Chapter V: Front Matter (5)

In Pennsylvania this important change took place previously to the occupation of the new penitentiary at Philadelphia. By a law bearing date April 23, 1829, it was expressly provided, that, after July 1, 1829, convicts should, "instead of the penitentiary punishments heretofore prescribed, be sentenced to _suffer punishment by SEPARATE or solitary confinement at LABOR_." It is further provided, that the warden "shall visit every cell and apartment, and see every prisoner under his care, at least once in every day,"--that the overseers shall "inspect the condition of each prisoner at least three times in every day,"--that "the physician shall visit every prisoner in the prison twice in every week"; and further provision is made for "visitors," among whom are "the acting committee of the Philadelphia Society for the Alleviation of the Miseries of Public Prisons." Here is the first legislative declaration of what has since been called, at home and abroad, the _Pennsylvania System_. As administered there and elsewhere, it is found to have, in greater or less degree, the following elements: 1. Separation of the prisoners from each other; 2. Labor in the cell; 3. Exercise in the open air; 4. Visits; 5. Books; 6. Moral and religious instruction. Its fundamental doctrine, and only essential element, is _separation of prisoners from each other_, on which may be ingrafted solace of any kind needful to health of body or mind. In 1840, M. de Tocqueville, in his masterly report to the French Chamber of Deputies, recommending the adoption of this system throughout France, accorded to it these characteristics.

In the history of this system, its origin is often referred to different places. It is sometimes said to have been first recognized at Rome by Clement XI., as long ago as 1703, in the foundation of a House of Refuge; and again it is said to have appeared some time during the last century in a prison of Holland,--also in one at Gloucester, in England; while it seems to be described with tolerable clearness in the preamble to the fifth section of an Act of Parliament drawn by Howard, in conjunction with Sir William Blackstone, as early as 1779. Whatever may be the claims of these different places, it is now admitted that this system was first reduced to permanent practice, on an extended scale, in Pennsylvania. Indeed, this State is hardly more known in Europe for shameful neglect to pay the interest of her public debt than for her admired system of Prison Discipline.

Now, waiving for the present, as entirely irrelevant, the question whether this system can be practically administered so as to be consistent with health, all must admit that it is not the constant, unoccupied, cheerless solitude of the Bastile. Its main object is not solitude, but separation of prisoners from each other, and bringing them under good influences only.

In considering the Pennsylvania or Separate System, as now explained, several questions properly arise.

1. Shall it be applied before trial? Here the answer is prompt. It is the right of every person whom the law presumes innocent, as is the case with all before trial, to be kept free from the touch or contamination of those who may be felons. I well remember the indignation of the late William Ellery Channing at an incident which occurred in our streets, where a stranger who had fallen under suspicion, but who proved to be innocent, was marched from the jail handcuffed, in company with a hardened offender. He held it the duty of the State to prevent such outrage. The principle of justice and humanity which led him to his conclusion in this case requires the _absolute separation_ of all prisoners before trial.

2. A more perplexing problem arises with regard to convicts for short terms. Here, it would seem, the principle of _absolute separation_ ought to prevail.

3. It is a question of greater doubt how to treat juvenile offenders. When we observe the admirable success of the House of Reformation at South Boston, and of the Penal Colony at Mettray, in France, both conducted on the social principle, we may well hesitate; though, on the other hand, the marked success of the institution of La Roquette, at Paris, under peculiar difficulties, shows that the principle of _absolute separation_ may be applied even to this class of offenders. Here certainly is a question worthy of consideration.

4. Shall the Separate System be applied in any case to women? The authority of Mrs. Fry, in England, who at first disapproved the system, but at the close of her valuable life approved it, even for her own sex, also that of Mademoiselle Josephine Mallet, in France, who has declared herself warmly for this system, entitle this question to careful attention.

5. And, lastly, shall the Separate System be applied to convicts for long terms? This is, indeed, the crucial question, involving statistics of health and insanity, and many other considerations, on which much light is shed by the experience of Europe, as well as our own country, and also by writings of eminent characters devoted to this subject. Here we may well hesitate, and open our minds to influences from all quarters.

* * * * *

The way is now prepared to consider whether our Society, in unfolding what may be called the science of Prison Discipline, has treated the Pennsylvania System, involving the several questions already stated, with candor and justice. The question is not whether this system is preferable in all cases to every other, or whether there is any other preferable to this, but simply, Has our Society been candid and just? An examination of its course furnishes an easy answer.

It appears that our Society has failed to make any discrimination with regard to the different classes of cases which I have set forth, indulging in one constant, sullen, undistinguishing, uncompromising opposition to the system in all cases,--so much so as to give occasion for an eminent foreign writer to say that it had sworn against it "war to the knife." Early in its existence it gave its adhesion to the Auburn Prison, saying, "Here, then, is exhibited what Europe and America have been long waiting to see,--a prison which may be made a model for imitation." This adhesion was confirmed by the declaration of an officer of our Society, at a public anniversary in 1837, that the System of Auburn was "our system," and still more by a resolution of similar effect offered in 1838 by the Treasurer, who now opposes, not unnaturally, the efforts to release the Society from the bands he helped to tie.

I do not found complaint merely on the character of advocacy which our Reports have assumed, though it were well worthy of inquiry whether this is not improper in an association like ours. I go further. I wish to state distinctly, that, in the zeal of devotion to Auburn, and in the frenzy of hostility to Pennsylvania, we have been betrayed into a course which no candid mind can hesitate to regret. I will not dwell on language that fell from our Secretary at the anniversary of 1845, which was in part the occasion of the letter from President Wayland already read; nor am I able to review all our Reports. One will be enough. I confine myself to the Eighteenth Report, which appeared in 1843.

This Report has already been the subject of much remark here and elsewhere. A French writer of authority, M. Moreau-Christophe, Inspector-General of Prisons in France, has characterized it as "_a perversion of truth_";[178] while an English author has spoken of it in stronger terms. "With the nature of framing recurring documents connected with public institutions we are not unacquainted," says Mr. Adshead, "_and we believe a more flagrant instance of trickery has never come within the range of our experience_."[179] I am unwilling to adopt this language; but I cannot forbear terming the Report uncandid and unjust. This I shall show; and I am especially moved to do so, since the Treasurer has undertaken to vindicate it, and to vouch for the accuracy of its quotations. I shall consider it under _six_ different heads.

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

[179] Prisons and Prisoners, p. 128.

_First._ It adduces against the Pennsylvania System the failure of experiments in Maine, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, on the principle of _absolute solitude without labor_, which, of course, were entirely inapplicable in the discussion of a system recognizing labor and many other solaces as essential parts of the system. Was this candid? Was it just?

_Secondly._ Here is a more pungent instance, though not more objectionable. The Report adduces the authority of Mr. George Combe against "the Pennsylvania System." The article or chapter on this point is entitled, in capitals, "DR. [MR.] COMBE'S OPINION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM." Under this head are extracts from his book of travels in America, where this eminent phrenological observer considers the character of this system. But will the Society believe that one at least of these extracts is garbled, so as not to express his true and full opinion of the system? The Eighteenth Report quotes from Combe as follows:--

"The Auburn system of social labor is better, in my opinion, than
that of Pennsylvania, in so far as it allows of a little more
stimulus to the social faculties, and does not weaken the nervous
system to so great an extent."[180]

[180] Eighteenth Annual Report of the Prison Discipline Society,
p. 96.

The sentence in Combe is as follows:--

"The Auburn system of social labor is better, in my opinion, than
that of Pennsylvania, in so far as it allows of a little more
stimulus to the social faculties, and does not weaken the nervous
system to so great an extent; _but it has no superiority in regard
to providing efficient means for invigorating and training the
moral and intellectual faculties_."[181]

[181] Notes on the United States, Vol. I. p. 224.

Thus does our Report, while pretending to give Combe's "Opinion of the Pennsylvania System," stop at a semicolon, and omit the latter branch of a sentence, where the opinion is _favorable_ to the system. And yet the Treasurer vouches for the accuracy of this quotation. "I think I can read English," he says, "and I think the extract from Combe properly made."

* * * * *

Mr. ELIOT here rose and said, "I did not mean to vouch for the verbal accuracy of the quotation, but that it gave the substance of Mr. Combe's opinion, which was against the Pennsylvania System."

* * * * *

Mr. SUMNER. The Treasurer, then, relies upon Mr. Combe's authority as adverse to the Pennsylvania System. I hold in my hand a letter from that gentleman, dated Edinburgh, March 24, 1847, addressed to the author of the Minority Report to this Society [Dr. HOWE], since published as an essay, and which has been characterized in this debate as an uncompromising plea for that system. In this letter Mr. Combe says:--

"I have read every word of your Prison Essay with attention, and
do not perceive any difference of principle between your views and
mine. Your Essay is a special pleading in favor of the Pennsylvania
System; but I do not object to it on this account. Such a pleading
was called for in the circumstances mentioned in your preface; it
was the thing needed to make an impression; and while it states
strongly and eloquently the advantages of the Separate System, it
does not conceal, although it does not dwell upon, its defects."

And yet Mr. Combe is pressed by our Report, and now by our Treasurer, in opposition to this system; and the work is aided by publishing a truncated sentence, and entitling it _his opinion_.

_Thirdly._ We have already observed the timely opposition of William Roscoe to the system of _solitude without labor_, which promised to prevail extensively in the United States. From his publication on this subject, in 1827, our Eighteenth Report, in 1843, draws forth a passage, and entitles it, in capitals, "MR. ROSCOE'S OPINION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM." I will give the whole article or chapter. It is as follows.

"MR. ROSCOE'S OPINION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM.

"Mr. Roscoe, of Liverpool, said, before the new Penitentiary was
built,--

"'At Philadelphia, as has before been observed, it is intended
to adopt the plan of "solitary confinement in all cases," "_the
duration of the punishment to be fixed_," and "_the whole term of
the sentence to be exacted_," except in cases where it shall be
made to appear, to the satisfaction of the governor, that the party
convicted was innocent of the charge.

"'By the establishment of a general system of solitary confinement,
a greater number of individuals, imprisoned for _minor offences,
will probably be put to death_, by the superinduction of diseases
inseparable from such a mode of treatment, than will be executed
through the whole State, for the _perpetration of the most
atrocious crimes_; with this remarkable difference, that the law
has provided for the heinous offender a brief, and perhaps an
unconscious fate, whilst the solitary victim passes through every
variety of misery, and terminates his days by an _accumulation of
sufferings which human nature can no longer bear_.'"[182]

[182] Eighteenth Annual Report of the Prison Discipline Society, p.
95.

With regard to this several things are to be observed. 1. It sets forth, as Mr. Roscoe's opinion of the Pennsylvania System, what, in fact, was not his opinion of that system, but of another system, that of _solitude without labor_, and was written two years before the Pennsylvania System came into existence,--misapplying his opinion, and therefore misrepresenting it. 2. It withholds or suppresses the date of the extract, and the source whence it is drawn. In point of fact, it was written before the new penitentiary was built; but it is nevertheless entitled "Mr. Roscoe's Opinion of the Pennsylvania System," so that the reader unfamiliar with the subject would suppose it in reality his opinion of that system. 3. It omits an important passage after the word "charge," without any asterisks or other mark denoting omission,--which, if printed, would have shown conclusively that Roscoe's remarks did not apply to the existing Pennsylvania System, but to a system of absolute solitude, without solace of any kind. Is it not proper, then, to say that this passage is garbled? And yet the Treasurer's voucher for the accuracy of the quotations extends to this also.

_Fourthly._ The opinions of Lafayette receive similar treatment to those of Roscoe; though this case is still stronger against that most discreditable Eighteenth Report. The article or chapter in which this is done is as follows.

"GEN. LAFAYETTE'S OPINION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM.

"'As to Philadelphia,' says the General, in a letter to Mr.
Roscoe, 'I had already, on my visit of the last year, expressed my
regret that the great expenses of the new Penitentiary building
had been chiefly calculated on the plan of solitary confinement.
This matter has lately become an object of discussion; a copy of
your letter, and my own observations, have been requested; and as
both opinions are actuated by equally honest and good feelings,
as solitary confinement has never been considered but with a view
to reformation, I believe our ideas will have their weight with
men who have been discouraged by late failures of success in the
reformation plan. It seems to me, two of the inconveniences most
complained of might be obviated, in making use of the solitary
cells to separate the prisoners at night, and multiplying the rooms
of common labor, so as to reduce the number of each room to what
it was when the population was less dense,--an arrangement which
would enable the managers to keep distinctions among the men to
be reclaimed, according to the state of their morals, and their
behavior.' 'In these sentiments,' says Mr. Roscoe, 'I have the
pleasure most fully to concur; and I hold it to be impossible to
give a more clear, correct, and impartial decision on the subject.'

"'The people of Pennsylvania think,' said Lafayette, 'that the
system of solitary confinement is a new idea, a new discovery.
Not so;--it is only the revival of the system of the Bastile. The
State of Pennsylvania, which has given to the world an example
of humanity, and whose code of philanthropy has been quoted and
canvassed by all Europe, is now about to proclaim to the world the
inefficacy of the system, and to revive and restore the cruel code
of the most barbarous and unenlightened age. I hope my friends of
Pennsylvania will consider the effect this system had on the poor
prisoners of the Bastile. I repaired to the scene,' said he, 'on
the second day of the demolition, and found that all the prisoners
had been deranged by their solitary confinement, except one. He
had been a prisoner twenty-five years, and was led forth during
the height of the tumultuous riot of the people, whilst engaged in
tearing down the building. He looked around with amazement, for he
had seen nobody for that space of time, and before night he was
so much affected, that he became a confirmed maniac, from which
situation he has never [never was] recovered.'"[183]

[183] Eighteenth Annual Report of the Prison Discipline Society,
pp. 95, 96.

With regard to this, also, several things are to be observed. 1. It invokes the authority of Lafayette against the Pennsylvania System, and quotes as his _opinion_ of that system words used with regard to _solitude without labor_, as in the Bastile. In fact, Lafayette never condemned what in 1843 was known as the Pennsylvania System, nor ever expressed any opinion impugning it in any degree. His family are at this moment among its warmest advocates in France. 2. It withholds or suppresses the date of the extract, and the source whence it is drawn, and does not in any way disclose to the uninformed reader that it was actually written before the origin of the Pennsylvania System. 3. The extract purports to be from a letter of Lafayette to Roscoe; whereas this is true only of the first paragraph. The second is from an anonymous letter from Paris, in the "National Intelligencer" of November 17, 1826, where the writer relates a conversation with Lafayette concerning the prison then building in Philadelphia, in which it was proposed to introduce _solitude without labor_. 4. After the words "unenlightened age," in the very heart of this extract, an important passage is omitted,--without asterisks or other mark denoting omission,--which, if inserted, would have shown conclusively that Lafayette's opinion was directed to a system of solitude, "without the least employment, and without the use of books." May it not be said justly, that the opinions of Lafayette are misrepresented and garbled?

_Fifthly._ Here I can only glance at a matter to which I alluded on a former occasion. Our Eighteenth Report sets forth at length disparaging pictures by Mr. Dickens of the Pennsylvania System, while it makes no mention of opinions by Captain Hamilton (the accomplished author of "Cyril Thornton"), Miss Martineau, Dr. Reed, Dr. Matheson, Dr. F.A. Cox, Dr. Hoby, Captain Marryat, Mr. Buckingham, and Mr. Abdy, all of whom have expressed themselves with more or less distinctness in favor of that system. Nor does it make any allusion to authoritative opinions by different commissioners from foreign governments: as Crawford, from England, in 1834; Demetz and Blouet, from France, in 1837; Pringle, from England, in 1838; Julius, from Prussia, in 1836; and Neilson and Mondelet, from the Canadian government, in 1836,--all of whom reported emphatically in favor of the Pennsylvania System. Surely it was not candid and just to neglect all that these travellers and commissioners had reported, while bringing forward the imaginings of Mr. Dickens, and unearthing dateless letters of Roscoe and Lafayette, to employ them in a cause for which they were never written.

_Sixthly._ Our Eighteenth Report is open to another objection, either of gross ignorance or most uncandid withholding of information. It employs these words, which appear remarkable when we consider the actual facts: "_What will be done in other countries is evidently_ _suspended, in a great degree_, on the results of more experience in regard to the effects of the system." Nothing more is said of what had been done in other countries, and the reader is left to infer that _nothing_ had been done. This was in May, 1843. Now what, _at that time_, had been done in other countries?

In England the inspectors of public prisons had made two or more able and extensive reports in favor of the Separate System, where the principles on which it is founded are developed with fulness and clearness. Parliament had passed a law authorizing the creation of a model prison on this system at Pentonville. This had been built, and also other prisons on the same system in different parts of the kingdom.

* * * * *

Mr. DWIGHT. Will the gentleman please to state the difference between the prisons at Philadelphia and Pentonville?

* * * * *

Mr. SUMNER. With great pleasure, so far as any exists. The two are founded on the same principle of _separation_, though that of Pentonville is probably administered with less austerity than that of Philadelphia. They may differ in degree, but not in kind.

I return to a review of what had been done in 1843, when I was interrupted.

In France the subject had undergone most thorough discussion, in journals, in pamphlets, among professional men, and in official documents. The Government and the highest authorities in state and in medicine had declared in favor of the Separate System. Their conclusions were founded on ample inquiries by commissions visiting America, England, Scotland, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Prussia, Spain, and even Turkey. In 1836, Count Gasparin, Minister of the Interior, wrote a circular informing the prefects of the departments that the Government had decided to adopt exclusively the Separate System in the _maisons d'arrêt_, or what may be called the county jails. In 1839 the grave question of the influence of this system on health, bodily and mental, was submitted to the highest living authority, the Academy of Medicine, who referred it to a committee consisting of MM. Pariset, Moré, Villermé, Louis, and Esquirol. Their report, drawn up by the last named distinguished authority, expressly declared that "separate imprisonment by day and night, with labor, and conversation with the overseers and inspectors, does not abridge the life of the prisoners, nor compromise their reason." This report afterwards received the sanction of the learned body to which it was addressed. In 1840, M. Rémusat, Minister of the Interior, submitted the project of a law for the building of prisons on the principle of _separation_. This was sustained by a masterly report from M. de Tocqueville, dated June 25, 1840. It was followed in 1841 by another circular from the Home Department, communicating an atlas of plans to the departments as their guide in building prisons. I hold one of them in my hand now.

* * * * *

Mr. DWIGHT, looking at the atlas, said, "The cells here are on a circumference, whereas in Philadelphia they are on radii."

* * * * *

Mr. SUMNER. In some of the plans the cells are on a circumference, and in some on radii. Does this make any difference in the system?

I will proceed. In 1843, 17th April, Count Duchatel, in behalf of the Government, introduced a bill providing for the extension of the principle of _separation_ to all the _maisons de force_ throughout France. It was calculated that this could not be carried into execution at an expense less than one hundred and seven millions of francs, or nearly twenty millions of dollars. At the same time it appeared that the extensive prison La Roquette, in Paris, had been for several years in most successful operation. Still further, in 1843, it was stated by M. de Tocqueville, that, since 1838, _thirty_ prisons, containing two thousand seven hundred and forty cells on the Separate System, had been built, or were in an advanced state of building, in the departments of France. Yet nothing of all this is in our Report.

In Poland, it appears that a prison on the Separate System was commenced as long ago as 1831, and has been in successful operation since 1835, while in 1843 appropriations were made to build three more. Nothing of this appears in our Report.

In Denmark, after an elaborate report from a committee, a royal ordinance declared, in 1841, that "all houses of detention to be built for the accused shall be on the Separate System, and that all new constructions or reconstructions which the old prisons shall require shall be on this system, to prepare for its general adoption." Again, another ordinance followed, June 25, 1842, on the report of a commission that had visited England, directing the building of certain prisons on this system. Our Report contains nothing of this.

Look at Norway. In 1838 a commission from this region was sent to visit the principal prisons in England, Ireland, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark. Its report was made in 1841. "Its unanimous and _absolute_ advice was, to demand the introduction into the prisons of Norway of the Pennsylvania System." Here again our Report is silent.

In Sweden, the States General declared, in 1841, that the Separate System was the most rational, and voted 1,300,000 florins for the construction of new prisons on this system. Already before this time, the present King of Sweden, then Crown Prince, had secured a new honor for his throne by writing a book on prisons, where he compared the Auburn and Pennsylvania Systems, and gave his preference to the latter. Of this our Report says not a word.

Here, as I refer to this royal author, let me pause to offer him my tribute of gratitude. His work, originally written in Swedish, has been already twice translated into German, twice into French, once into Norwegian, and once into English. It deserves to be translated into every language of the globe. Such words from a throne find no parallel in history. All the productions from the eighteen royal authors of England, and the five of Scotland, mentioned in Walpole's Catalogue, could not confer the same true honor as these few pages. Not the "prettie versse" of Henry the Sixth; not the volume of Henry the Eighth, which has secured to his royal successors the unchangeable title of "Defender of the Faith"; not the "Counterblast to Tobacco," and other writings, teeming with pun, pedantry, vanity, Scripture, and prerogative, of James the First; not the ballads, songs, rondeaus, and poems of the four Jameses of Scotland. A work on "Punishments and Prisons" by a king, written in a spirit of simplicity and gentleness, with sympathy for the poor, the humble, the sinful, teaches us to appreciate forms of grandeur higher than any in the ordinary pursuits of royal ambition. Oscar is the son of Bernadotte, a marshal of the French Empire, and elected king of Sweden; but--pardon me while I speak what my heart feels--the author of this little book of humanity and wisdom inspires a warmer glow of admiration than the commander of the centre in the victory of Austerlitz, or of the timely succors that hurried the close of the giant struggle at Leipzig. He sits on a throne illustrated by two of the greatest sovereigns in modern Europe; but his is a truer glory than that of Gustavus Vasa in the mines of Dalecarlia, or of Gustavus Adolphus on the field of Lutzen.

In Holland, the penal code established in 1840, as the basis of prison discipline, separation by night and labor in common by day. "But they were not slow to recognize the insufficiency of this," says one of the eminent authorities. Wherefore the States General ordered the system of separate imprisonment, as practised at Philadelphia, with the modifications which excluded _solitude_, separating the prisoners from each other, and securing communication with good people. In the States General there was only _one voice_ against this system. Again is our Report silent.

And lastly, at Geneva, in Switzerland, a plan of a prison on the Separate System was adopted in 1842. I have here the atlas containing a full representation of this prison in all its parts. But of this, too, our Report says nothing.

In view of all these things, is it not humiliating that our Society should have put forth the statement it did with regard to "other countries"? Most certainly, if the authors of the Eighteenth Report were ignorant of the extensive adoption in Europe of the Pennsylvania System, their ignorance was reprehensible, and not to be vindicated by the apology of the Secretary, that he could not read French. If uncandidly they withheld or suppressed this information, as I cannot suppose, they are equally reprehensible.

Such is the Eighteenth Report of our Society! And yet this document, seamed and botched with error and uncandid statement, injuriously affecting the Pennsylvania System, was sent by our Society, as I have been credibly informed, to every member of the Legislature of that State. Surely we need not wonder that the humane and upright gentlemen connected with the administration of prisons there felt that we had done them wrong.

II.

I now come to the second proposition in the Report and Resolutions under consideration; and here I shall be brief. It is proposed that we shall recognize the directors of the Eastern Penitentiary of Pennsylvania as sincere fellow-laborers in the cause of Prison Discipline, and shall declare, that, _if_ expressions have appeared in our Reports, or been uttered at any of our public meetings, which have justly given pain to our brethren, our Society sincerely regrets them. Is not this a proper and most Christian resolution? What candid or generous mind can hesitate with regard to it, particularly after becoming acquainted with the course of our Society towards those gentlemen and the system they have administered? But here again we encounter the Treasurer, the Achilles of this debate, according to the description of that martial character by Horace,--

"Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer."

The Treasurer, with passionate emphasis, objects to any expressions of confidence in the gentlemen of Philadelphia. He is not personally acquainted with all of them. He is conscientious on the point. He will not commit our tender Society by any such extravagant declaration. To be sure, he made no opposition, when our association passed a formal vote in its own favor, declaring nothing less than that it was "entitled to the thanks of every friend of humanity for its successful efforts in the cause of Prison Discipline."[184] It was all right for us to praise ourselves; but the Treasurer cannot praise the gentlemen of Philadelphia. He never objected to any of the hard words we have employed with regard to them and their system. It is those soft words, turning away wrath, which disturb his propriety.

[184] Annual Meeting, May 30, 1837: Twelfth Report.

Then, again, he dislikes what he calls an hypothetical apology. He is startled by the _if_. He cannot say, "_If_ have uttered words which have justly given pain to my brother, I sincerely regret it." There is too much for him in that _if_. It is no better than _but yet_ in Shakespeare, which was

"as a gaoler to bring forth
Some monstrous malefactor."

True to its vocation, this little word brings before the Treasurer a monstrous proposition, which he cannot receive. No,--he will have nothing to do with it. But his sudden sensitiveness with regard to the course of the Society should not prevent us from performing a simple duty.

III.

The third and last proposition involved in the Report and Resolutions is, that our Society, by its officers and individual members, ought to strive for increased usefulness; and it is particularly urged upon the Managers to enlist the coöperation of individual members. This, too, is opposed violently, as if it were not the duty of all to seek new opportunities of doing good. The Treasurer, of course, is ardent. He does not ask the coöperation of others. It is the policy of the Society, he says, to act by one mind only.

Look at our grandiose organization. We have a President with forty Vice-Presidents,--or, borrowing an illustration from Turkey, "a pacha with forty tails." Then we have a large body of foreign correspondents, whose names we print in capitals,--"fancy men," as they have been called, because they are for show, I suppose, like our Vice-Presidents. Then there are scores of Directors, and a Board of Managers. Now I know full well, that, of these, very few interest themselves so much in our Society as to attend its sessions. At the meeting last year for the choice of officers there were _ten_ present. We _ten_ chose the whole array of Vice-Presidents and all. And then, too, the Secretary politely furnished us printed tickets bearing their names and his own. Certainly, Sir, something should be done to mend this matter. We must cease to have so many officers, or they must participate actively in the duties of the Society.

Look now at our annual income. Notwithstanding the special pleading of the Treasurer, I must insist that this is upwards of $3,000, derived partly from interest on our capital stock of $7,000, and the remainder from subscriptions obtained through the solicitations of the Secretary.

* * * * *

Mr. DWIGHT. But this is not a permanent income. It is derived from the charity of Boston.

* * * * *

Mr. SUMNER. And is not the charity of Boston permanent? I have stated facts precisely as they are. Now it becomes a society so richly endowed to do much for the cause to which it professes devotion. It should make itself felt widely, not only in our own State, but wherever Prison Discipline claims attention.

But what does it accomplish? On looking at its journal for the last three years, it appears that the chief business of the Managers, who have met some three or four times in the year only, has been to vote a salary of seventeen hundred dollars to the Secretary, with fuel and rent for his office sometimes, and also to vote him a vacation of four months in the country during our pleasant summers. This, certainly, so far as the Managers are concerned, is not doing much for Prison Discipline. But the Managers are responsible for the Annual Reports of the Society. I think it may be safely said, that, for several years, our Society has done little besides publishing these Reports. Its annual income and the labors of its official galaxy are all absorbed in these. I would not disparage these documents; but, professing, as I do, some familiarity with the kind of labor required in their preparation, I cannot forbear repeating what I have said before, that, if we take our last Report for an example, one month would be a large allowance of time for its production by any one competent man. But the Treasurer says our Society has devised a plan for a new jail in Boston, which of itself is no inconsiderable labor,--and the Treasurer praises this plan. My own judgment with regard to it is of very little consequence; but I have here a letter from Dr. Julius, of Prussia, one of the highest living authorities on the subject,--to whom the plan has been shown,--who expresses an opinion different from that of the Treasurer.

Certainly, Sir, our Society must do more. It becomes us to imitate sister associations in Philadelphia and New York, whose incomes are less than ours, and whose array of organization is not so imposing, but who, by committees and sub-committees, and committees of ladies too, make their beneficence practically felt by those who are in prison, while by their influence they widely affect public opinion. It becomes us also to imitate the Board of Education in our own Commonwealth, which not only publishes an Annual Report, but by its Secretary makes annual visits to every part of the State, and by lectures and speeches, by the glowing pen and the living voice, arouses the indifferent and confirms the wavering. I trust soon to hear of lectures on Prison Discipline, and of local societies under our auspices in every county of the State.

Ours is a large and powerful organization, abounding in resources of all kinds, plenteously supplied by never-failing streams of charity. We must administer it in the spirit of charity, that we may promote the greatest good of those who are its objects. The contributions of which we are almoners should not run to waste. All must join in effort to give them the widest influence. All must help place our Society in cordial fellowship with other laborers in the same pursuits. Let me ask you, Mr. President, to unite with your honored predecessor [Rev. Dr. WAYLAND] in promoting these worthy objects. Commence your new duties by guiding us in a path where we may find that universal confidence now somewhat forfeited, and where the blessings of those in prison, who have felt our kindness, may be ours.

* * * * *

I believe I might leave the Report and Resolutions here, feeling that they stand on impregnable ground. But there are two objections, each brought by different speakers, which I have reserved to the close: one founded on the private character of the Secretary of our Society; the other, on the alleged superiority of the Congregate System over the Separate System.

In interposing the private character of the Secretary, a new issue is presented, entirely immaterial to the question on the adoption of the Resolutions. This is discerned merely by repeating the grounds of these. _First_, our Society ought to be candid and just; _secondly_, it should offer a hand of fellowship to our brethren in Philadelphia; _thirdly_, it should be more useful. These propositions are not answered, when we declare, in eloquent phrase, that the private character of the Secretary is good. I, too, give my homage to his private character. I have never failed to render my tribute to his early merit in founding and organizing this Society; nor in this discussion, painful as it has been, and calling for severe criticism of matters with which he is intimately connected, have I made any impeachment of the motives by which his course is controlled. It is my earnest desire, that the Society, under his auspices, may be more widely felt, and develop new capacities for useful.

The other remaining objection is, that the Congregate System is superior to the Separate System, and that the acceptance of the Report and Resolutions will be giving adhesion to the latter. This conclusion is not correct. Your Committee ask for candor and justice; they do not ask for adhesion to any system. On the contrary, they expressly disclaim such desire. But it may well be asked--and I allude to this point not because I regard it as material to the issue--whether _experience_ does conclusively establish the superiority of the Congregate System. My learned friend [Mr. GRAY] who first introduced this topic founds his conclusion mainly on a comparison of the prisons at Philadelphia and Charlestown, where the statistics are said to show a much larger proportion of mortality and insanity in the former than in the latter. Admitting that the statistics adduced are accurate (and I do not propose to question them), it is very hasty in my friend to adopt his conclusion with regard to the comparative merits of the two systems. In the first place, the limited experience of these prisons, or any small number of prisons, may be affected by circumstances irrespective of the two systems,--as, for instance, their administration, which may be more or less defective. And permit me to say, that the argument of my friend seems rather to show a defect in the administration of the system at Philadelphia than in the system itself. The system has but _one essential idea_, the absolute separation of prisoners from each other. But it is said that this cannot be practically carried out, consistently with health of body and mind. It may be so. But here the highest authorities have affirmed the opposite. The College of Medicine in France, and the Scientific Congress at Padua in 1843, and of Lucca in 1844, pronounce it practicable. But my friend urges, that each prisoner should be indulged with at least two hours of society daily, and that this is impracticable. I doubt if so much is requisite. But if this and much more be needed, to secure for our prisons those influences most conducive to the reformation of offenders, will it not be found? There are Christian clergymen who find time to bless with their presence, with prayers and texts, the gaudy celebrations of military companies; there are young men who partake of these pomps. Cannot as many be found who will visit those in prison?

In the next place, the conclusion is fallacious, as it is founded on a comparison of prisons in different places, under the influence of different circumstances of climate and situation; whereas, to render the comparison exact, it should be between prisons in the same place, and under the same circumstances. This I am enabled to make. There are now at Geneva two prisons, one on the Auburn System, built in 1825, and the other on the Pennsylvania System, built in 1843. M. Ferrière, the chaplain of both these prisons,--and therefore, it must be supposed, equally conversant with both,--presented to the Penitentiary Congress at Frankfort a comparison between these two, which he states to be in the same locality, with a unity of conditions in all respects, except what touches the system itself. He gives the preference in every particular to the Pennsylvania prison, and expressly declares that there are always persons in the Auburn prison who are insane, while, down to the present time, there have been none in the other prison.

Lastly, the conclusion of my friend is fallacious, inasmuch as it is founded on a too narrow induction, closing his eyes to the experience of Europe. There is the prison of Warsaw, on the Separate System, which has been in operation since 1835. During the twelve years since its occupation there have been only two cases of mental alienation, one of which declared itself on the morning after the arrest, and the other was caused by too hasty treatment of the _plica_. In France, as we learn from an address before the Penitentiary Congress, there are nineteen prisons on the Separate System, which have been _occupied_ since 1843. "The experience," it is said, "is not of long duration, but it is sufficient to assure the spirits of the most fearful. The most harmonious unanimity prevails in the observations of the physicians. All recognize that maladies are less frequent, and shorter in duration. It is the same with mental alienation, in the period of one to four years to which the observations relate. No cause of insanity is attributed by the physicians to the Separate System, as it is practised in France, with frequent visits, labor, and an hour at least of exercise in the open air." In England there are at this moment _thirty_ prisons on the Separate System, with thirty-five hundred cells, which are so successful in their influences that upwards of three thousand additional cells are to be constructed. On the Continent there are many directors of Auburn prisons who have become dissatisfied with their operation, and openly pronounce in favor of the Pennsylvania System. I might dwell on the experience of Europe till the chimes of midnight sounded in our ears; but I forbear. I cannot dismiss this topic, however, without alluding to one suggestion, which came in such a questionable shape that I am at a loss how to treat it.

The sentiment of patriotism is invoked, and we are gravely told that the reference to European authority and experience which has occurred in this debate is not consistent with a proper regard to our own country. It is natural, Sir, for us to love our country, and to take pride in its institutions. Whatever is done among us finds special favor, if it be associated in any way with our country. But this sentiment must not become a prejudice. It must not become a malign influence to interrupt the course of truth, or interfere with questions to which it is alien. The subject now before us belongs to science and philanthropy, and I have yet to learn that the prejudices of patriotism have any just foothold in these sacred demesnes. Let us welcome knowledge, wherever it may be found. Hail holy light! from whatever sun or star it may pour upon the eyes, from whatever country or clime it may penetrate the understanding or the heart!

Again let me say that our Report and Resolutions stand on impregnable grounds. And now, Mr. President, as I conclude, let me render to you just thanks for the impartiality and amenity with which you have presided over these debates, and may these high qualities be reflected in the future course of our Society. Let us all unite in efforts for increased usefulness, in harmony with one another, and with kindred associations of our own country and of other lands. And if, from the collisions of this discussion there have been any sparks of unkindly feeling, may they all be quenched in the vote which is now to be taken.

NOTE.

The result of these debates called forth the following letter from M. de Tocqueville, of France, addressed to Mr. Sumner.

[TRANSLATION.]

MY DEAR SIR,--I have read in the Daily Advertiser of
June 1st the account of a meeting of the Boston Prison Discipline
Society, in which you proposed a resolution, the effect of which
was to declare that this Society ought not to be considered "the
pledged advocate" of the Auburn System, or of any other system,
and that it should judge all systems without taking sides in
advance, and without prejudice. I have since learned, by the same
paper, that the Society refused to adopt the resolution. This vote
has surprised and pained me. I take a very lively interest in
the reform of prisons, and I have always cherished a respectful
attachment for the Society, which has, of its own accord, done me
the honor to make me one of its members, and which enjoys so just a
reputation in the philanthropic world. It is under the influence of
these two sentiments that I feel an impulse to write to you.

The vote of which I have spoken will cause, I do not fear to
say, a painful surprise to almost all those in Europe who are
devoted to the Prison question. They will interpret it as a solemn
determination taken by the Society to make itself the champion of
the Auburn System, and the systematic adversary of the Separate
System. Instead of a judge, it will seem to become a party.

I need not inform you, that, at the present day, in Europe,
discussion and experience have, on the contrary, led almost all
persons of intelligence to adopt the Separate System, and to
reject the Auburn System. Most of the governments of the Old
World have declared themselves more or less in this way, not
hastily, but after serious inquiry and long debates. I will speak
only of the two great free nations of Europe,--those which I know
the best, and which are the most worthy of being regarded as an
authority, wherever questions are decided only after discussion
before the country, and obedience is rendered to public opinion
alone,--France and England. Among these two nations, I can assure
you, the Auburn System is almost universally rejected. The greater
part of those who had previously inclined towards this system
have completely abandoned it, when they came to discuss it, or
to see it in operation, and have adopted, wholly or in part, the
system of Separate Imprisonment. The two governments have followed
the same tendencies. You know that the French government brought
forward, a few years since, a law, of which separate imprisonment
formed the basis. This law after a discussion of five weeks,
the longest and most thorough which has ever taken place in our
parliament on any question, was voted by an _immense majority_.
If this same law has not yet been discussed in the Chamber of
Peers, the reason is to be found in circumstances entirely foreign
to the Penitentiary Question. The Chamber of Peers will take it
into consideration at the opening of the approaching session; and
among the most considerable men in this Chamber, the greater part
have already pronounced openly in favor of its principle. As to
the press, almost all the journals sustain the system of Separate
Imprisonment. The journal which had most skilfully and earnestly
combated the system has recently declared itself convinced of
its excellence. This change has been produced, in part, by the
experience had for many years in a large number of our prisons.
Indeed, it may be doubted, whether, when the law shall be reported
to the Chamber of Peers, there will be found a single person to
combat its _principle_.

In this state of facts and opinions, the vote which a society
so enlightened and celebrated as that of Boston has just passed
will not be comprehended among us; and I cannot, I confess to you,
prevent myself from fearing that it will be injurious to the high
consideration which the Society enjoys on this side of the ocean,
or that, at least, it will weaken its authority. I should strongly
regret this, not only from my interest in an association to which
I have the honor to belong, but also from my interest in humanity,
whose cause it can so powerfully serve.

Be pleased to receive, Sir, the assurance of my very distinguished
consideration.

ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE,
_Member of the Institute and of the Chamber of Deputies_

TOCQUEVILLE, August 6, 1847.

CHARLES SUMNER, Esq., Boston.

THE LATE JOSEPH LEWIS STACKPOLE, ESQ.

ARTICLE IN THE BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER, JULY 23, 1847.

The sudden death of Mr. Stackpole has filled a large circle of friends with poignant grief. His hale and vigorous health, of which a fresh and manly countenance and a joyous nature were pleasing tokens, seemed to give assurance that he would long be spared to them, while the many accomplishments by which his life was adorned, and the kindly qualities which grappled him to their hearts, created attachments now too rudely severed. He had stood aloof from public affairs, and from those concerns of business by which men become prominent before the world. The time thus withdrawn from customary pursuits was given to family and friends, and to the cultivation of those elegant tastes which add so much to the grace of society.

He was a graduate of Harvard University in the class of 1824, and afterwards studied law. His studies were careful and thorough. His attainments were increased by travel in Europe. As a member of the Examining Committee on Modern Languages at the University, he made his excellent knowledge, particularly of French, useful to the community. Had his professional studies been continued, there is reason to believe, that, in some departments, he would have contributed in no humble measure to the true fame of his country. An article in the "American Jurist,"[185] entitled "Customs and Origin of Customary Law," written by Mr. Stackpole while still very young, drew the attention of learned men in Europe, as much, perhaps, as was ever done by any paper of mere jurisprudence from our country. It was the subject of comment by the late Professor Park, at King's College, in one of his public lectures, who read extracts from it to his classes, and it was republished in one of the English law journals. This was at a time when American productions found little favor from the mother country. Story and Kent had not then compelled recognition of American law within the precincts of Westminster Hall. This article will be read with interest by students of jurisprudence and history, while it must always possess peculiar attraction, as the early offering of ingenuous youth to a stern profession ardently espoused. Perhaps nothing ever appeared in our country, from one equally young, evincing a finer juridical spirit.

[185] July, 1830, Vol. IV. pp. 28-63.

Mr. Stackpole has been removed from strongest family ties, from a large cluster of friends, from enjoyments richly spread by competency and taste, and from opportunities of usefulness which were before him in ample fields, while his sun of life was still high and glowing in the heavens. He has passed away as a shadow. Let us clasp and hold fast the memory of his virtues.

FAME AND GLORY.

AN ORATION BEFORE THE LITERARY SOCIETIES OF AMHERST COLLEGE AT
THEIR ANNIVERSARY, AUGUST 11, 1847.

But if there be in Glory aught of good,
It may by means far different be attained,
Without ambition, war, or violence,--
By deeds of peace, by wisdom eminent,
By patience, temperance.

MILTON, _Paradise Regained_.

Da veniam scriptis, quorum non gloria nobis
Causa, sed utilitas officiumque fuit.

OVID, _Epist. ex Ponto_, III. ix., 55, 56.

Singulari in eo negotio usus opera Flacci Pomponii, consularis
viri, nati ad omnia quæ recte facienda sunt, simplicique
virtute, merentis semper quam captantis gloriam.--VELLEIUS
PATERCULUS, _Hist._, Lib. II. Cap. 129.

Non privatim solum, sed publice _furimus_. Homicidia compescimus,
et singulas cædes; quid bella, et occisarum gentium _gloriosum
scelus_?--SENECA, _Epist._ XCV. § 30.