Case First.—A woman was incarcerated upon the charge of the larceny of two fifty dollar notes, of which she was innocent. Her imprisonment was very unjust. She was taken from her home, with her little infant in her arms, and committed to the prison, and separated from her three other children. The Agent ascertained on inquiry that the prosecutor had accused three other persons at different times for taking the money that the prisoner was accused of taking. When the Agent informed the “Court and District Attorney” of these facts, her case was ignored, and she was released from prison, there not being a particle of evidence against her aside from the mis-representation made by the prosecutor.
It is scarcely necessary to comment on this case, for though the justice of the movement is sustained by the judicial officers of the court, we have few of the facts which gave poignancy to the innocent sufferer.
Case Second.—Was that of a husband and his wife, imprisoned for the larceny of an old three-prong table fork, of little or no value, which he found in a pile of ashes in the street. He took, cleaned and repaired it, and put a particular mark upon it, such as he had upon all his tools in his workshop, he being said to be a respectable mechanic. He then gave it to his wife for the use of his family, and for this they were both arrested and imprisoned, on the oath of a quarrelsome neighbor, who testified that it was her fork, and she knew it by the mark upon it; which the prisoner said could not be the case, as it was he that put this the only mark upon it. It was certain that they both could not have stolen the fork, although each of them was committed to prison for the same offence. They were respectable looking people, who had never been in prison before. The woman was in great distress of mind, and on the eve of her confinement. They resided in “Columbia Avenue,” the extreme northern part of the city, and were sued before a magistrate in the extreme southern part of the city. This circumstance indicated a malicious feeling on the part of the prosecutor, and particularly so in causing the mother to be separated from her infant child that had been left at home uncared for, as the officer would not allow her to return home and take her child to prison with her. And this was mainly the cause of her mental suffering that was so apparent to all who saw her. The Agent deeply sympathized with them in their unfortunate condition, and went to the magistrate and immediately procured their unconditional discharge, all of which had been done within an hour after the Agent’s attention was called to the case. They were then released and permitted to return to their home, as it did not appear that they were in any way guilty of the charge brought against them.
Case Third.—Two young soldiers that were from the State of Maine. One of them was of a family of the highest respectability; they were accused of stealing a silver watch valued at $18, for which offence they were committed to prison. When the parents of one heard of the imprisonment of their son, they addressed a note to the Warden of our Prison expressing their surprise at his imprisonment. They stated that they had never known him to do anything wrong, but to the contrary he had always conducted himself in such a way as to command the respect of all who knew him. They wished to know whether it was necessary to send on money to employ counsel to defend him. This letter was handed to the Agent, who made himself thoroughly acquainted with their case, and who believed they were innocent. The letter was answered, and the parents were informed by the Agent that he believed their son was innocent of the charge that he was accused of, and the case would be attended to free of charge, and that it was not necessary to send any money. It was not long after this that the Agent succeeded in ascertaining that these young men were entirely innocent of the charge they were accused of, and so far from having stolen anything, they had been robbed by their prosecutor. After having been induced to drink liquor that was drugged, they became intoxicated, and were taken out under the cover of night and laid at the door of the adjoining house. The very party that robbed them, went to a magistrate and made oath that they had stolen a silver watch of the value of $18 from him; for which offence they were committed. They had been engaged in one of the late battles, and both of them were wounded and sent to the Chestnut Hill Hospital, where they had partially recovered from their wounds, and as they were convalescent, permission was granted them to visit the city, where they got into the difficulty. The Agent succeeded in ascertaining from one of the inmates of the tavern where the occurrence took place, that the young men were entirely innocent of stealing the watch, and that the prosecutor had actually offered to sell the watch the next day after they were imprisoned. Soon as this fact was discovered, the Agent got a return of the case from the magistrate, took it into Court, and informed the District Attorney of all the facts in the case; the prosecutor was sent for, but was nowhere to be found, as he had suddenly disappeared and left for New York, he having become alarmed at the Agent’s interference in the case. Their case was laid before the Grand Jury and ignored, and they were released from prison and permitted to return to their hospital where they could have their wounds properly attended to. The Agent then addressed a letter to the anxious parents of the one that their son’s innocence was fully established, and that he was honorably discharged by the Court. This intelligence was no doubt gratifying to them.
If this third case is well considered, it will present an instance of the value of the services of the Agent, and consequently of the value of the Society, which must be gratifying to every friend of humanity. It seems almost impossible to free our large cities from the haunts of the vicious into which these young men had been enticed, and while they exist it seems certain that crime will not only abound, but progress, not merely in amount but in impunity. The feelings of those interested in the welfare and character of these young men, may be imagined when they learn of their release from prison and their full acquittal of the charge of felony. The course of vice had indeed been entered, and idle curiosity (at least) had been partially gratified in the dangerous exploration by these young men, and now perhaps they may understand the significance of monitions, against entering the path that leads down to destruction and associating with those “whose feet take hold on hell.”
MAGISTRACY.
Persons visiting the County Prison, are struck with the evidence that abounds of some great defect in the system of primary justice in this city; and the evils so justly and so greatly to be deplored, are often unhesitatingly referred to the incompetency or malfeasance of a portion of the magistrates by whom the vagrants, the drunkards, and the violators of the public peace are committed. Without offering an opinion at present on the question, whether we owe the results of which we speak, to the ministers of justice, or to the system upon which they receive their office, and discharge its duties, we are certainly right in saying that any attempt to alleviate the miseries of public jails, must first grapple with the administration of primary justice; must begin with creating a respect for the officers of the law, and must satisfy the accused that the object of arrest is not so much the profit of the magistrate as the benefit of society; and that while the balance is held with a clean and steady hand, the costs are imposed less for the benefit of the magistrate than for the punishment for a violation of the law and the improvement of the offender.
But before we can hope for any amendment of the system, we must enable the public to comprehend the reality and the extent of the evil which is deplored, and which it is the object of the friends of sound justice to correct.
The “Station-House” and the County Prison are crowded with persons who do not feel that they have done an injury to others, or at most, they think their offence is of a most venial kind. The offence of “vagrancy” is so undefined, that it is easy to commit almost any idle person upon such a charge, and equally easy to let him go. “Disorderly conduct,” which appends to the offence of drunkenness, the punishment of a month confinement instead of a day is so uncertain in its character, that the jubilant politician is in danger of imprisonment if his huzzas are strengthened and multiplied by even moderate potations. And “disorderly house” is made to cover all kinds of disturbances between singing loud to a crying child, and the repeated orgies of drunkenness and prostitution, just as “misdemeanor” includes all indictable offences below actual felony. And “abuse and threats,” that formerly expressed something definite, now fill the commitment with most undefinable charges, and the cells with most astonished and astonishing inmates.