Whereas the Government of the United States is now compelled to confine its prisoners arrested, indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced by the United States authorities, in the different State penitentiaries and reformatories throughout the conntry because it has no reliable prisons of its own and therefore no direct control over its own convicts: Therefore,

Be it resolved by the National Prison Association in congress assembled at Nashville, Tenn., That we do favorably commend for the action of the United States, prisons situated at convenient centers. Tais association hereby pledges to the Department of Justice a hearty coöperation in every step taken to bring about this result.

There is one evil in the diversified prison systems of this country that substantially prevails in all; and that is political control. Generally when there is a change of parties in a State, there is a change also in the managers of State institutions, employés even as well as in boards of control. Each time there is a change, the experienced warden, superintendent, or employé must retire and the place is filled by a favorite of the appointing power. Each time there is a change, inexperience takes the place of experience, and the good management, discipline, and economy are put in peril and usually with loss to the State. When politics do not control State institutions; when every principle of prison discipline and prison reform is perfected; when all questions regarding prison reformation, labor, diet, and patronage are satisfactorily answered; when prison architecture, its forms and economy, are fully demonstrated and established; when the most certain way of saving dependent and abandoned children from vice, crime, and poverty has been fully determined, then America will need no prison reform; for then few, if any, prisons or prisoners will exist. The prison problem in America is by no means fully settled. The various experiments and experiences in the various States fully demonstrate this. Take, for instance, the question of the prison contract system and mark the variety of opinion regarding it in New York, the Empire State. In 1888 the contract system was abolished. The New York Tribune in January last said:

At this age of the world in this imperial State, than which none is supposed to be more enlightened, it ought to have been impossible for so wretched a measure to have reached the statute book.

By it, the convicts were thrown out of employment, the death rate and the insanity rate reached the highest ever known. Besides this, there was great financial loss. The prisons, instead of being self-suporting as they have been, with a surplus on hand for some years, showed a deficit in 1888 of $153,924.46 and in 1889 of $369,274.25. In 1889, the act of 1888 was repealed and a system of labor for the State adopted, which, it is expected, will operate better.

Aside from the prevailing prison system of the South, the average method of dealing with pauperism and crime in this country is probably in advance of others. But when we consider that the ratio of the increase of pauperism and crime is greater than that of the population, that while some States are making great advance in solving the social

* A law for this purpose has since been enacted by the Congress of 1890–’91.

questions others are making no successful endeavor in that direction, is it not well that the legislature should ponder well these things and seek to obtain a more perfected penal system, even in America? By the encouragement given the investigations in penitentiary science, by the General and State governments; by conferences between experienced and practical prison officials, in national and international conventions, and by the adoption of humane, reasonable, and economic. methods our people should be, where destiny has placed them, always in the advance.

THE HISTORY OF PRISON CONGRESSES.

THE FIRST MOVEMENTS.

The present system of international prison congresses is of Ameri can origin and owes its existence to the late E. C. Wines, D. D., LL. D. The name of Dr. Wines is the symbol of prison reform and is familiar to social scientists in all civilized countries. His history is that of prison reform in this country and Europe for the past quarter of a century. What John Howard was in presenting the thrilling facts relative to prisons, Dr. Wines was in applying the principles of penitentiary sci

It was he who conceived, planned, and carried out successfully the international prison congresses of London and Stockholm and made those of Rome and St. Petersburg possible and successful. attributed equal credit to others it is quite certain that those congresses would never have been held-that we would never have had the rich penitentiary literature they have afforded-had not our countryman, Dr. Wines, conceived and executed them. And these congresses being of American origin, there is more reason that our Government should continue its interest in them.

The first international prison congresses were mainly European, and the opening one was held in 1845 at Frankfort-on-the-Main. It consisted of eighty members. The United States, England, France, Italy, Prussia, and some other countries were represented. This congress adopted a resolution favoring cellular imprisonment, the revision of penal codes, and the establishment of patronage societies. The following year a second congress was held in Brussels at which over two hundred members were present. The session continued three days and the discussions were able and interesting. The conclusions of this congress gave evidence of advanced thought in penitentiary science and were as follows:

That it is essential that houses of correctional education for young delinquents, on the system of temporary individual confinement, should be established, having also the privilege of placing the said young culprits in agricultural colonies with authority to bind them out to good, honest farmers and mechanics through patronage societies; that the interior service of prisons should be intrusted to agents well prepared for the discharge of their duties by a sort of apprenticeship or special training therefor; and that religious or philanthropic patronage societies should also give their help to reform the penitentiary system.

23738--No. 2——3

An international congress of philanthropy was held in Brussels in 1856, and doing no business adjourned to meet in Frankfort-on-the-Main in 1857. This congress was well attended from different countries. The proceedings formed two volumes. The conclusions adopted covered a wide field, favoring the cellular system for both short and long terms, even at first for young delinquents, the institution of farm colonies for old or invalid convicts, the abolishment of corporal punishment and public labor, uniform methods of prison management, the establishment of intermediate prisons between strict imprisonment and conditional discharge, the publication of prison reports, etc.

THE LONDON INTERNATIONAL PRISON CONGRESS.

After this congress there were formed local national associations, but there was no further effort in Europe for an international congress. The new movement came from the west, from America. It grew out of a correspondence between Count Sollohub, of Russia, and Dr. Wines, The count was "president of the commission for penitentiary reform in Russia," a government position. There is an extended outline of the Russian system prepared by the Count in the report of the London congress. The count suggested that the Prison Association of New York, of which Dr. Wines had long been secretary, should take the initiative in organizing an international congress. Dr. Wines submitted to that association the proposition of the count, but the association did not deem it expedient to act.

The friends of the movement did not, however, cease to promote it. As a preliminary measure to carry out the purpose there was held at Cincinnati a "national congress" for conference on criminal punishment and reformatory treatment, in the autumn of 1870. There were over two hundred delegates in attendance, representing nearly every State. The Hon. R. B. Hayes, then Governor and since President, was president of the convention. There were present heads of prisons and reformatories, members of their boards, members of prison societies and their officials, etc. The sessions continued a week. Thirty-eight papers were read and 37 declarations of principles were adopted. In its organization and successful management Dr. Wines was the ever-present moving power.

This convention took up the subject of an international prison congress and placed upon Dr. Wines the duty of organizing it. It was deemed best that the congress should have a national and governmental character, and to that end, that Congress should be invited to coöperate by affording material aid. Through the influence of Dr. Wines Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the President to appoint a commissioner to represent the United States in the proposed international prison congress and made an appropriation for the purpose. Dr. Wines was appointed by President Grant to be such commissioner with the understanding that he should visit Europe a year in advance to

make due preparations and to enlist the various European governments in the enterprise. The Secretary of State also addressed a letter to the United States diplomatic and consular representatives, asking them to aid the commissioner in his work. By correspondence and personal interviews, representation was secured from all the governments of Europe except Portugal. Brazil, several South American republics, and a number of the American States sent delegates. The congress was called to be held in London in July, 1872. There were between 80 and 100 official delegates and among them were many noted specialists in penitentiary science. There were also a large number of delegates from prison societies, jurists, and heads of penal and reformatory institutions; the Institute of France was also represented. There were in all about 400 members of the Congress. It was a remarkable gathering. Lord Carnarvon was president of the congress and the Prince of Wales was present. The British secretary of state for the home department delivered the address of welcome. The official report is contained in an octavo volume of 800 pages, forming a contribution to prison literature unique, able, and interesting.

The Right Hon. Austin H. Bruce, M. P., Her Majesty's secretary of state for the home department, attended the congress and gave an official welcome to the members. In the course of his address he said:

It is a great satisfaction to me that it has not been any increase of crime in this country that led the congress to assemble here, and I hope that the delegates from abroad will be able to give an account of such diminution of crime in their countries as has been experienced in this. It is to me not only a matter of congratulation, but of deep thankfulness, that in the face of many apparent reasons for a contrary condition of things, there has been of late years, in this country, an extraordinary diminution of serious crime. The system of transportation of our criminals to other countries has now entirely ceased, and it might have been expected that the prisoners, who since that cessation of transportation have been turned loose in this country, would return to their old associations. But instead of there being an increase, there has not only been a decrease of crime relatively to the increased population, but a decrease in all the graver classes of crime. The efforts of

*

those who have instituted industrial schools, reformatories, penitentiaries, discharged prisoners' aid societies, and similar institutions of that character, have prevented the relapse of a vast number of criminals; and the diffusion of knowledge among the people and the spread of education have enabled people to distribute themselves over the world, and to avoid, to some degree, the conditions leading to crime. All these influences have doubtless much to do with the diminution of crime, which is always found to be most frequent in overpopulated districts. I desire to give the delegates every facility for becoming thoroughly acquainted with the English system of prisons, and I trust that the able and distinguished gentlemen who have honored this country with their presence will visit the convict establishments and thoroughly examine the system, and will fearlessly and openly express their opinion upon it. The government desires not panegyric, but intelligent criticism, so that the system may be brought to the highest possible point of improvement. I desire to convey to the members of the congress the thanks of the government and my high appréciation of their coming to England and the spirit in which they have undertaken their task.

The address of the president of the congress, the Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon, was of considerable length, outlining the purposes of the

congress as well as the condition of the penal and reformatory institutions of the country. In speaking of the character and objects of the congress he said:

Its object is to gather information, to compare the different prison systems of different countries, to discuss the principles and details on which these systems are based, and to arrive, if possible, at some general conclusions. Its history is the history of a remarkable agreement by the peoples and governments of many civilized countries on a subject which they have justly considered important. Almost every European state has given its support. France, though embarrassed by a hundred domestic difficulties, has found time to further our objects; Italy, not unmindful of her great jurists and writers on criminal reform, takes part; Belgium has accredited one of her most distinguished statesmen to the congress; Holland, with that sound sense which we delight to believe is a common quality of her people and ours, is interested in our objects; Switzerland, Denmark, all-inquiring, all-embracing Germany, lastly the United States, which by numerous experiments have contributed so much to the common stock of our knowledge, drawing with them from the other side of the Atlantic the South American States, have all appointed envoys and have accepted England as the place of meeting and discussion. In approaching

the subject of our future discussions I shall not, I hope, be out of place if I offer from this chair to the many and distinguished guests whom we are happy to see among us our heartiest welcome.

The president stated that the order of business would be:
First. Criminal law procedure and preventive police.

Second. The punishment of the criminal.

Third. His treatment when discharged.

In other words, the course to be pursued towards the criminal before, during, and after his committal to prison-a wide inquiry, and one from which diverge in no illogical connection many tempting by-paths and curious speculations.

Among the many interesting papers were the following by American writers: The Penal and Reformatory System of Maryland, by G. S. Griffith; The Prevention of Juvenile Crime in Large Cities, by Rev. C. L. Brace; Crimes of Passion and Crimes of Reflection, by J. B. Bittinger, D. D.; Prisoners and their Reformation, by Z. R. Brockway; John Howard, His Life and Character, by Rev. H. W. Bellows, D. D. The questions discussed at the London congress were as follows: 1. What ought to be the maximum number of prisoners or convicts detained in any prison?

2. Ought classification of prisoners according to character to be considered as the principal basis of any penitentiary system?

3. Should the prison system be regulated by legislation?

4. Ought corporal punishment to be admitted in the disciplinary code of a penitentiary system?

5. What should be the kind and limit of instruction for reformatory treatment applied to convicts?

6. Ought training schools for prison officers to be formed, and for what class of officers ?