- quaintance. And inasmuch as reflection on moral subjects is always most effective and disciplinary in solitude, a considera- ble portion of every criminal's time while in prison should be spent in a solitary cell."t Who, that knows any thing of the two systems of discipline we have been considering, will doubt for a moment which most perfectly separates the wicked from each other's company, and deprives them of the opportunity of forming each other's ac- quaintance? And as to solitude, we know not that the Auburn system contemplates it at all, except at night for sleep and in the day for meals. Most of the hours that are not necessary for * Rev. p. 2?. | Rev. p. 22. 43 these purposes are required to secure a satisfactory result of the year's business. "But were this all, only half our work would be done. The Bible should be placed in his cell, and a faithful, benevolent and discreet religious teacher should be provided for him. Op- portunities should be afforded him of conversing alone with his spiritual guide, and thus all the agencies should be em- ployed which we could in any case use for restoring a fallen human being to virtue."* A more accurate description of the moral discipline employed at the Eastern Penitentiary could not easily be written. But pray, what opportunity has the convict under the Auburn sys- tem to read his Bible, or "converse alone with his spiritual guide." It can only be when he retires to eat or to sleep. All the residue of his time is seized with a ruthless, miserly grasp, and used inch by inch, not for the benefit of the prisoner or his family, but to swell the credit side of the annual ac- counts ! Two or three interesting topics, unconnected with the main subject, we have reserved for distinct consideration. 1. As to the origin of all the abuse, obloquy and misrepre- sentation by which the Pennsylvania system has been as- sailed. We believe it may be traced principally to one source. 1 he Prison Discipline Society, (whose seat of operations is at Bos- ton,) at an early period of prison reform in this country, com- mitted themselves fully to the Auburn system, and took equally decided ground against the principle of separate confinement; and from that day to this, by whatever agencies or instruments thev could make subservient to the purpose, that society has carried on a warfare against the Eastern Penitentiary, and, as we do most fully believe, against the interests of humamty- which they seem disposed to prosecute, if such a thing might be to extermination. Where facts have failed, recourse has * Rev. p. 22. 14 been had to conjectures, probabilities and inferences; and where these have proved inadequate, sly interrogatories and pregnant inuendoes have supplied their place. What they could neither see nor hear they have imagined, and have thus worked them- selves up, at times, into a state of nervous excitement on this subject, (as for example, when they saw the man in chains at Trenton prison,) which would almost justify their commitment (at least by attorney) to one of the best lunatic asylums which they have very humanely assisted to build up. Nothing but this inveterate and uncompromising hostility would have ex- cited men of cool temper and good sense to spread before the public such a dialogue as that with "Charles Robbins, Esq." At the beginning of the controversy the objectionable points in the separate system, as stated by the Prison Discipline So- ciety, were almost innumerable; but they have been abandoned, one after another, as truth and experience have shown their weakness. In the very first report (1826) the Society takes the ground, that with a certain plan of building which they describe, and "the system of discipline and instruction intro- duced at Auburn the great evils of the penitentiary system are remedied. Here then is exhibited what Europe and America have been long waiting to see, a prison which may be a model for imitation."* In the second report is commenced that tissue of misrepre- sentation and sophistry which runs through all the subsequent volumes of the series. No prison on the separate principle had then been constructed in this country. The progress of the Eastern Penitentiary was arrested by doubts and fears. The objections were set forth in the most imposing array. There was the impossibility of preventing communication be- tween prisoners in adjoining cells—then the danger to the pri- soner that when thus insulated he may die in distress and no one know it-then the difficulty and expensiveness of inspect tion—the offensiveness of the water-closets iU u P , usets—the absence of * Prison Discipline Society's Report, 1826, n 45 the chapel and Sunday school services, and, finally, the ex- pense. The building proceeded, and in the third report these anticipated objections were strengthened and drawn out and multiplied to a most alarming extent. Some of them are worthy of remembrance. "The keeper's apartments are badly constructed—unfit for a civilized and christian family—difficult of access, and exposed to the shrieks of the insane and the groans of the dying, mingled with the yells and curses of abandoned profligate female con- victs in adjacent apartments. "The food must be carried from one side to the other of a twelve acre lot. • "In carrying it fragments of meat and vegetables will be dropped and soup spilled! "The servants will be bribed and slip tobacco, spirits, letters, &c, into the dishes. "It will be difficult to shave the prisoners, as there are so many doors to unfasten. "Fits, sudden deaths, cramps, palsies and the like could not be provided against. "The convicts will abuse the ventilators—freezing them- selves to death at one time by a rush of cold air, and suffocating themselves with heat at another. They will also waste the water by keeping it running, &c." These are but specimens of the class of objections which were published to the world in the Third Annual Report (1828) of the Prison Discipline Society, pp. 41, 42. The Eastern Penitentiary was completed .and occupied in 1829, and has ever since been the standing topic of abuse m the subsequent Reports of the Prison Discipline Society So invariably and systematically has this course been pursued that one mig^t think it was an important (not to say, leading,) de- sign" that Society to hold up the Eastern Penitentiary to suspicion and reproach-varying the mode of operation as con- venience or effect required. Sometimes several letters have been published from distin- 4'J guished men in answer to certain inquiries, ingeniously framed to dr^vv out a desired reply—the reply itself being based on information previously furnished by the Society. At other times a series of questions are propounded with the most im- posing gravity, the very terms of which involve an answer; and then again some trusty 'Squire is despatched on a secret embassy to ferret out the poor convicts who are dangling in chains at Trenton, or dying by suffocation in pine boxes at Pittsburg! And to give character and currency to these pro- ceedings they have collected their patrons and friends together annually, and prevailed upon some lawyer or prison chaplain "to tell the tale that's told to him," and then the letters and reports, and dialogues and speeches, are all stitched up together and called "the ------- Annual Report of the Prison Discipline Society." We do not mean by these remarks to derogate from the value of these documents. So far as they embody facts and accurate statistics on this interesting subject, we cheerfully give the Society credit for much patient labour and investigation; but unhappily for the cause of truth and humanity they selected the Auburn prison as "the model for Europe and America " while the merits of the rival systems were but very partially developed; and having once committed themselves to this theory, they have made every consideration yield to its sup- port. We do not pretend to determine how far men are re- sponsible for sins committed under the influence of prejudices winch they have willingly imbibed and wilfully cherished. We know that there are cases in which the law holds an offender to be the more guilty, if he voluntarily unfits himself to discern between right and wrong. The application of the principle we forbear to make. II. It is a remarkable fact that the objection tn th~ system which has been most frequently and veL ?i ? and whichlhas operated perhaps'morft. a"iZ 7 "^ fear and distrust-we mean it,"tendency U S" i "^ the mind, is at length „TIBBLy abaL^J ^ p^Se «i-d. ihe Review 47 before us, which may be regarded as the latest exposition of the views of the Prison Discipline Society, scarcely alludes to it, and does not enumerate it among the objectionable or even doubtful aspects of the system. Indeed we are rather left with the impression that the Reviewer considers this point as alto- gether untenable. We are not surprised at this if he has read both sides of the controversy, but it is so rare to find an advo- cate of the Auburn system who has done this, that we should rather incline to think that the judgment and good sense of the writer, having gained the ascendancy at this point of the investigation, led him to reject at once so crude an opinion without the accumulated evidence on the subject which would force any honest mind to the like result. A man of science would admit, upon well known principles with which he is familiar, that a vessel could be propelled by steam, while an equally honest man, with less information, would wish to see the boat in motion before he believed it. III. The two modes of discipline pursued at Philadelphia and Auburn have long been under public examination. Not only have commissioners from several of the United States visited and examined prisons upon both plans, and made reports which have been freely discussed in their respective legislatures, but distinguished commissioners from other coun- tries, and travellers from all parts of the world, have closely examined the principles and results of each mode of discipline and have freely expressed their opinions. And it is a fact we 1 worthy of special consideration that scarcely a solitary indi- vidual, (unconnected with the Prison Discipline Society, or lome pr son on the Auburn plan,) has failed to declare an un- quTl!fied preference for the separate system as administered in ^S^S; document by transcribing their cmi- nioTs at length, and yet we wish such men as the author of the Zew before us, could be persuaded to examine these opi- • , and the grounds of them, as they are spread out in some ofThe matterly reports that have been made to the governments 4S of Great Britain, Prussia, Germany, France and Canada.* Sure we are, that he would not venture, in the face of the facts and principles which these documents disclose, to maintain the positions he has taken in this article. He would not lend himself to sustain the Prison Discipline Society in their efforts to discredit and destroy a system which so many wise and benevolent men of our own and other countries have thoroughly examined, and to which they give a decided and unqualified preference. Thirty or forty years ago much that was said and done in regard to prison discipline was matter of theory and specula- tion. What were then unsettled opinions have now become axioms, and our great effort at present should be to diffuse correct information, and, as far as possible, counteract the influ- ence of prejudice and misreport. But one would suppose from the spirit of this Review, that the Eastern Penitentiary was just lifting itself up to claim some share of regard from those who are looking about for the best kind of prisons, while at Auburn they may find the grand "model for Europe and America." Those who have pinned their faith upon the representations of the Prison Discipline Society will hardly believe that there is not a prison upon the face of the whole earth the principles and results of which have been so triumphantly vindicated as those of the Eastern Peni- tentiary. Besides a regular succession of legislative reports made for a series of years upon personal visitation and inspection, and opposite political influences, every one of which clearly and fully establishes the superiority of this system over every other, * We would especially commend to his attention the "Third Report of the Inspectors appointed under the provisions of the Act 5 & 6 Will IV c. 38, to visit the different prisons of Great Britain l u„ ' r>- '. • / i«^s" Tt „™o t .u i_ i , • • ^"iain. i. Home District, l«J». It presents the whole subject in controversv xv\tu *v, -j , arguments on both sides, with a clearness and ZZllZloZ ^ fidence, and shows conclusively which system is most Hbrf . °°n" the legitimate ends of prison discipline. hke,y t0 acc™Plish 19 and that too in the face of a heavy balance against the treasury of the Commonwealth, we have (as before intimated) positive testimony to the same effect from some of the most discrimi- nating and intelligent travellers from other parts of the world who have made the prison discipline of various countries, and the various systems in vogue among us, the subject of special investigation. But the most important and conclusive documentary evi- dence is found in the reports of commissioners from foreign governments. In 1834 the British government sent a com- missioner to this country, who visited and inspected, in his own proper person, every penitentiary in the United States, except those of Georgia and Illinois. His report (230 pp. folio) was published by order of Parliament, and from it we take but one paragraph, which we select rather than others of the same import which abound in the volume, because it places the two systems, as the Reviewer presents them, in contrast. "In judging of the comparative merits of the two systems, it will be seen that the discipline of Auburn is of a physical, that at Philadelphia of a moral character; the whip inflicts imme- diate pain, but solitude inspires permanent terror. The former degrades while it humiliates—the latter subdues but it does not debase. At Auburn the convict is uniformly treated with harshness—at Philadelphia with civility; the one contributes to harden, the other to soften the affections. Auburn stimu- lates vindictive feelings-Philadelphia induces habitual sub- mission The Auburn prisoner, when liberated, conscious that he is known to past associates, and that the public eye has eazed upon him, sees an accuser in every man he meets. The Philadelphia convict quits his cell secure from recognition and exempt from reproach."* . Now suppose the question we have been considering were submitted to a jury, and two individuals (viz. the Author of the Review and the British Commissioner) were offered as • * Crawford's Report, p. ID. 50 witnesses. It would be an inquiry, materially affecting the weight of their testimony, which of them has examined the two systems most carefully in detail? Which of them has seen the greatest number of convicts under the different modes of discipline adopted in the penitentiaries of the United States? and which of them from his circumstances and associations is most likely to be free from prejudice? And when, in reply to these interrogato- ries, it should be disclosed that Mr. Crawford has for upwards of twenty years devoted himself without weariness or diver- sion to the examination of this one subject of prison discipline, and that his purpose in visiting this country was solely to ob- tain such information respecting the principles and results of our penal institutions as might enable the British government the better to judge of their own policy—no jury could fail to give to testimony, from such a source, the most careful and respectful consideration. The same Mr. Crawford in conjunction with Whitworth Russell, Esq., in a report to the British government in 1837, says, "It is a curious fact that some of the strongest testimonies in favour of individual separation, may be collected from those who are best acquainted with the operation of the silent sys- tem. We may assert with confidence that there is not one of the best conducted prisons in which the silent system is effec- tually introduced, that we have not repeatedly visited and closely inspected, and we can truly state that the governors of these prisons, with one exception only, have acknowledged that had they to decide upon the merits of the respective plans, they would unquestionably give their unqualified preference to the separate system. Whatever are the obstacles against which the system will have to contend, we are satisfied they must eventually yield to the force of discussion and the power of truth. We earnestly hope, as well for the honour as for the interests of the country, that the day which shall witness its general adoption will not be remote." And again, in 1838, the same gentlemen, in conjunction with a distinguished officer of the Royal Engineers, acting as 51 government inspectors of prisons, made a report (315 pp. folio) a summary of which we give in their own words: "We have shown that the plan of separate confinement fulfils all the conditions of a complete and efficacious prison system. We have shown that what is called the silent system, notwithstanding its admitted superiority over that of associa- tion, has no such pretensions to adoption as its advocates claim for it. In support of our views respecting the superiority of the separate system, we have given an historical account of its origin and progress both in Great Britain and the United States, as well as in those kingdoms on the continent of Europe in which its merits have been recognised and its operation intro- duced; we have also stated the names of those distinguished men whose opinions have been publicly given in support of the system of separation, among whom are to be found some of the most wise and benevolent of mankind. This account is followed by a statement of the various objections which we have met with against the separate system, with such answers as, we trust, will be found conclusive. We have further no- ticed the objections to which the silent system is liable, among which we believe there is not one that any modification or improvement of the system can wholly remove:' Page 99. Captain J. W. Pringle, a Commissioner from the British government for inquiring into the state of prisons in the West Indies, visited the United States and examined our principal penitentiaries. He says, "I give the preference to the separate system as that which is most likely to effect the reformation of the prisoner." . , In 1831, before Mr. Crawford's first visit to the United States and when the Eastern Penitentiary had been opened but two years, the French government despatched two distin- guished citizens (MM. De Beaumont and De Tocqueville) to examine our penitentiaries; and they reported that in their oninion the "Philadelphia system must effect more reforma- tion than that of Auburn;" and that the Auburn system "is cruel and degrading, and that the discipline practised under it 52 must be regarded as an insurmountable objection to the scheme which permits it." At a subsequent period the French government commis- sioned M. Blotjet to make a farther investigation of the sub- ject, and ascertain what were the results of farther experience under the two systems, and his attention was particularly di- rected to their comparative efficacy and advantages. He was accompanied in this mission by M. De Metz, (one of the Judges of the Royal Court at Paris,) M. Gustave Davaux, and M. Jean Varel. Following in the footsteps of their eminent countrymen, M. De Tocqueville and M. De Beau- mont, M. Blouet and his friends narrowly inspected every department of the American penitentiaries. M. De Metz in a letter addressed by him to one of the de- partments of the government says, "I quitted France strongly prepossessed against the Pennsylvania system; but since I have seen the system in operation, my opinion has undergone a total change, and it is that very system which my conscience now compels me to put forward and contend for." ■ In his "Report on the Penitentiaries of the United States," he goes into a full and minute account of the principles and fruits of the two modes of discipline, showing a thorough ac- quaintance with the subject in all its bearings, and concludes thus: "Such are the principal motives by which we have been led to advocate the system of Pennsylvania, which has now the sanction of time and experience; it has brought over to its side many who had previously opposed it; and all who for the last seven years have visited the American penitentiaries have given the preference to that of Philadelphia.*** It was among the very persons who were engaged in carrying into effect the silent system, that we have found the warmest supporters of that of separate confinement." M. B;lotjet and the other gentlemen of the mission declare hat their -convictions on the subject are the same with M De Metz, and are carefully set forth in his report " And what was the effect of these representations on the French government? In October, 1837, the opinion of the council general of the department of the Seine was required on the question: "Whether prison labour should be performed in common, or is it preferable that the prisoner should be subjected to constant solitary confinement, the labour being performed in his cell. The council (forty members being present) decided as fol- lows: "Considering that the working in common of the convicts, even were the most profound silence enforced, would always be productive of the serious inconvenience of making them ac- quainted with each other, and of their renewing that acquaint- ance upon the expiration of their sentence; "That this fatal connexion among the convicts is a perpetual cause of recommitments, and for society a subject of alarm and annoyance; "That silence, inefficacious to ward off such an inconve- nience, would be but imperfectly obtained even by the aid of reiterated punishments, more calculated to revolt the feelings and to keep up the spirit of insubordination than to produce a complete suppression of the fault; "Considering that constant solitary confinement in the cell prevents more of these difficulties; "That the return to sentiments of morality and religion is only possible in solitude, when the voice of conscience runs no risk of being stifled by the gesture or the look of an abandoned "[at the expiration of his punishment the convict, far from being repelled by society, will excite an interest in it, heIse wifhdrawn from the influence of the other convic s,he wi 1 find in his solitude the chances of improvement only; That f idleness and sloth have been, as they always are, the original cause of his captivity, labour will become for him • ,1,U caotivity a want and a consolation; m Th the tfade to which he is apprenticed being able to be W a without the assistance of others, will furnish him Zuh the mlans of subsistence, independently of great work- lips, in which he might be liable to a relapse; 54 "Considering, lastly, as far as regards the health of the pri- soners, that the regulation of separation appears to have been sufficiently proved, and that it presents up to the present time more favourable results than those of the old prisons; "Declares its opinion to be in favour of constant solitary confinement with labour in cells." In conformity to this opinion, thus deliberately formed and explicitly declared, the council appropriated the sum of three millions of francs (or upwards of half a million of dollars) to the erection of a prison on the separate principle in Paris, and have resolved forthwith to erect another on the same principle at Versailles, to serve as a model jail. We may add in this connexion the opinion of the Inspector of French prisons, (M. Moreau Christofhe,) who, in a late valuable work on the subject, says of the Pennsylvania system, that "it is the only one which fulfils all the conditions of a com- plete penal discipline, and which therefore, in my opinion, ought to be substituted for every other." And another distin- guished French writer on the subject (Le Vicompte Bretig- neres) says, "Both the moral and material reform of our prisons is a social necessity, and cannot be effected but by a revision of the criminal law and an entire adoption of the system in force in the Eastern Penitentiary at Philadel- phia.," In 1834 Dr. Julius, whose knowledge of the subject of prison discipline is accurate and extensive, and who as a phi- losopher and a man of science is worthy of all respect, was commissioned by the Prussian government to visit and report on the penitentiaries of the United States. After months of patient and critical observation Dr. Julius thus expresses him- self: "I declare candidly that upon an examination of my own conscience, and the knowledge I have acquired of the different systems of prisons in Europe and America, none has appeared to me to present so much equity and justice in the infliction of punishment, or affords so many chances of reformation as that of solitary confinement, combined with the regular visits of the 55 officers of the prison, such as the inspectors, chaplain, governor and medical men. I say chances of reformation, because hu- man efforts are necessarily limited, and can only go so far as to ward off as much as possible every impediment likely to prevent the influence of divine grace, which is the only source of good, and can alone accomplish the real reformation of the guilty." In the same year MM. Mondelet and Neilson were ap- pointed, on a like mission, by the government of Lower Canada to visit and report upon the construction and discipline of the penitentiaries in the United States. In their report they pre- sent the peculiarities of the two prevailing systems, and the considerations which "incline them to prefer the Philadelphia system, notwithstanding it offers less immediate profit, and may even for a time entail considerable expense." M. Ducpedidux, Inspector General of the prisons of Bel- gium, speaks of the separate system as "founded less upon the importance of pecuniary advantages than upon that of moral re- sults." A volume of testimony is furnished by a single fact from Belgium, viz. that the government has directed the intro- duction of the separate system into the celebrated Maison de Force at Ghent, where the Auburn system has been practised, probably, for more than half a century. It is unnecessary to extend the citation of opinions which have been expressed officially and without qualification in favour of the separate system pursued in Pennsylvania, as distin- guished from the silent system prevalent in New York. Among them are found those of men "distinguished by the correct- ness of their judgment, their patience of investigation and their accuracy of reasoning; men of extensive practical acquaintance with the subject of prison discipline generally, who ha,e de- voted their lives to the study of it; and whose opinions have Icquired, both in this country and abroad, a degree of authority ?Wh every day's experience adds weight; men who have L° eve witnesses of the beneficial effects of the (separate) T m who have examined it not only with all the attention ^d vi^ance which might be expected from those who were 56 acting in the capacity of public functionaries, commissioned by their respective governments to investigate the nature, object and working of the system, but who in some cases came strongly prepossessed against the very system of which they are now the most earnest public advocates. These high and unques- tionable authorities, more especially the commissioners from the governments of England, France, Prussia and Canada— though differing in country, language, habits and feelings—after a personal and minute investigation of its principles, details and results, have united in declaring themselves decidedly in favour of the system of separate confinement. In the case of France we have the result of two distinct missions to this coun- try, and the issue of the inquiries in these and all the other cases has been the same—that the separate system is incon- testably superior to its rival, and that this superiority is admitted even by those who are actually engaged in admin- istering the silent system." Crawf. Rep. 1837-8, p. 81. In the face of such authority, based as it is upon indisputa- ble' facts, what intelligent man would attach importance to speculative opinions, formed perhaps in the retirement of the closet, and supported by such mutilated, carved, isolated, ex- torted, ex parte testimony, as the Reviewer has introduced to sustain his positions? Where is the man in the wide world whose knowledge, observation and experience clothe his opi- nions on this subject with authority, and who at the same time stands perfectly unconnected with and uncommitted to the rival systems in this country—as the British, French and Prus- sian commissioners certainly were—where is the man, thus qualified to judge, who has expressed a doubt—aye—A single doubt that the separate or Pennsylvania principle is, on the whole, decidedly superior to the silent or Auburn principle as the basis of penitentiary discipline? Not one. We lay aside the Review with sorrow that it has lent itself to an evil work. When will self-interest, prejudice and passion cease to pervert truth and justice? When will the pleadings of reason and humanity and the verdict of experience be heard above the din and tumult of contradiction and controversy? v\ i/^n^ ,.^'U EDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE N A T I O N A I I I B R A R Y O F M E D I C I N I NATION/ J \ > •: V iNOiajw jo Aavaan ivnouvn ino.ch DICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE N A T I O N A I I I B R A R Y O F M E D I C I N E NATION/ EDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE N A T I O N A I L I B R A R Y O F M E 0 I C I N E NATION NATION, ! / v\-£ !OUVN 1NI3I03W JO 1IVIII1 IVNOUVN 3NI3I09W JO ilYllll IVNOUVN IN I 3 10 3 £ N/ a MEOlCINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF ME Dl CI NE N A T I O N A L I I B R A R Y O F M E D I C I N E NATION . >. '.Jirtft, IriKi'SSo fit