i 
~ 
1884.] 659 [Vaux, 
tion of convicts with each other must inevitably yield pernicious conse- 
quences in a greater or less degree. 
“Tn separate confinement the prisoners will not know who are under- 
going punishment at the same time with themselves, and thus will be 
afforded one of the greatest protections to such as may happily be enabled 
to form resolutions to behave well when they are discharged, and be bet- 
ter qualified to do so; because plans of villainy are often formed in jail 
which the authors carry into operation when at large, not unfrequently 
engaging the aid of their companions, who are thereby induced to commit 
new and more heinous offences, and come back to prison under the 
heaviest sentences of the law. 
‘‘In separate confinement it is especially intended to furnish the crimi- 
nal with every opportunity which Christian duty enjoins for promoting 
his restoration to the path of virtue, because seclusion is believed to be 
an essential ingredient in moral treatment, and, with religious instruction 
and advice superadded, is calculated to achieve more than has ever yet 
been done, for the miserable tenants of our penitentiaries. 
“Tn separate confinement a specific graduation of punishment can be ob- 
tained, as surely and with as much facility as by any other system. Some 
prisoners may labor, some may be kept without labor ; some may have 
the privilege of books, others may be deprived of it; some may experi- 
ence total seclusion, others may enjoy such intercourse as shall comport 
with an entire separation of prisoners. 
“In separate confinement the same variety of discipline for offences 
committed after convicts are introduced into prison which any other mode 
affords can be obtained, though irregularities must necessarily be less fre- 
quent, by denying the refractory individual the benefit of his yard, by 
taking from him his books or labor, and, lastly, in extreme cases, by 
diminishing his diet to the lowest rate. By the last means the most fierce, 
hardened, and desperate offender can be subdued.’”’ 
The attention of leading minds in Europe was directed to these experi- 
«ments in Pennsylvania. 
England sent, in 1834, Mr, Crawford, a commissioner, to examine the 
Eastern State Penitentiary. They were followed by Mr. Beaumont and 
Mr. DeTocqueville, from France, and by Dr. Julius, from Prussia. The 
investigations made by these very able men were so satisfactory that in 
those countries reforms were adopted which largely partook of the princi- 
ples incorporated in the Pennsylvania prison system. 
From the date of the opening of the Eastern State Penitentiary for the 
reception of convicts (1829) until 1845, the subject of the adaptation of 
the system to its design received the careful attention of those so earnestly 
devoted to the success of the experiment. There has been no legislative 
change in the system as adopted in the Eastern State Penitentiary since 
the act establishing it, 1821. 
It would burden this paper to give the results reached as they were 
