In the United States prison horrors in the early days differed only from those of the parent country in the fact that prisons were rare, and of so simple a character that it was not so easy for shameful cruelties to be practiced unseen as in great duntteons. Dr. Wines states that " Connecticut for more than 50 years, 1773-1827, had an underground prison in an old mining pit near Simsbury, which equaled in horrors all that was ever related of European prisons." In Philadelphia all grades of criminals, and both sexes, were mingled in horrible disregard of decency and humanity, in the city prisons; and liquors were served to prisoners from a bar kept by a prison official. In Boston it is told that a thousand debtors were confined in common night-rooms with a thousand criminals. "Men, women, boas, lunatics, drunkards, innocent andguilty, were mingled pell-mell together." In New York in the early days, negroes were burned alive and hanged in iron frames to die of starvation. Every village had its stocks, pillory, and whipping-post. Delaware alone retains them. Reforms began in Philadelphia by the formation in 1776 of the "Society for alleviating the miseries of public prisons;" reor ganized more efficiently in 1787, and said to be still active and useful. The Boston "Prison discipline society" was organized in 1824, existed for 20 years, and accom plished its mission. The "Prison association of New York," organized later, and is still active, Americans (omitting the living) whose work in promoting prison reforms has beers too noble to be passed over without mention, are Dr. Rush, Elam Lynds, Gershom Powers, Roberts Vaux, Matthew Carey, Louis Dwight, Amos Pillsbury, Francis Way land, Francis Lieber, Charles Sumner, Samuel G. Howe, John D. Wolfe, John Stanton Gould, John W. Edmonds, Isaac T. Hopper, William H. Seward, Abraham Beal, and Dr. E. C. Wines. In 1870 the "National prison association of America" was formed, now becoming one of the most efficient in the world, unifying all the humanitarian influ ences of all the state officials into one body. Their intelligent and practical study of prison questions, their comparison of experiences and methods, their essays and reports, form a college of intelligence that cannot fail of beneficent results. 'Prison reform congresses were held in Oincinnati in 1870, Baltimore in 1872, and St. Louis in 1874. In Europe a congress of those particularly interested in prison improvements was convened at Frankfort in 1845, under the direction of Ducpetiaux, inspector-gen. of prisons in Belgium. Many others have followed. A permanent commission to collate information was appointed at the London congress in 1872, which commission held a session at Brussels in 1874, and at Brnchsal, Germany, in 1875. France and Italy have similar national commissions. In the United States, state legislation has seconded the efforts for reform.
The tendency of experienced men in prison discipline is now to longer terms of imprisonment, in order to control and complete reformation. They also insist on ing the prisons of a state into great establishments where thorough systems can be ried out to better advantage, where appliances for every practicable trade can be vided, and where the petty tyrannies and indecencies of common jails are less likely to obtain. The propriety of definite sentences for crimes is questioned, and it is claimed that the officers of the prisons should have a wide discretion, and that conduct, acter, and degree of reformation should have very much to do with the long retention or the earlier freedom of the criminals. Separation of prisoners from each other, or the systeni, forms not only one of the greatest punishments for most criminals, hot one of the most essential means of preventing the scandals of old prison-yards, where the most skillful and hardened criminals could exchange and increase each other's knowledge of crime, where the greatest criminal was the hero of the circle, and the younger or less vicious inmates were exposed to all the brutalizing influences of a robber's den. Pennsylvania has the honor of having made the first great step in the amelioration of the condition of prisons and prisoners. In 1786 in the new Walnut street prison the system of solitary confinement in single cells was begun, but under conditions that dered it a failure. Absolute seclusion, without books or society, resulted not in reform, but in savage moodiness and insanity. It has been tried in several states, under more humane conditions, by giving prisoners an abundance of reading matter, opportunity to talk with keepers, and by occupation for both body and mind the day in some industry. Now, while a good system requires that each prisoner shall have his sepa rate cell, congregated work is practiced; cells are lighted to allow reading after work hours; conversation with prison attendants is not discouraged; and men known or sup posed to be not injurious to each other's character, or likely to concoct mischief, are permitted communication with each other. Associated labor in gangs, or in work-shops in absolute silence, theoretically, and absolute isolation in cells having no means of com munication one with another, constitute the cellular and associated labor-system in use in most great prisons in the United States. Of course the absolute silence enjoined ',between men working together side by side, day after day, and year after year, is of (itself a terrible punishment. But it is unfortunately the worst punishment for the best class of criminals, for just in proportion as the inmates are endowed with those qualities which tend to make them decent and agreeable members of society—intelligence, sociability, kindliness—in that proportion are they punished by being deprived of the power to exercise their good qualities. Those who are constitutionally ugliest are apt to be morose at the best, brood over their work with least longing for fellowship, and least punishment; while both the best and the worst of these who thus only can speak to their fellows by stealing their opportunity, are neither improved nor reformed by the enforced silence. All are under a continual pressure to steal—not objects of value to others, but their own power of speech and means of fellowship.
The originator of the ideal system to which our prisons are making gradual approaches—called the system of progressive classification—was the English rapt. Alex ander Maconochie, a worthy successor of the noble Howard, who 40 years ago perfected a system, and on his own application was made governor of the British penal .colony of Norfolk island, for the purpose of putting it to practical test. There were them 1500 convicts on the island, made up of the worst malefactors from Britain. Maeonochie called hth plan the "social system of prison treatment." Its basis is the belief that a state of cheerfulness, hopefulness, and kindly treatment is essential for improvement and reform among criminals. His sptem proposes four main aims and methods, as fol lows: 1. A labor sentence instead of a time sentence, so that prisoners know at once that they can by labor shorten imprisonment in proportion to industry. 2. To enable them to have their punishment further lessened by their good behavior daily recorded, and eumulative to their advantage, thus placing a constant premium on self-restraint. 3. By giving degrees of social liberty iu proportion to the good use made of it, and encour aging the exercise of genial qualities. 4. By giving the prisoner a part of the wages of his labor, to be put in his possession on leaving the institution, or to go to his family, and preparing him to resume a decent place in society by showing confidence in him, and releasing him from restraint in proportion as he develops self-respect and disposition toward good citizenship. Thus the prison life is regarded as one in which the convicts are to he re-reared—as a family of peculiar children, each of whose peculiarities was to be considered. It is assumed that the worst. of traits in a convict do not prove him devoid of some good ones; and that the incentives to good life should be made much greater and more pleasant than to a bad one. The work of testing his system began by offering the convict pay for his work by marks, with which marks when earned he could buy his own food, clothes, and other necessaries, and form a surplus to be credited to his liberation, on the supposition that he is sentenced to a specific number of days' labor, or marks. He fixed ten marks as equivalent of a day's labor; then paid by the piece. and not by time, and for every ten marks saved the term of imprison ment was lessened a day. Prisoners could buy their own provisions at three different rates, paying for them in marks at the supply store of the prison. The poorest fare cost three marks, the next four, and the best five. Thus the zeal for freedom would stimulate not only industry, but the utmost self-denial and economy. Over-work was paid for in extra marks at the same rate as regular work; and misdemeanors of any kind being subject to a fine in marks, the mark-record of prisoners was at the same time their industrial and moral spur and their savings-bank. He did not attempt to bring about the emulation and ambition which this system is calculated to inspire by at once sup posing the prisoners to be ready for it, but divided the terms of their sentences into three periods. During the first, or punishing stage, the men were subject to close surveil lance and discipline. At the expiry of this term they could divide themselves into com panies of six, by mutual consent only. Each six were to have a common fund of marks,
into which all their earnings were to be paid, and from which the fines of any and all that company must be paid. This perhaps, the most original reform of the whole system, and at once makes the germ for the growth of all the qualities that are essential to a good member of society. Each man becomes interested in the industry and good behavior of his associates in a manner so direct and palpable in every way that the effect of the voluntary partnership is to keep all the partners in a continual state of watchful ness and emulation, or of shame to the one who may be derelict to the interests of his immediate companions. Dishonest and selfish as they might be, they are thus made to feel that shirking by any one of them hurts all; so that a majority must all the time Ilse a pressure for industry and fair play. As they had no way of punishing each other for short-comings, the consequence was the creation of an honorable conception of mutual duty and forbearance. Iu the third period of the sentence the prisoner was to be thrown on his individual character, and to be permitted, under the same system of marks or wages, to profit or lose for himself alone according to his industry and good behavior. In the tropical island of Norfolk, where the experiment was undertaken by capt. Maconoehie, he was able to add some privileges to the prisoner in the third term of the sentence nut practicable everywhere. He was allowed a lint and garden, pigs and poul try, which might be sold for his benefit to the ships that touched at the island.. Thus, by all these means this great reformer taught the prisoners industry, appreciation of the rights of others, the mutuality of rights and obligations in a community, self-reliance, and self-respect. He spent four years in this experiment and thus states the result: "I found the island a turbulent, brutal hell; I left it a peaceful, well-o•dered community." Sir Wolter Crofton succeeded him, and organized the system more perfectly to adapt its discipline and methods to the average grade of the persons who have charge of prisons; that is to say, to a much lower level than would be required were such men as Mac onochie in charge. Crofton's modified system. also divided into three stages of imprison ment, consists of: 1, a separate imprisonment of 8 mouths; 2, a reformatory stage pro portioned to the whole length of the sentence, in which the system of Maconochie is retained in principle, but modified in adaptation to give the prisoner a progressive or receding position, and a larger or smaller share of earnings as he advances or fails in industry or conduct. Crofton put his plans into full operation in Ireland in 1854, where three separate prisons were provided to accommodate the graduates from lower to higher degrees. Mount Joy, Dublin, with a capacity of 500, received the newly sen tenced; Spike Island at Queenstown, with accommodations for 700; received the probation aries in the second term; and Lusk, 12 m. from Dublin, accommodating only 100, held the graduating class. The first prison punished by solitary confinement, relieved only by labor of the most tedious kind, like picking oakum, and the poorest kind of sufficient food. During this time the convict is thoroughly familiarized with the 53-stein of pro gression which he is afterward to have the privilege of availing himself of. The prison at Queenstown receives the prisoner for the second stage; and here begins the system of marks by which lie can acquire privileges and curtail his term of punishment, or, by failing to improve,can remand himself back to punishments and original deprivations. This inter mediary prison is the main one, where the educational and social progressive system is put into practice. It is divided, like a college, into classes, through which the prisoners must graduate, and, when they have passed through the three into which the prison divides them, the highest class is fitted for the prison of Lusk, and transferred to it. After going through the penal prison of Dublin the prisoner enters the third class at Queenstown. He must earn not less than 18 marks to pass to the second class, 54 to get to the first class, and 103 to graduate from that to Lusk. As 9 marks a month is the maximum number that can be earned—three for industry, three for school duties, and three for conduct—the prisoner must, at the best, remain in the lowest class two months; in the middle class. six mouths; and in the last, 12 months. Of course, the average of industry, study, and conduct is not such usually as to make the term so short. The prison at Lusk is the most remarkable unlit of the system. Here the prisoner has a degree of freedom and an absence of restraint that puts to the test all his previously acquired self-control and self respect. There are no walls, prison bars. or armed watchmen before his eyes; no prison garb, physical restraint, or check on social intercourse. The prisoners are employed in groups, mostly on out-door farm work, in company with unarmed wardens, who work with them. They are not even restrained of liberty of escape except by the knowledge of the advantages to be gained by working to the end of their terms, and securing the pay ment of earnings in store for them. Attempts to leave before the end of their terms have been rare among those who reach this stage of reform. The mark system is not continued at Lusk. The appearance of pupilage is avoided, and men are made to feel themselves a part of the community around them by attending lectures, and public wor ship at the parish church, and in being trusted in various services out of the eye of any prison officer. There is no physical restraint to prevent their escape day or night. The minimum period of detention at Lusk is 0 months on a sentence of 5 years; 11 months on one of 10 years; 16 months on one of 15 years. At the great intermediary at Queens town the minimum is 13 months on a sentence of 5 years; 53 months on 10 years; 93 months on 15 years. Prisoners at the two first prisons are mostly employed in bodies, under surveillance, upon public works. They receive no portions of their earnings, but are allowed a certain portion, under the name of gratuities saved for them, and paid to them on leaving the prison at the expiry of their terms. These gratuities are earned by marks during the whole time of their stay at Queenstown, and are forfeitable as one of the punishments for laziness or bad conduct. The greatest possible reduction of the term of imprisonment by good conduct is 13 months on a period of 5 years; 28 months on a period of 10 years; and 3 years and 7 months on a term of 15 years. But the prisoner's freedom is not absolute until the full end of the term for which be was confined. He is provided with a ticket of license for the intervening period; is free to go to work for himself, but must report at regular intervals to the authorities; and, if he fail to keep the conditions of his license, may lie remanded hack to prison for the remainder of his full term. The same systems, in all respects, is applied to the women convicts at the same places. The basis of the Crofton system is hope. The number of inmates of the prisons just described and their cost for the year ending Mar. 31, 1S74, is given in the following table: The United States as a nation has no great prison. Each state maintains one or more large establishments, conducted under many different systems, but in general tending to the "social system of progressive classification," and making more or less progress toward it. Each city also has its special prison. The association of prison management with politics, and the facilities permitted in some states for prison officials to have a con siderable patronage at their disposition, including the contracts for the labor of the pris oners, is the most unfortunate feature of United States prison systems. State legislatures tend to the most humane and thoughtful liberality in providing for the accommodation and reformation of criminals; so that when prisons are making little progress toward the ideal which Maconochie and Crofton have proved entirely practicable, it is because the officials themselves are not the right men in the right place. A proposition is now (1881) before the legislature of New York to impede the free visiting of the state prisons by the people, on the ground that such visits interfere with their discipline and order; but such interference is a less evil than would result from leaving the prisons to a close cor poration of officials. One of the misfortunes of the prison systems in the United States is a disposition to regard the convicts as slaves of the state, whose labor it has a right to confiscate, and the profit of which is so much clear gain to the treasury of the state. Under the plausible plea of making prisons self-sustainiug by this use of prison-labor, legislatures may be pleased with those officials who make the best show of profit out of the prisoners to the state treasury; and to effect this prison-labor is farmed out like slave labor. If this be done under the inspection of intelligent disinterested men, devoted to the main work—that of reformation of the inmates of prisons, it is possible to unite the best interests of both convicts and the state; but it is also possible to make the system only a dreadful form of human slavery. It is a grave question how far the state can justly go in the direction of confiscation of a man's labor.