Chapter II: Part 2

Perceiving from the legislative journal of one of our youngest and most thriving Western States, that steps were about to be taken towards the adoption of a general penitentiary system, we made some modest inquiries as to the probable result, and in reply received the following information: “The Commissioners by whom the plan was got up, were a set of politicians. One of them went East to get a plan, and in talking with him, I found he was loud in his condemnation of the separate system, though he admitted he had never seen a prison on that plan, and was without the slightest knowledge of its nature and operation! His own _greatest objection to it was on the ground of expense_--nor would he believe that the whole resources of the State were adequate to the building of a secure prison on the separate system for one hundred convicts.” At this point we concluded to send, by return mail, a copy of the number of our Journal for January, 1850, containing the plans and estimates for a separate prison, for the reception of one hundred prisoners; but we were estopped by the very next paragraph of our correspondent’s letter. “He would neither receive information nor listen to reason on the subject. A large wooden building was put up, and about forty convicts are in it, cutting stone for the permanent building, which, at the rate they now work, will be finished in about fifty years!”

“The office of prison Commissioner (the incumbent of which was originally appointed by the Executive) was last winter made elective on joint ballot of the Legislature. An applicant for the office succeeded, by dint of a close siege, to induce the Legislature to appoint him. But the Governor, knowing that this same man had been guilty of extravagance and corruption in the same post before, exercised the power of removal which was left to him; and when the newly elected Commissioner came to the prison with the certificate of his election in his pocket, he was met by the incumbent with a document from the Governor, removing him from the office, and appointing the old one to fill the vacancy!” “What will become of the convicts while politicians are fighting for the custody of them,” says our correspondent, “is more than we can tell.”

Now it might seem very idle in us to counsel those whose interests are thus trifled with, to take the matter into their own hands, inasmuch as those who now have it in hand, are their true and lawful representatives. But with a free press and cheap postage, we have a plain duty to discharge. As a society--we know no party sect or section--we go for wholesome laws and for a prompt, even, and rigid execution of them. We look upon crime as a public calamity. To prevent it, and to counteract the temptations and provocatives to it, is a most wise and philanthropic work, in which we gladly co-operate. Where crime is consummated, however, and the guilty party is condemned in due course of law, it is a question of deep public interest, what shall be done with him? If he can be reformed and restored to a reputable position in society, common humanity would dictate the use of all practicable measures to secure this result.

One of the most reliable aids in this process, is the modicum of self respect which may remain to the convict. The wreck is not total so long as this single piece of timber is preserved. To cherish this where it exists, or at least to avoid every thing that shall extinguish it, is of the utmost importance. Will the separation of the unhappy man from his fellow-convicts, and from the curious gaze of others, conduce to this end. We think it will, in an eminent degree, and therefore we make this a prominent feature of our plan. Will separation be better, on the whole, even if the hope of reforming the culprit is but very faint and remote? Yes; under all ordinary circumstances, and at all times, it is best for a convict to be separated from other convicts. But does not this feature of separation involve, in the prison structure, great expense to the State? Not half so much as the absence of it. Once settle the principle, that the separation of convicts, each one from the other, is more likely to give the desired effect to their punishment than association, and the question of expense becomes very insignificant.

We are aware that if the bugbear of extraordinary expense were disposed of, it would be urged forthwith, that separation, if it were as cheap, is more hazardous to health and reason, and therefore inhuman. We deny the position, and challenge the production of a single case in which the mental powers of a convict have been destroyed or deranged, or even weakened, as _the necessary and unavoidable result of the most rigid separation_. The truth is, that statements on this subject have been made with an inconsiderateness and flippancy which would be unwarrantable in any connection, but are absolutely reprehensible here.

We do not question the soundness of the opinion of Dr. Evans and other intelligent professional men, that seclusion in a prison cell, too long continued, will be quite likely to terminate in the prostration of the human intellect. But separation from convict society is not seclusion. For the few hundred rogues with whom they are forbidden intercourse, there are millions of honest people who may have access to them. We admit farther, that separation may become seclusion by neglect, in the same way that a clean prison may become a filthy one, or a humane discipline inhuman, viz: by want of due oversight and care on the part of those who are entrusted with the government of it. And when this neglect or abuse occurs, we must not be surprised to find its legitimate effects follow.

But we shall greatly err if we attribute all the insanity in a separate prison (or indeed in any prison) to a peculiarity in its system of discipline. There will always be those who take ground against a system, no matter for what cause, and who, in their eagerness to maintain it, will press into the service not only whatever bears the semblance of truth, but many things which a little honest inquiry would show, have not even this to justify the use that is made of them. Insanity is found in a prison. There are (say) twenty victims of it. Five of the sufferers are placed there on this very account, for safe keeping. Three others were insane when committed, and were known to be so by the committing tribunals. Three have been subject, for years, to periodical returns of insanity, from which a prison-life is not likely to exempt them. Six have an hereditary tendency to insanity, which any irksome constraint would almost necessarily develope. And three are insane from various causes “not ascertained,” as are scores in our lunatic asylums.

Suppose now one who is hostile to the system of discipline pursued in that particular prison, (whether congregate or separate,) should group all these together, and affirm that the system was evidently subversive of the reason of convicts, and ought to be abandoned forthwith--“twenty-four of our fellow-creatures,” they would say, “have already fallen a sacrifice! Who can justify the infliction of this calamity, worse than death!” and so on.

Now, without denying that imprisonment of all sorts is an unnatural state for any man to be in, and therefore likely to bring to light whatever latent proclivities to physical or mental infirmity may exist; or that there may be a neglect of hygienic laws, and a disregard of those precautions, which professional skill or common prudence may suggest for the counteraction of morbid agencies;--we confidently affirm that the separation of a convict from his fellows, has no tendency in that direction to make it an objectionable feature of prison discipline. On the contrary, we believe its legitimate influence, when administered by humane and intelligent men, (and no prison should be governed by any other,) is highly favorable to moral and intellectual and physical improvement, and more likely to answer the ends of punishment, than any other system now known.

But to return to the political nuisance. It is not only into these more imposing and expensive institutions (the patronage of which may be supposed to avail something in political struggles) that the baneful influence of party spirit intrudes itself. It was but lately that the project of a House of Refuge in a neighboring State, fell through between political parties. If we are not misinformed, one of the most useful and successful institutions for the reformation of juvenile offenders in our country, has been sadly embarrassed by the same cause, and another of like character, all completely furnished and ready for occupation, remains with closed doors till the appointing powers can settle some political squabble.

If the influence of State politics is thus baneful, we need not say how much more disastrous must be the intrusion of Church politics. We deeply regret the attempt which, we understand, has been made in some quarters to excite religious prejudices against these valuable institutions for the reformation of youthful vagrants. A volume has recently been published in one of our northern cities, (under a fictitious title,) for the obvious purpose of engendering such prejudices, and we have understood, from a source entitled to some confidence, that any youth of the particular religious denomination, (whose interests the author espouses) who reads the book, will be likely to give trouble to the master who takes him under indenture! Now, as American citizens, we are surely all alike concerned in giving every child a good education, and in correcting as soon and as effectually as possible every vicious habit and propensity. Hence our common schools are public property, and should be not only out of sight, but out of hearing of the din of political strife or the roll of the “drum ecclesiastic.” Our institutions for the correction, reformation and punishment of those who from neglect, perverseness or incorrigible depravity become present or prospective pests of society, should be elevated above all political or sectarian connections. We cannot have a school, a refuge, or a prison for each of the legion of parties in Church and State, and hence the impolicy and unreasonableness of making existing institutions subservient to any political or sectarian end. Away with all such suicidal schemes! The ground these institutions occupy, or ought to occupy, is too sacred to be entered by such unhallowed feet.

With these views we cannot but deplore the intermingling of political interests or considerations, with the subject of prisons and prison-discipline. The only effect of their introduction is to endanger all the benevolent, public and permanent interests that ought to be regarded, and to advance those that are purely selfish and temporary. There is something utterly revolting to every human sympathy, in the idea that a hospital for poor lunatics must be delayed till some political party has strength enough to venture on the expense, or that the adoption of a system of prison-discipline, or the establishment of a House of Refuge for juvenile offenders and vagrants, should be governed by so narrow a consideration, as its tendency to promote or defeat a transient political end! Concerning all public men who entertain such views, we say, “Oh my soul! come not thou into their secret. Unto their assembly, mine honor! be not thou united.”

ART. V.--UNCERTAINTY OF CONVICTION AND PUNISHMENT.

Among the considerations which (we may suppose) exert the chief influence in prompting a man to crime, or in deterring him from it, we must regard the probability of detection and punishment, as by no means the least. Not that a man who is about to commit a crime considers very scrupulously either what measure of punishment is affixed to a certain shade of crime, or what are the chances for escaping detection; but there is a general conviction abroad in all communities on these subjects, engendered by observing from time to time the proportion of criminal acts that escape detection, and the proportion of criminal actors that evade merited punishment; and this general impression influences evil-disposed persons quite as much as any other class. Hence when the idea prevails that the chances are quite even, in favor of escaping detection, or that if detected, the chances are quite equal, that the threatened punishment may be evaded, there will be of course a proportionate relaxation of restraining influence upon criminal propensities. Let two or three children in a family succeed in a plan of disobedience in several instances, which are not detected, or let the prescribed punishment be withheld from a few offences that are clearly made out, and mischievous effects will soon become evident.

Perhaps some of our readers have never taken the trouble to survey the stages through which a criminal process must be conducted, and the embarrassments which attend it.

Besides the reluctance to prosecute, and thus expose one’s-self to a very undesirable notoriety, and incur the enmity, and possibly kindle the resentments of a malevolent and reckless heart, there is, in the country-districts, an inefficiency of police arrangements, of which an accomplished rogue well knows how to take advantage.

The avenues for escape are so various, and the methods of communication (aside from telegraph lines) so uncertain and infrequent, that the most wary police force is not seldom put to its wit’s end. In the country districts a young thief or burglar can obtain considerable practice in his profession before there is stir enough to prompt to his arrest. If a hen roost or garden or orchard is robbed, the owner prefers to put up with his loss, rather than be at the trouble to ferret out the rogue, and after all be defeated. The manufacturer or trader who is defrauded by a dishonest clerk, quietly dismisses the offender, and leaves it for his next employer to find out the lad’s character for himself. The course of reasoning is substantially this: The rogue will never have a chance to play his game with me again. Perhaps this disclosure of his criminal propensities may be the means of inducing him to reform; I do not wish to be the instrument of blasting his character and prospects, and bringing distress and reproach on his innocent family. Besides, I have not much faith in imprisonment as a means of reformation or discipline. So, on the whole, I will pocket my loss and send the culprit to seek his fortune--by hook or by crook, as he lists. Many a finished rogue is indebted for his proficiency in crime to this humane-looking selfishness or morbid benevolence.

It is probably this general indisposition in private individuals to incur the risk and trouble of prosecuting offences, that has led to the establishment of associations for the purpose--such as societies for the detection and prosecution of horse-thieves, counterfeiters, &c., of which there are said to be not less than five hundred in the counties of England and Wales. It has been said that the existence of such societies is a proof that the State has abdicated its functions in this respect, and that posterity will refer to them as evidence of the imperfection of our present social condition, and of the misconception on the part of the State of its primary duties.

But suppose a culprit is detected and prosecuted, what is the probability of his conviction. We have not the means to determine what it is in the United States, but out of 26,813 persons committed for trial in England in 1850, 6,238, or about one in four escaped conviction! Indeed, the number _acquitted_ by the verdict of a jury in 1850, exceeded the whole number _committed_ in 1810. The proportion of acquittals is probably far greater in our country.

But if conviction is secured, there is still a wide range in the measure of punishment. Even in the compact and uniform administration of English law, the punishments for the same offences vary almost indefinitely,--a verdict for manslaughter, for example, may be followed by a sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for an hour! In our score or two of independent sovereignties, this diversity of punishment for similar offences is much greater, and as every man is disposed to expect indulgence towards himself, the lightest punishment is expected, and a severe one is regarded as cruel and tyrannical.

The uncertainty to which we have referred, has been justly regarded as a provocation to crime.

Those who feel tempted to transgress the laws must be supposed to make some sort of calculation as to the risk they will run. If they perceive that the advantage of a criminal course is more certain than its punishment--or, at least, if it appears so to them--they will pursue the course of their inclinations. But if the punishment, however slight, were indissolubly associated with the notion of the offence, the latter would be rarely committed. If the punishment merely consisted, as Bentham says, in taking from the offender the fruits of his crime and that punishment _were certain_, no more such crimes would be committed; for no man would be so foolish as to commit them. But, as there are so many chances of escape, it is necessary to make punishments more severe than if they oftener followed the offence. No measures, therefore, can be more humane than such as tend to attach certainty of punishment to crime, because, just in proportion as that certainty is increased, the severity of the penalty may be diminished. Hence also it further appears that the due proportion and immediate connection between crimes and their punishment are points likely to have great weight with criminals; because the great body of offences being larcenies, and perpetrated from cupidity and not from passion, the thief will soon abstain from plunder, and the forger from his counterfeit art, when common sense calmly whispers that he will lose and not gain by the transaction.

The million (says a late writer) derive their impressions of legal obligations by experience of it in the persons of others, if not of themselves. They have no instruction in the principles of jurisprudence, or of ethics; no access to tuition, either oral or written, on subjects like these. Their estimate of the criminality of excessive self-indulgence is formed by its visible effects. They restrain an intemperate propensity because they see the drunkard revelling in misery, or the thief carried away in handcuffs to the cells of a prison. Such plain matter-of-fact lessons as these are sufficiently intelligible, and their impressiveness ought not to be diluted.

In a late English Magazine it is stated that of thirty-seven persons sentenced to death in the year, eight only were executed; the sentences of the rest being commuted. In commenting on this fact, the writer says:

We are far from regretting that those thirty-seven capital sentences were not carried into effect; but we lament that some clearer distinction should not be made between homicides of different degrees of aggravation; so that, instead of charging cases as murder in which neither the jury would convict nor the Government execute the accused, that awful charge and high solemnity might be reserved for those black deeds in which the charge, and the conviction, and the execution, are almost certain to follow each other. If we ultimately retain capital punishment in our code, the limitation of the charge of murder which we have suggested will cause the notion of deliberate murder and the scaffold to be associated together in men’s minds. They are not so associated at present; for, besides the chances of escaping conviction, it is notorious that condemned convicts rarely abandon hope even to the very last. Let us strive to get rid of the mockery of pronouncing solemn sentences of death in cases which are unfit for execution. The impression made by such scenes is the very reverse of what it is intended to produce. When soldiers fire over the heads of a turbulent mob, or the schoolmaster scatters threats which his rod fails to fulfil, or the law awards punishments which public opinion forbids it to execute, derision and contempt are the consequences.

We incline to the belief that the most important and effective step which can be taken at this time by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, for the improvement of her penitentiary system, is to adapt the penalty of the law more nearly to the nature of the crime--reduce the terms of imprisonment to the lowest measure that can consist with the ends of its infliction, and then increase, in the highest degree, the facilities for the prompt detection of offenders, and the certainty of their suffering the unmitigated penalty of their crimes. It is our settled conviction, that a course of legislation which should virtually secure these results, would at once reduce the number and boldness of criminals at least fifty per cent--probably much more.

We urge this reform in the provisions and administration of our penal laws as eminently _humane_, for to whatever degree we reduce the amount of crime by increasing the certainty of conviction and punishment, to the same degree we promote the safety and happiness of the community.

For reasons somewhat analogous, we would also urge the propriety of bringing the utterance and the execution of the sentence of the law into the closest proximity in point of time, which can consist with propriety and humanity. We do not mean by this that the convict should be hurried from the dock to the gibbet or the cell, as if public justice were greedy to assert its sanctions; but simply, that no such length of time should intervene between conviction and punishment _as shall allow their natural relation to each other to be lost sight of, or but dimly seen_. In the divine government, which knows no limit of time or space, sentence against an evil work is not rendered uncertain by delay, and yet we have the highest warrant for saying that “because it is not executed speedily, the hearts of the sons of men are fully set in them to do evil.”

A foul and terrific murder has been committed--public feeling is excited to a high degree--every agency in the power of the government is put in requisition to detect the perpetrator and bring him to justice--no pains, stratagem or expense are spared to accomplish this end--perchance two or three false arrests are made--the ardor of pursuit is abated--and some new outrage or calamity catches the eye, and diverts the attention of the public. By and by a new direction is given to the original inquiry by some incidental circumstances, or it may be the result of a circuitous process of the police officers. The monster is discovered and arrested. But the horror with which the crime filled the public mind when it was first brought to light, has past away, and can by no means be re-excited. The victim of malice or wanton cruelty is six feet under ground. Sympathies with a surviving family have had their time and place, and are dismissed; and now the perpetrator of the bloody deed is arraigned.

Is there not a strong feeling of reluctance to have the tragical scene all re-enacted upon the theatre of a court room? Do not the sympathies, which a little while since followed the murdered man to the grave and his family and friends to their various homes, now strangely find their way into the prisoner’s dock, and plead for a suspension of the sword of justice? We would not favor the least relaxation of those rules of proceeding in criminal prosecutions, by which the life, liberty and reputation of the accused are protected. Let nothing be presumed against him. Let every thing be presumed in his favor till all such presumption is forbidden by conclusive evidence of guilt. The tables should then be turned. There are now new claims to be met. The community has patiently awaited the tardy movements of the constituted authorities. While it was uncertain who had forfeited the privileges of a citizen and, by a violation of the law, incurred its just penalty, the sword of justice was held in suspense. But now, the guilt being fixed and the perpetrator of the wrong being singled out, there should be heard among honest and law-abiding men but one voice--LET IT FALL!

Attempts to avert the blow are not in aid, but in delay of justice. Exceptions to the opinion of the court--motions in arrest of judgment, or for a new trial, are in most instances, regarded by the popular mind as so many ingenious attempts of the sworn ministers of the law, to open loop-holes of escape for the guilty. When a man stands before the country convicted, in due course of law, of a wilful and deliberate murder, and when public sentiment is so strong against him, that nothing but the fear or love of the powers that be, protects the culprit from a summary execution by mob-violence; it _seems_ like trifling (and to the mass of men it is trifling) to make the omission of the dot over an i, or the interlineation of a word in the record, or the omission to ask the convict “if he had any thing to say why sentence should not be pronounced against him,” or any similar clerical error or neglect, a reason for still further delay, or the basis of an argument for annulling the whole proceeding.

We shall not be misunderstood. We are not ignorant of the necessity of forms, nor of the wide door which is opened for abuses by the neglect of them. We would be the last to deprive a culprit of a single right or privilege which the law allows him. But he is not the only party in interest. Honest men and law-abiding citizens have rights and privileges which are also to be respected. When professional ingenuity is tasked to discover some shift or subterfuge by which the results of a conviction can be avoided, and the ends of public justice defeated; the impression made on the public mind is, that the criminal is defending himself against the vindictive aim of the government. Instead of appearing like a thief who is convicted, and is dodging every way to elude his pursuers; he is looked upon as a stag hunted by hounds, and panting in the last effort to escape their devouring gripe. Our doctrine is, that the laws should be so framed and so executed, that their ministers should always be a terror to evil doers, and a praise to them that do well. As it is now, the tendency of many of the most solemn public proceedings under them, is to bring them and their administrators into contempt and derision.

ART. VI.--RECENT OCCURRENCES IN PHILADELPHIA.

The chief purpose we have in view in transferring to our pages (without, however, making ourselves at all responsible for the accuracy of the details,) the following article from a recent New York paper, is to use it as a theme for a few observations on recent occurrences in our own city.

CRIME IN NEW YORK CITY.--Fitzgerald will be hung at the Tombs to-day for shooting his wife. Neary, sentenced to the same fate, for a similar offence, is respited one week, in order that the Sheriff’s Jury may determine whether he has lost his reason. If the latter execution takes place, it will make seven in this city within the last year! In all England and Wales the whole number of executions during the year 1852, as appears by a Parliamentary report, was only nine! The population of this city is six hundred thousand; the population of England and Wales is eighteen millions. In other words, New York, with a population of only one-thirtieth as large as England and Wales, hangs seven-ninths as many in the same space of time!

The little we fail in point of number, however, is more than made up in the atrocity of the offences. Of the nine hung in England one murdered his wife, one her husband, one her mother-in-law, one his employer, who had dismissed him, one his uncle, one a stranger on the highway, one his own illegitimate child, one the illegitimate child of his wife, one the illegitimate child of his paramour; but of our seven, three murdered their wives--namely, Grunzig by poison, Fitzgerald by shooting, Neary by beating the brains out with a mallet and chisel; Stookey murdered a negro, Clark murdered a police man, and Saul and Howlett a watchman. Three of the English murders were of infants, but all of the New York murders were of full grown persons, three of whom sustained the most sacred of all relations to those who deprived them of life. But, in truth, New York of right has the precedence of all England and Wales on this score even in regard to number. Doyle, who murdered the woman with whom he boarded in Pearl street, was sentenced to be hung, and ought to have been hung, and would have been hung in England, but was sent to the State prison for life. Sullivan, who killed the man in Cliff street who endeavored to prevent his beating his wife, was found guilty of murder, and ought to have been hung, and would have been hung in England, but was sent to the State prison for life. Johnson, one of the condemned with Saul and Howlett, was sent to the State prison for life. There are now at the Tombs ten men awaiting trial for murder, one of whom, Carnell, the fiendish Dey street murderer, has already been convicted once, and is now awaiting a second trial. The whole number of arrests in this city for homicide within the last year, has been, as near as we can ascertain, about thirty-five!

The whole number of arrests in this city during the year 1852, was about 35,000; the whole number of commitments in England and Wales was 27,510. The whole number of arrests for offences committed upon the person in New York in 1852, was 5,468; in England and Wales the whole number of commitments for the same class of offences during the same period there has been about two thousand. In England last year there were 13 convictions for burglary: in New York 146 arrests for the same offence. During the last seven years there were 66 convictions for this offence: in New York during the same period over 1000 arrests. But this does not furnish the worst aspect of the case. The disparity between England and this city, is yearly becoming greater. While crime is increasing there slightly, it is here increasing with fearful rapidity. The whole number of convictions for murder in England in 1846, was 13; the whole number of arrests in New York for murder for the nine months preceding May 1, 1846, was 10. In England the convictions of 1847 were 19; in New York, during the year ending May 1, 1847, the arrests were 18. In 1849 the convictions in England were 19; in New York the arrests for the year ending November 1, were 13. In 1850 the convictions in England were 11; in New York during the fifteen months ending with the last of December, 1850, they were 16. In 1851 the English convictions were 16; the New York arrests 36. In 1852 the English convictions were 16; the New York arrests were 30. The total number of commitments for all kinds of offences in England and Wales during the last seven years, was 194,424; the total number of arrests in New York during the same period was over 200,000! We are not able to make an exact comparison between the absolute number of crimes perpetrated in England and in New York city, since the Parliamentary tables before us relate only to commitments in the case of offences generally, and to convictions in cases of murder, whereas our police tables only give the number of arrests. Of course many are arrested who are not committed or bound over for trial, but their number is by no means so great as to destroy the remarkable significance of the figures we have put in connection.

Now, what are the causes of the remarkable difference between this city and England in extent of crime? England has its immense cities, abounding with ignorant and vicious classes of population--it has its London, its Liverpool, its Birmingham, its Manchester and its Leeds, and yet this single city of New York, if we may trust official tables, exceeds not only each of them in crime, but all put together! It cannot be ascribed to any peculiar character of our people, distinct from theirs--for it is notorious that the greater part of our criminality springs from the foreign element of our population. Of the seven murderers above specified, for instance, six of them were foreigners--one being a German, three Irish, one English, and one a Nova Scotian; and the seventh, though born in this city, was of Irish parentage. The same people that chiefly commit the crime here, are found in vast numbers in every English city. Why, then, the difference in the extent of that crime? This question does not admit of either a ready or a brief answer. The causes which produce this result are various and complex, some of which we may consider hereafter. The most important of them are, doubtless, the comparative inefficiency of our police in preventing crime, the comparative uncertainty of our courts in punishing crime, the neglect of our young vagrant population, and the vast number of disorderly groggeries, licensed and unlicensed, that have all the while, without restraint, been stimulating the passions and bad propensities of all the lower classes of our population. It is time that these matters should be seriously and earnestly looked at and cared for. Our streams of crime are increasing into torrents, and they threaten to overwhelm us. The facts we have given, startling as they are, cannot be denied. Official documents prove them. Read and ponder!

It will be observed that four distinct causes are here assigned for the difference in the extent of crime in New York and in English cities. Of them all, we have had something to say at various times. The first we discussed at some length in a former number,[2] and pointed out a few of the disadvantages to which the best police system must be subject under institutions like ours. Upon the second of these alleged causes we had prepared the article in our present number before seeing the observations of the New York paper. Scarcely a number of our Journal has been without some call to more concern for our vagrant juvenile population. So that our readers will not find any thing startling in the revolting statement we have copied, unless it be the striking proximity of cause and effect.

[2] See Journal for January, 1853, Art. III.

So far from feeling surprise at the frequency and boldness of crime, we rather wonder that the few checks which are imposed on it, maintain their power. No one can carefully note the manner in which crime and its perpetrators are treated, without perceiving how much is done to provoke and countenance it, in comparison with what is done to punish and suppress it. We have neither space nor inclination to enlarge on such a subject, but it is due to the cause of humanity and the welfare of society, that the plague-spots in the body politic should be plainly pointed out.

Not long since two men were together in a drinking house. A. is influenced with liquor sold to him in violation of law. He attempts to provoke a quarrel with B. B. leaves the house, and A. follows him with taunts and threats. B. is peaceable, says he does not want to quarrel, and retreats to a distance from the house. A. pursues him and deliberately, without the slightest provocation, and in spite of B.’s attempts to avoid a quarrel, stabs him to the heart! The dead man is buried--the murderer arrested and tried, and the jury find him guilty of murder in the second degree, and, moreover, recommend him to mercy! Why did he try to provoke a quarrel before he executed his murderous purpose? Why, because he had ascertained, by watching the proceedings of the courts, that the quarrel, however picked, would mitigate the offence. “Stabbing a man in a fight, gets only five years in the penitentiary.” This was his own statement.

A laborer is returning home from his daily toil on Saturday night--peaceable, if not sober--and within a few steps of his dwelling, is assaulted and murdered. After one or two false pursuits, two young men are arrested--tried and convicted of murder in the first degree. The most revolting details of the steps which immediately preceded the perpetration of the first deed are spread out before the public in the daily papers, and show a recklessness and indefinite malice which makes one’s blood run cold. Not a shadow of doubt rests on the minds of the jury. The verdict is followed by the sentence, and the time is fixed for their execution. But no--hundreds and thousands of citizens unite to arrest the arm of justice, and to screen these desperate felons from the just reward of their deeds. Can any one fail to see the influence of such a proceeding, in relaxing the authority of the government, and bringing the highest sanctions of law into popular contempt?

But another case, and a still more flagrant one, may be cited. It presents various points of interest involved in our present inquiry.

It is said that Arthur Spring, when a young man, was guilty of robbing some orphan children, by forcibly opening a trunk, in which they had a little treasure, and stealing it. He was arrested, but escaped condemnation through the influence of a relation, who held a commission of the peace, and sat upon the trial! This probably emboldened him in his career. It is needless, and would be offensive, to spread on our pages a history of his infamous deeds. Suffice it to say, that he was convicted of a penitentiary offence in this city some years since, and pardoned within 48 hours after being committed! Again, he was convicted in New York, and again pardoned!

Then follow two, if not three, successive wilful, unprovoked, deliberate murders committed with a degree of boldness and ferocity almost unprecedented. He is tried, convicted and sentenced to suffer death.

And now the scene changes. The offence of the culprit is too rank to admit of any interposition for his rescue--no call for executive clemency would be tolerated in a case of such enormous atrocity. The death-warrant is issued, and the day for the execution is fixed. Most wisely and humanely, and in obedience to a reformed public sentiment, the law forbids this extreme penalty to be inflicted, as it once was, in presence of a gazing throng. What are its provisions?

10 April, 1834.--An Act to abolish public executions.

§ 1. Whenever hereafter any person shall be condemned to suffer death by hanging for any crime of which he or she shall have been convicted, the said punishment shall be inflicted on him or her within the wall or yard of the gaol of the county in which he or she shall have been convicted; and it shall be the duty of the Sheriff or Coroner of said county to attend, and be present at such execution, to which he shall invite the presence of a physician, the attorney general, or deputy attorney general of the county, and twelve reputable citizens, who shall be selected by the Sheriff: and the said Sheriff shall, at the request of the criminal, permit such ministers of the gospel, not exceeding two, as he or she may name, and any of his or her immediate relatives, to attend and be present at such execution, together with such officers of the prison, and such of the Sheriff’s deputies as the said Sheriff or Coroner in his discretion may think it expedient to have present; and it shall be only permitted to the persons above designated to witness the said execution: Provided, that no person under age shall be permitted, on any account, to witness the same.

§ 2. After the execution, the said Sheriff or Coroner shall make oath or affirmation, in writing, that he proceeded to execute the said criminal within the walls or yard aforesaid, at the time designated by the death-warrant of the Governor, and the same shall be filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court of Oyer and Terminer of the aforesaid county, and a copy thereof published in two or more newspapers, one of which at least shall be printed in the county where the execution took place.

Language could not make the design of the Legislature more intelligible. The walls of the prison yard effectually protect the enclosed area from being overlooked or entered without license; and it is within these walls that the extreme penalty of the law is to be inflicted. The Sheriff or Coroner to whom the warrant is addressed, is alone _required_ to be present. He is to _invite_ the presence of one of the principal prosecuting officers of the government, and only one of them. He is also to _invite_ one physician and twelve reputable citizens of the county selected by himself, for the purpose. He is _authorized_ to admit such ministers of the gospel as the culprit may desire and name, _but never more than two_, and also any of his immediate relatives, (if it were possible they could desire to witness such a scene). Besides these, no persons can be present (but in direct violation of law) except such officers of the prison, and such of his own deputies as he, the Sheriff, in his discretion may think it expedient to have present. And lest this permissive authority should be unduly stretched, it is restricted by a positive prohibition, that no other person shall witness the execution, and still farther to guard against any injurious effects from the scene, it is provided that no physician or minister, or relative, or officer of the prison, or other party, shall be admitted, if not twenty-one years of age or upwards.

The second section evidently contemplates such a record of the proceeding as shall be authentic and permanent in the absence of all personal or oral testimony--as for instance, if the Sheriff executed the warrant alone, none of the persons invited being in attendance, nor any minister or relative, nor any of the prison officers, or the Sheriff’s deputies, which, under the provision of the first section, was a supposable event. Now we maintain, that any violation of the letter or spirit of this law on the occasion of the execution of _Arthur Spring_, was, in the first place, in derogation of the dignity of the government--and in the second place, well fitted to bring all law into popular contempt, and to give encouragement to the perverse and disobedient to persist in their evil courses.

We avail ourselves of the columns of a highly respectable religious Journal published in Philadelphia, for a statement of the facts in respect to this particular case, rather than rely on our own information:

The recent execution of an atrocious murderer was witnessed, as all the reporters tell us, by a thousand persons. By what authority such a concourse could have been assembled, we know not: but of this there can be no doubt, it could have been only by a culpable evasion of the law. In the olden time, when any body under the impulse of curiosity or any better or worse motive, could at will form one of the crowd at an execution, the spectators were perhaps some four or five thousand in number: and now, even under the restrictions of the new law, the amateurs of the gallows--men who get the privilege of the ghastly sight by help of some official weakness or abuse--are reckoned a thousand. And such is the morbid curiosity which the law was meant to chasten and thwart, that a Grand Jury the other day is reported to have actually presented themselves in Court to inquire whether they were not officially privileged to attend the execution. We should have been glad if the dry negative which the Judge is reported to have given them had risen to the tone of rebuke. That a body of citizens charged with such high and dignified responsibilities as those of the Grand Jury should have so far forgotten their official, if not personal character, as to make this indecent application, has, we believe, excited but one sentiment--that of disgust--in this community.

It would be unjust to leave our readers under the impression that this was an occurrence without precedent. If we do not greatly mistake, quite as disgraceful a violation of the law occurred when Langfeldt was executed. And we do not hesitate to say that, whether they mean it or not, those who have permitted or countenanced these palpable violations of law in the very act of executing its stern decree, have done quite as much to defeat as to enforce its sanctions.

But all the revolting story in Spring’s case is not yet told, and we return to our former authority for its shameful details:

The lifeless body of the vile criminal was given up to the anatomist. Of this fact alone no one need complain. But a community has a right to ask that anatomy should do its hideous work with some reserve--and instead of parading its loathsome details, should cast a veil over them. The execution was witnessed by a thousand, and the dissection by (as we may infer) some hundreds. An elaborate newspaper report informs us that the post mortem examination was made “in the anatomical theatre of the Philadelphia College of Medicine, by Professor James M‘Clintock, in the presence of a large audience of medical students, physicians, members of the press and others.” According to the report, it must have been a very theatrical sort of exhibition--the follies of phrenology contributing largely to enliven it. Science may have gained something by such a piece of work, and by the lecture that accompanied it: it is possible, we suppose, that the knowledge of the theory and practice of hanging may have been a little increased, and perhaps some small addition made to the science of anatomy: but when we are told by the reporter that the Professor who made the dissection was “pleasantly facetious,” in his performance, we must say, that if science gained any thing, it was at the expense of human feeling and of decency. _Pleasantry!--facetiousness!_ What an occasion for the exercise of such powers! We would fain hope that the reporter used the words inconsiderately and inappropriately, and that he must have done the Professor injustice: but if not--if the man of science, standing over the ghastly carcass of the broken-necked criminal, from which an undying soul had so lately passed forth so fearfully, did accompany his explorations with any sort of facetiousness; and if his “large audience” did at all sympathize with such ill-placed levity, then--not trusting ourselves to picture what sort of a scene it was--we will only say that thus conducted, the anatomical theatre is as brutalizing and demoralizing as the public hanging ground itself. When Hogarth, with all his wondrous powers of commingling the grotesque and the ghastly, carried the vicious apprentice on to the last scene in the dissecting room, he did not venture, if we remember rightly, to picture there a facetious anatomist.

If we had space we should be disposed to comment somewhat at length on several points here presented, and others which have come to our knowledge from parties who were present, but we can only advert for a moment to the indirect influence of the published report of the examination.

It would seem that the physical _structure_ of the murderer was such as to indicate the ferocious and brutal disposition which he manifested. With such a development of brain, muscles, &c., it would have been quite a perplexing problem to scientific men, had he been less tender of the lives of his fellow-creatures. Now it occurred to us, as philanthropists, that we might perhaps do away with a great deal of crime and suffering, and almost the whole expense of the police, of criminal courts, prisons, &c., by a simple process like the following. Let a commission of discerning and judicious men of science be appointed in every county or large town, (like vaccine districts) who shall be required once a month to examine all persons within a given district, with a view to determine their developments. As soon as there is a perceptible tendency to thieving, burglary, fraud, robbery, rape, murder, or other criminal course, let it be duly recorded; and without waiting for the actual consummation of the deed, which is really the expensive feature of it, let the development suffice to put the public on its guard, and subject the party in whose unfortunate brain it is detected, to the same pains and penalties which he or she would suffer, were it to be allowed full expansion. A moment’s reflection will satisfy any one of the economy and efficiency of this plan.

The whole course of legislation, adjudication and punishment would thus be resolved into a plain matter of professional science; and all questions about the sources and preventives of crime would be brought to the surface of the cranium, and there be settled by square and compass!

Miscellaneous.

INDISCRIMINATE ALMSGIVING.--Great is the glory of benevolence; it outshines that of wealth and war. Hence, the wide and lasting fame of John Howard. All men revere his memory. The story of his life thrills the soul. None can read it without learning to admire the beauties of his goodness, and the moral gorgeousness of his charity. We enshrine his name in our heart of hearts. But John Howard was not benevolent only--he was wise; his insight into remedies was consummate. He sought to understand the sources of crime, and the character of criminals. He was prudent, methodical, firm; his wisdom and his love went hand in hand. Both his spirit and his understanding were consecrated to the great work which formed his mission.

Many wish to do good; they long to repress crime; they wish to diminish human sorrow; the poor look to them for help. Ready are their hearts to pity and their hands to bestow an alms. But they do not give _wisely_. Like Howard, they are full of compassion; unlike him, they have no system, no principle of action, no wise mode of dealing with the criminal, the ignorant, and the poor. They give profusely; they do not give thoughtfully; the fruits of their deeds are therefore corrupt and full of evil.

Let us explain. To bestow money, soup, blankets, and Bibles, is an easy duty; plenty of people will come for them; the demand is always equal to the supply. Society abounds with mean, lazy, drunken persons who do not wish to sweat and toil. There are men redolent of strong drink, tobacco, and filth, who “take the liberty of waiting upon your honor” to narrate tales of woe. They cannot get work; they owe five weeks rent; their wives are ill; their children have no bread. They are “poor fellows who wouldn’t come, but hunger is a sharp thorn,” and so on. There are women who knock at the door, and send in little, cramped, flattering, lying notes. Their husbands are in the hospital; they are going to be confined of their sixth child; they have four children ill of the small-pox; they have nothing to eat; they smell of whiskey, but that is of no consequence. A leetle drop they say, is a comfort, and they don’t get drunk.

There are little girls who call upon us to say that their father fell from a scaffold, and greatly needs some money to get him a morsel of fresh meat--the said father being then waiting round the corner for the anticipated gift. There are boys who follow us from square to square with a wretched whine, and telling a score of details about their daily sufferings, but taking care not to whisper a word of the short pipe, the smoking pudding, the pot of ale, and the visit to the Circus or Theatre, with which they solace themselves after the public labors and sufferings of the day. And there are the dramatic beggars--men who crouch behind a scroll, on which is written STARVATION; the pathetic beggars--women who sit on door-steps, with cold tears rolling down their cheeks; the rural beggars--picturesque beggars--and all other kinds of beggars.