“Punishment has a place in prison, but it should be logical; should, as far as possible, flow as a natural consequence from the transgression according to the pedagogical rule of Spencer.

“The industrial training should be correlated with the didactic instruction and the prison library. The three should form the tripartite educative force of the institution.”

THE HONOR SYSTEM.

As was naturally to be expected, the so-called Honor System received a large share of attention, especially in the Wardens’ meetings. The Wardens generally are opposed to that feature of the Honor System which involves placing the discipline to any great extent in the hands of the convicts. The experiments of Mr. Osborne at Auburn, Sing Sing and Portsmouth are regarded as sporadic efforts largely affected by the personality of a masterful, though sentimental, empiricist. Men who have never governed themselves should not be elected to govern one another. Mr. Erskine, of Connecticut, argued that it was wrong to base any system on emotional appeal. “Twenty per cent. of the men in prison are entirely bad and vicious; 20 per cent. would wield a good influence if they had the opportunity, and the remaining 60 per cent. could be swayed by either the good or the bad element.”

On the other hand it was stoutly contended that the prison was the proper place for men to learn to govern themselves. Necessarily they were confined to a limited area, and still subject to watchful care by big-hearted, efficient advisers. Let them learn that discipline in life is an essential feature of any community. Let them learn this lesson by personal experimentation. Thus they may recover some sense of self-respect. They will rejoin the outer world with some measure of responsibility. They will return to freedom with a different understanding of life.

Dr. Bernard Glueck, director of the psychological clinic at Sing Sing, asserted that in general prison officials, through limitations to their work, were not fully qualified to pass judgment on the subject, and had not availed themselves of opportunities to carry out a comprehensive system of self-government. He stated that such a system had proven to be distinctly successful at Preston, California, and asked Mr. Calvin Derrick, the founder of the School of Industry at Preston, to present some account of this institution.

Mr. Derrick informed the Association that this California school has developed its honor system to the point where 250 of the boys were sent to the Sacramento fair alone, traveling through the country 250 miles, and returning without the loss of a single one. The boys have a complete republic system of government, and conduct all of the work of the school. A football team plays regular school and college teams of the State, traveling without supervision.

It appeared to some of us who listened with intense interest to these discussions that the difference in sentiment was rather one of degree than of principle. Wherever any privileges are allowed and wherever the trusty system is permitted, there is involved some measure of self-government. One warden permits the prisoners to mingle together on the base ball field. These men are on their honor. Another warden might say that he would allow his prisoners to play and observe games and leave the regulation of their conduct while on the field to the men themselves. They are still on their honor and doubtless are aware that their regulation of conduct must meet the approval of the warden. Suppose we allow the men to impose penalties for minor delinquencies. The warden still exercises his judgment on the punishment awarded. The warden governs. The men may have more or less privileges, but they are granted by the warden. It resolves itself into a question as to how far such privileges may be granted. And no two wardens in the world will agree precisely on this point.

For the last twenty years the trend has been getting away from the brutality of the former systems, from the petty rules, from degrading and humiliating treatment, and the avowed object of confinement has been reiterated again and again to aim at reformation. We admit that some wardens are more successful than others in accomplishing desired results, and yet we must not expect them to adopt an entirely uniform program. We must make due allowance for the personal equation involved, for the individuality of the ruling authority. The warden who claims that his system is perfect, and that he has nothing more to learn, is recommended for removal.

CLINICAL WORK.