At the anniversary of the Boston Prison Discipline Society, in Park Street Church, May 27, 1845, Mr. Sumner was present, in company with his friend, Dr. S.G. Howe. Listening to the Annual Report, they were painfully impressed by its tone, and especially by the injustice done to excellent persons in Philadelphia, sustaining what was known as the Pennsylvania System. Without being an advocate of this system, or committing himself to it in any way, Mr. Sumner thought that it ought to be fairly considered, and that there should be no harsh imputations upon its supporters. With the encouragement of Dr. Howe, he came forward, and, in a few unpremeditated remarks, sought to point out the error of the Report, and concluded with a motion for a select committee to review and modify it, with power to visit Philadelphia in the name of the Society, and ascertain on the spot the true character of the system so strongly condemned. The motion prevailed, and the President, who was the Rev. Dr. Wayland, appointed Dr. S.G. Howe, Mr. Sumner, Hon. S.A. Eliot, Hon. Horace Mann, Dr. Walter Channing, Rev. Louis Dwight, Hon. George T. Bigelow, and Hon. J.W. Edmonds of New York, as the committee. This was the beginning of a prolonged controversy, little anticipated when Mr. Sumner first came forward, where feeling was displayed beyond what seemed natural to such a question.
The day after this meeting, Mr. Sumner received a friendly letter from the President of the Society, thanking him for the remarks he had made, and encouraging him to persevere. This letter will be found in the speech preserved in this volume.
The Committee visited Philadelphia, where they were received with honor and kindness by the gentlemen interested in Prison Discipline, and examined the Penitentiary with every opportunity that could be desired. An elaborate Report was prepared by Dr. Howe. How this failed to be adopted as the Report of the Committee, and to be embodied in the Annual Report of the Society, is narrated in the speech below. It was afterwards published as a pamphlet, entitled "An Essay on Separate and Congregate Systems of Prison Discipline, being a Report made to the Boston Prison Discipline Society," and is, beyond question, a most important contribution to the science of Prison Discipline. The proper treatment of criminals is here considered with singular power and sympathetic humanity.
Disappointed in the effort to obtain a candid hearing through a Report, the subject was presented again at the anniversary of the Society, May 26, 1846. Mr. Sumner made a speech of some length, published in the newspapers, concluding with a motion for the appointment of a committee to examine and review the former printed Report of the Society, also the course of the Society, and to consider if its action could in any way be varied or amended, so that its usefulness might be extended. Mr. Sumner, George S. Hillard, Esq., Bradford Sumner, Esq., Dr. Walter Channing, Rev. Louis Dwight, and President Wayland were appointed the committee, it being understood that they would not report before the next annual meeting.
Meanwhile the controversy widened in its sphere, embracing newspapers, and extending to Europe, where it excited uncommon interest. The "Law Reporter," an important law journal, edited by Peleg W. Chandler, Esq., thus referred to the late meeting, and to Mr. Sumner's speech on the occasion.
"Mr. Sumner proceeded, in a strain of great eloquence and power, to condemn the course which the Society had pursued in past years, illustrating his points by facts which are by no means creditable to the Society, averring, among other things, that the statements contained in the Annual Reports had been pronounced false by public reports in this country and in Europe, and that a letter from the Hon. William Jay, an honorary Vice-President of the Society, and also a letter from Dr. Bell, a corresponding member, in favor of the Separate System, had both never been read to the Society, nor published."[175]
At the same time the Law Reporter translated and published a German article by Dr. Varrentrapp, of Frankfort-on-the-Main, which appeared originally in the Jahrbücher der Gefängnisskunde und Besserungs-anstalten (Annals of Prisons and Houses of Correction), where the Reports of our Society were canvassed with great severity.[176]
Mr. Sumner's speech was reprinted at Liverpool in a pamphlet. Letters from England, France, and Germany attested the concern in those countries. Among the eminent persons who watched the discussion was M. de Tocqueville, whose letter on the subject will be found at the end of the speech below. At home it called forth an able pamphlet by Hon. Francis C. Gray, entitled "Prison Discipline in America," which took ground against the Pennsylvania System.
At the succeeding anniversary, May 25, 1847, Mr. Sumner, for himself and two of his associates on the Committee, (Dr. Wayland and Mr. Hillard,) presented a Report, which was printed in the newspapers. Its character will be interred from the Resolutions with which it concluded.
"Resolved, That the object of our Society is to promote the improvement of public prisons.
"Resolved, That our Society is not, and ought not to be considered, the pledged advocate of the Auburn System of Prison Discipline, or of any other system now in existence,—and that its Reports should set forth, with strict impartiality, the merits and demerits of any and all systems.
"Resolved, That we recognize the Directors of the Eastern Penitentiary of Pennsylvania as sincere, conscientious, and philanthropic fellow-laborers in the great cause of Prison Discipline.
"Resolved, That, if any expressions of disrespect have appeared in our Reports, or been uttered at any of our public meetings, which have justly given pain to our brethren, our Society sincerely regrets them.
"Resolved, That our Society should strive, by increased action on the part of its officers and of its individual members, to extend its usefulness.
"Resolved, That the Board of Managers be requested to organize a new system of action for the Society, which shall enlist the coöperation of its individual members."
The adoption of these Resolutions being opposed, the meeting was adjourned for their consideration till the evening of May 28th, when Mr. Sumner supported them in a speech of some length, which will be found in the newspapers. Other meetings followed, by adjournment, on the evenings of June 2d, 4th, 9th, 11th, 16th, 18th, and 23d. These were all at the Tremont Temple, and were attended by large and most intelligent audiences, evincing at times a good deal of feeling. They were presided over by Hon. Theodore Lyman, a Vice-President of the Society. The Resolutions were supported by Dr. Howe, Mr. Hillard, Rev. Francis Parkman, and Henry H. Fuller, Esq. They were opposed by Hon. S.A. Eliot (the Treasurer of the Society), Rev. Louis Dwight (the Secretary), Hon. Francis C. Gray, Bradford Sumner, Esq., Rev. George Allen, Dr. Walter Channing, and J. Thomas Stevenson, Esq. On the evening of June 18th, Mr. Sumner took the floor and reviewed the whole debate. Other speeches by him are omitted. This is given at length, as opening the main points of controversy, and especially the principles involved.
Mr. President,—As Chairman of the Committee whose Report and Resolutions are now under consideration, it becomes my duty to review and to close this debate. The reapers have been many, and the sickles keen; but the field is ample, and the harvest abundant; so that, even at this late period, I may hope to be no superfluous gleaner.
Before entering upon our labor, let us refresh ourselves by the contemplation of the unquestioned good accruing from these protracted meetings. All will feel how well it is for our Society that its attention is at last turned in upon itself, and that it is led to that self-examination enjoined upon every good man, with a view to future usefulness. All, too, will feel, whatever may be the immediate vote on the question before us, that this discussion has excited an unwonted interest in behalf of those who are in prison, and that under its influences a sacred sympathy has vibrated from heart to heart. Thus much for the unquestioned good.
Mr. President, I approach this discussion with regret, feeling that I must say some things which I would gladly leave unsaid. I shall not, however, decline the duty which is cast upon me. In its performance I hope to be pardoned, if I speak frankly and freely; I trust it will be gently and kindly. I will borrow from the honorable Treasurer, with his permission, something of his frankness, without his temper. As I propose to adduce facts, I shall be grateful to any gentleman who will correct me where I seem to be wrong. For such a purpose I will cheerfully yield the floor, even to the Treasurer, though his sense of justice did not suffer him, while on the floor, to give me an opportunity of correcting a misstatement he made of what I said on a former occasion.
Let me begin by a reference—which I would rather avoid—to myself and my personal relations to this inquiry. I was brought up at the feet of our Society. My earliest recollection of anything like the cause to which it is devoted does not extend beyond the period of its origin. My early partialities were in favor of its course, and of the system of Prison Discipline it has advocated. I had read its Reports, and circulated them at home and abroad, and felt grateful to their author. Other studies, and some acquaintance with the elaborate labors by which the science of Prison Discipline has been advanced in Europe, led me first to doubt the action of our Society, and finally to the conviction that it was not candid and just, particularly in the treatment of the Pennsylvania System. With this impression, I attended the anniversary of 1845, where I listened to what seemed a discreditable Report from the Board of Managers, in which this system was treated ignorantly, ungenerously, and unjustly, while the officer of our Society whose duty it was to read the Report, in words which fell from him while reading it, seemed to impeach the veracity of the Inspectors of the Penitentiary at Philadelphia. In concurrence with a friend on my right [Dr. Howe], I was emboldened to ask a reference of the Report to a select committee, with power to review and modify it, and to visit Philadelphia, in order to ascertain on the spot the true character of the system of Prison Discipline there practised, and to incorporate a report of their proceedings in the next Annual Report of the Society. What I said was of the moment. I spoke in behalf of the absent, and, in a certain sense, as the representative of the unrepresented, believing that gross injustice was done to them and to their system. My aim was to recall the Society to that candor and justice which self-respect, to say nothing of its Christian professions, seemed to require.
Here let me indulge in a reminiscence. It is the custom to open our meetings with prayer. By the records of our Society it appears that at its earliest anniversary, as long ago as 1826, this service was performed by an eminent clergyman, the deserved favorite of his own denomination, and much respected by all others. This public profession of interest in the cause was followed by other manifestations of it. He became a manager of our Society. Subsequently, yielding to the call of the University at Providence, he left Boston and became President of that important seat of learning. His labors were not restricted to academic duties. By his pen, and the wide influence of his remarkable character, he was felt in various fields of labor throughout the country. His interest in Prison Discipline was constant, and in 1843 he was chosen President of our Society. Placing him at its head, we justly honored one of our earliest and most distinguished friends. He was in the chair on the anniversary to which I have referred. His sense of the injustice to the gentlemen of Philadelphia was great. As the most authentic expression of his opinions on that occasion, influencing, as they have, the subsequent proceedings of those who seek a change in the course of our Society, I read a letter from him, written on the evening of that anniversary.
"Providence, May 27, 1845.
"My dear Sumner,—I cannot resist the impulse to thank you again for your remarks this morning. I had resolved, before you rose, to return home and immediately resign office in the Society; for I could not allow my influence, though ever so small, to be used for the purpose of (as it seemed to me) vilifying the intentions of good and honorable men. I cannot perceive how we can, with any show of propriety, use language, in respect to absent gentlemen, which, in the ordinary intercourse of society, would be just cause of irreconcilable variance. I agree with you entirely as to the object of the Society. It is to improve the discipline of prisons, and it should hail, as fellow-laborers, all who are honestly engaged in the same cause. The cause requires the trial of various experiments, and our business is to collect, in good faith, and with catholic liberality, the results of all, that so, by the comparison of results, the best end may be attained. I thank you over and over again for coming forward so nobly in defence of the absent, and for placing the object of the Society on its true basis, instead of allowing it to be a mere antagonist to the gentlemen at Philadelphia. In all this, of course, I mean no unkindness to any one. I only feel that by looking at an object steadily and earnestly in only one light we are all liable to lose sight of its wider relations.
"I am, so far as I see, in favor of the Auburn System; but I want to know something of all of the systems, and am, I trust, anxious to learn the facts. I wrote an article in the North American Review, some time since, on the subject. I am inclined to the same view still. But this is no reason why I should disparage the labor of others.
"You seem interested in this matter, and I feel rejoiced at it. I cannot but hope that good will come of it. Let me suggest a few things, by way of indication, that may possibly be improved.
"1. Is it wise to have our Annual Reports so far extempore? What we sanction should be ipsissima verba. Our character as men is involved in what we hear and order to be published.
"2. It seems to me that our expenditure should be used with great attention to results. The statistics which we have are important, but I doubt whether they always bear so closely on our object as they might. Why would it not be desirable to investigate the great subject of Pauperism, and that of Criminal Law, which, together, do almost the whole work of filling our prisons?
"3. Do the Executive Committee really take these subjects in hand, and give direction to the labors of the Society? They have a very responsible situation, and cannot discharge it by simply auditing bills. Can they not be induced to labor earnestly in this matter?
"4. It seems that John Augustus, a poor man, has done much. We praise him. This is well. Can we not take means for following his example?
"These things have occurred to me, and I know that you will pardon me for suggesting them. I believe that there is here a field for doing great good. When I think of the good which Miss Dix, alone and unaided, has done, I cannot but believe that we might do more. To the gentlemen of your profession we specially look for aid in this matter. Can you labor in any philanthropic object with better prospect of success? Excuse my freedom. I have no right to set you or any one else at work. I am ashamed to be president of a society for which I do so little, and will gladly remove myself out of the way, and have earnestly desired to do so. I, however, hold myself ready to do anything that may be in my power to advance the cause in which we are engaged.
"I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly,
"F. Wayland.
C. Sumner, Esq."
The committee appointed under the Resolution examined the Report of the Managers, and visited Philadelphia. A Report prepared by their chairman, Dr. Howe, was made a Minority Report by the votes of the Treasurer and Secretary, officers of the Society, and both of them, as appears from the records, involved in the authorship of the original Report which gave occasion to the inquiry, and therefore, it would seem, in the light of propriety, if not of parliamentary rules, hardly competent to sit on the committee. It was next proposed that the Report, although by a minority, should, in pursuance of the instruction in the original Resolution, "be incorporated in the next Annual Report." This, it appears from the records, was submitted to the Board of Managers, May 7, 1846, where it was opposed by the Treasurer. On May 21st it was referred to a meeting of the whole Society, convened at the dwelling-house of the Secretary: for our association dilates at times to dimensions ample as this large audience, and then again shrinks, if need be, to the narrow space occupied by its Secretary. At this meeting, on motion of the Treasurer, still another impediment was thrown in the way of printing the Report, in pursuance of the original Resolution. At the business meeting of the Society, May 25th, on the day preceding the anniversary, I made still another ineffectual attempt to have this Report appear among the transactions of the Society. This was followed by a Resolution, on motion of Mr. Nathaniel Willis, a near connection of the Secretary, as follows:—
"Voted, That it is not expedient to discuss the subject at the anniversary meeting."