REPORT OF THE ACTING COMMITTEE FOR THE YEAR 1911.
In the year 1912, the Pennsylvania Prison Society will have completed a century and a quarter of its existence. It seems opportune briefly to note some of the important features of the work of this organization during the last 125 years. We are fortunate in the possession of an unbroken series of records of the transactions of this body from its first meeting in May, 1787, to the present time.
In 1787 the conditions of the jails in Philadelphia were unspeakably disgraceful. In one common herd there were kept by day and by night prisoners of all ages, colors, degrees of crime, and the sexes were not separated. No bedding was supplied and unless the prisoner had means or friends, he slept on the ground or bare floor. One loaf of bread constituted the daily ration. Misconduct was punished by the branding-iron, the pillory, or by the lash. Intoxicants were sold to all applicants who had money. The keeper reaped a profit from all sales made to the inmates of the prison. The death rate was enormous. No effort was made to find any useful employment for the prisoners.
The Society early resolved that intoxicants must be forbidden and that some form of employment must be found. They insisted on segregation of the sexes, and also began to press for individual separation in order that the penal institutions should not become schools for crime. Within a very few years many reforms were instituted. The death penalty which had been inflicted for a score of crimes was abrogated except for murder in the first degree. “Solitary confinement to hard labor” is still a familiar phrase used by Judges in pronouncing sentence. In its early years, the Society consistently and persistently urged the adoption of a system of employment whereby each prisoner alone in his cell should perform his task in some industrial pursuit. It was never intended that the prisoners should be kept entirely secluded from all human companionship, but that the officers should see them frequently and that concerned visitors, under proper supervision, should be allowed to talk with them and endeavor to point them to the better way. This idea became known among penologists as “The Pennsylvania System,” and was discussed widely, both at home and abroad. The Eastern Penitentiary, on Fairmount Avenue, formerly Coates Street, was built upon plans largely suggested by this Society. Doubtless the separate system was entirely carried out in 1829, when the prison was opened for the reception of prisoners. But in the last half century, the number of prisoners has exceeded the number of cells, so that the officers of the prison have not been able to carry out this system as originally planned. When this penitentiary was first constructed, it was located on what was then known as Cherry Hill, an eminence in the Northwest suburban district, and was surrounded by farming land. That penal institutions should be located in the country is, therefore, not a new proposition. Now it is generally conceded that such institutions not only should be located in the country, but that they should own and work a large tract of land adjacent.
The first prisoner was received Oct. 25, 1829. The first report of the Committee to visit the Eastern Penitentiary was made to the Acting Committee on Nov. 11, 1829, and shows that there were two prisoners at that time in the institution, one a white man from Chester Co., the other a colored man from Delaware Co. By June 8, 1830, the number of prisoners had increased to 25. The following extracts from the report of the Visiting Committee, made in June, 1830, will prove interesting to those who are familiar with the present conditions at the Penitentiary. “* * * The best order prevails among the prisoners who are industriously, and it is believed, profitably employed. Each is supplied with a soup-pan, washbasin, brush, fine and coarse tooth comb, spoon, knife and fork, and every week with a clean towel. Each prisoner is required to keep his room clean and neat. * * * The food consists of half a pint of milk, mixed in the same amount of hot water, bread made of rye and Indian meal (one pound) for breakfast; for dinner one pint soup, three-fourths pound meat, one-third pound bread; for supper one pint Indian mush and a half gill molasses. * * * No conversation can take place between the prisoners, and no communication from without be permitted. It has not been found necessary to inflict any punishment so far, except in two cases: in one case where a prisoner had neglected to keep his mess-pan clean, he lost two meals; in another case, a prisoner who neglected his work was for three days deprived of his meat. The principal trades are weaving and shoemaking, trades which may be carried on in cells to advantage. The health of the prisoners continues good.” The report is signed June 8, 1830, by the entire Visiting Committee consisting of David Weatherly and James J. Barclay. Now after 80 years the supply of furniture is practically the same, a table or stand being added. Sanitary arrangements have been vastly improved, and the addition of a superior grade of homemade wheat bread and coffee to the bill of fare has made a more palatable menu.
Some forty years ago it was written that every advance in the amelioration of convict prisons systems of discipline began in Philadelphia. In the discussion of these problems The Pennsylvania Prison Society took a conspicuous part. In 1856 the first published criticism of the contract system, under which the labor of the prisoners was sold for profit and to meet the prison expenses, issued from Philadelphia. The criticism was received with scorn and ridicule. Thoughtful students of humanitarian measures began investigations in one State after another, with the result that at the present time scarcely one State in the Union maintains such a system. But while Pennsylvania has led the way in many measures to reform the criminal and improve his condition, some States have made more rapid progress in these directions. Many States offer greater opportunities in their prisons for industrial employment than we can show in Pennsylvania. Most of the States have preceded us in the adoption of a Parole and a Probation system for adult convicts.