In Philadelphia from the Proceeds of the Sale of the Walnut Street Plant
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
9 THE PLACE OF "THE PHILADELPHIA SOCIETY * FOR ALLEVIATING THE MISERIES OF PUBLIC PRISONS" IN AMERICAN PRISON REFORM By HARRY ELMER BARNES, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, CLARK UNIVERSITY (Continued from the April number) . THE NEW PENITENTIARY , It was due in large part to this memorial of 1818 that an act was passed March 3, 1818, appropriating sixty thousand dollars for building a peniten- tiary at Allegheny on the principle of solitary confinement. This same act au- thorized, but did not command, the sale of the Walnut Street jail, the removal ?f the prisoners to the Arch Street prison, and the erection of a new penitentiary In Philadelphia from the proceeds of the sale of the Walnut Street plant. As no definite action was taken on this authorization of 1818 with respect to build- 1119 a new penitentiary in Philadelphia, the society came forward with the fol- lowing final memorial of 1821, which succeeded in securing the passage of the tlct of March 20, 1821, appropriating one hundred thousand dollars for the Section of a state penitentiary in the county of Philadelphia capable of receiv- Ing two hundred and fifty convicts. To the Senate and House of of the Commonwealth of in g Representatives Pennsylvania, General Assembly met. The Memorial of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, Respectfully Represents, That it is now nearly forty years since some of your Memorialists associated for the Pirpose of alleviating the miseries of public prisons, as well as for procuring the melioration of the code of as far as these effects be their penal . Pennsylvania, might produced through xnfluence. In the performance of the duties which they believed to be required of them by the dic- tatest of Christian benevolence, and the obligations of humanity, they investigated the conduct and regulations of the jail, and likewise the effects of those degrading and sanguinary punish- ments which were at that period inflicted by the laws of this Commonwealth. The result of these examinations was a full conviction, that not only the police of the prison was faulty, but the penalties of the law were such as to frustrate the great ends of punishment, by rendering ’OfFenders inimical, instead of restoring them to usefulness in society. With these impressions, alterations in the modes of punishments, and improvements in Prison discipline, were from time to time recommended to the Legislature, by whose author- ~tY many changes were adopted, and many defects remedied. These from the nature of of ~. reforms, existing circumstances, were, however, compara- Ive,ly limited extent, but as far as the trial could be made, beneficial consequences were ex- Perienced. Neighboring states, and remote nations, directed their attention to these efforts, and in manY instances, adopted the principles which had influenced the conduct of Pennsylvania. laboAt the time of making the change in our penal code, substituting solitude and hard ur, for sanguinary punishments, the experiment was begun in the county jail of Philadel- phia, rather than the execution of the laws should be deferred to a distant period, when a suitable prison might be erected. Under all the inconveniences then subsisting, the effects produced were such as to warrant a belief that the plan would answer the most sanguine Wishes of its if it could be tried. But the construction of the and ~s friends, properly prison, crowded condition, being the only penitentiary used for all the convicts of the state, leave but slender hopes of the accomplishment of the humane intentions of the Legislature. Your Memorialists that discover in the recent measures of the Common- w believe, they we~, a promise, which will fulfl the designs of benevolence in this respect. The edifice now *Name changed in 1883 to "The Pennsylvania Prison Society." Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on August 15, 2015 10 in progress at Pittsburg for the reception of prisoners, constructed upon a plan adapted to strict solitary confinement, will go far towards accomplishing this great purpose; and your Memorialists are induced to hope, that the same enlightened policy which dictated the erec- tion of a state prison in the western, will provide for the establishment of a similar one in the eastern part of the state. Reasons of the most serious and substantial nature might be urged to show the absolute necessisty which exists for a penitentiary in the city and county of Philadelphia, whether we regard the security of society, or the restoration of the offenders against its laws. It will not be necessary here to recite the alarming proofs which might be adduced in support of their opinions, but refer to the documents herewith furnished, which exhibit the actual con- dition of the prison. Your Memorialists, therefore, respectfully request, that you will be pleased to take the subject under your serious consideration, and if you judge it right, to pass a law, for the erection of a penitentiary for the eastern district of the state, in which the benefits of solitude and hard labour may be fairly and effectually proved. Signed by order and on behalf of the Society. WILLIAM WHITE, President. SAMUEL POWEL GRIFFITTS, WILLIAM ROGERS, Vice-President. JOS. REED, THOMAS WISTAR, do ROBERTS VAUX. NICHOLAS COLLIN, Attest. Caleb Cresson, Sec’y. The confidence reposed by the legislature in the information and achieve- ments of the society is shown by the fact that a majority of the board of com- missioners named in the act to supervise the building of the penitentiary were members of the prison society.* In spite of all their labors in this direction, however, the society came very near to losing the opportunity of testing their penological principles, based upon the fundamental doctrine of solitary confinement at hard labor. By a resolu- tion of March 23, 1826, the legislature appointed Charles Shaler, Edward King, and T. J. Wharton as commissioners to revise the penal code. They were di- rected to carry out the revision according to the system of imprisonment at hard labor with solitary confinement. While engaged on their labors they came under the influence of Louis Dwight, secretary of the Boston Prison Discipline Society, and the most zealous and energetic supporter of the Auburn system of prison administration based upon congregate workshops and separation at night. As a result of Mr. Dwight’s advocacy of the Auburn system, and the favorable impression of it derived from a personal visit and study by the commissioners, the latter recommended in their report that the new penitentiaries at Allegheny and Philadelphia be altered in construction, so that they might be administered according to the Auburn plan. The Philadelphia Society f or Alleviating the Miseries o f Public Prisons became alarmed at the prospect of losing the benefit of all their labors in behalf of the system of solitary confinement, and they sent one of their members, Mr. Samuel R. Wood, to labor with the chairman of the judiciary committee of the legislature. Mr. Wood’s arguments were sufficiently effective, so that when the law of April 23, 1829, was passed, finally establish- ing the system of penal administration for Pennsylvania, it provided for solitary confinement at hard labor. (The acts of 1821. and 1829 were drawn up by Rob- erts Vaux, Thomas Bradford, Jr., and Samuel R. Wood.) ’ * The members of this board were Thomas Wistar, Samuel P. Griffitts, Peter Miercken, George N. Baker, Thomas Bradford, Jr., John Bacon, Caleb Carmalt, Samuel R. Wood, Thomas Sparks, James Thackera and Daniel H. Miller. Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on August 15, 2015 11 D. DIVERSE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY, 1820-1835 As soon as the new state prison system was established, the society renewed the agitation for the abandonment of the Walnut Street jail and the building of a new county jail in Philadelphia. In this they were in part successful. A new ’Ounty prison, known as the Moyamensing Prison, was erected, but its construc- tioll was not wholly in accordance with the principle of solitary confinement. Not only did the society labor strenuously in this period for the improve- ment of the prison system, but they also were the first to point out a need for the differentiation of and correctional institutions on the basis of the age of the penal offenders. Accordingly, in 1823, a committee of the society was appointed t° investigate as to the need for an institution for juvenile delinquents in Penn- sylvania. In 1826, in an able memorial written by Roberts Vaux, the committee xeported in favor of the immediate construction of such an institution. With the aid of other enlightened citizens of Philadelphia, the society was able to secure the erection of the Philadelphia House of Refuge in 1828. ln spite of this formidable list of local achievements, the activities of the Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons were not Philadelphialitnited to the state of Pennsylvania. A knowledge of the prison reform move- ment which they promoted and advanced had spread throughout the United States and Europe by 1830. The society was early attracted by John Howard’s work in Europe, and at the fourth meeting of the members they listened to a letter from Dr. Lettsom, of London, describing Howard’s journeys on the Con- sent in the investigation of prison conditions. The letter of the society to Howard, himself, sent on January 14,, 1788, has already been cited. That the cornpliment was returned is evident from the following statement from Howard: Should the take life, of a permanent ~ plan place during my establishing charity under some such title as that at Philadelphia, viz.: &dquo;A Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons,&dquo; and annuities be engrafted for the above mentioned purpose, I would most readily stand atthereupon, the bottom of a page for five hundred pounds; or if such society shall instituted within three after death, this sum shall be out beof years my paid my estate.