One was that of a venerable old gentleman, for many years President of the Board of Commissioners of the Northern Liberties of Philadelphia, who had retired from business, being worth a handsome independence. He was in the habit of spending much of his time at the office of a relative of his, a merchant on the wharf. The clerk of the merchant on returning from bank, where he had been to make a deposit, found three five dollar United States notes, which he handed to the merchant, who advertised for the owner to come forward and identify the money, and it would be given up. The merchant authorized his relative, the prisoner, to act for him during his absence, and if anybody properly identified the money, to take it from his desk and return it. Among the claimants was an ignorant woman, who said that she and her husband had lost $50 between Frankford and South Street, and they did not come up any further in the city than Second Street; that the money they lost was in one, two, and three dollar notes. The prisoner informed her that neither the money she had lost, nor the place where she had lost it, agreed with that which had been found, and therefore she could not have it. She immediately went to an alderman and swore that the prisoner said he had her lost money, but would not give it to her. Upon this statement, accompanied by an affidavit from her husband (who had not heard the prisoner say anything on the subject), a warrant was issued, and he was arrested. On the hearing, the prisoner denied ever having said what had been testified against him, and informed the alderman that he had never seen the lost money, nor even either of the five dollar notes which had been found. Upon a commitment being made out, he asked the constable to go with him to get bail, which he refused to do. He also informed the alderman that he was abundantly able to go his own bail, which, however, he refused to take. The agent, seeing him in the prison, procured bail to be entered, and soon had him released.
A second was that of a woman who was committed for larceny, being charged with having stolen a box of jewelry of but little value. Upon investigation of her case, the agent ascertained that her prosecutor had previously robbed her of some bed ticking, and had brought this charge against her to defeat the ends of justice. She was arrested and imprisoned at the very time when she was required to be at Court to testify in reference to her stolen property. Careful examination enabled the agent to prove in Court that instead of the prisoner having committed a larceny, the prosecutor had entered her house during her absence, ripped open a pillow, and after placing the jewelry in it, sewed it up with a peculiar kind of thread, such as the agent found in the prosecutor’s house. In confirmation of this, when the officer, in company with the prosecutor, was searching the prisoner’s house for the jewelry, and could not find it, the prosecutor pointed out the very pillow which contained it, and asked to have that searched.
A third case was that of an innocent woman who had been convicted and sentenced to three months on a charge of “false pretence.” The charge consisted in her having applied to a member of the St. Andrew’s Society, of which her husband had been a contributing member, for money to pay the funeral expenses of her deceased child, which had been buried the day before. A police officer, who was near at the time, arrested, and caused her to be committed, saying that she was an impostor, and he did not believe her story about the child. When her case came up for trial, the agent supplied her with competent counsel who explained the case and defended her. She was, however, convicted on the testimony of this officer, although she herself addressed the Court, and protested against the testimony, explaining her case in a simple, earnest, and truthful manner. Judge Ludlow, seeing her great distress, humanely sympathized with her, and directed an officer of the Court to accompany her to her home to ascertain the facts, see the sexton of the ground where she said the child was buried, &c., promising to release her yet, although convicted, if her story proved true, but if false, to increase her sentence. The officer, after going a short distance with her, took her back to the Court, and reported that she was unable to direct him to a single person who had known her to have buried a child.
The judge then sentenced her for three months to the County Prison.
After this, the agent investigated the case, and found that every word she had said to the Court was literally true, as to the death, and the time and place of burial, &c. The physician was seen, who at the time of its death had given the certificate; the sexton who had buried it was also seen, and the clergyman who had authorized the burial, and paid the charges of the undertaker, with the understanding that she was to pay him again, he having perfect confidence in her promise to do so. When the agent had given to the Court satisfactory proof of these facts, Judge Ludlow reconsidered her sentence and discharged her from prison. Thus, through the services of the agent, this poor but respectable woman was saved not only from the pains and privations of a three months’ imprisonment, but also from the odium of being an impostor and a convict, which would probably have been attached to her character during the remainder of her life.
We shall introduce one other case, for the purpose of illustrating the value of this agency, beyond the mere liberating of persons from prison, which is that of a “peacemaker” between the prosecutor and the person whom he had procured to be committed, which is a frequent result of the settlement of cases.
This was that of a German soldier who borrowed money from two different persons for the purpose of getting a commission as captain in the army, and promised to pay them as soon as his commission was obtained. He failed, however, to procure one, and having expended the money, he was unable to repay them. They therefore had him committed to prison on the charge of “false pretence.” The man had a wife and seven children in New York depending upon him for support. He had an abundance of recommendations of good character. The agent saw his prosecutors, and succeeded in getting them to go to the prison and talk with him. They soon became very much interested in him, gave him some money, went to the District Attorney and asked for his discharge, and paid all the Court charges and expenses, becoming satisfied, upon reflection, that nothing wrong was intended by the prisoner. They invited him to their houses, and proffered him their friendship for the future.
Many other cases are almost equally entitled to a place in this Report, as strikingly illustrating the value of the agency to the cause of humanity, and also to the community, in the large annual saving of expense to the County, resulting from the discharges effected by it, before the cases reach the Court. The cost of maintenance and of prosecution, thus saved in the year 1861, amounted to upwards of $11,000. Its value is fully appreciated by the public authorities, as the following paragraph from the Presentment of the Grand Jury for the June Term, 1862, will testify. In speaking of their visit to the County Prison, they say: “During a part of their visit through the prison they had the company of the prison agent, William J. Mullen, and were glad to find that he still continues in the discharge of his arduous duties, thereby saving great expense to the County, as well as affording protection to the rights of the poorer classes of society.”
Lunatics.—We last year referred to the practice which prevailed of committing lunatics to the County Prison, to the great disadvantage of that institution, and stated that this Society was co-operating in an application then about being made to the Legislature, which, it was hoped, would result in relieving the prison of this class of its inmates. The contemplated application was made, and a Committee attended at Harrisburg to make such explanations as might secure the favorable notice and action of the Legislature, but without success. Subsequently, however, the prison agent, after considerable effort, succeeded in inducing the Board of Guardians of the Poor to rescind instructions which had been issued to the officers of the almshouse, prohibiting the admission of persons sent from the County Prison, so far as to give their President power to admit (under certain restrictions) such persons as he might deem proper, on application of the Inspectors of the County Prison, to that effect.
Under this arrangement, thirty-one insane persons, some of whom had been imprisoned for years, have been sent from the prison to the Insane Department of the Almshouse within the past year.