me. 
} 
| 
| 
} 
| 
] 
B55 
1884.] 657 ' [Vaux. 
in some degree eliminated the idea of solitary, as contradistinguished to 
the associate or congregate relations of all prisoners in the county prisons 
or jails. 
The use of this term ‘‘solitary’’ was most unfortunate in the first days 
of the trial of the new theory. Very much of the opposition that arose 
against it came from the misconception of the subject by the use of this 
word. 
The Allegheny prison was designed by Mr. Haviland, an architect of 
Philadelphia, of very high professional repute. As there was no example 
on which to rely for the plan of the building intended for the complete 
and unexceptional separation of convicts during imprisonment, Mr. Havi- 
land had to conceive the plan of the building from the information he 
could obtain from its advocates, and those few who were enlisted as its 
promoters. 
The drawings for the Pittsburg prison, as it was called, were from the 
first impressions of what was necessary. 
In 1821, when the Eastern or Philadelphia State Penitentiary was 
erected, Mr. Haviland’s experience suggested many improvements, so 
that the Eastern Penitentiary, in 1829, when it was opened for the recep- 
tion of convicts, was of course regarded as the true exposition of the sepa- 
rate, called however the solitary, system. 
An examination of the corridors first erected prior to 1829, and those 
erected in 1872, will give the best idea of the improvements which experi- 
ence made manifestly necessary. 
Naturally so radical a change in the criminal law, act April 28d, 1829, 
and the mode of convict punishment, act March 20th, 1821, and the act 
of 28th March, 1831, as followed the partial completion of the solitary 
prison, and the enactment of these laws relating to crimes and penalties, 
caused discussion, hostilities, and opposition. 
Better to condense the arguments of the friends and opponents of the 
Pennsylvania prison system, as it was then styled, the following extracts 
are given from then accepted authority : 
Roberts Vaux, in his reply, 1827, to Mr. William Roscoe, of London, 
thus answers his chief objections : 
“Tt is very evident to my mind that the true nature of the separate con- 
finement which is proposed, requires explanation. I will, therefore, en- 
deavor to describe what is intended by its friends. Previously, however, 
it ought to be understood that the chambers and yards provided for the 
prisoners are like anything but those dreary and fearful abodes which the 
pamphlet before me would represent them to be, ‘ destined to contain an 
epitome and concentration of all human misery, of which the Bastile of 
France and the Inquisition of Spain were only prototypes and humble 
models.’ The rooms of the new penitentiary at Philadelphia are fire- 
proof, of comfortable dimensions, with convenient courts to each, built on 
the surface of the ground—judiciously lighted from the roof—well-venti- 
