The Journal of Prison Discipline and Philanthropy, January, 1863

by Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons

IMPRISONMENT.

So far as we are acquainted with the actual condition of the various countries of the civilized world, we are compelled to the painful and humiliating conviction, that there are individuals amongst their inhabitants who are prone to, and actually will interfere with, and depredate upon the rights of others, unless they are subjected to moral or physical restraint. This fact has made it necessary that measures should be adopted to protect the general mass of society against the wrong-doing of these evil-disposed persons. It must be evident to all, that in originating and maturing these measures, or in framing and perfecting laws for this purpose, an intimate acquaintance with human nature, and a high order of wisdom, are essential pre-requisites to fit those upon whom the duty should devolve, to enter upon the highly important work. The instinct of self-protection would naturally, and even properly suggest, that the first object should be to secure the community against a repetition of the wrong-doing, by placing the individual who has committed a serious offence under such physical restraint as to make it impossible for him for a time to continue his evil course. This object may be secured by a close confinement of the culprit in a prison or penitentiary. But if we rest satisfied with having accomplished this, we are taking a very narrow view of a very broad subject. This same instinct, if its promptings are intelligently pursued, will convince us that the punitive character of this restraint or imprisonment should be such as to operate upon the fears of the evil-disposed who are at large, and thus deter them from yielding to temptations which may prompt them to commit offences against society or individuals. And, also, as this imprisonment cannot be permanent, the individual incarcerated should, through this source, as well as others, be made to feel that “the way of the transgressor is hard;” and from this experience (in the absence of any higher motive) be induced to so conduct himself, after his liberation, as not to render himself liable to be subjected to a repetition of these “pains and penalties.” At the same time, however, that the imprisonment and discipline provided, should embrace such elements as would subject the convict to a full sense of punishment, they should be carefully guarded from partaking of the character of vindictiveness or revenge. If this care is not exercised, the higher and more enlarged action of Christian philanthropy and duty, which should immediately follow that referred to as being prompted by the instinct of self-protection, which is, the temporal and eternal good of the offender, by his reformation, will be entirely defeated.

We are aware that in some countries, in framing their penal laws and discipline, the only object appears to be to prevent the continued perpetration of offences by the imprisonment of those convicted as offenders, and by the severity of their punishment to deter them from a repetition of their crimes after their discharge; the example of which punishment, it is desired, shall also operate to restrain others from entering upon and pursuing an equally criminal course. This object is effected, at the smallest possible cost to the community, by constructing their prison buildings, almost exclusively, with reference to the safe-keeping of the prisoners, making no arrangements for their separation, but congregating them together in large masses, with very little, if any, regard to difference in age or degrees of criminality. The consequence is, that instead of the prisoners being reformed or made better, by the discipline to which they are subjected, they are almost inevitably made worse; and many times, those who were committed on a charge of pocket-picking or some other minor offence, are fitted for burglars or the commission of the highest class of crimes on their discharge.

A valuable member of our Prison Society who has recently spent several years abroad, during which time he became very familiar with the penal system and the arrangement and manner of conducting the prisons of one of the countries of Continental Europe, having frequently visited and personally inspected the prisons, speaks of it as being generally admitted amongst the people there, that reformation was no part of their plan, and was never expected to result from the imprisonment of criminals. We are happy, however, in the belief, that this system is now viewed by nearly all countries as being a relic of the barbarism of the dark ages, which, besides partaking of the character of cruelty, evidences great short-sightedness and want of wisdom, if we consider how its results affect the best interests of the community. Instead of being a school of reform, through whose influence the number of those from whom outrages might be apprehended would be lessened, if it does not actually increase them, it at least makes life-long criminals of the most hardened character, of a large proportion of those subjected to its discipline, who, at the time of their first commitment, were by no means steeped in wickedness; many of them when quite young, having, in an unguarded moment, yielded to strong temptation to commit some minor offence, of which having been convicted, they have been thrust amongst the most abandoned outcasts of society, and soon lost to all hope of restoration, when by a really humane and Christian course of treatment they might have been led back from the by-paths into which they had, without due consideration, stepped, and have been brought to experience the happiness of a virtuous life, and to be a blessing instead of a curse to society.

We believe that all reflecting men must be convinced that the reformation of criminals, besides being a question of expediency, in which the community has a deep stake on the score of self-protection, is one, the promotion of which, so far as is in our power, is of the highest Christian obligation, in reference to both the temporal and eternal good of those who, having by their criminal conduct, forfeited the liberty enjoyed by the common mass of their fellow men, have, for the security of society, been committed to prison. In most Christian countries reformation, on the ground of expediency at least, and we trust, under some sense of Christian duty, is now acknowledged to be properly one of the elements of their penal systems; and, consequently, some provisions, either theoretical or practical, are adopted for the promotion of this object. It is much to be regretted, however, that most of the existing prison systems are such as greatly to interfere with, and many of them almost wholly to defeat the accomplishment of this vitally important purpose. This state of things exists to a great extent, not only in Europe, but throughout most of the Commonwealths of the United States.

The systems are generally “congregate,” either with little, if any, restraint from free social intercourse between the inmates, whatever may be their different degrees of depravity, or with the imposition of silence while together, and separation at night and at their meals only. The former of these, in our judgment, wholly excludes reformatory influences, unless it be through the immediate operation of Divine grace and mercy, which, we freely admit, can overrule obstacles however great; but this fact will not excuse us from doing our best to facilitate this operation. At the same time, also, that it excludes reformation, its attendant circumstances rapidly school the young offender in the ways of depravity and crime, and harden the more practiced in wickedness, and prepare them for the commission of still darker deeds than any they had previously been guilty of. Whilst the latter system, where silence is imposed, though certainly a step in advance of the former, as it cannot so extensively propagate criminality, yet from the fact that the prisoners cannot be approached separately, and that this system of silence and non-intercourse amongst them, under the strong temptation to the indulgence of their social propensities when placed in the presence of each other, is only maintained by harsh and severe discipline; reformatory agencies can hardly be brought to bear upon them, and efforts in this direction, very rarely, indeed, produce the desired effect.

It seems to us that what is generally known as the “Pennsylvania System,” which is that of entire cellular separation of the prisoners, by which they are precluded from either seeing each other, or holding any kind of intercourse by word or sign, is far in advance of any other system of imprisonment yet introduced. We do not propose at this time to go into a general explanation of its peculiar features, but may merely advert to a few prominent points in support of this position.

First, as regards the effectual restraint of those found guilty of crime from continuing their outrages upon the community; its security against escape, is fully equal to, if not greater, than that under any other existing prison system, and its punitive character, though really humane and mild, is looked upon with much dread by the evil-disposed, on account of their being subjected to separation from their fellow convicts, and therefore it is potent in deterring from a criminal course.

These primary objects of imprisonment being thus effectually secured, we are next to consider what are its effects, evil or good, upon the moral condition of those subjected to its discipline. And here the results of our inquiries are pre-eminently satisfactory. From the thorough isolation maintained, we think it must be evident, that no prison under it can ever become a moral pest-house, where the depravity and wickedness of one prisoner may be communicated to another, or, as it were, prove contagious, and thus spread moral corruption around him. As neither the words, countenance, nor gestures of one can be heard or seen by another, it is clear, that those committed are not subjected to such influences whilst in confinement, as will make them morally worse on leaving, than when they entered.

Having thus demonstrated, as we trust, that our system, without doing a moral wrong to the offender, thoroughly effects the purpose for which society claims the right to imprison—that of self-protection, by placing him under secure restraint—we have next to consider what is its adaptation to the higher and less selfish purpose, which immediately follows as a Christian obligation, that of promoting his reformation. In the first place, then, as there is nothing in the working of the system which calls for harshness of treatment; it is administered on principles of kindness, and consequently, instead of the prisoners being hardened, and their vindictive and other evil passions being called into action, they are softened, and the better feelings of their nature (which with many had so long slept, that the degraded beings were hardly aware that they possessed them) are awakened. Under these favorable circumstances, those who are desirous of communicating moral or religious instruction can visit each prisoner in private in his separate cell, and when the service is accomplished, leave him to his reflections, without being disturbed by the presence, or deterred from a serious consideration of his condition by the scoffs of depraved companions.

The purpose of this essay has not been to suggest the details of any particular system of imprisonment, but to call attention to the general principles which should control the subject. And especially have we desired to impress upon the reader the vital truth, that if we would hope to reform the prisoner, we must treat him with comparative kindness. We must do nothing, which either is or seems to be, by way of revenge or retaliation. Under the present dispensation we must not exact “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” If we do this, the prisoner feels that he is persecuted, and that as society is doing its worst by him now, he will repay it upon his discharge. In effect, that as every man’s hand is against him, his hand shall be against every man.

E. H. B.

The following are the introductory remarks of a writer in the “North British Review” for February, 1863, to “Observations on the Treatment of Convicts in Ireland” and the Subject of Transportation, to wit:—

The public mind of England awakes periodically, and with a start, to a sense of the danger it incurs by the presence of a large criminal population in the very heart of the community, which is dealt with on no rational or consistent system, watched by no adequate police, and disposed of in no conclusive manner. We rave against the evil, we abuse our rulers, we insist upon a remedy being found, we listen eagerly to every quack and every philosopher, we discuss the subject passionately, illogically, and superficially; and we end by adopting some fresh plan which touches only a small fragment of the mischief, and darns only a small rent in the tattered garment, and which is usually some ill-digested and unworkable compromise between old habits and new fancies. We then grow sick of the subject, ashamed of our panic, and stupidly satisfied with our mild aperient and our emollient plaster, and go quietly to sleep again for another term of five or seven years. Meanwhile, however, there are two classes of men who never sleep: the criminals, who are always at work to invent new modes of preying on society and new dodges for evading justice; and the officials, who are always, after the fashion of their kind, and by a sort of ineradicable instinct, wriggling back into the old channels, and falling away into their normal inertness. There was such an awakening as we have described in 1853; there was another in 1857; there is another now. Let us see whether this last cannot be made to yield some better and more lasting fruit than its predecessors.

That the evil is a very great one no one can doubt. It amounts to a positive insecurity of life and property which is disgraceful in the richest, most civilized, most complicated society on earth. At this moment, the number living by depredation and outrage, and known to belong to the criminal class, is estimated to reach in the United Kingdom to 130,000. In this year, 1863, a considerable portion of the respectable inhabitants of London are reduced to carry concealed weapons for their own defence; and this from no groundless apprehensions, but because they may any day be called upon to use them, and often are. We annually commit to, and liberate from, our county jails in England and Wales, at least 130,000 offenders, a very large proportion, if not the majority, of whom are habitual pilferers, burglars, or in other ways violators of the law, and recognized preyers upon the industrious and peaceful part of the community. Besides these, we turn loose every year, at the expiration of their sentence of penal servitude, or shortly before its expiration, 3000 convicts, nearly all of whom are professional, finished, hardened offenders, and all of whom, with scarcely any exceptions worth naming, have been confined for crimes in which ruffianism and dishonesty were combined. Of these 3000, at least 2500 on an average are liberated in this country, and almost invariably go back to their evil courses, more vicious, more skillful, more irreclaimable than ever. Many of them have been convicted several times, never dream of adopting an honest mode of life, and could not do so if they wished. In a word, we have among us an army—very active, very well trained, tolerably organized, very resolute, and in part very desperate—of internecine enemies and spoliators, as numerous as the troops of most European kingdoms, and more numerous than the military and police forces in our own country combined. This is the evil we have to deal with. It is an evil, in some degree and in some form, incidental to every large and populous community; but the form and degree depend entirely on our own management. We may reduce it to the minimum which human temptation to wrong and the imperfection of human powers of repression must always leave, a minimum which would be seldom heard of and little felt, and which should be always tending to decrease. Or we may suffer it, as we are in a fair way to do now, to augment and intensify year by year till it reaches the maximum compatible with a comfortable existence and a secure civilization. Now what we affirm is, that, for the height to which it has reached at the present moment, we have only ourselves to thank. For a long time back, in spite of ceaseless warning, and ignoring all the lessons of experience, physiology, and common sense, we have done little to repress crime and much to encourage it. Our plans of dealing with it have been based upon no clear understanding and no settled principle; the changes we have introduced from time to time, have been either inconsistent nibblings or mutually destructive fluctuations; we have neither aimed at felling the tree, nor at cutting off the nourishment from its roots; we have simply pruned the branches, and contented ourselves with wondering that it should flourish still. We believe that all this is remediable still, though the mischief has assumed such vast dimensions; but that which is imperatively needed before we can hope to remedy it is, that we should boldly face all patent facts; that we should courageously accept all undeniable conclusions from those facts; that we should at once and for ever place sentiment under the control and supremacy of sense; that no inconvenience should drive us to do injustice to others; and that no expense should make us shrink from doing justice to ourselves.

Criminals, the moment we look at them closely and analytically, divide themselves into two distinct categories—the casual and the habitual. Many of the more trifling, and some of the most heinous offenders, belong to the former class. Temptation there will always be; and this will be liable to increase with the progress and complexity of civilization, as long as some are poor and some are rich, and as long as the appliances of wealth are spread out in the sight of the struggling and needy. Defective moral natures there will always be—natures weak to resist and prone to fall; but these, it is to be hoped, will diminish as comfort and instruction penetrate among the masses. Passions will always exist among all ranks, and passions will occasionally burst through the restraints of morality and law. Boys will thieve who are no worse than idle, neglected, and ill-trained. Poor men, who are habitually respectable, will steal under circumstances of sudden and desperate necessity. Clerks will occasionally forge or rob to avert exposure, to meet debt, or to purchase vicious pleasures. Any man, in any rank, of violent or malignant temper and ill-disciplined mind, may, in a moment of provocation or of fury, be guilty of manslaughter; or, if he be thoroughly bad and licentious, may outrage a defenceless woman, or murder one whom he hates, or whose possession he desires. Crimes and criminals of this sort, however, are not those that embarrass our police, and perplex our rulers and philosophers; they do not constitute the social problem we have to solve. They are the casual outbreaks of human vice and passion, incidental to all stages and forms of civilization, and incurable by any. But besides and independent of these cases, we have among us a large population, numbered by thousands and tens of thousands, who live by outrage and depredation; to whom crime is an employment and profession; who are brought up to it; who have no other teaching, no other vocation, no other resource; to whom the respectable and industrious portion of society is the oyster they have to open; who prey upon the community, and sometimes hate it also. They are simply the enemies of society; and the protection of society against them constitutes precisely the difficulty which at this moment our thinkers have to master, and the duty which our rulers have to discharge.

Now we do not say that the obstacles and embarrassments with which the solution of the problem is surrounded are not actually great, because they are. But the problem itself is neither difficult nor obscure, as soon as we take pains to place before ourselves distinctly its precise nature and conditions. The thing to be done is simple enough; the impediments in the way of doing it are nearly all of our own creation, arising partly out of ignorance or thoughtlessness, and partly out of willfulness; partly because we have not fully understood what we had to do, and partly because we have been unwilling to accept the consequences and incur the annoyance and expense of doing it. Divested of all complications, our task is to defend ourselves against the criminal population,—the professional criminals; to guard society against their outrages and depredations in the most prompt, effectual, and enduring fashion we can devise. That is all: we have NOT to punish them; and we shall only confuse our minds and perplex our action if we try to do so. It is the almost universal neglect of this vital distinction, more than any other error, which has led us into such grotesque and inconceivable blunders. Individuals may regard these offenders in any light which harmonizes with their several idiosyncracies. Some may look at them as objects of vengeance; some as objects of compassion; some as subjects of conversion; some as patients to be cured; some as unfortunate lunatics to be carefully and comfortably confined; and there may be much truth in all these different views, and they may be allowed to influence some of the details of the practical treatment of criminals in prison and on their discharge from prison. But the State, as we said, has only got to protect the community against them—to regard them as domestic foes, against whom self-defence is legitimate and necessary. The reason why it should not seek to punish them, in the strict and proper meaning of that word, is, that it has not the knowledge requisite for the just discharge of that function. It cannot possibly apportion the penalty it inflicts to the guilt of the offender, which apportionment constitutes the very essence of punishment. Neither the wisest judge, nor the most patient and enlightened jury, nor the most omniscient police officer, can do more than form a plausible conjecture as to the moral criminality of any convict; since this, it is obvious, must depend on the organization which he inherited, on the antecedents which have surrounded him from the cradle, on the degree of instruction he has received, on the special nature and adaptation of the temptation, on a multitude of circumstances which we neither can know, nor could estimate if we did. The State, too, is just as incompetent to estimate the severity of the infliction as the guilt of the offence. How is the legislator who awards, or the judge who pronounces, to ascertain the weight and bearing of any given sentence upon any individual culprit? The same penalty which to one man would be almost too lenient for a theft, may, to a differently organized and differently trained offender, be too severe almost for a murder. The educated convict, whose ungoverned passion led him to a heinous but a single crime, would be driven mad by the association and the entourage which the habitual and hardened ruffian would find congenial and even pleasant. Punishment which retributes, like vengeance which repays, can, by its very term, belong only to that higher intelligence which can estimate aright both the debt to be repaid, and the intrinsic value of the coin in which repayment is awarded.

The thing to be done, then, being ascertained, the next point for consideration is how to do it. Now, society may protect itself against habitual criminals in three ways, separately or in combination. It may deal with him so as to deter him, to reform him, or to get rid of him. It may so arrange and contrive its penalties as to frighten him from bad courses, or to incapacitate him from recurring to them, or to persuade him to amend them. And, putting out of view the very few whom it will or can hang, it has to effect these objects by such secondary punishments as lie within its reach, as the public purse will pay for, and public conscience and feeling will allow the State to inflict.

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, David S. Brown, Joseph D. Brown, Benneville D. Brown, Mary D. Bell, John M. D. Biddle, William Biddle, John Barton, Isaac Burgin, George H., 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. Bunting, Jacob T. Bacon, Richard W. Bacon, Josiah Brock, Jonathan Barclay, Andrew C. Brooke, Stephen H. Baines, Edward Budd, Thomas A. Bispham, Samuel Broadbent, S. Brant, Josiah Beaux, John Adolph Corse, J. M., M. D. Cope, Alfred 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 Carter, John E. Campbell, James R. Comegys, B. B. Childs, George W. Child, H. T., M. D. Chance, Jeremiah C. Coates, Benjamin Chamberlain, Lloyd Conrad, James M. Cooke, Jay 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. Davis, R. C. Derbyshire, Alexander J. Derbyshire, John 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. Elkinton, Joseph Elkinton, George M. Ellison, John B. Emlen, Samuel Eyre, Edward E. Eyre, William Erety, George Farnum, John Fraley, Frederick Fullerton, Alex. Farr, John C. Frazier, John F. Ford, William Ford, John M. Furness, William H. Field, Charles J. Fox, Henry C. Franciscus, Albert H. Funk, Charles W. Garrett, Thomas C. Griffin, E., M. D. Greeves, James R. Gilpin, John F. Grigg, John Gummere, Charles J. Gardiner, Richard, M. D. Hunt, Uriah Hockley, John Holloway, John S. Husband, Thomas J. Hughes, Joseph B. Homer, Henry Homer, Benjamin Hancock, Samuel P. Hand, James C. Hazeltine, John Hastings, Matthew Huston, Samuel Hacker, Morris Hacker, William Hunt, William, M. D. Hurley, Aaron A. Harbert, Charles Ingersoll, Joseph R. Ingram, William Iungerich, Lewis Jackson, Charles C. Janney, Benjamin S., Jr. Jeanes, Joshua T. Jenks, William P. Jones, Isaac C. Jones, Jacob P. Jones, Isaac T. Jones, William D. Jones, Justus P. Jones, William Pennel Johnson, Israel H. Johnson, Ellwood Johnston, Robert S. Justice, Philip S. Kaighn, James E. Kane, Thomas L. Kelly, William D. Kelly, Henry H. Ketcham, John Kiderlen, William L. J. Kimber, Thomas Kingsbury, Charles A., M. D. Kinsey, William Kirkpatrick, James A.

Kintzing, William F. Kitchen, James, M. D. Kneedler, J. S. Knight, Edward C. Knorr, G. Frederick Klapp, Joseph, M. D. Laing, Henry M. Lambert, John Landell, Washington J. Lathrop, Charles C. Latimer, Thomas Leeds, Josiah W. Lewis, Henry, Jr. Lewis, Edward Lippincott, John Lippincott, Joshua Longstreth, J. Cooke Lovering, Joseph S. Lovering, Joseph S., Jr. Ludwig, William C. Lynch, William Lytle, John J. McCall, Peter Meredith, William M. Milliken, George Myers, John B. Morris, Isaac P. Massey, Robert 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 Needles, William N. Nesmith, Alfred Nicholson, William Neuman, L. C. Ormsby, Henry Orne, Benjamin 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, Morris Patterson, William C. Potter, Alonzo, D.D. Price, Eli K. Price, Richard Pearsall, Robert Pitfield, Benjamin H. Peters, James Peterson, Lawrence Potts, Joseph Parry, Samuel Palmer, Charles Perkins, Henry Quinn, John A. 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. Ruth, John Roberts, Algernon S. Ridgway, Thomas 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. Smith, Nathan Stokes, Shmuel E. Shoemaker, Benjamin H. Speakman, Thomas H. Starr, F. Ratchford Saunders, McPherson Stokes, Edward D. Sloan, Samuel Smith, Joseph P. Stone, James N. Simes, Samuel Stuart, George H. Stewart, William S. Stevens, Edwin P. Townsend, Edward Taylor, Franklin Taylor, John D. Taylor, George W. Trewendt, Theodore Tredick, B. T. Thomas, John Taber, George Troutman, George M. Thornley, Joseph H. Thissel, 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. Wainwright, William Wright, Samuel Wright, Isaac Willets, Jeremiah Wiegand, John Wilstach, William P. Williamson, Peter Warner, Redwood F. Walton, Coates Williams, Jacob T. Wilson, Ellwood, M. D. Woodward, Charles W. Whilldin, Alexander Zell, T. Ellwood

Barclay, James J. Bache, Franklin, M. D. Bonsall, Edward H. Besson, Charles A. Cope, Caleb Ellis, Charles Fotteral, Stephen G. Foulke, William P. Hacker, Jeremiah Horton, John Hollingsworth, Thomas G. Knight, Reeve L. Learning, J. Fisher Love, Alfred H. Longstreth, William W. Marshall, Richard M.

Ogden, John M. Perot, Joseph Perkins, Samuel H. Parrish, Dillwyn Powers, Thomas H. Potter, Thomas Sharpless, Townsend Sharpless, Charles L. Sharpless, Samuel J. Steedman, Miss Rosa Turnpenny, Joseph C. Townsend, Samuel Whelen, E. S. Willits, A. A. Weightman, William Wilhams, Henry J. Wain, S. Morris Yarnall, Charles Yarnall, Benjamin H.