New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1911-02-01

"a prison congress was organ.
lied more than thirty years
ago at the suggestion Of the
American government. 1t has never
held sessions in this country, and
therefore the foreign delegates now on
tour preparatory to assembling at
Washington are having their first op-
portunity to observe the great changes
that have come over American prison
methods in the last fifteen years.
Eighty years ago De Tocqueville.
author of Democracy In America"
made an extensive investigation Of
American jails aud prisons and after
ward wrote a book, ION the Peniten.
tiary System In tile United States"
His conclusions were that the prisons
and jails of this country were the
worst in the world.
The influence Of John Howard. the
great prison reformer. however, had
been more felt and was more effective
in Europe than in the United States.
and in the most advanced of European
countries considerable changes in pris-
on architecture. discipline and theory
of punishment had been brought about.
Improvement Is Recent.
Even up to comparatively few
years ago the prisons and prison sys'
TEN of the United States were not
only archaic and futile, but were a
positive menace to society. Immense
sums Of money were spent on them,
but with a result the very opposite Of
that expected. They did not reform
criminals; they made more.
Architecturally the prisons were con-
structed to be as gloomy as possible.
Prisoners were denied sunlight, their
cells were small and dark and filled
with the damp. reeking. pestilentiai
odors Of insanitary surroundings. The
consequence was that in many Of the
prisons fully one-half Of the inmates
contracted tuberculosis. not to men,
ton other diseases.
Treatment Of prisoners was Of
character now regarded with horror.
The law did not then aim, as it does
now, to give the criminal every posi-
Bile chance to redeem himself and to
classify prisoners according to the de-
gree Of their offenses. The sole intent
of the law was to inflict cruel punish
ment upon the belief that the severer
the penalty the more effective the les
son would be.
No determinations were made in re-
gard to age or sex or the nature Of the
crime The law contained no provi-
sions for iudeterminate sentence or for
separation of young offenders from
Old Ofenscs that are now looked
upon with some leniency were then
punished with long terms in prison.
Rawhide For Talkatiye:
Fifty years ago it was customary to
immune prisoners in solitary contine-
ment Condemned to incessant mac
tiyity aud silence. without proper air
or nourishment and lacking work to
strengthen their bodies and engage
their minds. many Of them became
unbalanced In fact, Il rule prevailed
in many prisons that If q prisoner pre-
sumed to speak Oh any occasion he
was to be dashed with a rawhide
whip.
Prisoners were not allowed to write
letters or to communicate with any
member of their family. The violation
of this particular rule. however. was
frequently winked at by wardens and
iailers Investigations Of the time
showed that if Il prisoner had money
he could often secure favors not al
lowed to those lacking the necessary
price.
These methods resulted in making
prisoners fcrocious and implanting in
them hatred Of the society that mis-
used them. They were not terrified
into self reform. Many Of them. as
the records show. came out Of prison
inveterate criminals to be returned
soon for some new offense. The mar
row. unsympathetic laws virtually
drove many Of them to steal again.
When convict was released all that
the law allowed him to start life.
again was SO. OF course with the
brand of the prison upon him-and
public opinion was then very severe
it was rare that he could get employ
ment.
ITO starve or TO steal again Is too
often the only alternative" wrote
John W. Edmonds. president Of the
New York board of prison inspectors
in 1874. II the released convict did
steal he was nearly always sent bac'I
to prison for life as an incorrigible
criminal.
Even Jailed Compliments.
There were no detention jails and
no rcformatorics. Innocent and guilty.
men and boys. girls and women, all
were crowded together, although there
were occasions when thu sexes wer'
separated Even witnesses were re-
quired to give bail.
If poor man or woman were cheat
ed or robbed and could not give bail