Ohio History Journal

JOHN PHILLIPS RESCH

 

Ohio Adult Penal System,

1850-1900: A Study in the

Failure of Institutional Reform

 

 

 

 

 

Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century Ohio prison reformers tried to

recast the state's penal system so that it would rehabilitate criminals and restore them

to productive citizenship. By 1884 reformers succeeded in their efforts to secure leg-

islation to rehabilitate adult criminals through classification, job training, moral and

academic classes, reduction of sentences for good behavior, parole, and the introduc-

tion of the adult reformatory system.

Despite this impressive legislative victory, the Ohio penal system was not substan-

tially recast. Prison reform laws were partly undermined by the unresolved conflict

over the nature of the criminal and the purposes of prison. Influential Ohio reformers

and some prison officials viewed the criminal as a depraved social type. From this

perception grew the analogy that prison should be a moral hospital where various

classes of criminals were treated and then released when cured. Like hospitals,

prisons should have enough funds to support curative programs and have an ade-

quate staff of professional attendants. The money to implement these services was

to come from provisions in the legislation.

The bulk of the public and most penal authorities, on the other hand, saw the

criminal as a threat to personal safety and property and were reluctant to spend

large sums of money on reformatory programs. They expected the prison to punish

criminals and to act as a deterrent to potential offenders. Many prison officials, cal-

loused by contact with desperate men, ridiculed reformist plans as "pampering"

criminals and for turning prisons into places of leisure and refinement. Efforts at

reform were resisted also by public officials who wanted an unobtrusive, orderly and

self-supporting prison system and by politicians who looked upon the penal system

as a source of patronage. The spoils system resulted in frequent turnovers of per-

sonnel, made the creation of a stable professional staff impossible, and undermined

enforcement of rehabilitation policies. Persistent demands that prisons be self-

supporting blocked the construction of adequate physical facilities and the funding

of expensive reformatory programs authorized by the General Assembly. These

 

 

 

Mr. Resch is Assistant Professor of History, University of New Hampshire, Merrimack Valley

Branch in Manchester.

• 1
 

Ohio Penal System                                                      237

 

diverse views and interests resulted in vacillating and conflicting policies which buf-

feted prison discipline, made a sham of legislation aimed at recasting the penal sys-

tem by thwarting implementation, and demoralized reformers.

In 1850 the Ohio penal system consisted of the state penitentiary in Columbus,

county jails and scores of municipal lockups. The penitentiary, completed in 1837,

received all felons--persons sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more--

regardless of age, sex, or sanity. Its discipline was modeled after the Auburn, New

York prison system of silent, congregate labor during the day and separate confine-

ment at night. The avowed purpose of the penitentiary, as Governor Return Meigs

stated in 1811, was to protect public safety, rehabilitate criminals, and restore in-

mates to society as useful citizens.¹ The governor and General Assembly of Ohio

were responsible for penitentiary affairs, but supervision of the institution was left to

a board of directors which consisted of three to five men chosen by the governor. The

duties of the board included an annual report to the General Assembly, maintenance

of facilities, appointment of all officers and guards, securing all labor contracts em-

ploying convicts, and enforcing reformatory programs. County jails and municipal

lockups were controlled by Common Pleas courts, but administration was usually

left to the sheriff.² Jails confined misdemeanants, persons accused of crimes, and

occasionally witnesses. They were punishment and detention centers where inmates

were indiscriminately mixed under notoriously inhumane conditions.

By 1860, while conditions in local jails remained unchanged, the General Assem-

bly had passed two prison reform acts modeled after New York and Massachusetts

laws. An 1856 act known as the "good time law" permitted an inmate to reduce

his prison term through good behavior.³ An act passed in 1857 required classifica-

tion and separation of prisoners according to "age, disposition and moral character."

This law specified that prisoners who were assigned work with contractors be given

compensation. Inmates under twenty-one were to be placed "in a shop by them-

selves," when character and conduct permitted it, and be given employment that

would be beneficial after their discharge. The law required the warden to send illiter-

ates and poorly educated convicts to classes for two hours in the evening of each

working day from October to April and for one and one-half hours each working

day for the remainder of the year.⁴

Although the intent of these laws was to strengthen existing correctional programs

and to promote new rehabilitation measures, prisoners at the penitentiary experi-

enced a decade of neglect and debasement. Two major epidemics, frequent fires,

deterioration of facilities, overcrowding, misuse of convict labor, alleged corruption

among officials and political jobbery undermined reformatory discipline. Between

1850 and 1860 the succession of five different boards of directors and eight wardens

led to shifting and often conflicting policies partly because there was no common

standard of professionalism. Officials were usually hired on the basis of political

partisanship or business accomplishments, as well as on their social standing, gentle-

 

 

 

 

1. For a survey of the Ohio penal system, 1803 to 1850, see Clara Bell Hicks, "The History of

Penal Institutions in Ohio to 1850," Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, XXXIII

(October 1924), 359-426; Ohio, Senate Journal, 1812, p. 9.

2. Laws of Ohio, 1843, "An Act for the Regulation of County Jails," XLI, 74-77.

3. Laws of Ohio, 1856, LIII, 133-134.

4. Laws of Ohio, 1857, LIV, 127-129.

• 2
 



• 3
 

manly conduct and Christian character.5 The extent and effects of this fluctuation and conflict in policy are best illustrated in the administrations of Wardens Laurin Dewey and Asa Dimmock. Warden Dewey (1846-1850) shared many of the attitudes held by philanthropic reformers. He thought public sentiment toward the treatment of prisoners was "too harsh, unyield- ing and unforgiving." Dewey believed that prison discipline should incorporate the Christian spirit of forgiveness which led the fallen "from the bylanes of vice and wickedness ... into the paths of virtue and probity."6 Under his regime prisoners were encouraged to read the Bible, pray before breakfast, go to services conducted by the chaplain and attend Sabbath school led by volunteer teachers. Dewey was particularly proud of the prison's library, singing school and special events such as temperance speeches, a sermon on Thanksgiving Day, songs on July Fourth and the appearance of "distinguished vocalists." He stressed the importance of musical programs because they contributed to that "great end of prison discipline, improvement and reformation" of the inmates. Observing that some prisoners wept during the concerts, Dewey concluded that music had effects which were "good, softening and subduing to their spirits, and filling them with gratitude for the effort to entertain them, and to break the dread and drear monotony of prison life."7 To improve the moral environment Dewey insisted that guards be models of Christian deportment. Guards were not to whistle, shuffle, laugh loudly or act in an undignified manner. When dealing with inmates guards were to show "mutual re- spect and kindliness and endeavor to exact the character and promote the interests of the Institution." For the prisoners Christian deportment meant silence and con-   5. Three examples follow. L. W. Babbitt, who became one of the directors of the Ohio Peni- tentiary in 1856, was recommended because he was "a gentleman of Education & of good busi- ness habits, formily [sic] a democrat but now a strong supporter of the republican cause." Petition to Governor Salmon P. Chase, January 24, 1856, Box 2, Chase Papers, Ohio Historical Society, J. D. Morris was recommended to continue as a director because his qualifications fulfilled the requirements of the office: he was from the right part of the state, had "good moral character," was a businessman who would "likely watch with care the interests of the State" as well as the "wellbeing" of the inmates, and was a "good Republican" whose reappointment would "go far to shut the mouths of the opposition." Elbridge G. Ricker and William West to Salmon P. Chase, April 5, 1856, ibid. In 1854 Colonel Harris was nominated because he was a "thorough going and hard working Democrat" and because his appointment would be "Satisfactory to the party in this County." G. L. Vattier to Governor William Medill, January 13, 1854, Box 1, Medill Papers, Ohio Historical Society. 6. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio Penitentiary, 1850" (1851), XV, Part I, 128, 129. 7. Ibid., 130-131.

• 4
 

trition. Prisoners were not to communicate with each other, exchange looks or winks. They were to show respect for the guards and visitors. Their discipline also included the lockstep and punishment by solitary confinement, the shower bath and whipping not to exceed ten strokes--for misconduct.8 This policy continued until 1852, when a new board of directors and its warden, Asa G. Dimmock, overturned the system. In his first report Warden Dimmock asserted that he found the prison to be a "bedlam." According to Dimmock, disci- pline and order had broken down and it appeared as though the prisoners had taken over the penitentiary. He reported that instead of silence and Christian deportment, rowdy convicts openly used profane language and sang obscene songs. Dimmock found locked chests in cells where the inmates kept food and "deadly weapons." One convict, he stated, had recently attacked Deputy Warden John Huffman, nearly kill- ing him with a knife he had presumably concealed in a locker. Dimmock concluded that prisons accomplish "more good, in the protection of the rights of person and property, and have a greater moral influence upon society" with rigid discipline, shorter sentences and fewer pardons. He stressed the importance of using the prison as a deterrent to crime by making it a "terror to evil doers." Dimmock argued that "whenever the Penitentiary becomes a pleasant place of residence--when it ceases to be regarded with fear and dread by those disposed to do evil--whenever a relaxa- tion of its discipline, a mitigation of its deprivations, and an extension of its privi- leges, converts it into something like an Asylum for the wicked, then it loses all its influence for good upon the minds of men disposed to do evil, and affords no per- manent security to the lives and property of the people." The warden expressed determination to deprive the inmates of all the luxuries and joys of life to emphasize       8. Ibid., 173, 177.

• 5
 

Ohio Penal System                                                           241

 

the "difference between vice and virtue--honesty and crime."⁹ For the remainder

of the century, under different wardens, prison discipline often fluctuated between

the extremes of Dewey's Christian deportment and Dimmock's deterrence through

deprivation and terror.

Prisoners were subjected not only to inconsistent disciplinary practices but also

to appalling physical conditions which made a mockery of rehabilitation. In 1849,

"¹²¹ prisoners died largely from a cholera epidemic," while in 1852 inmates were

described as "neglected and poorly clad, niggardly fed." Buildings, already dilap-

idated, were permitted to deteriorate further to reduce maintenance costs. In 1856

the prison directors reported that the "cells [were] infested with bed-bugs and fleas,

the stoves and heating apparatus broken up, the fire-engine useless for the want

of repairing, and the hose belonging to it unfit for use."¹⁰ In 1857, however, some

of the wooden beds and floors were replaced with iron bedsteads and cement floors,

reducing the vermin and packs of rats. Despite these improvements Warden John

Ewing observed that an inmate was released after six or ten years "with a constitu-

tion completely broken down, a common suit of clothes and five dollars in his pocket.

Justice and humanity calls aloud for a remedy! Will the call be responded to?"¹¹

By the end of the 1850's the penitentiary was in disarray. A typhoid epidemic in

1858, frequent fires of "unknown origin" and a rising prison population threatened

order and thwarted rehabilitation. The chaplain, Lorenzo Warner, who was primar-

ily responsible for reformatory programs, tried to look at the prison's troubles through

lenses tempered with optimism and pious hopes. While his report asserted that "prog-

ress" was being made toward convict reformation through the good time law and

prison school, he also confessed that the prison was a "failure" as a reformatory

institution. In a moment of candor he compared his position and that of his fellow

officers to being between Scylla and Charybdis. The person trying to reform convicts:

Is between the State and the State's prisoner, and if he shift [sic] to the side of humanity

and reform, citizen bullets whistle all around him, and if he turn [sic] to protect the State,

poison arrows, dipped in calumny, will cut the air close to his ear, and stick in his gar-

ment, if not in flesh.¹²

The following year a nineteen percent increase in prison population undermined

further Warner's frustrating efforts to reform criminals. Because the number of

inmates (853) exceeded the number of available cells (695) officials were forced

to convert the chapel into a dormitory for an average of 135 men, thus adding to the

breakdown of the Auburn rules of silence and separation.¹³

Alleged corruption by guards and prison officials and state exploitation of convict

 

9. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1852" (1853), XVII, Part II, 24-30. For additional evidence of Dimmock's punitive

and "terror" policy, see Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and

Warden of the Ohio Penitentiary, 1853" (1854), XVIII, Part I, 488-489.

10. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1850" (1851), XV, Part I, 143, 147-148; ibid., "Annual Report, 1852" (1853),

XVII, Part II, 4; ibid., "Annual Report, 1856" (1857), XXI, Part I, 73.

11. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1857" (1858), XXIII, Part I, 201.

12. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1858" (1859), XXIII, Part I, 195-203.

13. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Governor's Annual Message, 1859" (1860), XXIV, Part II,

49; ibid., "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio Penitentiary, 1859," Part I,

335.

• 6
 

242                                                            OHIO HISTORY

 

labor further discredited the penitentiary. In March 1856 a former clerk at the

penitentiary, R. S. McEwen, was indicted for embezzlement. In July of that year

McEwen printed a disclaimer in which he accused former Wardens Dimmock and

Buttles of theft. McEwen quoted an earlier published rumor that Dimmock had

turned the female wing into a harem for his own pleasure. Warden Buttles was

called "one of the most consumate [sic] hypocrites that ever disgraced a tabernacle

of poor frail humanity." McEwen accused Buttles of seducing a young lady after

promising her that he would use his influence with the governor to get a pardon for

her cousin.¹⁴

The scandal was exploited by the Republican administration, which had replaced

the Democrats. In its 1856 annual report the new board of directors charged that

Dimmock and Buttles owed the penitentiary between $3500 and $4000. In addition

the board accused prison officers and "outsiders" of using prison workshops to make

personal items for themselves, such as clothing, shoes, and furniture. The directors

also criticized state use of convict labor to construct the capitol building. They

charged that this use of convict labor increased prison costs by inefficient perfor-

mance compared with free labor, by higher cost of guarding the men outside prison,

and by loss of revenue received from contract labor performed within the prison.

The construction of the capitol also disrupted prison discipline because convicts were

smuggling tobacco and liquor and were arranging escape plans while they were out

on work assignments. The directors' report concluded with the statement that with

good business management "the Institution will support itself and yield a small rev-

enue to the State."¹⁵

In 1860 Republican Governor Salmon P. Chase, in an effort to correct the physi-

cal inadequacies and overcrowding at the penitentiary, appointed a commission, au-

thorized by the legislature, to consider enlarging the facilities.¹⁶ The legislature acted

by passing laws authorizing the expansion of the penitentiary as well as the construc-

tion of a new 800-man prison.¹⁷ These recommendations were not carried out be-

cause of the disruption caused by the Civil War and a twenty-eight percent drop in

prison population between 1861 and 1865.18 During the war rehabilitation programs

were all but abandoned as prison managers became preoccupied with mounting

deficits. In their 1863 annual report the directors stated that the law requiring class-

ification of offenders and separation of inmates under twenty-one from the rest of

the population "was totally impractical under existing circumstances." The chaplain

voiced his disappointment at the low enrollment--twenty to thirty men--in the

day school. In 1866 Chaplain Albert G. Byers confessed that "the indiscriminate

association of prisoners, regardless of age or degree of criminality, renders hopeless

 

 

 

14. R. S. McEwen, The Mysteries, Miseries, and Rascalities of the Ohio Penitentiary, from

the 18th of May 1852, to the Close of the Administration of J. B. Buttles (Columbus, 1856),

3-5, 62.

15. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1856" (1857), XXI, Part I, 75-79.

16. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Governor's Annual Message, 1859" (1860), XXV, Part II,

49. The address was made on January 2, 1860.

17. Laws of Ohio, 1860, LVII, 57-58; ibid., 1861, LVIII, 62-64.

18. Inmate statistics can be found in each volume of the penitentiary reports. A summary of

reception and population statistics reproduced at the end of this article (p. 261) appeared in Ohio,

Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio Penitentiary,

1900" (1901), LXIV, Part I, 517-518.

• 7
 

Ohio Penal System                                                           243

 

such efforts at reformation as might otherwise promise success."¹⁹

In January 1867 Republican Governor Jacob D. Cox and the General Assembly

hoped to end this drift and find new methods of coping with the alarming increase

in prison population, which jumped thirty-four percent between 1865 and 1867, by

creating a State Board of Charities.²⁰ The board, which was fashioned after New

York and Massachusetts boards, was established in 1867 to inspect the penal system

and offer ways and means of improving it.21 In a series of reports the Board of State

Charities denounced the penitentiary and condemned the local jails as a "disgrace

to the State and a sin against humanity." The jails' filth and depressing influences

were "most perfectly adapted to destroy self-respect--the basis of all manly char-

acter--and to educate and perfect the younger and less hardened, to the full capac-

ity of their teachers." The jails were, in short, "little better than seminaries of

crime."²²

The board recommended that these conditions be corrected through classification

and separation of prisoners according to age and crime, by providing religious and

moral instruction for the young and useful employment for all. The board's secre-

tary and former penitentiary chaplain, Albert G. Byers, also suggested that supervi-

sion over Ohio jails be transferred from local to state officials. Central control was

necessary to enforce uniform discipline and common hygienic standards because local

officials neglected their duties. He observed that there was not a "county jail in the

State where the laws can be practically applied. There is also such diversity of

administration as to render our jail system one of unmitigated evil." The following

year the board proposed an integrated state-supervised system of municipal houses

of correction, detention centers for the accused, and regional workhouses for minor

offenders.²³

The State Board of Charities, after censuring the penitentiary for its failures to

reform criminals, advocated a system of specialized or "graded" prisons with the

regime of each institution adjusted to the type of inmate. The board recommended

construction of a prison for adult offenders of all ages who were not considered

hardened criminals and urged that no institution exceed 500 to 600 inmates to permit

personalized treatment. The board also recommended that discipline at the peni-

tentiary be stiffened and that it "should embrace as much of sternness, not to say se-

verity, as would be consistent with a highly civilized and Christian State like Ohio."

At the other end of the projected graded system, men in the proposed intermediate

prison "should be surrounded with every good influence possible." They were to be

made aware that the "'way of the transgressor is hard,'" yet they were also to be

given opportunities to improve their character through religious and educational

programs. The mark system was endorsed as a means of recording a prisoner's

 

19. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1863" (1864), XXVIII, Part II, 10, 17; ibid., "Annual Report, 1866" (1867),

XXXI, Part II, 195.

20. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Governor's Annual Message, 1866" (1867), XXXI, Part I,

270.

21. Correspondence from Governor Jacob D. Cox to prospective members of the board shows

that the legislature conceived the board to be advisory, and essentially a showcase for reform

rather than an instrument of change. Cox pointed out that the board's powers had to be grad-

ually increased through hard work and the prestige of its members. Letterbook February 20,

1867--May 31, 1868, Box 6, Cox Papers, Ohio Historical Society.

22. Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual Report for the Year 1867 (1868), 3, 10-11.

23. Ibid., 5, 11, 34; ibid., Annual Report for the Year 1868 (1869), 12-15.

• 8
 

244                                                            OHIO HISTORY

 

progress toward reformation. The board suggested that marks be used to determine

the transfer of a prisoner to an institution within the system which conformed to the

measured change in the inmate's character. The 1867 report accepted the scheme

presented by Gideon Haynes, warden of the Massachusetts State Prison, that the

length of a sentence be determined by the inmate's conduct as measured by the mark

system. According to Haynes, good marks reduced the prison term and bad marks

lengthened imprisonment.²⁴

These proposals made by the Ohio Board of State Charities were part of an emerg-

ing reform effort to adapt features of the Irish prison system for adult felons to

American penal institutions. Between 1854 and 1863 that system was developed

in Ireland by Walter Crofton and was popularized in America by Enoch Cobb Wines,

Secretary of the New York Prison Association, and by Franklin B. Sanborn of the

Massachusetts Board of State Charities. Under the Irish system a convict spent his

first eight months in solitary confinement followed by a second stage of confinement

where he was employed on public works during the day and was housed in an indi-

vidual cell at night. No conversations with other inmates were permitted in the

public works prison. Within this stage the prisoner's conduct was recorded and

measured by a mark system first devised in 1840 by Alexander Maconochie when

he served as governor of the Norfolk Island (Australia) penal colony.

Under Maconochie's plan each convict was assigned a debt of marks equivalent

to the severity of his crime. The principle of the scheme was to place the responsi-

bility for parole in the prisoner's hands by granting early release as soon as the con-

vict paid his debt of marks. In Maconochie's model the earning columns consisted

of four sub-categories which were personal deportment, diligent labor, academic

achievements, and religious knowledge. A prisoner lost credits and increased his

debt through misconduct and for "indulgences" like extra food. Maconochie argued

that marks should be subtracted for luxuries "to prove and strengthen character by

exhorting men voluntarily to reform." Although the deduction of marks did not

add extra years to the term set by law, deductions did reduce the chance of parole.

Maconochie believed that the mark system ended monotonous prison life and created

a regimen of incentives and rewards, particularly through early release, which re-

formed inmate character. Crofton adopted a variation of Maconochie's plan as an

incentive for Irish inmates to improve their "grade," enjoy increased privileges, and

"earn" a transfer to an "intermediate prison." In the intermediate prison an inmate

worked without close supervision and occasionally was employed outside the prison.

Instead of confinement in separate cells at night, the convict was housed in a dormi-

tory. Any breach of the rules during the third stage of confinement meant immediate

reversion to the public works prison. Upon proof of reformation, however, the pris-

oner was granted a "ticket of leave," or parole, under police supervision.²⁵

The principles, apparatus, and reported success of the system in rehabilitating

 

24. Ibid., Annual Report for the Year 1867 (1868), 5-10.

25. This section on the Irish prison system is a synthesis of numerous sources. For a descrip-

tion of the four stages of the Irish system as well as views on penal reform which were adopted

by the Ohio Board of State Charities see Enoch Cobb Wines and Theodore W. Dwight, Report

on the Prisons and Reformatories of the United States and Canada (New York, 1867), 62-77.

The mark system was described by Alexander Maconochie in a series of letters and published

works. Alexander Maconochie, Penal Discipline: Three Letters (London, 1853) and Alexander

Maconochie, Penal Discipline (London, 1856), 1-5. For general surveys of English prison devel-

opments including the Irish system see Lionel Fox, English Prisons and Borstal System (London,

1952) and Gordon Rose, The Struggle for Penal Reform (London, 1961). The popularization

• 9
 

Ohio Penal System                                                              245

 

criminals appealed to American reformers such as Wines, Sanborn, and Byers. The

Irish system encouraged the inmate along a course toward reformation through a

rational and controlled process. The first part of the process was apparently intended

to break the inmate's will and to induce contrition through eight months of solitary

confinement. In the second phase the criminal's character was hopefully reshaped

through a program of public works and rewards for good conduct which was mea-

sured by a mark system. In the third step the inmate was prepared for economic

usefulness and social reintegration under quasi-normal conditions in the intermediate

prison. The success of the reformatory programs was tested during the subject's

parole. By urging the adaption of this process to the Ohio penal system in its 1867

report, the Ohio Board of State Charities rejected the conventional Auburn model

of prison discipline. The board contributed to a new thrust in American prison

reform which led to the creation of the National Prison Association in 1870 and

the reformatory movement prominent in the latter part of the century.²⁶

In the late 1860's, however, the board's proposals were thwarted by conservative

and skeptical penal officials. In their 1867 report the penitentiary directors referred

to reform plans as "mere theory." They stated that as yet there was no solution to

the problem of criminal rehabilitation; that despite existing labor, moral, and reli-

gious programs criminals left prison "as hardened and as dangerous to the State as

they were when they were sentenced." While not proposing any changes themselves,

the directors warned that implementing penal theories "without careful observation

and practical tests, is of little value." They concluded that more consultation among

prison officials should precede the introduction of reforms.²⁷ In 1868 the General

Assembly did not adopt the reformatory concept but passed a joint resolution to

expand the penitentiary, thereby maintaining the status quo.

The work of an 1869 house committee on prison reform revealed the continuing

controversy and political mudslinging generated by proposals to recast the penal

system. That committee introduced legislation abolishing the prison board of direc-

tors and establishing a Board of Classification which was to be composed of four

 

of the Irish system was the major thrust of post-Civil War prison reform. Franklin B. Sanborn,

"American Prisons," North American Review, LII (1866), 404-412. In 1870 the first congress

of the National Prison Association meeting in Cincinnati focused on the Irish system and tried

to popularize it. See pamphlet, John P. Resch, "The 1870 Cincinnati Prison Congress" (Center

for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections, Southern Illinois University, 1970), 3-22.

For papers on the Irish system given at the Cincinnati Congress see Enoch Cobb Wines, "The

Present Outlook of Prison Discipline in the U.S.," The National Prison Congress Transactions,

1870 (Albany, 1870,) 15-20, and Franklin B. Sanborn, "How Far is the Irish Prison System

Applicable to American Prisons?" ibid., 406-414. Later support for the Irish system came from

Oliver Wendell Holmes. See Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Crime and Automatism," Atlantic

Monthly, XXXV (1875), 477-481.

For an early Ohio reference to the achievements of the Irish prison system see Governor Jacob

Cox's annual message to the General Assembly in January 1867. In that speech Cox pointed out

the prison experiments being carried on in other states and noted the success of the Irish system

in Great Britain. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Governor's Annual Message, 1866" (1867), XXXI,

Part II, 268-269. In its 1869 annual report the Board of State Charities asserted that the Irish

system was the best it had studied. The report developed features of that system and urged that

parts of it be applied to the penitentiary. Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual Report for the

Year 1869 (1870), 18-21.

26. For an overall account of the movement for adult reformatories and the early experiments

at the Elmira, New York reformatory, see Blake McKelvey, American Prisons (Chicago, 1936),

107-115, and Louis B. Robinson, Penology in the United States (Philadelphia, 1923), 125-126.

27. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1867" (1868), XXXII, Part II, 280; Laws of Ohio, 1868, LXV, 302-303, 305.

• 10
 

246                                                               OHIO HISTORY

 

unpaid commissioners and the warden. The creation of a Board of Classification

reflected the house committee's intent to make the penitentiary more reformatory

by specifically charging its administration with the duty of classifying convicts "with

respect to age, sex, character, and probable reformation" and prescribing training

for each criminal class. The bill also provided for construction of an intermediate

prison in the northern half of the state. In the hearings on the bill Warden Charles

C. Walcutt argued that there was no need for a new prison because inmate popula-

tion had peaked and was beginning to decline. In addition Walcutt alleged that add-

ing another prison would lead to duplication and failure. The house committee

rejected Walcutt's arguments and asserted:

Believing, with the worthy warden, that classification, with a view to the reformatory treat-

ment, is demanded by the best interests of the State and every consideration of Christian

humanity, we are led to ask, can that be done by enlarging this prison [the penitentiary]

to a capacity for two thousand to three thousand convicts [the projected population fig-

ures made by the committee for 1899] as well as for the convicts and as profitably for the

State, as by having two or more prisons?²⁸

The committee further cited the report of the Prison Association of New York

which endorsed the construction of small institutions for 300 to 600 men and an

intermediate prison. "These are the unanimous convictions," the legislators ob-

served, "of all the prison managers, of a lifetime's experience. But our worthy

Warden, with his three years' experience, holds a different opinion." The committee

answered Walcutt's charge that those who wanted another prison were selfishly dis-

regarding the interests of the state by accusing the people and representatives of

Columbus and Franklin County of hypocrisy and duplicity. The committee revealed

that the prices for food and articles purchased by the prison in central Ohio as well

as maintenance costs were higher than in the northern part of the state. They

asserted that "the people of Columbus and Franklin County ... have for forty years

been, and are still, fattening at the public crib--selling this 'stuff' to the prison

for two, three, and four prices."²⁹

The State Board of Charities joined the fray by attacking the political contamina-

tion of the penitentiary management. "Party politics," the board stated in its 1869

annual report, "and, even worse, party cliques or rings, have too long controlled the

appointments and consequently the management of the Ohio Penitentiary." The

board asserted that the prison system was "radically defective" and urged a change

in sentencing to give prison officials authority to release criminals when they were

judged reformed. "This plan proposed the treatment of the criminal, rather than

the treatment of his crime. It looks upon the man as morally and socially disordered.

... Let the criminal be sent to prison; let him be treated as his case may seem to

require; when he recovers, discharge him." The board repeated its support of the

Irish system and averred that despite defects which can be found in any penal system,

 

28. Ohio, House Journal, 1869, "Reformatory Penitentiary System," 26-60. Prior to this report

a joint committee of the General Assembly submitted its findings on the proposal to build a new

prison. That committee recommended that no further expansion be made at the penitentiary,

which had been enlarged from 700 to 1050 cells between 1860 and 1868. The committee advised

that a smaller institution be built in the northern part of the state. Unlike the later house

committee report, the joint committee avoided penal theory by suggesting that the question

whether the new institution should be an intermediate prison "can best be regulated after the

construction of the new buildings, by a proper revision of the laws."

29. Ibid., 28-45.

• 11
 

Ohio Penal System                                                        247

 

it was the best existing prison regime. Apparently aware of the political obstacles

blocking authorization of an intermediate prison, the board suggested that the addi-

tions to the penitentiary being considered by the legislature include "three distinct

and virtually separate prisons" under a common management. Each unit should

adapt features of the Irish system--separation in the first unit, congregate labor in

the second, reformatory programs with progress presumably measured by marks in

the third. The board, however, did not feel that parole or ticket of leave as it was

known in Great Britain was practical because of "our vast extent of country and

its many political divisions, each constituting an independent jurisdiction."³⁰

The failure of the Board of Charities and its supporters to pass legislation at this

time establishing an intermediate prison and recasting prison management revealed

the weakness of the penal reform movement. The appeals for reform were appar-

ently effectively repulsed by conservative prison officials and their political allies.

In their 1870 annual report the prison directors accused the reformers of trying to

make the prison a "place of ease and leisure" and to strip it of "every vestige of ter-

ror or aversion." They rejected the proposal to permit prison authorities to release

criminals when cured because such decisions should not be left to the fallible mind

of man and because of inconsistent management due to the spoils system. They

contended that the existing good time law was wise, adequate and workable. The

directors continued to defend contract labor, which the board had questioned, by

arguing that there was no evidence that contract labor impaired reformation and

that it was profitable. The directors' support of the status quo and their suspicion

of change was succinctly recorded: "We prefer our present system, to one which

has failed financially, or to an untried experiment."³¹ The inertia of the system and

a decline in prison population at the turn of the decade to a level well within the

physical limits of the penitentiary weakened the effort to recast Ohio's penal system,

and in February 1872 the legislature dissolved the Board of State Charities.

Between 1872 and 1876 prison officials continued their efforts to make the peni-

tentiary profitable and useful to the state. In 1873 the directors exclaimed that the

"Penitentiary has not only maintained itself during the past seven years, but it has

in addition paid into the State Treasury more than fifty-eight thousand dollars....

With prudence and economy, and in the absence of an epidemic or other great calam-

ity, it may continue to be self supporting." The usefulness of the prison was in-

creased by the construction of a gas works within the walls which was to supply the

penitentiary as well as local public benevolent institutions. In 1875 the legislature

tried to ensure a profit from the prison by authorizing the construction of new shops

to lure contractors to hire convict labor. In their annual report for 1875 the directors

credited these shops for keeping the prison in the black despite the panic which ad-

versely affected the economy.³²

In addition to making money, officials attempted to improve the hygienic condi-

tions of the prison. In 1873 a cholera epidemic left twenty-one inmates dead and

aroused efforts to improve the penitentiary's sanitary system. The following year

30. Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual Report for the Year 1869 (1870), 14-21.

31. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1870" (1871), XXXV, Part I, 18, 437-446; Ohio Board of Charities, Annual

Report for the Year 1870 (1871), 18. The Board of State Charities argued that contracts should

be let which would provide useful job training for the inmates. This argument challenged a

prison practice of making contracts which returned the greatest profit to the prison.

32. Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio Penitentiary, 1873 (1874), 29-32;

ibid., 1875 (1876), 6-8.

• 12
 

248                                                             OHIO HISTORY

 

Warden G. S. Innis appealed to the legislature for funds to replace poorly ventilated

cells which he called "abominable, a disgrace alike to the State and the civilization

of the age." In 1875 Innis repeated his request and added that many of the old

cells were infested with bedbugs and other insects which made hygiene impossible,

and overcrowding again strained the prison's physical facilities. Between 1872 and

1876 the number of commitments increased 135 percent from 334 to 785 while total

prison population rose 68 percent from 867 to 1,456 by 1876. An old shop was

converted into a dormitory for 150 to 200 men, and in 1875 and 1876 new cells were

authorized to accommodate the overflow, thus delaying the replacement of the older

cells.³³

During this period prison officials looked askance at reformers and showed no

evidence of applying innovative measures. Referring to the Cincinnati and London

prison congresses of 1870 and 1872, the prison directors observed in their 1872

report: "We are not aware that any practical results have been attained by these

meetings, or that any benefit has been derived from them unless they have aided in

directing public attention to this subject." They suggested a meeting of wardens

which the directors said "would proceed from experience and practical knowledge,

and therefore be safe."³⁴

The following year the directors, who did not acknowledge the existence of the

Irish system, repeated that the prison reform congresses had had very little impact.

"Many plans which were discussed have been tried and abandoned, and some were

so crude that no one will attempt them. The only convention by means of which

good may be accomplished must be composed of a few men of practical experience,

who can compare views without attempts at oratorical display, or producing essays

for publication." Prison officials were content to promote rehabilitation through

a regimen of "Christian charity" and a discipline described by Warden Innis in his

report of 1873 as "kind and paternal; strict . . but not tyrannical."³⁵

Between 1872 and 1876 organized efforts to reform the penal system persisted

despite the inertia of prison officials and disbandment of the Board of State Charities.

In August 1874 a voluntary organization, called the Prison Reform and Children's

Association of Ohio, was formed by Byers and former members of the board. The

purpose of the association was to improve "the structure, discipline and management

of our penal, correctional and reformatory institutions whether in cities, counties or

state."³⁶ The members tried to achieve these objectives by dramatizing the deplor-

able conditions in the institutions and their failure to rehabilitate criminals and

safeguard society. Most of the effort to popularize the association's cause and to

generate public pressure on the legislature to reform the penal system was left to

Byers. In 1875 he traveled throughout the state collecting contributions for the asso-

ciation, inspecting institutions, reporting their condition to church gatherings, and

urging his listeners to form local prison societies to support prison reform.³⁷ By the

 

33. Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio Penitentiary, 1873 (1874), 39;

ibid., 1874 (1875), 14; ibid., 1875 (1876), 15, 16, 18; ibid., 1876 (1877), 4-6.

34. Ohio Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1872" (1873) XXXVII, Part I, 553.

35. Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio Penitentiary, 1873 (1874), 26-29,

32: ibid., 1874 (1875), 21.

36. "Proceedings of the Prison Reform and Children's Aid Association," Collection 142, Box

21, Janney Family Papers, Ohio Historical Society.

37. Dr. Albert G. Byers, Diaries, Collection 156, Box 5, Byers Family Papers, Ohio Historical

Society. See also Scrapbook, ibid., Box 4.

• 13
 

fall of 1875 Byers believed that socially and politically influential persons in the state were embracing the association's cause. The election that year of Rutherford B. Hayes as governor increased Byers' optimism because of Hayes' sympathy with penal reformers. In April 1876 Governor Hayes and the General Assembly responded to the Prison Reform and Children's Association's work by reestablishing the Board of State Char- ities. The new board's powers, like its predecessor's, were limited to inspection of prisons and giving advice on ways and means of reforming the system. In its annual reports between 1877 and 1883 the board renewed demands for state supervision of jails rather than leaving treatment of those guilty of minor offenses to "county authorities who cannot properly discharge such duty." It revived earlier plans for houses of detention for persons awaiting trial, district workhouses for minor of- fenders, adaptation of the Irish system, enforcement of reformatory rather than puni- tive discipline, an end to contract labor, and it recommended construction of a refor- matory for young offenders and the indeterminate sentence. Two new proposals were added to the board's program by Roeliff Brinkerhoff, a lawyer and banker from Mansfield who had joined the board in 1878 and had be- come an active lobbyist for his fellow reformers and a popularizer of a number of English penal innovations. He became familiar with English practices through extensive correspondence with Barwick Baker, a Gloucestershire squire and magis- trate who was one of the founders of the English reformatory system. Between 1880 and 1883 Brinkerhoff became Baker's disciple and advocated adoption of the Glou- cestershire practices of longer sentences for repeating offenders and police supervi- sion of habitual criminals and those on probation. Brinkerhoff assured the Ohio legislature that these proposals which the board included in its 1880 report were not pious theories, but that they had been "tried upon a large scale and found to be of value in the treatment of crime," by reducing recidivism and protecting society.38   38. Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual Report for the Year 1877 (1878), 6-11; ibid., Annual Report for the Year 1879 (1880), 6-9; ibid., Annual Report for the Year 1880 (1881), 8, 16-25; ibid., Annual Report for the Year 1881 (1882), 8; ibid., Annual Report for the Year 1883 (1884), 17-20; Thomas Barwick Lloyd Baker to Roeliff Brinkerhoff, 1880-1885, Baker

• 14
 

250                                                              OHIO HISTORY

 

Even though the Board of State Charities' program had merit, little was achieved

since it did not have the political leverage necessary to effect reform. The board's

views and influence were only a fraction of the competing and often conflicting in-

terests affecting the prison system. Through a series of enfeebling compromises, the

board's demands for state supervision of jails and construction of district work-

houses were circumvented. An 1880 act which required local officials to submit

plans for new jails to the board for suggestions failed to give the board power to

enforce its standards. Instead of transferring supervision of jails to the state as the

board recommended, an 1882 act authorized each county Court of Common Pleas

to appoint a board of visitors to inspect all county charitable and correctional insti-

tutions. The five member board, three of whom were to be women, was to inspect

the institutions at least once every three months and "recommend such changes and

additional provision as they may deem essential for their [the institutions'] economi-

cal and efficient administration." The county boards' reports were to be submitted

to the clerks of Common Pleas and to the State Board of Charities. A third act

dealing with local institutions was passed on March 29, 1883. That act authorized

the commissioners of neighboring counties jointly to build, manage and maintain

a workhouse for minor offenders. The cooperative workhouse required the approval

of a majority of voters in the participating counties. Upon approval by the voters,

county commissioners were to select a site and levy a tax or issue bonds to build

the facility.³⁹

The Board of State Charities evaluated these legislative reforms of local penal

institutions in its 1883 annual report. Referring to the 1882 act, the board pointed

out that only fifty of Ohio's eighty-eight counties had a board of visitors, and it urged

that the appointment of visiting committees be made mandatory. The basic weak-

ness of that law was not the optional appointment of visiting committees; instead,

the act failed to give those committees any power to enforce their recommendations.

That law like the 1880 act did not incorporate the board's demand for state super-

vision of local jails. The 1883 law authorizing district workhouses produced no

immediate results. The board observed that "the difficulties of combining counties

for the location and government of such work-houses are so great as to afford but

little prospect of any favorable outcome." The board repeated its request that the

state build and manage district workhouses.⁴⁰ Thus, despite considerable legislation,

control over jails as well as their deplorable condition remained virtually unchanged.

The board's efforts to recast the penal system around its plans for rehabilitation

faced the continued resistance of prison administrators who stressed the importance

of a self-supporting institution. Prison officials also averred that the existing system

was humane and reformatory.⁴¹ In 1883, however, reporters from the Cincinnati

Enquirer disclosed that prisoners lived in a regimented, monotonous, punitive and

dehumanized system which exploited their labor to profit contractors and the state.

 

 

Papers, Hardwicke Court, Gloucestershire, England. This correspondence has been microfilmed

and deposited at the Ohio Historical Society. See also Roeliff Brinkerhoff, Recollection of a

Lifetime (Cincinnati, 1900), 257.

39. Laws of Ohio, 1880, LXXVII, 227-228; ibid., 1882, LXXIX, 107-108; ibid., 1883,

LXXX, 81-84.

40. Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual Report for the Year 1883 (1884), 19-22.

41. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1880" (1881), XLV, Part I, 9-21; ibid., "Annual Report, 1881" (1882), XLVI,

Part I, 234, 246-247; ibid., "Annual Report, 1883" (1884), XLIX, Part I, 20.

• 15
 

Ohio Penal System                                                       251

 

The reporters described what modem sociologists call a "total institution" and "pris-

onization." In a total institution an inmate's independence and identity are eroded

to child-like dependence through long terms, coercion and punishment. Prisoniza-

tion occurs when the inmate is converted into an automaton suitable for institutional

manipulation, conformity and control.⁴² Persons who resisted prisonization were

likely to become hardened inmates whose bitterness erupted in aggression against

fellow convicts, guards, the institution and eventually society. For a convict entering

the penitentiary in 1883 the process of prisonization began with the reception pro-

cedure. After the chaplain recorded the prisoner's vital statistics, the inmate's hair

was cropped "to the same length all around," his facial hair shaved, he was given a

striped suit and his name was replaced by a number. He was examined by a doctor,

bathed, assigned to a cell, and placed in a work company according to his physical

classification, the requirements of the contractors and the needs of prison.⁴³

The prisoners' week followed a meticulous schedule, resulting in a repetitious pat-

tern of controlled behavior. Visitors to the penitentiary observed that long-term

convicts suffered a malaise, sometimes referred to as prison sickness, from the

monotony, boredom and control. During the winter months inmates were awakened

at 6:45 A.M. (5:15 in the summer). The guards armed themselves with repeating

rifles, revolvers, or clubs shaped like a walking stick with brass "ferrules" at each

end. At 7:00 the prisoners were counted, formed into companies and marched lock-

step--a close order step with each inmate placing his right hand on the right shoul-

der of the man ahead of him--to the bath house. Following a quick wash the

men lockstepped to the dining hall where they stood before assigned seats. At the

first bell the men were seated, and after the second bell their caps were removed,

heads bowed and grace said by the chaplain. Fifteen minutes later the bell was

rung again signaling the work companies to lockstep to work.

The pressures of regimentation and the climate of debasement permeated the

inmate's day. At 11:45 A.M. the men lockstepped to the dining hall where they

repeated the morning ritual. Only the food and presumably the prayer varied. Work

ended at 4:00 P.M. in the winter (6:00 in summer) with the men washing, lock-

stepping to supper, sitting, praying and eating to the signal of bells. After the con-

victs were locked in their cells at 4:30 the guards made a head count, reported in-

fractions to officers, and inspected shops for fires--"for convicts are an incendiary

set." At 9:00 trustees were locked up and all lights extinguished. Night guards

moving "around on noiseless feet" made periodic inspections. On Sunday mornings

the work regimen was replaced by a religious one. Prisoners could attend mass at

7:30 A.M., a prayer meeting at 8:30, and Sunday School at 9:30 which was taught

by volunteers. All prisoners except those who had attended mass were required to

attend the 10:30 church services conducted by the chaplain. The men spent the

remainder of the day confined to their cells. The boredom was broken by requests

for a visit from the chaplain who conversed "with them on religious topics, encour-

aging them to form good habits and wise resolves."

 

 

42. Erving Goffman, Asylums (New York, 1961), 3-124; Donald Clemmer, The Prison Com-

munity (Boston, 1940), 294-320.

43. The account of life in the Ohio Penitentiary was made by two reporters from the Cin-

cinnati Enquirer who spent two days inspecting the prison. They reported that contractors

paid the state from $.42 per ten-hour day for "infirm convicts" to 86¢. All wages were turned

over to the state. Cincinnati Enquirer, January 21, 1883.

• 16
 

No talking was permitted at work, at meals, or in the cells. Signals like an "up- lifted finger" were used to communicate the convict's needs. There was no overt evidence of repression or anything done "to injure a man's self respect ... except for the striped clothing of the men, the guards, and the apparent isolation of each man, the shops could not be distinguished from any other shop of the same char- acter." The prison's serenity and similarity to the outside society was a veneer con- cealing intimidation, repression and humiliation which authorities used to control inmates. As one guard put it, "A convict is like a rubber ball. He will stay as long as you press him down, but flies up when the pressure is removed. He must feel the pressure all the time." A scale of punishments was used to ensure conformity to penal authority. Priv- ileges were suspended and "good time" deducted for minor infractions. "Ducking" was used for recalcitrant inmates. The ducked convict was placed in a tub, blind- folded, his hands cuffed behind his back and water forced into his mouth and nose through a hose making breathing impossible. The prisoner was given doses "until his stubborn spirit gives in. Sometimes he loses consciousness and must be brought to." Officials denied any cruelty and stated that ducking "is nothing more than an involuntary bath." Hostile inmates were placed in solitary confinement.44 The expose of the penitentiary supported reformist claims that the prison's regime was not structured to rehabilitate criminals. Prison reformers and the Board of State Charities were, however, too weak by themselves to shake the entrenched penal sys- tem. Between 1877 and 1884 they therefore joined with those assaulting the con- tract labor system. The reformers wished to abolish the practice as well as to use the attack as leverage to recast the whole penal system. Opposition to contract labor had begun in the spring of 1877 when a house committee reported that leading manufacturers in the state objected to it because it crippled business and caused unemployment. The committee concluded that contract prison labor was "directly responsible" for a high percentage of wage reductions among "thousands of our mechanics during the past four years," and that contract labor pauperized "honest labor," thus contributing to an increase in crime. The committee report endorsed   44. Ibid.; a less charitable account of prison punishments was given by a former inmate. Cin- cinnati Enquirer, January 8, 1883.

• 17
 

Ohio Penal System                                                      253

 

the view of prison reformers who testified that contract labor was incompatible with

rehabilitation programs and agreed that neither profit nor punishment, but reforma-

tion "should be the paramount aim" of prison discipline. The report urged that con-

tract labor be replaced by a new labor system designed to train convicts in useful

trades.⁴⁵

In February 1883 a bill to abolish contract labor was introduced into the legisla-

ture. The bill was supported by the Board of State Charities, most Democratic legis-

lators, a few Republicans and the Knights of Labor. The contract labor question

was soon manipulated for political advantage in Ohio's election year. Contractors

were reported "flying around in the lobby, doing all they can to defeat" the bill.

Representative John F. Locke (R) denounced the bill and alleged that it was

"backed by an inflammatory, a Communistic movement." The bill was tabled that

winter amid Democratic charges of Republican deception and betrayal of the work-

ingman. The Republicans tried to sustain labor support by adding a plank abolish-

ing contract labor to their platform, but the Democrats pressed their attack with

reports that the Republicans were in league with the contractors.⁴⁶ Prison officials

stood firmly by the system with Warden Noah Thomas warning that the abolition

of contract labor would be "disastrous to the financial interests of the state, without

affording relief of any kind to any class of society."⁴⁷ Before the fall election Roeliff

Brinkerhoff even joined in criticizing the labor bill because it did not include the

reform package supported by the board. In a speech before the National Conference

of Charities and Correction, Brinkerhoff called the agitation for an end to contract

labor "ill-considered clamor" and useless unless accompanied by implementation

of features from the Irish system.⁴⁸

The 1883 October election of a Democratic governor, George Hoadly, and a

Democratic house set the stage for the debate on contract labor and reorganization of

the penitentiary and the appointment of a new staff with the present management

"cleaned out from top to bottom." In early January 1884 Representative Allen 0.

Myers (D) of Franklin County introduced a bill to abolish contract labor and recast

the penal system to conform with the recommendation of the special legislative com-

mittee investigating contract labor and some of the reform programs supported by

the Board of State Charities. The Myers bill replaced contract labor, which was

scheduled to expire by 1887, with a state account system. Under the new system,

managers would be empowered to purchase machinery, tools, and material to pro-

duce convict-made goods for state institutions and public sale. Prison industries

would be restricted to prevent "unfair" competition with private manufacturers and

were required to train convicts in employable skills. The bill proposed to end the

spoils system by requiring popular election of prison managers. The measure

stressed rehabilitation by authorizing judges to apply the indeterminate sentence

which set a minimum and maximum term and permitted prison officials to release

convicts upon proof of reformation any time after serving the minimum sentence.

 

 

45. Ohio, House Journal Appendix, 1877, 3-18.

46. The bill was introduced by Representative William Peet (R). Cincinnati Enquirer, Feb-

ruary 13, March 5, 22, 30, September 10, 1883; Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 31, 1883. The

Plain Dealer asserted that the Republican strategy was to put off the bill in the legislature with-

out losing labor votes and then kill it after the fall elections.

47. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1883" (1884), XLVIII, Part I, 33.

48. Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual Report for the Year 1883 (1884), 25-36.

• 18
 

254                                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

To symbolize the transformation of the prison from a punitive, custodial, profit

making institution to a reformatory, Myers proposed that the penitentiary's name

be changed to the "Ohio House of Detention for the Reformation of Criminals."⁴⁹

The fusion of Democrats, Republican reformers, workingmen's representatives

joined by the governor and the Board of State Charities faced a dwindling opposi-

tion of contractors, prison officials and their political allies. Supporters of the Myers

bill praised it as a non-partisan measure which incorporated the best features of

several penal systems and provided the "most practical civil service reform." Ac-

cording to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the bill correctly recognized that crime must

be treated "as a disease." The state must be permitted through the indeterminate

sentence to hold a criminal until the "disease is cured." The bill "goes a great way,

if not the entire distance to a solution of the problem as to what is necessary to pun-

ish and reform criminals, protect society and lessen crime."⁵⁰

Reformers discredited the opposition by exposing abuses in the penal system

and the obstructionist policies of prison officials. Official reports from the peniten-

tiary were ridiculed for trying to make the prison appear "only a step removed from

heaven itself." Published testimony by a former inmate, given before a legislative

investigating committee in January, asserted that the prison's management "could

not possibly be worse"; that officials were only interested in profit; that the prison

was under the "absolute control" of the contractors; and, that inmates were "tor-

tured" if they did not meet production quotas. The witness concluded that morals,

health and rehabilitation were sacrificed for profits, and that the prison was causing

pauperism among free laborers. Warden Noah Thomas subsequently refused to

permit a legislative investigating committee to interview inmates unless he were

present and determined the questions to be asked and answered. Thomas' obstruc-

tion raised a howl of indignant protests among reformers and further eroded support

for the existing system.⁵¹

The most difficult obstacle facing reformers was the accusation that their intent

was to coddle inmates. In an attempt to arouse retributive passions in the public,

opponents of the Myers' bill charged that the measure made prison a "desirable"

place and eliminated it as a "terror to evil doers." Reformers conceded that the

public refused to accept the proposed change in the name of the prison, but assured

the bill's supporters that "there was nothing in the bill to warrant the rumor that the

author [Myers] would array the prisoners in purple and fine linens, or feed them on

chicken pies."⁵²

On February 27, 1884, debate on the Myers bill "packed the hall with visitors,

brought out strong speeches. . . and caused a general field day of excitement."

Although the name of the penitentiary and the method of selecting the new govern-

ing board were not changed, amendments to weaken the bill were defeated as the

measure passed the house by a party vote.⁵³ The bill, which passed the senate on

March 24, abolished contract labor, authorized the state account plan, required all

49. Cincinnati Enquirer, October 15, 1883, January 9, 10, 1884. The legislative committee

investigating contract labor was established in 1883 after the Peet bill was tabled. Allen O.

Myers served as chairman of the legislative committee on prison reform. His interest in reform

resulted from his experience as a convict. Brinkerhoff, Recollections of a Lifetime, 274.

50. Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 19, 26, 1884.

51. Cincinnati Enquirer, January 28, 29, 1884. The Cincinnati Enquirer alleged that the legis-

lature had been obstructed by penal officials. In addition, the officials, contractors, and their

political allies subsidized press attacks on the prison reformers. The legislature responded to the

obstructions by passing a resolution empowering its committee to make investigations.

52. Ohio State Journal (Columbus), January 29, 1884; Cincinnati Enquirer, January 28, 1884.

• 19
 

Ohio Penal System                                                              255

 

prisoners under age twenty-two to be "employed at handwork exclusively, for the

purpose of acquiring a trade," and provided that inmates keep up to twenty percent

of their earnings. The prison act removed the spoils system through the appoint-

ment of five prison managers whose terms of office ranged from one to five years,

a four year term for the warden "during good behavior," and a provision that "no

office or employee shall be appointed or removed for political or partisan reasons."

The law authorized the Board of Managers to grant parole to reformed inmates and

set the regulations for conditional release. Parolees remained under the legal cus-

tody and control of the board.⁵⁴

Additional legislation passed in April incorporated more reforms advocated by

the Board of State Charities. The criminal justice system was made a part of penal

rehabilitation programs by authorizing the indeterminate or reformatory sentence.

The law was necessary to implement the parole provisions of the March act. The

Board of Managers at the penitentiary was empowered to "make such rules and

regulations for the government of the prisoners as shall best promote their reforma-

tion" by establishing a program of classification, grades and marks like those applied

in the Irish system to measure and guide rehabilitation. The legislature also author-

ized the construction of an intermediate prison funded by a ten percent appropria-

tion--or an estimated $200,000 per year--from the revenues from the Scott tax

on the liquor traffic. The Board of State Charities had warned that unless an inter-

mediate prison for young offenders was built penitentiary rehabilitation programs

would fail.⁵⁵

The reform legislation adapted certain features of the Irish system which had

long been urged by the board. Within the penitentiary three grades were created

by the Board of Managers. All prisoners entered at the second level and were pro-

moted or demoted according to their conduct. Prisoners within the grades were

distinguished in appearance and pay. The men in the first grade wore blue suits.

Convicts in the second grade wore gray suits, and the traditional striped suit was

worn in the third grade. Inmates in the first and second grades moved about in a

military march, while the lockstep was used in the third grade "as a matter of pun-

ishment." Prisoners in the first grade were paid eighty cents per day, while second

and third grade convicts received sixty and forty cents per day respectively.⁵⁶ While

53. The vote was 57 yea, 39 nay. Cincinnati Enquirer, February 27, 28, 1884; Ohio State

Journal (Columbus), February 28, 1884. Representative Peet (R) reintroduced his bill to

abolish contract labor. The bill was ruled out of order. Peet then voted against the Myers bill.

Peet's vote is further indication of the partisanship involved in the measure.

54. Laws of Ohio, 1884, LXXXI, 72-76. This legislation can also be found in Ohio, Executive

Documents "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio Penitentiary, 1884"

(1885), XLIX, Part I, 335-341.

55. Ibid. Although the prison reform acts were passed at different dates in the spring of 1884,

they were all classed under the same act in Laws of Ohio. The Scott law provided for an annual

tax of $200 on all places where liquor was sold at retail. Philip Jordan, Ohio Comes of Age

(Carl Wittke, ed., The History of the State of Ohio, V, Columbus, 1943), 177. The Cincinnati

Enquirer estimated that the Scott law would yield $2,000,000 in revenues per year. The penal

system's share of that income would have been $200,000 per year according to the revenue

formula worked out in the March 27, 1884 law. Cincinnati Enquirer, February 5, 1884, June

12, 1885.

56. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1884" (1885), XLIX, Part I, 193-194; Directors Journal (The Ohio Penitentiary),

494, Ohio Historical Society Archives. This journal, December 3, 1878 to May 6, 1886, is the

only surviving record of the penitentiary's directors meetings. The journal contains financial

accounts, reviews of appealed infractions, lists of visitors, appointments, resignations, and imple-

mentation of legislative acts dealing with the prison. For sections dealing with the implementa-

tion of the 1884 prison acts, see pp. 465-502.

• 20
 

256                                                           OHIO HISTORY

 

the number of grades and the principle underlying the system were borrowed from

the Irish system, the Ohio adaptation omitted the initial phase of eight months in

solitary confinement. The Ohio version placed all grades in one penitentiary rather

than using separate and specialized institutions for each grade of prisoner as in Ire-

land. A mark system borrowed from the Elmira, New York, Reformatory, but also

based on the experiences of the Irish system, was applied to measure conduct and

to determine promotion or demotion in grade. Each prisoner was given a ledger

where his marks were recorded each month. Under this system each prisoner could

receive a maximum of nine marks per month--three for demeanor, three for labor

and three for study. "Good time" deductions and parole of prisoners confined under

the indeterminate sentence were gauged by the graded and mark systems.⁵⁷

One major part of the Irish system that was not adopted was the intermediate

prison concept. Within the Irish system the intermediate prison was to serve as a

kind of halfway house for inmates in the highest grade who were ready for release.

The Ohio legislation called for an intermediate prison, but the purpose of this new

prison was to incarcerate young adult first offenders, as recommended by the State

Board of Charities which followed the example set by Zebulon Reed Brockway

at the Elmira Reformatory.⁵⁸

The legislative successes in 1884 were followed by a reevaluation of the entire

penal question in 1885 because much of the reform package failed to materialize.

The state's meagre allocation of $10,000 was inadequate to finance the new con-

vict labor programs which required an estimated $250,000 to $700,000 to imple-

ment. In addition, legislators were turning to retrenchment policies because of a

drop in the economy.⁵⁹ A further blow was delivered to the reforms when the Scott

tax on the liquor traffic, part of which was to be used to build the intermediate

prison, was declared unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court.

An attempt was made, nevertheless, to salvage the 1884 reforms with a bill which

added the piece price plan to the state account system. Under the piece price plan

manufacturers provided machinery and materials to be placed in prison buildings,

but did not supervise the work. Convict labor was employed to turn out piece work.

Supporters argued that the new labor plan, which the Board of State Charities had

endorsed in its 1883 annual report, would save the state $400,000 in plant costs

and would retain all the reformatory parts of the 1884 act. A few legislators, partic-

ularly those with labor backing, opposed the bill in favor of increased allocations

to make the 1884 act work. Others, like Senators William H. Reed (D) and John

V. Lewis (D), ridiculed the failure of the 1884 law. Attacking the hypocrisy of

"bleeding heart" reformers, they charged that the prison faced an estimated bien-

nium deficit of $150,000 and demanded restoration of the contract system. Reed

asserted that the 1884 reforms were a product of demagoguery, while Lewis called

for punitive penal discipline and chided the senate: "There had been a great deal

of false sentiment wasted about the wrongs to the convict. Such talk was bosh. The

 

 

 

57. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1884" (1885), 194-198. There were only twelve inmates with indeterminate sen-

tences in 1884.

58. Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual Report for the Year 1885 (1886), 9-10.

59. Cincinnati Enquirer, January 13, February 4, 24, 1885. In January 1885 the chairman of

state finance committee thought there should be a 10% cut in appropriations to state institutions

because of "hard times."

• 21
 

Ohio Penal System                                                            257

 

man who knowingly and willingly violates the laws of the State should suffer

for it.... "60

The economic arguments appealed to the legislators who were more interested

in costs than in rehabilitation. According to the Enquirer, "When it was learned

this winter the immense amount of money which would be required to carry out

the [1884] law by the State ... there was immediate scheming to get it on the cheap

plan again . . ." The piece price plan was an appealing way out of the dilemma

because it required no large capital investments, no financial risks, and purportedly

sustained the 1884 rehabilitative programs by keeping convict labor under prison

supervision. Following the passage of the piece price plan on February 27, 1885,

prison managers advertised for bids to employ 300 prisoners while most prisoners

were to continue under contract labor until conversion to the new plan was com-

pleted.⁶¹

By the spring of 1885 reformers had blunted attempts to dismantle the 1884

reforms through the passage of the piece price plan. They also had used their politi-

cal leverage to secure passage of another plank of the Board of State Charities' penal

program and to press for construction of the intermediate prison. The habitual

criminal act which passed in May 1885 incorporated the English principle of longer

terms for repeating offenders by requiring a life sentence for any person convicted

of a third felony.⁶² Although the plan to fund the intermediate prison suffered a set-

back with the invalidation of the Scott law taxing the liquor trade, the Board of State

Charities believed that the legislature would appropriate adequate funds to complete

the prison. The results of a March meeting between Governor Hoadly, the board,

legislators from the joint prison committee and managers of the intermediate prison

left the impression that the "Legislature in a few days will pass an appropriate bill

to at once secure a site and erect" the reformatory. In April the legislature provided

$50,000, along with $53,000 credited to the reformatory's managers from revenues

collected from the Scott liquor tax, to begin construction of the prison.⁶³

A chorus of self-satisfaction greeted the legislation which completed the reformers'

plans for the treatment of adult felons. The Cincinnati Enquirer wrote that "Ohio

is half a century ahead of any other State in the matter of prison reform." The laws

permitted Ohio to treat crime as a disease and to give every criminal a chance to

reform. The habitual criminal act provided more protection for society. The

 

 

60. Ibid., January 23, February 4, 24, 1885; Ohio State Journal (Columbus), February 5,1885.

The bill was introduced by James Mooney (D), Representative from Cuyahoga County. Cin-

cinnati Enquirer, February 24, 1885; Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual Report for the Year

1883 (1884), 18. In its 1884 report the board argued that the state account plan was too costly

and that use of the piece price plan like the one working at the Elmira reformatory would

improve the economic situation at the prison. Ibid., Annual Report for the Year 1884 (1885),

15. In its 1885 report after the piece price plan had become law, the board pointed out that it

agreed with the popular demand that the tax payer should not be burdened, that inmates should

work, and that the prison should be "substantially self-supporting," and that experimentation with

types of convict labor should continue. Ibid., Annual Report for the Year 1885 (1886), 10.

61. Directors Journal (The Ohio Penitentiary), 520, 525, 536-537, 547. These pages include

reports of the prison managers who replaced the directors.

62. Laws of Ohio, 1885, LXXXII, 236-237.

63. Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 20, 21, April 24, 1885. The Plain Dealer stated that "there

should be no opposition to such a bill. It should be passed promptly, so that the work of location

and construction may be entered upon at the earliest possible moment." It reported the passage

of the $50,000 appropriation. The $53,000 credited to the intermediate prison was reported

by the Ohio State Journal (Columbus), March 20, 1885.

• 22
 

258                                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

Enquirer reported that through the reorganization of the penitentiary's management,

ignorance--a principal cause of crime--was to be eradicated in the prison's new

night schools. Idleness and lack of skills were to be corrected by the piece price plan

and job training. Maudling influences were to be removed. With an emphasis on

more stringent discipline the chaplain's office was to be abolished, and with the

completion of the intermediate prison more intense rehabilitation programs would

be focused on the young.⁶⁴

Roeliff Brinkerhoff believed that it would require three or four years before the

recast penal system--including the new adult reformatory--would be operating

smoothly and fulfilling the goals of the Board of State Charities' plan to increase

public security, reduce crime and rehabilitate criminals. His elation with the reforms

as well as with the strategy the reformers used were revealed in a letter to Frederick

Wines, head of the Indiana State Board of Charities and son of Enoch Cobb Wines,

the founder of the National Prison Association. Ohio reformers, Brinkerhoff wrote,

had "saddled and bridled the labor union craze [a reference to contract labor issue]

and made a docile and serviceable horse for prison reform... In Ohio by recent

legislation, the reformatory system has been authorized more than in any other

state." But Wines continued to be skeptical about "taming wild beasts" [the labor

issue] to perform reformist tricks.⁶⁵

While reformers were congratulating themselves on their achievements, attacks

on their programs were renewed. The Republican party's platform of 1885 criti-

cized the legislature for "their incompetency and extravagance in the management

of the penitentiary." In an attempt to exploit the prison's labor issue for political

advantage and the supposed annual deficit of $178,000, the Republicans charged

that the piece price plan had not remedied all the evils of the contract system, instead

the low prices charged for articles manufactured made competition with free labor

more unfair than under the old plan. Also they claimed the recent reforms had con-

verted the penitentiary from being self-sufficient to being a burden on the taxpayer.

The Republican paper concluded its election-motivated report with the query, "Has

not Ohio had all the reform it wants from those who have sailed under false colors

for two years?"⁶⁶

Within a year after the Republicans returned to the State House, partisanship sub-

verted the legislation which, in one reformer's opinion, had created in theory one

of the most complete prison systems in the United States.⁶⁷ In 1886 Republican

patronage was restored to the prison. With few exceptions the entire staff of the

 

 

 

64. Cincinnati Enquirer, May 17, 1885.

65. Frederick Wines to Albert G. Byers, July 10, 1885, Series 99A, Board of State Charities

correspondence, Ohio Historical Society. Correspondence appears only for 1884 and 1885.

Most of the letters deal with non-penal matters, conditions of charitable institutions, arrange-

ments for meetings, letters of inquiry and requests to the board. The above views of Roeliff

Brinkerhoff were found in a letter from Wines to Byers where Wines quotes Brinkerhoff's letters

to him. A search for Wines' correspondence revealed that his letters as well as those of the

Illinois Board of State Charities were destroyed.

66. Cincinnati Enquirer, June 12, 1885; Ohio State Journal (Columbus), September 15, 16,

25, 29, 1885.

67. This is the appraisal of Franklin B. Sanborn of Massachusetts, Chairman of the National

Committee upon the Work of Boards of State Charities. Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual

Report for the Year 1887 (1888), 19.

• 23
 

Ohio Penal System                                                            259

 

prison changed.68 Through the passage of "reorganization acts" successive admin-

istrations of both parties eluded the 1884 law covering tenure of prison managers.

The continued political exploitation of the penitentiary was evident in the campaign

of 1887 when Republicans accused Democratic Governor Hoadly's prison managers

of allowing "the skinning of the bodies of dead convicts" and using these hides to

make canes.⁶⁹ In anguish the Board of State Charities stated in its 1886 annual report

that "the efficiency of the penal and benevolent institutions of the State is seriously

impaired by their subordination to the exigencies of party politics. That these insti-

tutions are . . used by both political parties in Ohio to provide places for partisan

workers is an undoubted fact."⁷⁰ Under these conditions it was impossible to build

a professional staff which was needed to carry out the reformatory programs author-

ized by the legislature.

Measures aimed at promoting rehabilitation, such as classification, separation, and

job training were either ignored or impossible to carry out. The piece price plan,

as well as later labor restrictions, in practice, resulted in idleness and large deficits.

In 1891, for example, nearly a third of the prisoners were classified as nonproducers.

Prison managers constantly charged that the piece price plan's "humanitarian or re-

formatory benefits" were a "delusion" and that in reality it was a "humbug." The

piece price plan was less profitable than contract labor because its shops required

great skill and because they were wasteful since contractors would accept only per-

fect goods. The contract labor system did not end in 1887, as had been scheduled,

but continued to be an essential part of the prison regime.

Another reason for the overall collapse of the reforms was the huge increase in

the number of inmates, from 1,470 in 1885 to 2,300 thirteen years later, coupled

with the state's failure to provide facilities and staff to carry out the programs pre-

scribed by law.⁷¹ Finally, there was a breakdown of the criminal justice and correc-

tions systems based on the habitual criminal act, the indeterminate sentence, and

parole. The Board of State Charities repeatedly pointed out that prosecutors and

judges ignored the new sentencing laws and constantly accused prison officials of

misusing parole by releasing prisoners, not because they were reformed, but as a

result of political manipulation and overcrowding.⁷²

At the end of the century the Board of State Charities summarized the failure of

 

 

68. For listings of officers see: Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors

and Warden of the Ohio Penitentiary, 1885" (1886), L, Part II, 732-733; ibid., "Annual Report,

1886" (1887), LI, Part I, 778-779.

69. Pamphlet, "Brutality and Barbarism! The Skinning of Dead Convicts in the Ohio Peni-

tentiary" (n.p., [1886]).

70. Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual Report for the Year 1886 (1887), 14. For a later

comment with the same viewpoint, see Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual Report for the

Year 1891 (1892), 9.

71. Ohio, Executive Documents, "Annual Report of the Directors and Warden of the Ohio

Penitentiary, 1886" (1887), LI, Part I, 783; ibid., "Annual Report, 1891" (1892), LVI, Part II,

461. Various factors contributed to the increased incarceration. Among them were a rise in state

population and an increasing crime rate which contemporaries attributed to "hard times," immi-

gration, urbanization, and industrial growth. It should be recalled that until 1894 Ohio had

only one institution to house adult felons.

72. Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual Report for the Year 1886 (1887), 40; ibid., Annual

Report for the Year 1889 (1890), 18-21; ibid., Annual Report for the Year 1890 (1891), 35;

ibid., Annual Report for the Year 1891 (1892), 39; ibid., Annual Report for the Year 1899

(1900), 11.

• 24
 

260                                                                 OHIO HISTORY

 

its efforts to reform the local and state prison systems. The board's secretary, Joseph

P. Byers, reported that despite legislation requiring separation in jails and setting

standards for hygienic facilities, local jails remained much as his father had described

them in 1867. Although the Irish system had been adapted to the Ohio Penitentiary

to promote rehabilitation, the prison continued to be "purely a penal institution."

The Ohio Reformatory in Mansfield was still incomplete with "no special facilities

provided to enable it to perform its mission."⁷³

Public capriciousness, official neglect, political jobbery, conflicting views on the

nature of the criminal and the purpose of penal institutions, and the inertia of a

cumbersome system were at the root of the failure Byers described. Even so, re-

formers should bear their share of the blame for failure because of their inability to

maintain public concern and political leverage and because their programs suffered

from their own growing doubts that criminals could ever be rehabilitated in prison,

regardless of the conditions. Prominent reformers, such as Roeliff Brinkerhoff,

therefore increasingly emphasized ways of preventing crimes and keeping first of-

fenders out of prison, and suggested reform programs be widened to include society

as a whole.

As early as 1886 the Board of State Charities under Brinkerhoff's influence--

and certainly reflecting its frustration with the gap between legislative reforms and

penal practices--began diminishing its pressure to enforce the prison acts. They

stressed instead non-penal methods to prevent crime and reduce recidivism. This

shift in emphasis was accelerated and reinforced in the 1890' by tendencies within

other state boards of charities and the National Prison Association, which Brinker-

hoff served as president from 1894 to 1897, to turn away from prison reform toward

the broader area of social reform. The degree of this shift in Ohio was revealed at

the second meeting of the Ohio State Conference of Charities and Correction in

1892. In the midst of animated discussions on social programs to prevent crime

and reform criminals, the Committee on Penitentiaries and Jails tersely stated that

it "has nothing especially new or interesting to report."⁷⁴

Resigned to the futility of the effort and with the efficacy of their early programs

in doubt, the movement which had attempted to make prison a "moral hospital"

lost vitality. By the end of the century many prison reformers further widened their

goals for the salvation of the reformable to include a general uplift of society through

improved environmental conditions and better education. Their efforts would now

be directed toward rooting out political corruption and making public services effi-

cient and professional rather than promoting direct reform legislation for the prison

population alone. In his 1896 presidential address to the National Prison Associa-

tion Congress, Roeliff Brinkerhoff, reflecting and helping to shape that enlarging

social vision, stated that the scope of the Prison Congress had broadened consider-

ably "to include the whole range of [societial] subjects which enters into the suppres-

sion or prevention of crime...."75 As reformers adopted this broader vision of so-

cial perfection, the penal system in Ohio was left to flounder in the customary cross-

currents of public whims, political patronage, official self-interest, and institutional

inertia.

 

73. Ohio Board of State Charities, The Ohio Bulletin of Charities and Correction, 1900

(1900), VI, No. 2, 22-25.

74. Ohio Board of State Charities, Annual Report for the Year 1892 (1893), 380.

75. Annual Congress of the National Prison Association: Proceedings, 1896 (Pittsburgh,

1897), 13.

• 25
 



• 26
 



• 27