APPENDIX.
REPORT ON THE SUBJECT OF LAW SHORTENING SENTENCES.
The Committee to consider the expediency of applying to the Legislature for a graduated diminution of sentences, dependent upon the continued good conduct of prisoners, having conferred together, and being favorably impressed with the advantages likely to arise from the adoption of the plan, concluded to ask a conference with the Inspectors of the Eastern Penitentiary.
Their application to the Board was referred to the Visiting Inspectors, and an interview was accordingly had with them, at which your Committee received sufficient encouragement to induce them to give the subject further consideration.
At a subsequent meeting of your Committee, it was agreed that a Report should be prepared in favor of an application to the Legislature; and also a schedule of such apportionment of the time proposed to be deducted, as might appear suitable. It was also agreed to prepare a memorial for the consideration of the Acting Committee, addressed to the Legislature, asking for a modification of the law in that particular; and setting forth that several other States have adopted the principle, and that in practice it appears to be cordially approved by those who have administered the several laws under these provisions. Both of which documents are herewith submitted.
The Committee have herein embodied a summary, showing the different States which have enacted a law upon the subject, with their respective gradations, with other information relating thereto: viz., in Massachusetts, the law says: For less than three years’ sentence, one day in each month may be deducted
for good conduct. For sentences, from three to ten years, two days in each month; and for ten years and over, five days. The Inspectors now propose to increase the time, and that for less than three years, one day in each month; three to seven years, two days; seven to ten years, four days; ten years and over, five days. They say, as an aid to discipline, it is of great value; affecting some, who are insensible to other motives; and is a strong inducement to good behavior. The Warden fully indorses this, and says, another year’s experience confirms it.
Michigan says: For the first year, one day in each month; for the second year, two days; and after that, four days in each month. For a willful violation of the rules, Inspectors have the power to deprive of any or of all the time gained. The Inspectors have recently recommended to the Legislature, that it should be made four days in the month, from the beginning. The Warden commends this as a wise measure. He says the law works first rate, and there is but little punishment.
Wisconsin says: At the end of each month, the Commissioner shall give to each prisoner who has conducted well, a certificate, diminishing his term, not exceeding five days in each month. All certificates to remain on file, subject to being annulled for subsequent misconduct. A certificate of good conduct, at the expiration of sentence, restores to citizenship. The Warden recommends, that, after good conduct for two years, ten or fifteen, or even twenty days, for long sentences, might be deducted from each month.
In Iowa, the law says: For the first month, one day shall be diminished for good conduct; at the end of the second month, two days additional; third month, three days; and for the fourth month, four days; and four days for each subsequent month of such continued good behavior.
In Ohio, the law of 1856 says: For the first month, one day shall be deducted for good conduct; for the second, two days; for the third, three days; for the fourth, four days; and for the remainder of his term, four days in each month. After three years’ experience, viz., in 1859, the law was further
modified, increasing the number to five days in each month. It is, however, provided, that the Directors may diminish the time gained, either in whole or in part, for willful violation of the rules. If their conduct be uniformly good, they shall be entitled, at the expiration of their time, to receive a certificate from the Warden, on presentation of which to the Governor, they shall be restored to all the rights of citizenship.
The Inspectors say: “We cannot too strongly recommend that feature of the ‘new law’ which offers a premium for good behavior, by deducting a portion of their term of imprisonment.” They also say: “Banished as they are from the social enjoyments of life, without some motive, the mind naturally sinks into a stagnant indifference. The diminution of sentence, and the restoration of all rights of citizenship, are powerful incentives to good behavior.”
The Warden says: “Among the reforms already introduced (in Ohio), none has evinced the power of controlling the wayward in so striking a manner as that provision of our law allowing a diminution of time for good conduct.” He says: “The former officers of this prison bear testimony in their reports to the benefits derived from this law; but I think,” he says, “they fail to express even a moiety of what is really its due.” He further adds: “If it be a fact, and I presume none will dispute it, that no person can continue to do right (whether forced or otherwise), for any considerable length of time, without being to some extent permanently benefited—then whatever is the greatest incentive to good conduct, is in my opinion the best calculated to accomplish the greatest amount of good. That the diminution of time is this incentive, none that have watched its operations will feel disposed to dispute; and I know they will not think of denying, that, combined with our overwork system, it has done more to preserve order and restrain vicious passion than all other incentives together. Language fails to describe its effects. Its work must be seen to be appreciated.
He further says: “As no special provision was made for United States prisoners, they received none of the benefits of this law; but on application to the Attorney-General, an
opinion was obtained, by which these convicts also receive the same benefit.”
Your Committee, in arranging their schedule, have taken into consideration, that a sentence of equal length, under the system of separation, is a greater privation to the prisoner than under other systems; and therefore the scale of abridgment is more liberal, and particularly after the third year, and progressively so, according to the increased length of sentence.
The advantages likely to result from the contemplated improvement, commend themselves so fully to our better feelings, that little need be said by way of illustration; but the expression of some views may perhaps be important. In the preamble to the resolution of our appointment, it is suggested that “the hope of reward is to the human mind one of the strongest incentives to good conduct;” and in the relation in which we are considering it, the principle may be applied with its fullest force; from the fact that prisoners are shut out from the ordinary sources of pleasurable influences. Everything, therefore, partaking of the character of a reward is received and dwelt upon by them with considerable interest. This, we think, must be evident to those accustomed to visiting prisoners, in a friendly and familiar manner. Many of them, who for the first time, find themselves within the limits of a cell, of which they are to be the inmates for a series of years, experience a shock, which operates with great force upon their feelings; and whatever may have been their previous condition in life, yet possessing the attributes and aspirations common to our nature, they may be acted upon by like influences.
Separated from the world, and deprived of the enjoyments to which they may have been accustomed, a feeling of despondence often covers the mind; and the absence of the usual sympathies and incentives leads to great discouragement.
Such of us as may have been deprived of our ordinary inducements to exertion, even for a short period, can in some degree feel for those, so completely shut out from such impulses. It is these influences that usually stimulate and control most of our pursuits in life; without them, existence to many would be a burthen.
A long and dreary confinement is before the prisoner, and whether the sentence be for a greater or a less period, to his imagination it seems to be of almost interminable length; and under present circumstances, feeling that no effort on his part can diminish it, the future seems enveloped in a cloud. The prospect, therefore, of even a brief abridgment of sentence, would be looked forward to with great delight. It would serve as a kind of morning star in his horizon, the prospect of which would quicken the pulse and encourage to effort—or as an anchor to fall back upon, when clouds of depression overshadow the mind—or when a state of irritation or impatience, arising from nervousness, might, like a storm, overcome his better judgment, and drive him to some act of desperation.
In confirmation of the position, that rewards have a potent influence on the inmates of Penal Institutions, it may be mentioned that one of our Committee, in a recent tour in Europe, visited the Parkhurst Prison (for lads and young men), in the Isle of Wight, when he was informed by the Governor of the prison, that in the year 1849, when there were no special rewards existing, that the number of offences recorded were between five and six thousand. In the following year, 1850, a modified system in that particular having been introduced, the number of offences were reduced 25 per cent., while, in the following year, viz., 1851, a small amount of wages and other privileges being allowed, the offences were reduced to 678; that is, from near 6000 to about one-eighth of that number. The Governor of the Institution added, there had also been an increased cheerfulness and greater obedience to officers. Comment is unnecessary.
Your Committee may here remark, that the range of thought with prisoners is often so limited, and their sources of enjoyment so few, that everything of a pleasant character is dwelt upon with much interest; so much so, that they can often tell the precise day they were last visited, and by whom, although weeks or months may have elapsed; but a morbid feeling at times prevails with others. They think that society has done its worst toward them; and under that impression their minds are strongly embittered; and sometimes a determined feeling of
revenge is unhappily induced. But the abiding consciousness that provision has been made by this same community, by means of which they may materially shorten their term of imprisonment, will, we think, serve to awaken a feeling of gratitude, and keep before them continually a door of hope; which, whether considered in a temporal or in a spiritual point of view, is so essential to the happiness of all human beings.
“Hope to the heart both strength and comfort give;
But hope without an object cannot live.”
Besides, the discipline of mind required for maintaining advantages gained, will silently but steadily be doing its work: and the habitual observance of rules of good order, to which many have never been accustomed, may open a new field of thought and of action; and under the divine blessing cause a change of character. In addition to which, the satisfaction derived from a correct course of conduct would be a suitable subject for our Committees to enlarge upon, in their visits; showing, that, by pursuing a similar course on their release from prison, numerous advantages would probably follow.
Little circumstances often change a man’s course in life, and sometimes cause a great improvement in conduct; and the simple appliance of enabling them thus to shorten their sentence—giving evidence of a disposition to temper justice with mercy, might produce the desired reformatory effect; and your Committee, in view of the experience gained in other institutions, can hardly doubt of its beneficial results in our own. For who shall say what slight incentive, or what word of kindness or encouragement, may not change the whole man and his future destiny.
But an objection has been [stated] to the measure proposed; and that is, that the worst men are generally well-behaved in prison; and that such would derive more benefit than those disposed to reform. So far as that might be the case, even their good conduct would be a good example to the others; certainly it could do no harm; and even the worst of men might be benefited by bringing a new influence to bear upon them. But this objection, as we conceive, is not of sufficient force to
prevent the adoption of what is proposed; if it were, our public institutions might perhaps be closed, and even private charities abandoned, because impostors sometimes partake of their advantages. The Inspectors of the Massachusetts prison, as before stated, say that this plan has an effect upon some who are insensible to other motives.
Such things are not unfrequent in ordinary life, and many a wayward youth has been diverted from the downward course by a gentle admonition, or by a casual observation, perhaps not even intended for his ear. And how many of us have been preserved from allurements and temptations to evil, by the kind and watchful care of a tender and religious mother; a privilege which many of these unfortunates have never enjoyed. Under like circumstances, can any of us say, that our own lot might not have been like theirs; and indeed may not the happy and salutary influences by which we have been surrounded, have been the means of preserving us from a like unhappy condition? Many persons are impressed with the idea, that a man convicted of crime, and sent to a penitentiary, must necessarily be changed in his entire nature; and that there is no hope of a restoration to usefulness. But it is not all who are sent to prison that are deliberately and determinedly depraved; as some of us know. Many of them have been the dupes of designing men, who have escaped; others have been placed in unfavorable circumstances, and through sudden temptation have fallen; others, from indulgence in strong drink and exposure to evil company; and others, perhaps, from the bad example or neglect of parents.
Their arrest and conviction, have brought many to a sense of their folly; some of whom, no doubt, through humiliation and prayer, have sought for and obtained forgiveness.
Is it not, therefore, wise in us to endeavor to do what we can, and leave the result to Him “who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good; and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust?” “In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thy hand, for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that; or whether they both shall be alike good.”
In conclusion, your Committee may state that they have desired to possess themselves of such practical information as might be within their reach, and have taken some pains to do so; all of which has but confirmed their favorable feeling. Much of what has been thus obtained, is the result of the experience of prison officers in other States. But still further to satisfy themselves, one of their number had interviews with two officers of long standing in one of our own prisons, both of whom warmly commended the plan proposed, and desired to see it carried out. If the proposed change be adopted, your Committee are encouraged to believe, not only that the character of the prisoners may be improved, but that, in time, the number of applications for pardon may be materially diminished.
And finally, they are reminded, from high authority, that a persecutor of the righteous, on his way to Damascus, was suddenly converted; and that a touch of the Saviour’s garment healed an otherwise incurable disease. While instances are on the same record, of others who, having committed grievous offences, were, on repentance, graciously forgiven, and through faithfulness made instruments for good in the hand of their heavenly Master; so among these unfortunates there may be some who, through the influence of divine grace, may yet prove as brands plucked from the burning.
TOWNSEND SHARPLESS,
CHARLES ELLIS,
CHAS. C. LATHROP,
ISAAC BARTON.
Philadelphia, 2d Mo. 20th, 1861.
LETTERS FROM THE JUDGES IN FAVOR OF THE MEASURE.
Philadelphia, March 18, 1861.
Dear Sir—I rejoice to learn from your letter of to-day, that the Prison Society of our city have under consideration the propriety of petitioning the Legislature for an act enabling those convicted of crime, by a continued course of good conduct,
to diminish their sentences a few days in each month. The hope of reward, and the fear of punishment, furnish the incentives to good conduct. All systems of religion are founded on these incentives, and they influence all human action. Their application to the imprisoned convict is nothing more than the application of a well-tested principle to a more difficult case to that to which it is ordinarily applied, and I have no doubt that the policy will be productive of beneficial results. There are many cases, I admit, where reformation is entirely hopeless—long experience in the administration of justice forces me to make this admission. But in all cases where there is any hope of reformation, the system proposed must, in my opinion, produce beneficial results. I regret that I am pressed for time so that I cannot say more at present, than to add to what I have already said, the expression of the hope that the proposed policy may be sanctioned by the Society and by the Legislature under judicious regulations to be prescribed by law.
Your’s very truly,
ELLIS LEWIS.
Philadelphia, March 20, 1861.
Dear Sir—The proposition to reduce monthly a portion of the sentences of such convicts as conduct themselves with uniform propriety, is one that meets my hearty concurrence; it is equally recommended by the strongest consideration of policy and humanity. It is the very best system of pardons which could be devised, since under it the remission of the sentence of the law against the offender is not the result of unjust favoritism or mistaken sympathy, but the fair reward of a meritorious effort on the part of the convict to amend his conduct. Such a system would be in entire harmony with our penal code, the primary object of which is to reform the offender, and all effort in that direction should be encouraged and rewarded.
Respect’y your ob’t. servant,
EDW’D. KING.
Philadelphia, March 21, 1861.
Dear Sir—I am disposed to regard very favorably the proposition to modify the extent of criminal sentences, by allowing the good behaviour of the convict to work a reduction of the time of his imprisonment. We all know that the hope of reward is a great incentive to human conduct, and that it will produce its natural effects even in the cell of a prison. The experience which has been obtained of such a method of reducing
sentences in several of the States where it has been practically tested, seems to favor its adoption; and upon general principles it appears to offer a method of meliorating the severity of punishment, without affecting its desired results. I should be pleased if the views expressed by you could be carried out by proper legislation.
Very truly your’s,
OSWALD THOMPSON.
Philadelphia, March 21, 1861.
Dear Sir—I wrote to you a short note yesterday, upon the subject of our late interview, and entrusted it to one of the officers of the Court for delivery. I am surprised that it did not reach you. I repeat now, in substance, its contents. The plan suggested, of giving to persons convicted and sentenced for crime, the power of shortening their term of imprisonment, I think an admirable one; and one which, I confess, had not suggested itself to my mind before its presentation by you. One thus confined will feel that something is left to him after the prison doors have closed upon him, for which he may strive. Something he can do by which he will be personally benefited—that all is not hopeless; and as an inducement to good behavior, self-control, and the foundation of habits to which, in many instances, he was before a stranger, will not be without its present and future benefit to him. I think the experiment well worthy of a trial. It promises, in my judgment, beneficial results, not only to the prisoner but to society, and if it should not answer the expectations of its friends, it can at any time be abandoned.
J. S. ALLISON.
West Philadelphia.
Dear Sir—Your note of 19th inst. has received attentive consideration, and although I cannot, at this time, give to you my reasons for the conclusions to which I have arrived, yet I can give you these conclusions, as follows, viz.: As a matter of experiment the act might be passed, subject to the following restrictions:
1st. That the time specified shall not exceed three days in any one month.
2d. That it shall only apply to cases of first conviction.
3d. That it shall expire by its own limitation, in say two or three years, unless experience demands its re-enactment.
4th. That the act shall in no wise be considered as the beginning of a system which has for its objects the enactment of a series of laws intended in practical operations to discharge
every prisoner when supposed to be, or when he is in fact, reformed.
Your’s truly,
March 20, 1861. JAS. R. LUDLOW.
Philadelphia, March 20, 1861.
Mr Dear Sir—I highly approve of the enacting of a law to enable those convicted of crime to diminish their sentence by a continued course of good conduct. Towards the close of prisoners’ terms the authorities are often beset with applications to shorten it, and if the prisoner knew that it was in his power to do it, the authorities would be released from such application, and the prisoner, by adherence to good conduct, would form habits of subordination and virtue that would go far towards protecting him from perpetration of crime when released.
I should be in favor of extending the premium so as to reach one-eighth of the term, starting with two or three days the first month, and increasing as the prisoner improved. The plan is admirable, and in my opinion should be put in immediate practice.
Your’s very truly,
WM. B. MANN,
Dist. Att’y.
THE LAW.
An Act relative to Prison Discipline.
Section 1.—Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by authority of the same, That from and after the passage of this Act, it shall be the duty of the wardens and superintendents of the several penitentiaries and prisons of this Commonwealth in which criminals are confined, who have been convicted and sentenced by any court of justice of this State to undergo an imprisonment of more than six months, to keep a book, in which shall be entered the name of each person so confined, and a record of every infraction or violation by him or her of the printed and published rules of such penitentiary or prison, with the punishment (if any) inflicted on account thereof, which said book shall be laid before the inspectors at their regular stated meetings, for examination and approval.
Section 2.—That every prisoner or convict sentenced as aforesaid, who shall have no such infraction or violation of the said rules recorded against him or her during any month of the first year of his or her imprisonment, shall be entitled to a deduction from the term of his or her sentence of one day for the first month, of two additional days for the second month, and of three additional days for the third and each of the remaining months of the said first year of imprisonment, and shall also be entitled for continued good conduct during the second year, to a similar deduction of four days for each month during which he or she shall not have violated the rules aforesaid, and to a deduction of one additional day per month for each succeeding year until the expiration of the tenth year, and to an additional deduction of two days per month during each year of the remainder thereof: Provided, That it shall be lawful for the inspectors of said penitentiaries or prisons, if any such convicts or persons shall wilfully infringe or violate any of said rules or regulations, or offend in any other way, to strike off the whole or any part of the deduction which may have been obtained previous to the date of such offence.
Section 3.—That the said inspectors shall have full power and authority to discharge the said criminals whenever they shall have served out the term of their sentence, less the number of days to which they are entitled under the provisions of this act.
Section 4.—That the said inspectors shall direct the warden or superintendent to give to each prisoner, who may in consequence of good conduct be discharged at an earlier period than he would otherwise have been entitled to, a certificate thereof, stating therein the number of days that have been deducted from his original sentence for good conduct.
Approved the first day of May, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one.
MEMBERS.
Ashhurst, Lewis R.
Armstrong, William
Anderson, V. William
Atmore, Frederick B.
Brown, John A.
Brown, Frederick
Brown, Moses
Brown, Thomas Wistar
Brown, Abraham C.
Brown, N. B.
Brown, Benneville D.
Brown, Mary D.
Bell, John M. D.,
Biddle, William
Biddle, John
Barton, Isaac
Burgin, George II., M. D.
Bohlen, John
Binney, Horace Jr.
Bayard, James
Beesley, T. E., M. D.
Beesley, B. Wistar
Bowen, William E.
Bettle, Samuel
Bettle, William
Baldwin, Matthias W.
Barcroft, Stacy B.
Bailey, Joshua L.
Baily, Joel J.
Burr, William H.
Boardman, H. A.
Branson, Samuel
Bunting, Jacob T.
Bacon, Richard W.
Bacon, Josiah
Brock, Jonathan
Barclay, Andrew C.
Brooke, Stephen H.
Brooks, Henry
Baines, Edward
Budd, Thomas A.
Bispham, Samuel
Broadbent, S.
Brant, Josiah
Bringhurst, George
Beaux, John Adolph
Collins, Issac
Cope, Alfred
Cope, Herman
Cope, M. C.
Cope, Henry
Cope, Francis R.
Cope, Thomas P.
Colwell, Stephen
Caldwell, James E.
Caldwell, William Warner
Cresson, John C.
Claghorn, John W.
Chandler, Joseph R.
Carter, John
Campbell, James R.
Comegys, B. B.
Childs, George W.
Child, H. T., M .D.
Caley, Samuel
Cooper, Joseph B.
Chance, Jeremiah C.
Coates, Benjamin
Chamberlain, Lloyd
Conrad, James M.
Cook, Jay
Corlies, Samuel Fisher
Clark, Robert C.
Collier, Daniel L.
Comly, Franklin A.
Demmé, Charles R.
Ducachet, Henry W.
Dawson, Mordecai L.
Dorsey, William
Dutilh, E. G.
Ditzler, William U.
Dreer, Ferdinand J.
Dickinson, Mahlon H.
Dickinson, John M.
Davis, R. C.
Derbyshire, Alexander J.
Derbyshire, John
Donnel, Robert
Dennis, William H.
Duane, William
Earp, Thomas
Evans, Charles M. D.
Evans, William Jr.
Evans, Robert E.
Evans, J. Wistar
Erringer, J. L.
Edwards, William L.
Ellison, John B.
Emlen, Samuel
Eyre, Edward E.
Eyre, William
Erety, George
Farnum, John
Fraley, Frederick
Foulke, William P.
Fullerton, Alex.
Farr, John C.
Frazier, John F.
Ford, William
Ford, John M.
Furness, William H.
French, William H.
Field, Charles J.
Fox, Henry C.
Franciscus, Albert H.
Funk, Charles W.
Garrett, Thomas C.
Greeves, James R.
Gilpin, John F.
Grigg, John
Gummere, Charles J.
Gardner, Richard, M. D.
Hunt, Uriah
Hockley, John
Holloway, John S.
Husband, Thomas J.
Hughes, Joseph B.
Homer, Henry
Homer, Benjamin
Hancock, Samuel P.
Holman, D. Shepherd
Hand, James C.
Hazeltine, John
Hastings, Matthew
Hollinshead, Benjamin M.
Huston, Samuel
Hacker, Morris
Hurley, Aaron A.
Harbert, Charles
Heiskell, Coulson
Ingersoll, Joseph R.
Ingram, William
Iungerich, Lewis
Jeanes, Joshua T.
Jones, Isaac C.
Jones, Jacob P.
Jones, Isaac T.
Jones, William D.
Jones, Justus P.
Jones, William Pennel
Janney, Benjamin S. Jr.
Jackson, Charles C.
Johnson, Israel H.
Johnson, Ellwood
Johnston, Robert S.
Justice, Philip S.
Kimber, Thomas
Kaighn, James E.
Kane, Thomas L.
Kean, Joseph
Kelly, William D.
Kelly, Henry H.
Kintzing, William F.
Kneedler, J. S.
Knorr, G. Frederick
Klapp, Joseph, M. D.
Kitchen, James, M. D.
Ketcham, John
Knight, Edward C.
Kidderlin, William J.
Kester, John Jr.
Kinsey, William
Latimer, Thomas
Lambert, John
Lovering, Joseph S.
Lovering, Joseph S. Jr.
Lewis, Henry Jr.
Lewis, Edward
Lippincott, John
Lippincott, Joshua
Lytle, John J.
Longstreth, J. Cooke
Ludwig, William C.
Landell, Washington J.
Laing, Henry M.
Lesley, Robert
Lathrop, Charles C.
Lynch, William
Luther, R. Morris.
McCall, Peter
Meredith, Wm. M.
Myers, John B.
Morris, Isaac P.
Massey, Robt. V.
Maris, John M.
Morris, Charles M.
Morris, Wistar
Morris, Caspar, M. D.
Morris, Anthony P.
Morris, Elliston P.
Montgomery, Richard R.
Mercer, Singleton A.
Mullen, William J.
Megarge, Charles
Martin, William
Martin, Abraham
McAllister, John Jr.
McAllister, John A.
McAllister, William Y.
MacAdam, William R.
McAllister, F. H.
Marsh, Benjamin V.
Morton, Samuel C.
Merrill, William O. B.
Morrell, R. B.
Mellor, Thomas
Mitcheson, M. J.
Norris, Samuel
Neall, Daniel
Newal, William
Needles, William N.
Nesmith, Alfred
Nicholson, William
Newman, C. L.
Ormsby, Henry
Orne, Benjamin
Packard, Frederick A.
Purves, William
Parrish, William D.
Parrish, Joseph, M. D.
Poulson, Charles A.
Perot, William S.
Perot, Francis
Perot, Charles P.
Perot, T. Morris
Patterson, Joseph
Patterson, William C.
Patterson, Morris
Potter, Alonzo, D. D.
Price, Eli K.
Price, Richard
Perkins, Samuel H.
Pearsall, Robert
Pitfield, Benjamin H.
Pearson, William H.
Peters, James
Peterson, Lawrence
Potts, Joseph
Parry, Samuel
Palmer, Charles
Richardson, Richard
Richardson, William H.
Robins, Thomas
Robins, John Jr.
Ritter, Abraham Jr.
Rasin, Warner M.
Read, W. H. J.
Robb, Charles
Rehn, William L.
Rutter, Clement S.
Roberts, Algernon S.
Ridgway, Thomas
Rice, John
Rudman, William C.
Robinson, Thomas A.
Randolph, Philip P.
Rowland, A. G.
Richards, George K.
Smedley, Nathan
Shippen, William, M. D.
Scull, David
Schaffer, William L.
Scattergood, Joseph
Shannon, Ellwood
Sharpless, William P.
Simons, George W.
Stokes, Samuel E.
Shoemaker, Benjamin H.
Speakman, Thomas H.
Starr, F. Ratchford
Smith, William H.
Saunders, McPherson
Stokes, Edward D.
Sloan, Samuel
Smith, Joseph P.
Stone, James N.
Simes, Samuel
Stuart, George H.
Stewart, William P.
Townsend, Edward
Taylor, Franklin
Taylor, John D.
Taylor, George W.
Trewendt, Theodore
Tredick, B. T.
Thomas, John
Taber, George
Troubat, Raymond, M. D.
Thompson, John J.
Troutman, George M.
Thornley, Joseph H.
Thissell, H. N.
Van Pelt, Peter
Vaux, George
Wharton, Thomas F.
Wood, Horatio C.
Wood, Richard Jr.
Welsh, William
Welsh, Samuel
Welsh, John
Wetherill, John M.
Williamson, Passmore
White, John J.
Wainright, William
Wright, Samuel
Wright, Isaac
Willets, Jeremiah
Wiegand, John
Wilstach, William P.
Williamson, Peter
Warner, Redwood F.
Walton, Coates
Williams, Jacob T.
Whilldin, Alexander
Zell, T. Ellwood
LIFE MEMBERS.
On payment of twenty dollars and upwards.
Barclay, James J.
Bache, Franklin, M. D.
Bonsall, Edward H.
Besson, Charles A.
Cope, Caleb
Ellis, Charles
Fotteral, Stephen G.
Hacker, Jeremiah
Horton, John
Hollingsworth, Thomas G.
Knight, Reeve L.
Leaming, J. Fisher
Love, Alfred H.
Longstreth, William W.
Marshall, Richard M.
Ogden, John M.
Perot, Joseph
Parrish, Dillwyn
Powers, Thomas H.
Potter, Thomas
Perkins, Samuel H.
Sharpless, Townsend
Sharpless, Charles L.
Sharpless, Samuel J.
Steedman, Miss Rosa
Turnpenny, Joseph C.
Townsend, Samuel
Whelen, E. S.
Willits, A. A.
Weightman, William
Williams, Henry J.
Yarnall, Charles
Yarnall, Benjamin H.