Art. IV.—PRISON MATTERS AT THE WEST, AND POLITICAL MANAGEMENT IN GENERAL, AFFECTING PRISONS AND PRISONERS.
We have naturally regarded, with special interest, the movements in our new States and Territories, on the subject of prisons. A system of discipline once introduced, (no matter how defective the information, or false the principles on which its adoption is based,) cannot be changed without difficulty. And hence our desire that such deductions as can be fairly made from past experience and observation, should be familiar to those who are entrusted with the responsible task of founding the penal institutions of a State, in order that the superstructure may be safe and permanent.
It was with this view that in our last number we briefly commented on the recent report to the Governor of Missouri, by a Commissioner appointed to examine the various prevailing systems of discipline. Knowing, as we do, that its positions are totally indefensible, and that those who may be persuaded to rely upon them, will be sadly misled, we felt bound to say so. We are led to suppose there is some current of political or local interest or influence, which our plain-spoken comments unfortunately crossed, for we have been favored, by some friendly hand, with a cutting from a Missouri paper, endorsing to the letter—yea, and beyond the letter—the discreditable document of the Commissioner, as “containing all the information necessary to the proper re-organization of the Penitentiary”—“replete with the most valuable and reliable amount of information”—“a valuable accession to our knowledge on the subject,” &c., &c.
Now, we have not the slightest desire to detract an indivisible particle of credit from the Missouri Commissioner, or his investigations or his report, except so far as the best interests of the people of Missouri are likely to be injuriously affected by what we truly believe to be unfounded statements and erroneous opinions. We have no doubt that if the whole subject were fairly presented to the people and calmly considered, the policy of the State would be directly the reverse of what the Commissioner proposes; and we do not feel like seeing a powerful and highly influential community duped on such a subject, though the agent of the mischief may be unconscious of its perpetration, and may even have the most upright and honest intentions.
As we said before, so we say now, the Rev. Mr. Hamilton’s report does not present to the Executive, the Legislature, or the public of his State, such a view of the subject to which it relates, as can possibly secure wise and beneficial legislation; and inasmuch as crime and convicts are peculiar to no latitude, soil, or climate, but are common stock all the world over, we are interested in the disposition that is made of them, and must have the liberty to speak as we think.
A horse-thief or house-breaker, who may serve his time out in a congregate State prison in Missouri, and, by association there, become an adept in his depredating vocation, is as likely to pursue it in Pennsylvania as in Missouri or in Philadelphia as in St. Louis. If he plunders a steamboat passenger on the Mississippi, he will not be very careful to inquire beforehand whether his victim is a citizen of Missouri, where he received his convict-education, or a citizen of Pennsylvania, where his education would have been on a different plan, and we trust with a different result; and hence it is that we make common cause of this penitentiary-question, and insist upon it that of all public questions it is the last that should be sucked into any of the political eddies.
We took occasion, in our last number also, to comment freely on the condition of the New Jersey State Prison. We were totally ignorant of all local questions, as well as of the political relations and bearings of the subject. We simply stated that while the statute positively required individual separation and interdicted convict intercourse for any purpose, and under any pretence, except in cases of sickness and by order of the physician, there were, in fact, 232 prisoners occupying 182 cells! We ventured to say that this infraction of the fundamental law of the institution should not be tolerated, but that measures should be taken without needless delay to provide against its continuance.
But behold “how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” No sooner did our gentle and peaceful suggestions find their way to Trenton, than they were drawn into the furnace of political strife. On one side the faulty state of the prison is ascribed to the desire of the ruling party to keep in popular favor by spending as little money as possible! This insinuation is thrown back by the dominant party with indignation, but at the same time the omission of the Executive to recommend an enlargement of the accommodations, is vindicated on the ground, that “the finances of the State did not warrant any extraordinary expenditure, nor was the exigency of the case so great as to justify the imposition of a State tax.” Now this is matter of opinion. We think that no more urgent exigency of the kind could possibly arise, to demand prompt and efficient action at any sacrifice, than the association of convicts in a prison which is required by law to keep them separate. The minority paper retorts with no little spirit, and raises the general issue, whether the Democrats are a whit more economical than the Whigs, and concludes with the sad confession that the “leading politicians of all parties often sacrifice the public weal unnecessarily upon the popularity-seeking pretext of economy”—and here the subject closes, and the New Jersey convicts are left to pursue their system of mutual instruction, as workers of iniquity!
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.”