The Prison Chaplaincy, And Its Experiences Part 15

1870. 1871. 1872.

Average number, 123 1-2 104 1-2 85 1-2 Expense for Overseers and Guards, $5,960 03 $6,314 91 $6,613 32 " Physician, 100 00 250 38 282 00 " Provisions, 8,581 32 5,416 41 3,283 00 " " per capita, 69 48 51 83 38 39 " " per day, per capita, 19 14 1-5 10 1-2 " " per day in Ma.s.s. Prison, 18 18 6-10 18 7-10 " Fuel and Lights, 1,195 43 954 41 682 13 " Clothing, 1,963 94 1,447 86 1,472 24 " " per capita, 15 90 13 85 17 21 " " in Ma.s.s. Prison, 21 67 19 40 18 72 " Library, 262 95 94 84 0 " Ordinary Repairs, 1,937 64 1,057 08 1,029 50 Earnings of Convicts, 25,338 22 22,619 70 19,134 45 " " per capita, 209 22 216 41 223 79

This table tells its own story and is in perfect unison with all that has been uttered on former pages. The guards and overseers, the same in number, and with no additional labors, receive increased pay from year to year. Nor has there been any going up in the scale of wages outside to cause a demand for this. Nor were they more experienced and intelligent, thereby claiming higher compensation. Many were mere boys, some not overstocked with intelligence. They had one boy of seventeen for overseer in the shop.

The physician's pay has also received a yearly rise in the scale, though with a large diminis.h.i.+ng in numbers of prisoners and, as the Report says, a remarkably healthy state among them. How can we reconcile this?

True, the first year he attended only when called, and subsequently every morning. But why the difference between the second and third years with the fewer men and alleged healthy state? This is what needs explaining.

But we find the food expense going the other way,--19, 14 1-5 and 10 1-2 per day to a man. What a cutting off! Will it go on thus till the story of Hierocles about the man's horse shall be verified in our prison? So, also, of the lighting and fuel with no change of s.p.a.ce to be warmed,--$1,195 43, $954 41 and $682 13. No wonder there was such suffering from cold that second winter, before pointed out. Then what of the third? No change in the prices of the market can account for this variance. It must have been sheer withholding the necessaries of life.

We see that the Charlestown food allowance per day, for those years respectively, was,--18, 18 6-10 and 18 7-10, increasing a trifle. Nor does any great extravagance appear in that first year with us, nineteen cents, one cent lower than authors say should be, though one higher than Ma.s.sachusetts.

The allowance to the library is also suggestive,--$262 95, $94 84 and 0.

True, during the first year the library was repaired, enlarged and newly catalogued, but the second year the appropriation was about what is annually demanded for keeping the books properly replenished and in suitable order. It is as small a sum as should be thought of. That cypher, therefore, for the third year, shows an unwarrantable neglect.

These figures are especially suggestive, too, on the educational and moral points, perhaps a good index of them. And what a show! Down, down!

What a picture for New Hamps.h.i.+re! Grant that the chaplain preaches to the men Sabbath mornings, meets them in the prayer-meetings, &c., to what does it amount in the midst of such surroundings? True, it gratifies them to a.s.semble, hear the human voice, and sing. That is about all the good that can be looked for under the circ.u.mstances.

The labor figures, too, are expressive,--$209 22, $216 44 and $223 79, what each earned per year; poorer fare and more work. We admit that this rise may, in part, be credited to the fact that, from the former warden's suggestion, our rulers had arranged for the doctor to visit the prison daily and examine the cases desiring excuse from work, by real or pretended sickness, with the antic.i.p.ation of saving more or less labor, which that warden supposed he had lost from being left himself to do this excusing, and without medical advice, which measure commenced when the new warden came in. But, besides this, enough remains unaccounted for in that way, no doubt, to render it highly probable that too many of those complaining of having been driven to work when sick, had just cause for such complaints.

Those figures on repairs are important,--$1,937 64, $1,057 08 and $1,029 50. That first year made the last of those spent in that general fitting up, enlarging and repairing as preparatory to running the inst.i.tution at more income, less expense, and, consequently, larger gains than ever before, thus laying the foundation for its present prosperity. Those sums for the second and third years would have been mere trifles but for keeping the shop appliances in repair, and that of the first very much less. Now that the contractor keeps these appliances in order himself, this repair bill for a long while to come should be very small. Hence, when we hear the laudations of the present apparent financial prosperity of the prison over that of a few years ago, we are not to infer that those former rulers were any the less shrewd, far-seeing, or energetic in financial matters than those of later date, but that the latter are only reaping from what the former sowed.

The table shows us how the increased gains are secured; mostly by withholding the necessaries of life from the men, and yet driving them to more work.

But we turn from examining this table more directly again to the Prison Report of '72. It says,--"As complaint has been made that the prisoners were not properly fed and clothed, or that the food was deficient in quant.i.ty and quality, we say to you that we think no prisoners in this country are so well fed and clothed as the convicts of the New Hamps.h.i.+re State Prison." What shall we think concerning the judgment of those writers? It seems that they have become conversant with the prison fare in all the States of our country, and, after careful examination, have deliberately formed the opinion that the fare in the N. H. State Prison, at ten and one-half cents per day, is really better than that elsewhere at eighteen cents.

Then again, ibid: "No article of food has been furnished by us that was not good, sweet and wholesome; and as good in quality as will average upon the tables of the tax-payers of the State. The remarkably healthy look of the convicts is plain proof that they are well cared for, have a plenty to eat, and that which is good." It seems that the authors of this part of the Report have not only traveled far and wide over our country and surveyed each prison, but have also called on every tax-payer of our State, scrutinized their tables carefully, and found that their average living costs not over ten and one-half cents per day to each individual. When found they time for all this? Or are we to understand that they are purposely using the whitewash their predecessors left?

The chaplain is again, in this Report, brought forward thus, pp. 10 and 11,--"At the commencement of our labors as Prison Committee there was a want of harmony between the former chaplain and the officers of the prison, which seemed to us against the interests of the prison, and ought, in some way, to be removed. We could see no way to obviate this difficulty other than the removal of the warden or the chaplain. After due consideration, with the best information we could get, we thought best to recommend the removal of the chaplain and the appointment of Mr.

Smith to that office. By this change harmony was at once restored. Mr.

Smith has rendered faithful and effective labor, to the entire satisfaction of the committee and officers of the prison. Mr. Smith's prison experience, together with the deep interest he has for the welfare of the prisoners, seems to indicate him to be the right man in the right place."

"Rather hard on the former chaplain," said one of our editors. But what shall we believe? One of the subscribers to this article told him that he was removed on purely political grounds, as previously narrated. Then there was that corroborative a.s.sertion by the democratic neighbor that Mr. Smith had received the conditional promise. Now this declaration is published to the world. Where is the truth? Were they unwilling to put it out squarely that they had made a political foot-ball of the prison?

Or would they rather sacrifice the character and reputation of an innocent man, who had labored as best he could for the good of the inst.i.tution? They pretend to have acted in view of a difficulty between the chaplain and warden, and "with the best information we could get, we thought best to recommend the removal of the chaplain." Where did they obtain that information? There was, of course, but one source, and, from a year's experience, the writer understands something of its character, that it would not be impossible for men regarding themselves rather shrewd to leave, wholly misconceiving the real truth. But what shall we say of this course of condemning a man unheard, and on ex parte a.s.sertions? Is that the part of honorable dealing? But the whole subject is left with the reader to pa.s.s judgment upon in view of the facts already set before him.

55. _International Penitentiary Congress, London, July 3-13, 1872._ This resulted from the move already spoken of at the gathering in Ohio in '70. Dr. Wines, there selected to the important work of bringing about the proposed a.s.semblage, received due governmental qualifications by a commission from our President according to a special act of Congress, the Secretary of State also opening the way by communicating with the various governments represented at Was.h.i.+ngton, respecting the great subject. On this mission, the Dr. visited Europe in '71, received a cordial welcome from the various governments, and found them generally in readiness to enter heartily into the move. After due consultation, London was settled upon as the place of meeting, a committee, to provide for which and facilitate its general objects, was chosen in London with the Right Hon. Sir Walter Crafton as Chairman and Edwin Pears, Barrister at Law, Secretary. This committee is represented as composed of all political parties, with Lord Carnarvon really at the head, similar committees being formed in most of the other countries moving in the enterprise. To prepare work for the congress and secure its objects, a circular was addressed to the various States containing thirty prominent questions on imprisoning and its connected points, for answer. On a.s.sembling, this body found itself composed of delegates duly commissioned from twenty-two different governments, Russia and Turkey included, all the States of Europe represented but Portugal, delegates present from India, Victoria and other British colonies, South America, and eighteen of our United States, then representatives from various penitentiaries, benevolent societies for giving aid to released prisoners, magistracies, &c., &c., 298 in number, a gathering the like of which, in some respects, had never been held. Here were judges, professors of criminal law, prison managers, philanthropists, and various gentlemen skilled in the working of criminal jurisprudence.

Here the commissioned dignitaries from kings and emperors found themselves met with delegates from voluntary a.s.sociations and democratic inst.i.tutions. How could they, in justice to their dignity, submit to this? But the matter was amicably adjusted, and all came upon a democratic level and acted in the greatest harmony,--an important gain to manhood. The meeting was held at a Hall of the Middle Temple; at the opening, Earl Carnarvon presiding and making the inaugural address, giving welcome to the foreign delegates and making numerous important suggestions. At the next session Dr. Wines presided, and gave an address full of information as to the purpose of calling this congress and the objects to be gained,--a universal harmony in prison managing, which managing should have certain broad principles underlying, permeating and vivifying it.

At a soiree given by the English committee to foreign visitors, the Prince of Wales and suit attended, thus showing the sanction of the English government to the congress. This sanction was also expressed by the attendance at one session of the Home Secretary of State, Right Hon.

Austin H. Bruce, giving an official welcome to the gathering, and expressing a hope of being materially profited by the deliberations. The meeting, on the whole, was an important affair, of high interest from beginning to end. Its transactions are published in a volume of 796 pages, to be had of Rev. Dr. Wines, New York. Then one of the commissioners from New Hamps.h.i.+re, Mr. Allen Folger, wrote out a synopsis of the doings, which has been published in a pamphlet of 50 pages, by the authority of our State, for distribution, showing the interest our Governor and Council take in these matters.

The questions before spoken of were taken up by each country and elaborate answers given, papers were read upon them and thorough discussion had. The order was not to take any votes but to bring in facts of the various prison workings, to interchange views, criticise and thus sift out the best, in which, evidently, great enlightening of mind was obtained, and a great advancement made in the right direction.

On page 537 of Transactions we have the following reform sentiments: "Man, in the state of penal servitude, is no longer a thing, but a moral being, whose liberty human justice has not the right to confiscate absolutely and irrevocably, but only within the limits required by the protection and security of social order. The logical sequence of this view is, that it is the duty of society to reform the criminal during his temporary privation of liberty, since, in this way only can the peril of his relapse be successfully combatted, and the public safety effectually maintained. The reformation of imprisoned criminals is not, therefore, in our day, a work of philanthropy, but an obligation of the State."

In one or two prisons they have been so successful in reform efforts, that, having taken some of the very worst criminals, they have led them to such order and good behavior, as to be able to dispense with locks and bars, rendering the prison more like a great family, kindness being the great controlling element.

In the abridged report of the proceedings of the International Congress, under the head of "c.u.mulative Imprisonment," we learn that the following question was submitted, and several important suggestions followed its presentation.

QUESTION: Ought prisoners on reconviction to be subjected to more severe disciplinary treatment than on the first sentence?

It was opened by M. Peterson, of Bavaria, who maintained that cases required treatment according to the degree of demerit shown on the prisoner's trial, and therefore, that instead of laying down one principle, the right course was to leave the judges to decide what should be done in each case.

M. Ploos Van Amstel, of Holland, and M. Stevens, of Belgium, advocated a merciful treatment as likely to have more effect than severity.

Mr. Aspinall, of Liverpool, read resolutions which the Liverpool magistrates had pa.s.sed, to the effect that it was desirable that c.u.mulative principles should be applied to the punishment of all crimes and offences, and that the magistrates should be empowered to transfer well conducting and deserving prisoners to homes for the remainder of their sentences. Voluminous statistics showed that there were numerous reconvictions up to seventy times, and that the conclusions arrived at, by the magistrates, was that it would be better for the prisoners and better for society if the c.u.mulative principles were carried out.

Dr. Guillaume, of Switzerland, mentioned his experiences in some of the cantons of his country, which had led him to the conviction that it was better to give the reconvicted such sentences as would enable the prisoner to learn a trade, by which he could earn his living in the labor market without being obliged to fall back upon the lines of crime, than to give short and severe punishments, which, by including a lessened diet, sent the criminal back into the world, not only unimproved in morals, but deteriorated physically.

It would seem, according to his views, that the design of imprisoning is, to bring back to society those once injurious, but who are now changed to good citizens.

Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, of Ma.s.sachusetts, advocated the merciful and kindly treatment as being the way to make a permanent impression upon the criminal cla.s.ses.

M. Robin, of France, stated that his experience led him to set his face against all pains and penalties in prison, as against Christian principles, and advocated the teaching of trades. All in all, strict adherence to Christian principles should be at the bottom of the treatment of criminals.

Count de Foresta, of Italy, held that the question was rather one of law than prison discipline. He urged that there was a line of prison discipline beyond which it was impossible to go without turning the discipline into cruelty.

Another question touching "Prison Labor," was brought forward and considered, as follows:

QUESTION: "Should prison labor be merely penal, or should it be industrial?"

It was opened by the reading of a long and interesting paper by Mr.

Frederick Hill, brother of the late celebrated Recorder of Birmingham.

The substance of the paper was that labor, to be made useful and productive, follows natural laws, which are the same in prison as out of prison; that it is an advantage to the prisoner to fit him for usefulness and to make more easy his reform; that it will help pay the cost of his conviction and imprisonment; that upon release, he will be better armed against relapse into crime, as well as much better prepared to obtain an honest living than those whose labor has been merely penal; that the pains and privations necessarily attendant on the process of moral reformation are so great as to make it unnecessary, for the maintenance of the principle of deterrence, to superadd artificial pains and penalties.

Colonel Colville, Governor of Colbath Fields Prison, one of the largest London prisons, spoke very strongly against the tread-mill system of punishment which is in nearly all the prisons of England, and almost unanimously condemned by the prison officials.

The general opinion of the Congress was in conformity to views expressed by the speakers mentioned.

Under the question touching the moral value of visitation of the prisons by women, we find the following sensible views expressed:

"While the character of the visiting women depends upon chance, they are as likely to be indiscreet, and to interfere unwisely as otherwise. If they were selected as men are, or ought to be, for their fitness, their work would be done with good judgment and discretion. Then, again, criminal men separated from their families and from all gentle influences, need the ministry of good women for their reformation. The motherly influence of pure, gentle women will sometimes control and subdue the violent, when even blows would fail to do so."

The whole force of the International Congress went in favor of the idea of _reforming_ the prisoners. For this the body advocated stimulating the prisoners' self-interest, thus:

"In this way, the prisoner's destiny during his incarceration should be placed, measurably, in his own hands; he must be put into circ.u.mstances where he will be able, through his own exertions, to continually better his condition. A regular self-interest must be brought into play. In the prison, as in free society, there must be the stimulus of some personal advantage accruing from the prisoner's efforts. Giving prisoners an interest in their industry and good conduct tends to give them beneficial thoughts and habits, and what no severity of punishment will enforce a moderate personal interest will readily obtain."

They also advocated using the moral force:

"In criminal treatment, moral forces should be relied on with as little admixture of physical force as may be; organized persuasion to the utmost extent possible should be made to take the place of coercive restraint, the object being to make upright and industrious _freemen_, rather than orderly and obedient _prisoners_. Brute force may make good prisoners, moral training alone will make good citizens. To the latter of those ends the living soul must be won; to the former, only the inert and obedient body. To compa.s.s the reformation of criminals, the military type in prison management must be abandoned, and a discipline by moral forces subst.i.tuted in its place. The objects of military discipline and prison discipline, being directly opposed to each other, can not be pursued by the same road. The one is meant to train men to act together, the other to prepare them to act separately. The one relies upon force, which never yet created virtue; the other on motives, which are the sole agency for attaining moral ends. The special object of the one is to suppress individual character and reduce all to component parts of a compact machine; that of the other is to develop and strengthen individual character, and, by instilling right principles, to encourage and enable it to act on these independently."

They tell us again "that the self-respect of the prisoner should be cultivated to the utmost and every effort be made to give back to him his manhood." "There is no greater mistake in the whole compa.s.s of penal discipline, than its studied imposition of degradation as a part of punishment. Such imposition destroys every better impulse and aspiration. It crushes the weak, irritates the strong and indisposes all to submission and reform. It is trampling, where it ought to raise, and is therefore as unchristian in principle as it is unwise in policy."

Farther, "The system of prison discipline must gain the will of the convict. He is to be amended, but this is impossible with his mind in a state of hostility. No system can hope to succeed which does not secure this harmony of wills, so that the prisoner shall choose for himself what his officer chooses for him. But to this end the officer must really choose the good of the prisoner, and the prisoner must remain in his choice long enough for virtue to become a habit. This consent of will is an essential condition of reformation, for a bad man can never be made good against his will. Nowhere can reformation become the rule instead of the exception, where this choice of the same things by prison keepers and prison inmates has not been attained."

They a.s.sert, too, that the officers should possess a hearty desire and intention to accomplish the object of reform in the prison. Regarding these officers they also say thus: