That the Philadelphia method separates the criminals more entirely from one another than the Auburn, and that in the former they cannot become acquainted and so corrupt and mislead each other, admits of no doubt. But whether this is entitled to unqualified praise, and whether it is always and absolutely necessary, is not yet proved. The Auburn system takes from the prisoner two faculties, it makes him deaf and dumb; the Philadelphia plan in addition thereto, deprives him in a great measure of the use of sight. All this may be necessary for certain purposes; but there is certainly no reason for boasting of the extraordinary clemency of these modern systems, and doubtless many a prisoner would gladly endure bodily chastisement after the old fashion for the privilege of an hour's conversation.* Though some prisoners would rather live entirely alone than in bad company; yet in general, solitude is a very severe aggravation of the punishment.

Both parties set up statistical tables against each other, to show the operation of their methods in regard to health, sickness, insanity, &c. These accounts, however, have hitherto been so imperfect and contradictory, show so seldom the connection between cause and effect, and pay so little attention to influential though secondary circumstances, that I am in doubt as to whether in general they merit praise or blame. Still it may be maintained that the method which allows greater variety of employment and more bodily exercise, must operate more favorably on the health, and also affords neither time nor opportunity for those subtle brooding fancies, which rarely increase selfknowledge, but often superinduce a state of overwrought mental excitement or gradual stupidity. The outward appearance, the apparent good health of a social being condemned to solitude, furnishes no certain proof of the fitness and endurableness of his condition: so the ox condemned to the fattening process of the stall, and the goose shut up to be crammed, may look well enough; but surely the one would rather be roaming over the meadow, healthier if somewhat leaner, and the other be paddling about in the clear water.

That by day-labor in common, prisoners see and know each other, and that recognition occasionally takes place after their discharge, is not to be doubted; but whether for this and other reasons the Auburn method is to be done away with, is a question decided by twenty-four or five states in the negative, against

* In Charleston, South Carolina, corporal punishment is used as a supplementary means, in order to shorten the term of imprisonment.

† If insanity often proceeds from secret practices, solitary incarceration is more likely to lead to them than labor in the company of others.

the single example of Pennsylvania.* Although subordinate considerations and prejudices may have aided in producing this denial, still the decision must have proceeded mainly from more genuine and weighty reasons. Among these are the greater cost, the less varied and productive labor, the undeniable danger to health from narrow cells, and also an instinctive feeling of humanity. It is true that this last, indefinite as it is, should not be suffered to decide alone; but neither should the understanding be consulted to its utter exclusion. Both belong together, and mutually correct each other.

The assertion that free intercourse among the prisoners is injurious and corrupting, is not denied; but it is maintained that the silent system affords an adequate security against injurious communications. There are also many crimes, and those usually the worst, which a man never repeats in his life, and where there is not the least danger of his instructing and thus seducing others.

But here it is at once asserted, that the chief end of all imprisonment is the reformation of the offender, and that this is possible only on the Pennsylvania solitary system. It must be allowed that by this means all deterioration through fellowprisoners is prevented; but that the silent system affects and can affect the body only and not the mind, I think has not been proved. On the contrary, various kinds of instruction can be better imparted on the plan of quiet labor in common, than on that of absolute solitude. That the latter of itself elevates the moral feelings, is a mere supposition. Every criminal can and will in a few days, and under either mode of treatment, bring together in thought all that can illustrate his present condition, and enlighten him as to the future. The prisoner in solitude will by no means think more than the one surrounded by companions; and should he think unceasingly of himself, he would not be the better for it. In the world, it is hurtful to think so much about oneself; it too often runs into an egotistical selfflattering habit, which gives no increase of strength or wisdom, but produces a diseased imagination, barren whims, stupidity, or even insanity. Formerly prisoners were flogged, in order to bring them to confession and amendment; now the same end is to be attained by confinement in solitary cells. The social propensities implanted in man render solitude a forced, unnatural condition. It may be justified as the punishment of crime, so far

*So far as I could learn, there have been out of Pennsylvania but two prisons, one in Trenton, New Jersey, and one in Jefferson, Missouri, established upon the solitary system.

"How can a man learn to know himself? Through contemplation never, but through action."-Göthe's Works, xxii. 215.

as the general good can be secured only in that way, but not as an approved method of promoting virtue. It can as readily and even more readily conduce to distort a man's mind, and to render him stubborn, obdurate, and ferocious. It would be a far better means of reformation to bring criminals day and night into good company; and many would certainly reform sooner if not shut up at all, but let to go at large. There are criminals whom no system would amend, and vice versâ; and in case of imprisonment for life, there can be no question of reformation for the good of society. In fact, the whole system of penal law would fall to the ground, if we should seek to found it solely on the moral improvement of criminals. Whilst these are in prison, it is impossible to judge of their moral state and strength. The most obdurate often display the greatest, and for the most part hypocritical penitence; and it is not till their discharge, that the severe trial begins for the excommunicated, estranged, and repelled prisoner.

It is a great and abundantly refuted absurdity, to maintain that crime increases with the extension of knowledge. Most prisoners are ignorant: in Philadelphia only 85 out of 217 could read and write; and in Auburn, only 39 out of 244. The Auburn Report for 1843 more justly designates the causes of crime as lack of occupation, and especially the increasing desire of rapid gains without persevering labor. Idleness and sloth are the sources of crime; industry and temperance, the shield of virtue.

In all prisons at the present day, better provision is made for instruction in elementary knowledge and in religion; it is only to be wished, that no sectarianism and doctrinal disputes may be allowed to mingle with the latter.* The kinds of labor are judicious and varied, and such a selection is made as to hurt the market for free mechanics as little as possible. For though prison-labor is dearer than free labor, taking into account buildings, superintendence, incapacity, &c., yet without these items it is cheaper. Many prisons conducted upon the more productive Auburn plan, yield even a considerable surplus, which is paid either into the state-treasury or into a fund for the support of discharged prisoners.

Generally the number of female is vastly less than that of male prisoners; partly because they actually commit fewer crimes, and partly because, as is alleged, juries are reluctant to condemn any but the most guilty.†

It is asserted that, every thing being taken into account-the

*Thus in Massachusetts a clergyman wished to exclude unitarian and universalist writings, but was compelled by the legislature to a more tolerant course.

† In the West Pennsylvania Prison there were only 17 white and 21 colored women, to 806 white and 140 colored men. In the East Prison, 1,778 persons had been sentenced since 1839; among whom were 1,145 who drank to intoxication, 328

increase of the population, the number of recommittals, &c., there is no increase in the number and enormity of offences. Most crimes have their origin in intemperance, a vice that of late years has greatly diminished.

It would not suit my purpose to make further extracts from the sixty-three new Prison Reports lying before me; but in concluding, I repeat the assertion, that every prison appears to me imperfect which does not entirely separate some criminals from the rest, and which does not allow others to work together in silence. It is not until we descend from bare, unqualified, opposing methods, and examine into the vast variety of circumstances; it is not until the now hostile systems become reconciled, and cease to present the most opposite results each from its exclusive and ruling theory, -that the prison system can reach the highest possible degree of perfection.

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE POOR AND THE POOR-LAWS.

MANY causes and circumstances have hitherto concurred in preventing pauperism, that scourge of Europe, from becoming prevalent with all its depressing and frightful consequences in the United States. Among these causes we enumerate the youth of the States, the ease of finding remunerative employments, the more equal division of property, the laws of inheritance (which are not favorable to the accumulation of wealth), the cheapness of land, emigration to the West, low taxation generally, and the absence of all excise laws, which are so peculiarly oppressive to the mass of a people.

If in spite of all these favorable circumstances there are still poor people in America and in some sections many poor, this may be accounted for as follows:

1. Even the most perfect civil institutions cannot protect every citizen from blameless poverty and want, that cannot be remedied by the sufferer's unaided efforts.

moderate drinkers, 1,115 white men and 571 black men, 29 white and 63 black women, 1,086 unmarried and 582 married, 104 widows or widowers, 6 divorced, 1,250 punished for the first time, and the remainder up to the ninth time.

2. Idleness, sloth, and drunkenness (that great fountain of poverty) are found even where labor is well paid.

3. In several states the poor-law is defective, reminding us of that of England, and the number of paupers increases rather than diminishes.

4. Emancipated negroes and needy immigrants (the latter particularly in the seaports) become a charge on the poor-houses.*

5. False philanthropy increases the evil, and strict measures are regarded as unrepublican or cruel. In the Southern states, where every proprietor must provide for his own slaves, and whither immigrants rarely resort, there are not so many poor as in some of the North-Eastern states.†

In a Boston Report, complaint is made that many paupers wander about the country, shun labor, and claim support as a right; these go into the poor-houses only when they like, in order to get through the winter, and in the spring resume their idle way of life. The new laws of Massachusetts are directed against these and similar evils. The next of kin are bound to provide for the poor of their own family, and each town for such as have gained a settlement in it. The overseers of the poor have many rights and duties. They are especially to direct their attention to paupers not belonging to the town, to bring them into the poor-houses or remove them according to law. Captains of vessels who knowingly bring over bad characters or criminals to America, are liable to punishment. Able-bodied persons must work or go to prison.

In some states there is a fixed poor-rate, and the paupers are put out to the lowest bidder to be taken care of. Their number is very different in proportion to the population. It is greatest in the large towns on the sea-board. In Illinois, on the contrary, there are no poor-laws; because there are no poor, or perhaps so few that assistance is readily obtained without legal provision.** "Mrs. Trollope," says an American, "complains of meeting dogs in the streets of Cincinnati; she met at least no human dogs in the shape of beggars." An industrious laborer can in one day earn as much as will supply himself, wife, and four children, with food for three days.tt Undoubtedly the poor in America are even rich in comparison with the Irish in Europe.

In Virginia there were some time since about 2,500 paupers, who were provided for as far as possible by relatives and private individuals; some however were placed in the poor-houses, where

*Warren i. li.

f Buckingham's Slave States, i. 114.

Report on the Pauper System, 1832. Statutes, p 369. In 1843, 15,655 paupers received assistance in the state of Massachusetts; of these, however, about one quarter were foreigners, mostly English and Irish. Amer. Almanac for 1838. ** Hall's West, ii. 203.

tt Warren, i. 1.