RESULTS OF DIFFERENT PRISONS.

227

The Philadelphia system guarantees the impossibility of contamination by contact. The Auburn system depends in this respect on the attention of the overseers.

Philadelphia produces the strongest impression on the prisoners, and, consequently, a greater reform than

Auburn, which, however, forms them more for social life.

Philadelphia leaves the prisoners in perfect ignorance as to their comrades in misfor

tune.

Auburn only prevents their verbal intercourse. On recovering their liberty, it is natural that their former sufferings should make them contract intimacies, for the purpose of committing new crimes.

Philadelphia has not yet opened its doors a second time to a single prisoner, after the expiration of his first detention. Hence it may be inferred, either that a complete reform has been effected, or, what is more probable, that the prison inspires such horror that it deters him from fresh trespasses.

Auburn cannot show the same favourable result. At this prison, the proportion of prisoners condemned for the second time to those composing the aggregate of inmates

228

RESULTS OF DIFFERENT PRISONS.

was, from the year 1824 to 1831, as one to nineteen.

Philadelphia is more expensive than its rival, and must ever cost more than

Auburn. Here it is necessary to remark that the prison built in Philadelphia was more expensive than necessary. Experience has shown that a great saving may be effected.

Philadelphia ought to pay as well as Auburn: I cannot see any reason why work done in solitude should not be as lucrative to the institution as that executed in a common workshop. It would, undoubtedly, require some time before the prison could maintain itself without assistance from the State, though, according to the report of the overseer, this desirable result has already been attained. Hence it may be hoped that it may one day, like prisons following the Auburn system, have a surplus revenue.

Auburn has hitherto paid better than Philadelphia. Prisons adopting this plan have not only maintained themselves, but have exhibited the singular result of a considerable surplus accruing to the State. This is the case at Auburn, Wethersfield, Baltimore, &c.

RESULTS OF DIFFERENT PRISONS.

229

The Philadelphia system is, therefore, in my opinion, more radical in its effect, better in its execution, and deserving in every respect the preference to the other, if sufficient funds are found to act upon it at the first foundation of the prison.

THE person of the President of the United States is not more sacred than that of any other private individual. The Constitution provides no farther protection for him than it affords to the meanest citizen in the Republic. For a provocation or insult, he has no remedy but that which is open to every one-the tribunal of the country. A singular circumstance, applicable to what I have been saying, happened in the course of the present spring. General Jackson had deemed it consistent with his duty to strike out of the rolls of the Navy the name of an officer for an alleged neglect of duty in the service. Whilst proceeding on a journey to Fredericksburg in Virginia, whither he had been invited for the purpose of laying the foundationstone for a monument in honour of Washing

ASSAULT ON THE PRESIDENT.

231

ton's mother, he was grossly insulted at Alexandria, in the cabin of the steamboat which stopped there for a few minutes, and struck in the face by the aggrieved lieutenant, who had previously determined to be avenged, in the best manner he could, for what he conceived to be a gross injury. The President, although advanced in years, placed himself in an attitude of defence, and intended to inflict on the bold aggressor a summary chastisement with his own cane. During the confusion incidental in such a scene, the lieutenant effected his escape, and fled across the boundary line into Virginia. He was afterwards arraigned before the tribunal in the same State, for having committed an assault upon the first magistrate of the Republic, and sentenced to a short imprisonment; here the matter rested, and nothing more was heard of it. The suit was between General Jackson, not President Jackson, and the accused, consequently, between two individuals, who had to abide by the decision of the court. Whether the aggressor had been justly or unjustly dealt with by the President, it was, nevertheless, unwarrantable and disgraceful for a man of honour to resort to personal violence towards a man of the President's advanced years.