Ohio History Journal
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
THE HISTORY OF PENAL INSTITUTIONS IN
OHIO TO 1850*
BY CLARA
BELLE HICKS, M. A.
THE EARLY TERRITORIAL PERIOD
The History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio properly
begins with the first settlements in
the great North-
west Territory. The development of institutions in
a frontier colony naturally depends to
a large ex-
tent upon the character of the settlers
and the need for
such institutions.
The first settlers arrived at Marietta,
the first perma-
nent settlement in Ohio, on April 7,
1788.1 They came
under the auspices of the Ohio Company,
a company
composed of prominent citizens of New
England, or-
ganized expressly for the purpose of
establishing a
pioneer settlement in the Northwest
Territory.2 The
boundaries of the County of Washington
in which
Marietta was located were created July
25, 1788 by
Governor St. Clair and they included
nearly half of
Ohio. On July 2, 1788 the town was
named Marietta
in honor of Marie Antoinette, Queen of
France.3 The
great majority of the settlers were
from New England
and brought with them characteristics
and ideals of that
section.4 George Washington was
personally acquain-
ted with several of the early settlers
and he believed
* A thesis presented for the degree of
Master of Arts in Ohio State
University, prepared under the direction
of Professor Carl Wittke, Ph. D.
1 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio II,
459.
2 Hildreth, Pioneer History of the
Ohio Valley, 193-202, 206.
3 Ryan, History of Ohio, ch. III,
43.
4 Ibid., 35, 36
(359)
360 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
they represented men who would build up
a great com-
monwealth.5 The members of
the Ohio Company,
familiar with the progress and benefits
of education in
New England were interested in
promoting education
in the new west and one of their first
acts was the found-
ing of a library.6 The settlement
seems to have been
singularly free from that lawless and
adventurous ele-
ment so generally found in frontier communities.7
For many years Marietta grew and flourished due
to the character of its inhabitants and
their ideals of
thrift and industry.8 This is
confirmed by reading the
Journal of T. M. Harris which he kept
during a tour
into the Northwest Territory.9
While the influence of the sturdy New
England
people was being felt so strongly at
Marietta, other parts
of the Territory were being explored
and settled by
5 Ford, The Writings of George
Washington, XI, 282. In a letter
dated June 19, 1788, written to Richard
Henderson, Washington says,
"No colony in America was ever
settled under more favorable auspices,
as that which has just been commenced at
the Muskingum. Informa-
tion, property and strength will be its
characteristics. I know many of
the settlers personally, and there never
were men better calculated to
promote the welfare of such a
community."
6 Ryan, History of Ohio, 36.
"The Directors of the Ohio Company
at Brackett's Tavern requested the
settlers to 'pay as early attention as
possible to education of youth and among
the first enterprises of the
pioneers was a library'." Also cf. Atwater, The General
Characteristics
of the People of Ohio, 14-17; Hildreth, Early History of the Northwest,
233; also Hildreth, Pioneer History
of the Ohio Valley, 203, 261.
7 Ryan, History of Ohio, 35, 36.
8 Thwaites, Early Western Travels, XIX,
34. Ogden's Letters from
the West (1821-23). Among these letters is one dated May 7,
1821, con-
taining the following, "It
(Marietta) was until within a few years one
of the most flourishing towns of the
State, and even rivalled Cincinnati
in the taste and elegance of its
buildings, enterprising spirit of its inhab-
itants and the commercial energies which
pervaded the people."
9 Harris, The Journal of a Tour into
the Northwest Territory, 58,
59. On June 6, 1803, Harris writes,
"The industrious habits and neat
improvements of the people are
strikingly contrasted with those of the
east. Here in Ohio they are intelligent,
industrious and thriving. . . .
Most of the "Backwoods' men,' as
they are sometimes called are emi-
grants from foreign countries, but the
State of Ohio was settled by
people from New England, The Region
of Industry, Economy, and
Steady habits."
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 361
pioneers of different origin.10 The
French were scat-
tered along the Ohio and Pennsylvanians
of Irish and
German origin settled at Cincinnati and
between the
Miamis but the section known as the
Western Reserve
which was settled later,11 and the
Muskingum Valley
were settled by the same New England
stock as settled
Marietta. The influence of the South
was felt in the
Scioto Valley which was settled almost
entirely by
Virginians and Kentuckians.12
Among the leaders in the government of
the North-
west Territory were men of rather
exceptional knowl-
edge and ability. Congress had
appointed Arthur St.
Clair as governor and he, together with
James M. Var-
num from Massachusetts, Samuel Parsons
from Con-
necticut and John Armstrong from
Pennsylvania, the
first judges in the Northwest
Territory, assumed direc-
tion of the first government as
provided under the Ordi-
nance of 1787.13 Parsons was a graduate
of Harvard
and had served as a general in the
Revolution. Arm-
strong, a former student at Princeton,
had been a major
in the American Revolution. Varnum, a
graduate of
Brown, had served as an officer in the
Continental Army
and had also been a member of the
Continental Con-
gress.14
The Puritan ideals of these early New
England set-
tlers of the Northwest Territory, and
the influence of
these highly educated leaders in the
government, with-
out doubt lessened the tendency of the
community to
10 Howells, Stories of Ohio, 78.
11 Ryan, History of Ohio, 78.
12 Ibid., 56.
13 Ordinance of 1787--Sections
3, 4, also cf. Randall and Ryan,
History of Ohio, II, 463.
14 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio,
II, 463.
362 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
crime. There is much contemporary
evidence to the
effect that there was very little or no
crime at first.15
According to all accounts the first
court held in the
Northwest Territory was the court of
common pleas
sitting at Campus Martius in Marietta,
September 2,
1788, where it is probable that the
sessions of the court
continued to be held for a number of
years.16 A notable
procession formed at the Point, where
most of the set-
tlers resided and proceeded to the
appointed place. The
court was opened by prayer by Rev. Dr.
Manasseh
Cutler, himself one of the directors of
the Ohio Company
who was a visitor in Marietta at that
time. "Happily
for the credit of the people," if
we may believe the state-
ment of General Putnam, "there was
no suit either civil
or criminal brought before the
court."17
The early courts held in the Northwest
Territory
resembled the old Anglo-Saxon courts of
England.
They served not only as agencies to
administer justice
among the pioneers, but incidentally,
also furnished the
occasion for social gatherings in a
frontier community
where these opportunities for social
intercourse were
all too few. The courts were held annually
until a law
15 Hildreth, Pioneer History of the
Ohio Valley and the Northwest
Territory, 515. In the appendix following the description of the
Fourth
of July celebration of 1788 these words
are found, "One fact is certain,
that from the first settlement to this
moment no one of the settlers hath
died or been killed, nor hath there so
much as a horse been stolen.
"The people are in good health,
high spirits, and extremely happy;
and they want nothing to complete their
felicity, but their tender com-
panions whom they have left beyond the
mountains, to participate with
them in the rising glories of the
western world."
16 Andrews, Notes and Quotations from
the Unbound Manuscripts
in Marietta College Library, 33.
17 Cf. Andrews, Washington County and
Early Settlements of Ohio,
34--for the above quotation; Hildreth, Pioneer
History of the Ohio
Valley and Northwest Territory, 232; also King, Ohio, 235; Hinsdale,
The Old Northwest, 277, 278; Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, 52; Abbott,
History of Ohio, 302, 303; American Pioneer, 1, May, 1842, 163.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 363
was passed, November 6, 1790, by which
four sessions
a year were required.18
According to a law passed at Marietta,
August 30,
1788,19 the judges were given authority
to hold these
early courts, as settlements were made
throughout the
Northwest Territory, at such places as
they might de-
cide would be for the public good.
Because of the wide
extent of the boundaries of the
Territory, the judges
in their annual rounds of the courts had
to make long
and most trying journeys to reach the
points where
courts were convened. Often they would
travel almost
a hundred miles without seeing an
inhabited house and
this together with other hardships
encountered in trav-
ersing forests, swamps, and plains,
tested their physical
endurance to the limit. However, the
warm welcome ac-
corded them by the Indians on the
wayside and the set-
tlers wherever they went, and the
different forms of
pioneer entertainment afforded them help
to keep up
their spirits.20 Such men as
Hammond, Corwin and
Ewing derived their early training from
such experi-
ences.21
W. C. Howells, in Recollections of
Life in Ohio refers
to the fact that the early settlers
often went to law, for
reasons that today would seem
trivial. Many cases
were first gone over by the church
authorities and if
the accuser was disappointed in the
outcome he would
take his case to the courts. The church
trial was in-
expensive and even the cost of a
law-suit was so small
18 Chase, Statutes of Ohio and the
Northwest Territory, Ch. XV,
Nov. 6, 1790.
19 Chase, Statutes of Ohio and the
Northwest Territory, Ch. IV, 97,
Aug. 30, 1788--A law, fixing terms of general court.
20 Burnet, Notes on the Northwestern
Territory, 63-75.
21 King, Ohio, 304.
364
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
that men of moderate means did not
hesitate to avail
themselves of it. Slander was one of
the main causes
of litigation. As Mr. Howells says,
"The trials served
to break the monotony of country life
and sometimes
spiced it to a high degree."22
It has been pointed out above that the
standard of
morals among the early pioneers was
generally high,
nevertheless cases of slander and
intemperance some-
times required the attention of the
court. Heavy drink-
ing was characteristic of certain
elements in the frontier
settlements. In one particular instance
a judge of the
court sentenced those guilty of
intemperance to digging
up a stump from the public
thoroughfare.23 In some
cases the fines and penalties were
quite disproportionate
to the offense. The early penal codes
of the territory
inflicted the barbarous penalties that
had distinguished
English law and law in the colonies,24
for centuries
before, and continued on our
statute-books, in many
states for several decades longer. More
than one of-
fender was condemned to death for petty
larceny.25
The court also served as a price-fixing
agency. It
could determine the price at which
certain articles
might be sold; a half-pint of whisky at
$15; corn at $10
a gallon; lodging in a featherbed, $6;
a "diet," $12; and
stable or pasturage for one night,
$4.26
The settlement of Cincinnati, on the
Symmes Pur-
chase, was begun in October, 1788. This
community
was settled largely by Kentuckians.27
Cincinnati, be-
22 Howells, Recollections of Life in
Ohio, 157, 158.
23 Clark, The Picturesque Ohio, Ch.
IV, 71.
24 Channing,
History of the United States, II, 393.
25 Clark, The Picturesque Ohio, Ch.
IV, 71.
26 Ibid., 71.
27 Chase, Statutes of Ohio and
Northwest Territory, Preliminary
Sketch of Ohio, 21, 22.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 365
cause of its strategic location, soon
became a garrison
town and the drinking and gambling of
some of its
soldier population was believed by many
to have a bad
influence upon the pioneers.
Nevertheless the court
held in a large room of a tavern does
not seem to have
been burdened by an exceptionally heavy
docket.28
Andrews says, "As early as 1792
the court of Quar-
ter Sessions submitted estimates for a
court house and
jail--$1000 for each. In 1793 Thomas
Lord was
directed to take a log house near
Campus Martius and
fit it up for a jail."29
The above quotation leads one to
believe there must
have been some law-breakers at that
time to warrant
providing for a court house and jail.
Also in 1794 the
lack of a "sufficient jail for the
reception of Debtors and
Criminals" was greatly deplored by
Ebenezer Batelle.30
In 1798 the court house and jail of
Washington
County was begun. The structure was completed
in
1799, the oldest of its kind in the
state of Ohio. One
portion of it was used as a jail. It
was well built and
was regarded for a long time as one of
the strongest
prisons of the state.31
In accordance with the Ordinance of 178732
Gover-
nor St. Clair with the aid of the
judges had the authority
to select for the Northwest Territory
such laws from
28 Black, Story of Ohio, 110, 111.
29 Andrews, Washington County and the
Early Settlements of Ohio,
34, 35.
30 Statement
of Batelle is quoted in Andrews, Notes and Quotations
from Unbound Manuscripts in Marietta College Library, 33.
31 American Pioneer, I, 163, May, 1842. As proof of the strength
of the prison S. P. Hildreth says in his article
written for the American
Pioneer on
February 16, 1842, "No prisoner has ever escaped from its
cells except from the carelessness of
the jailer. It was and is one of the
strongest prisons of the state."
32 The Ordinance of 1787--Section 5.
|
|
|
(366) |
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 367
the codes of the original states as
might seem best suited
to the conditions of the new country.
Congress, how-
ever, reserved the power to repeal
them. Governor St.
Clair realized fully the importance of
this part of his
duties. As a matter of fact, the
governor and judges,
when satisfactory laws could not be
found on the statute-
books of the older states suited to the
conditions of the
new country, supplied the want by
enactments of their
own. An examination of the laws from
1788 to the
period when Ohio entered the Union as a
state (1803)
reveals that most laws were adopted
from the codes of
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and
Connecticut. A few
were taken from those of New Jersey,
New York, Vir-
ginia and Kentucky. Among the earliest
laws (1788)
were provisions for the organization of
the militia, for
the establishment of inferior courts
and for the punish-
ment of crime.33
A law respecting crimes and their
punishment was
published by Governor St. Clair and
Judges Parsons
and Varnum at Marietta, September 6,
1788. Although
up to this time the settlers were in
general a law abiding
people, they felt the necessity of
creating laws that
would, if possible, totally suppress
crime. In their
efforts to do this the modes of
punishment were ex-
tremely severe. However, we find that
these methods
were used in New England long before
the Northwest
Territory was settled and it was natural
that they should
try to apply them to the conditions in
their new settle-
ment.
The sentences inflicted upon offenders
against the
laws included whipping, confinement in
stocks and pil.
33 Chase, Statutes of Ohio and the
Northwest Territory, 19.
368 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
lories, binding out to service,
commitment to gaols, pay-
ment of fines and forfeiture of life
and property.
Provision was made that a person
convicted of arson
might be whipped not exceeding
thirty-nine stripes;
placed in the pillory not exceeding the
space of two
hours; confined in the gaol not
exceeding three years
and forfeit all his estate to the
territory. If a death
should ensue from burning, a death
penalty could be
imposed.34 For larceny, the
penalty for the first offense
was the return to the owner of two-fold
value of the
things stolen, or if not recovered, a
whipping not ex-
ceeding thirty-nine stripes. If the offender had no
property, the offender could be bound
out to hard labor
for a term not exceeding seven years to
anyone who
would discharge the sentence.35
Housebreaking was, of course, a
punishable crime.
If accompanied by personal abuse, or if
the intruder
was armed, proving an intention of
violence--then in
addition to the ordinary fine the
offender's property was
confiscated and a sentence of
imprisonment as long as
forty years might be inflicted.36
Drunkenness was also
considered a crime. The penalty for the
first offense
being a fine of "five dimes"
and for every succeeding
offense one dollar. For refusal or
neglect to pay the
fine, the offender was set in the
stocks for the space of
one hour.37 Later provision
was also made for the
punishment of drunkenness.38
34 Laws of the Northwest Territory,
I, 18-21.
35 Ibid., 23-25.
36 Laws of the Northwest Territory, I, 19-23.
37 Ibid., 27.
38 Chase, Statutes of Ohio and the
Northwest Territory, Ch.
XCVIII, 98.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 369
New England regard for parental
authority was
most apparent, in section 19 of the law
of 1788 which
provided that disobedient children or
servants might be
sent to a gaol or house of correction
until they should
humble themselves. Moreover, if any
child or servant
should strike his parent or master,
upon conviction
the offender should be whipped not
exceeding ten
stripes.39
The New England method of observing the
Sab-
bath was urged upon the settlers of the
early territorial
period from the beginning. In Section
22 of the law just
referred to, it was "therefore
enjoined that all servile
labor, works of necessity and charity
only excepted be
wholly abstained from on this
day."40 Some years
later, 1799, in an act for the
prevention of vice and im-
morality, provision was made for
similar observance
of the first day of the week.
Accordingly a small fine
was imposed upon the offender. If the
fine could not
be paid, the offender was to be committed
to the charge
of the supervisor of the highways to
work out his fine.
Provisions were also made for the
suppression of pro-
fanity.41
As an example of the speedy justice
meted out to a
person guilty of crime in pioneer times
the case of
Paddy Grimes is interesting. He was a
member of the
Miami Settlement. Having been found
guilty of rob-
bing a truck patch he was sentenced to
receive twenty-
nine lashes and the penalty was
inflicted the same day.42
39 Laws of the Northwest Territory, 26.
40 Laws of the Northwest Territory, I, 30; also cf. Chase, Statutes
of Ohio and the Northwest Territory, 101.
41 Laws of the Northwest Territory, I, 28; Chase, Statutes of Ohio
and the Northwest Territory, Ch. XCIV, 98.
42 Burnet, Notes on the Northwest
Territory, 57.
Vol. XXXIII -- 24.
370 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
On August 5, 1792, an act passed at
Cincinnati,
which was then the seat of government,
provided that,
"There shall be erected and
established in each and
every county not having the same
already established
therein, a good and convenient
court-house for the legal
adjudication of causes and a strong and
sufficient com-
mon jail or prison for the reception
and confinement of
debtors and criminals, well secured by
timber, iron bars,
grates, bolts and locks and also a
pillory, whipping-
post and so many stocks as may be
convenient for the
punishment of offenders and every jail
to be erected
shall have two departments, one of
which shall be ap-
propriated to the reception of debtors
and the other
shall be used for the safe keeping of
persons convicted
of crimes."43
Punishment by whipping appears to have
been the
sentence most often inflicted and thus
we may draw the
conclusion that the judges considered
it an effective
penalty. In 178844 according to the law
the maximum
number of stripes was thirty-nine, and
according to
Andrews, by a state law of 1805,
fifty-nine stripes might
be inflicted for robbery and 100 for a
second offense.
It is also stated that as late as 1811,
fifty stripes might
be the sentence for destroying fruit
trees.45 There is
every evidence that this primitive New
England type
of punishment was not only
characteristic of the early
territorial period but also that these
barbarous emblems
of terror were employed in Ohio down to
1812.46
43 Laws of the Northwest Territory, 1792, 26.
44 Laws of the Northwest Territory,
I, passim 23-31.
45 Andrews, Washington County and Early Settlements of
Ohio, 37.
46 According to Powell, in Historic
Towns of Western States,
"Almost before the seeds of New
England harvests had germinated in
the virgin soil, Marietta had her
pillory, whipping post and stocks for
the discipline of evil-doers,
instruments of torture which lingered as late
as 1812"; also Smith, The St.
Clair Papers, I, 147.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 371
LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE OHIO
PENITENTIARY
Return Jonathan Meigs, who was governor
of Ohio
from 1811 to 1813, in his annual
message of De-
cember 3, 1811, to the State
Legislature meeting at
Zanesville discussed the expediency of
the establishment
of a State Prison.1 This
is the first record of any sug-
gestion by a governor that the State
provide a place
for the incarceration and punishment of
its criminals.
During the sessions of this same Legislature
an
offer to donate to the State two plots
of land of ten acres
each was made by a company composed of
Lyne Star-
ling, John Kerr, Alexander McLaughlin,
and James
Johnston. On one of these a State House
was to be
erected, and on the other, a State
Prison. This offer
was contingent on the establishment of
the permanent
seat of government on the lands of the
donors located
on the east bank of the Scioto River
nearly opposite
Franklinton.2 The
Legislature by an act passed Feb-
ruary 14, 1812 voted to accept these
proposals and in
accordance with them a town which was
destined to
become the city of Columbus was
surveyed and laid out
under the supervision of a State
Director who was pro-
vided for in the act, and the plot of
land was set apart
on which the State Prison was to be
erected. Included in
1 Senate
Journal, 1812, 8, 9. In his message
Governor Meigs says,
To your reflections on this subject is
submitted the expediency of estab-
lishing by law a state prison, upon a
suitable plan and under wholesome
regulations. . . . A small portion of
that part of revenue which
goes into the county treasuries would
soon complete a state prison."
2 Laws of Ohio, 1812, X, 92-94. An act fixing and establishing
permanent and temporary seats of government.
372 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the proposals of this company was an
offer of $50,0003
toward the construction of a State
House and State
Prison.4
A resolution passed by the General
Assembly Feb-
ruary 18, 1812, authorized the
appointment of a com-
mittee whose duty it should be to
devise a plan for the
construction of the State House and the
Penitentiary
and to decide upon the materials to be
used.5 Two days
later, February 20, 1812, the Legislature
agreed that
the State Director of Public Buildings
should select the
squares and sites where the buildings
were to be located,
and proceed to their construction
according to the plans
of the committee. These plans related
only to the size
of the prison building itself and to a
surrounding wall--
the details should "be regulated
by said director accord-
ing to the most approved models of
modern architecture,
so as to combine, as far as possible,
elegance, con-
venience, strength and
durability."6
The State Legislature having passed the
necessary
preliminary measures, the first
penitentiary building
in Ohio was begun in 1813 and completed
in 1815. It
was erected on the ten-acre lot which
had been selected
for that purpose and which had been
conveyed to the
State by the original proprietors of
the town for the
erection of the penitentiary and its
dependent buildings.
3 By authority of the Legislature
granted January 28, 1817 (in an
act to provide for adjusting the account
between the Proprietors of the
town of Columbus and the state for
erecting public buildings--Laws of
Ohio, 1817, 171-173) the Governor was authorized to pay to
the pro-
prietors the additional cost for the
construction of these buildings which
amounted to $31,274; House Journal, 1830-31,
120--Report of Standing
Committee on Penitentiary.
4 Laws of Ohio, 1817, 171-173; Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 22.
5 Law of
Ohio, 1812, X, 198-199.
8 Ibid., 199.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 373
It was located in the southwest corner
of the town
fronting on Scioto Street. William
Ludlow, the state
director, had charge of its
construction. Michael Pat-
ton undertook the carpenter work and
Benjamin Thomp-
son, the mason work.7 The
structure was built of brick
upon a stone foundation with stone
walls projecting in
a line with the front--fifty feet on
each side. The
building was sixty feet in length by
thirty feet in width.8
Including the basement which was partly
underground
it was three stories high. The basement
which was
divided into three parts was used for a
cellar, kitchen,
and dining room for the prisoners. The
second story
which was entered by high steps from
the street was
used as the Keeper's residence. The
third floor was
used for the prisoners only and it was
laid off into thir-
teen cells -- there
being nine light ones and four dark
ones. The third floor and basement
could only be
entered from the interior of the yard.9
The area of
the prison yard including the site of
the building was
approximately one hundred and sixty
feet by one hun-
dred feet, and was enclosed by a stone
wall fifteen feet
high.10
Upon the completion of the penitentiary
building
which was essentially, in 1815, nothing
more than a
state prison, and the passing of a law
for the punish-
ment of crime, January 27,
1815,11 (the first statute in
7 Martin, History of Franklin County,
348; Studer, Columbus, Ohio,
368.
8 Laws of Ohio, 1812, X, 199.
9 Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 368,
369; Martin, History of Franklin
County, 368, 369.
10 Laws of Ohio, 1812, X, 199; Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 369; Ac-
cording to Martin, History of
Franklin County, 348--the contractor in
charge of the construction of the wall
was Colonel McDonald of Ross
County.
11 "Laws of Ohio, 1815, Ch. XXVIII, 85 ff.
374
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Ohio providing for punishment in the
penitentiary) the
penitentiary system was officially
introduced into Ohio.
Crimes which prior to this time had
been punishable
by whipping were now punishable by
imprisonment.12
For example, section 13 of the new law
provided that
a person convicted for arson should be
imprisoned for
a term varying from one to fifteen
years.13
The first prisoners, two brothers, Jack
and David
Evans, whose ages were nineteen and
twenty years,
respectively, having been convicted of
assault and bat-
tery with intent to murder and rob were
committed to
the penitentiary on August 8, 1815.14
With their re-
ception the penitentiary system was
definitely put into
operation in Ohio.
The original building was used as a
prison but
three years, a new one being
constructed in 1818. With-
in little more than a year after its
completion the Board
of Inspectors in a report made November
24, 1816,
mentioned "the absolute necessity
of enlarging the peni-
tentiary within the ensuing
year."15 On December 7,
1816 Samuel Persons, President of the
Board of In-
spectors reported that it would not
accommodate con-
veniently, including its dark cells,
more than sixty men
--exclusive of the dark cells, only
fifty men. By
comparing the number received in the
first year with
the average time of their imprisonment,
and, without
allowing an additional number of the
natural increase
in the state's population, Persons
estimated that in
three and one half years there would
probably be one
12 Ibid., passim, 85-105.
13 Ibid., 90-91. Cf. Ch. I, 9 of the present works.
14 House Journal, 1816, 63; Dyer, History of the Ohio Penitentiary, 8.
15 House Journal, 1816, 62.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 375
hundred and ten prisoners. Therefore,
on December 7,
1816, he advised that the prison be
enlarged by twenty
additional cells and also that the
prison yard be ex-
tended.16
In accordance with the recommendations
of the
Board of Inspectors the General
Assembly17 asked Gov-
ernor Worthington to obtain the
services of a compe-
tent architect who should draw plans
for the erection of
a new penitentiary and a building for
work shops. This
proposed penitentiary was to
accommodate one hundred
prisoners and was to be built only
after studying other
prisons throughout the country, which
might serve as
models for the Ohio Institution.
Through correspond-
ence18 with Thomas Bradford,
Jr., Inspector of the
State Prison of Pennsylvania, a plan
for such a build-
ing was received. The aims of safety,
health of the
prisoners, and economy in
administration were care-
fully observed in this plan. It also
included the prin-
ciple of solitary confinement.19 On
January 3, 1818,
provision was made by the State
Legislature for the
erection of the new Prison and a strong
brick building
to be used for work shops. Provision
was also made
for the use of convict labor in the
work.20
16 House Journal, 1816,
63. Also cf. chart opposite page 63
which
contains a list of the names of
thirty-three prisoners who were confined
in the penitentiary on December 5, 1816,
together with data regarding their
age, crime for which committed, term of
imprisonment including sen-
tence to solitary confinement; county
from which they came, distance and
cost of transportation, etc. It was
compiled by the keeper, James Kooken.
17 "Laws of Ohio, XV,
239, 240.
18 House Journal, 1818, 65--for copy of Governor Worthington's
letter of July 11, 1817, to Thomas
Bradford. For a copy of Bradford's
letter dated December 26, 1817, in
response to Governor Worthington's
request, see Senate Journal, 1818,
208-213. Bradford also encloses a
letter from Benjamin Rush which is an
argument for solitary confine-
ment.
19 Senate Journal, 1818, 209-211.
20 Laws of Ohio, XVI, 57-59.
376 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
The new Prison built in 1818 was
located near the
old one -- and like the former was made
of brick upon
a stone foundation. In size it was one
hundred and
fifty feet long by thirty-six feet
wide.21 It was a two
story structure with center hall-ways
eight feet wide
on either side of which the fifty-four
cells were located.
There was also a dining room and
kitchen on the first
floor and a hospital on the second
floor. Below the sur-
face of the ground under the floor
there were five dark
and solitary cells which could only be
entered through
a trap-door in the hall. No provision
was made for
heating or ventilating these cells. The
outside wall of
the new prison was extended to four
hundred feet by
one hundred and sixty feet, and was
three feet in thick-
ness with a plank walk on its top and a
hand rail on its
inner side. The work shops were placed
near the center
of the enclosed yard.23 The
original prison building of
1815 was reconstructed to serve as a
residence for the
keeper.24
A number of the convicts were employed
in grading
and digging down the hills of the
elevated ground on
which the prison was located, and in
levelling and gravel-
ling the yard. Others who had
experience in such work
were used in preparing iron materials
for the new
prison.25 The total cost of this new
penitentiary built
in 1818, including the expenses
incurred in erecting a
21 Ibid., 57.
22 Prison Discipline Society --
Annual Report for June 1, 1827, 83;
cf. Lee, History of Columbus, 578; Studer,
Columbus, Ohio,369, Martin,
History of Franklin County, 351.
23 Laws of Ohio, XVI, 57; Martin, History of Franklin County, 351.
24 Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 369.
25 House
Journal, 1819, 121-124, a report in
regard to enlarging the
penitentiary.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 377
building for additional workshops at
that time, amounted
to $33,391.26
From the year 1822 the Institution
hitherto known
as the State Prison or Penitentiary was
to be designated
as "The Ohio Penitentiary" in
all business and legal
matters.27
The number of persons committed to the
penitentiary
increased so rapidly that by 1826
Governor Morrow
felt the necessity of bringing the
conditions existing at
the Ohio Penitentiary to the attention
of the Legislature
in his annual message. He pointed out
that because of
the insufficient size of the
penitentiary he had exercised
too free use of his power of pardon in
order to make
room for new convicts. As a remedy for
this condition
he felt that "more capacious
prisons" must be planned.
Owing to the then existing lack of
State funds he did
not agree with the suggestion of some
that a new site
should be sought with the hope of
making the prison
self-supporting.28 Governor
Trimble in his annual mes-
sage to the General Assembly in 1827
again suggests
the "propriety of enlarging the
prison buildings or of
erecting a new prison on a more
improved plan."29
The Standing Committee on the
Penitentiary in its
report of December 22, 1820, reported
"The Peniten-
tiary is of too small a size to
contain the number of
convicts necessary; it is insufficient
as a place of con-
finement and safekeeping or of punishment and reform-
ation. It has been and if continued in the present con-
26 House Journal, 1830-31, 121, A report of Standing Committee on
the Penitentiary.
27 Laws of Ohio, 1822, 44.
28 House Journal, 1827,
23, Governor Morrow's message was deliv-
ered on December 6, 1826.
29 House Journal, 1827-1828, 21.
378
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
dition, must continue to be expensive
to the State, whilst
similar Institutions in other States,
are productive and
yield a revenue."30 As a result of
the committee's in-
vestigation the conclusion was reached
that it was ad-
visable to provide a new prison
building sufficiently large
to accommodate at least five hundred
prisoners. The old
buildings had been poorly constructed
and were now in
such a state of dilapidation that
prisoners were often
able to escape from the cells and
sometimes from the
prison itself. The committee also
favored the introduc-
tion of the Auburn plan of solitary
confinement which
would be impossible according to the
plan of construction
of the old building.31 The
conclusions of this Committee
were supported by the Keeper's annual
report of Feb-
ruary 28, 1831, in which he pointed out
that for six
years it had been generally agreed that
a complete
renovation of the prison and its form
of management
was necessary.32 The fact
that most of the work shops
had been destroyed by a fire of
incendiary origin in
October, 1830, added to the need for
new and better
equipment.33
Governor McArthur in his annual message
of Decem-
ber 6, 1821, presented a detailed account
of the situation
based on a personal investigation of
the State Prison.
He emphasized the fact that the
location of the prison
on uneven ground was not desirable;
that the buildings
were too dilapidated to be worth
repairing and also
much too small; and that as
constructed, it was a school
of vice, since it was impossible to
isolate the convicts.
30 House Journal, 1830-31, 115.
31 House Journal, 1830-31,
115-122.
32 Senate Journal, 1831, passim 493, 497.
33 House Journal, 1830-31 in Annual Report of the Keeper, pages
33, 34.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 379
He advised that a new site be secured
and that a new
penitentiary be built upon the Auburn
or Wethersfield
plan.34
M. T. Williams, Alfred Kelley, and
Ebenezer Buck-
ingham, commissioners appointed to view
a site for a
new penitentiary, reported February 13,
1831, after
careful investigation, in favor of
removing the prison
from Columbus. They arrived at their
conclusions after
fully considering the possibility of
establishing two
State Prisons, one at Akron and the
other at Dayton,
points geographically located so as to
lessen the cost of
transportation of convicts, but finally
abandoned this
plan because of the additional cost of
construction and
operation of two prisons. The
comparative advantages
of three places other than Columbus
were then con-
sidered, Cincinnati, Rockville and
Zanesville. The
commissioners reported in favor of
Zanesville because
it was a rapidly growing manufacturing
town favorably
situated for commerce.35
The elaborate and minute report of the
commis-
sioners was, however, ignored by the
legislature, and an
act for the establishment of a new
penitentiary was
passed February 8, 1832, providing that
it be erected
at Franklinton or Columbus. Another
provision of
this act was the election by the
General Assembly of
three directors of the new penitentiary
whose compensa-
tion per year was to be $100 each.
These directors were
to secure a site for the new prison and
to appoint a
superintendent of buildings whose
salary was not to
34 Senate Journal, 1832, 9.
35 House Journal, 1831, passim, 456-485.
380 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
exceed $1000 per year. The latter was
to secure a plan
for the penitentiary and superintend
its construction,
including the contracting for all
materials and the hiring
of the necessary labor.36
The Directors reported December 6,
1832, that after
having carefully considered the
advantages of the sites
proposed and the generous donations
that had been
offered, they had concluded to select
the site37 on the
east bank of the Scioto River and north
of Columbus.
In securing a title to the site some
unexpected difficulties
arose. However, the board of directors
made an agree-
ment with five
"public-spirited" citizens of Columbus,
namely, Joseph Ridgway, Jr., Otis
Crosby, Samuel
Crosby and W. D. Deshler, who in
consideration of
$750,000 succeeded in purchasing
fifteen acres of land
from the original proprietors who were
living in Phila-
delphia. A deed for this plot of ground
which con-
tinues to be the site of the
penitentiary was transferred
to the State on October 7, 1832. The
cost of the whole
site, including a small piece of land
adjoining the fifteen
acres which was desired for the purpose
of securing a
good landing on the river bank,
amounted to eight hun-
dred dollars.38
In May, 1832, Nathaniel Medbery was
appointed
superintendent of buildings. Soon after
contracts were
36 Laws of Ohio, XVI, Ch. XXIII, 57-59.
37 The site was wisely selected as is
shown by the following quota-
tion from Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary)
1833-1850 in Annual
Report of Directors for December 10,
1834, p. 3, "The progress of the
work has been greatly facilitated by
some advantages in the site of the
Prison, not anticipated at the time of
its selection. Excellent clay for
brick making is found within the Prison
yard; and an abundant supply
of sand, and of good quality, is also
found upon the Prison ground.
The value of the sand alone, in the
construction of the buildings and
walls of this institution, is more than
twice as great as the whole cost
to the State of the Prison site of
fifteen acres."
38 House Journal, 1833, 43-46.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 381
made for stone and brick for this
prison.39 One of the
Directors visited the Auburn Prison in
New York, that
of Wethersfield in Connecticut and
the Prison of
Charlestown, Massachusetts. It was
decided to base the
plan of the Ohio Penitentiary upon that
of the Wethers-
field prison, and the Superintendent of
Buildings fol-
lowed this decision, in the main,
although in some details
the plan was changed and somewhat
improved.40
The building, constructed under the
direction of
Superintendent Medbery according to the
adopted plan,
was four hundred feet long. The
residence for the
keeper and the guard room were in the
center. The
building contained seven hundred cells.
The surround-
ing walls were twenty-four feet high.41
The New
Penitentiary was in process of building
from March,
183342 to 1837 when the Directors
declared it completed
in their Annual Report of December 12,
1837.43 A
building which contained a
well-appointed hospital44 was
erected in 1833. The Penitentiary itself
was so far
completed that the prisoners were
transferred to it on
October 28 and 29, 1834, and Nathaniel
Medbery, the
first warden, as provided for by act of February
8, 1832,
was duly installed.45
In 1837 a building was provided for
women pris-
39 Ibid., 45.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid., 46.
42 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850, Report of William
W. Gault, Keeper of Ohio Penitentiary,
November 15, 1833, 3.
43 Ibid., Annual Report of Directors, December 12, 1837, 4.
44 Lewis, The Development of American
Prisons and Prison Customs,
263. Lewis in this book mentions the
fact that when Gerrish Barrett
visited the Ohio Prison in 1843-44, as a
representative of the Prison
Discipline Society, he said of this
hospital, "One of the best planned
hospitals that I ever saw is in this
Prison."
45 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850, Report of Direc-
tors, December 10, 1834, 4.
382
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
oners to the east of the main building.
This was equip-
ped with eleven cells and could
accommodate as many
more. In addition there were rooms in
this building
where the women followed various
employments during
the day.46
The final cost of the penitentiary was
$93,370.50 in-
cluding 1,113,462 days of convict labor47
(estimated
cost $78,428). All materials and
equipment from the
old building, which were useful in the
new, were trans-
ferred.48 The Penitentiary
as constructed was well
built and the materials used were the
best that could
be obtained. The plan followed the most
approved
methods and theories of prison
management. The new
equipment now afforded the opportunity
to put into
practice a long desired change in
methods and manage-
ment.
The disposal of the original
penitentiary lot donated
to the state was the cause of much
contention and long
discussion. Being no longer in use for
the penitentiary
buildings, should it revert to the
original proprietors or
their heirs, or remain the property of
the state? The
question having been carried from one
court to another
through a long term of years was
finally decided in
favor of the state and by an act of the
Legislature in
1856 the Governor was ordered to have
the land laid
off in lots and sold. The next
Legislature voted one
thousand dollars ($1000), on her
petition, to Martha
46 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850, Annual Report of
Directors, December 12, 1837, 4.
47 Ibid.
48 Studer, Columbus,
Ohio, 371.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 383
McLaughlin, widow of Alexander
McLaughlin, one of
the donors of the land.49
THE FIRST PERIOD IN THE HISTORY OF THE
OHIO
PENITENTIARY (1815-1834)
The organization of the first
Penitentiary of Ohio
took place in August, 1815, when the
building was com-
pleted and ready for the reception of
prisoners. By
an act1 passed in January of the same
year the General
Assembly by a joint ballot elected a
Board of Five In-
spectors, which was given the power to name
a Keeper
for the prison and to formulate such
rules and regula-
tions for the management of the
institution as from
time to time might be deemed necessary.
James Kooken
was appointed as the first Keeper of
the Prison and he
selected Colonel Griffith Thomas as his
clerk. These
two men together with three or four
guards consti-
tuted the administrative authorities
for the manage-
ment of the prison and the safe-keeping
of the convicts.2
According to the law of January 30,
18153 the
members of the Board of Inspectors4
were elected an-
49 Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 373,
374; Lee, History of Columbus, I,
581.
1 Laws of Ohio, 1815,
117, 118. An act for carrying into effect the
act for punishment of crimes.
2 Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 370;
Martin, History of Franklin County,
350.
3 Laws of Ohio, 1815, passim, 118-127.
4 This Board of Inspectors has often
been referred to by authori-
ties as a "Board of
Directors." The terms appear to have been synony-
mous. For instance Orth in The Centralization
of Administration in
Ohio in Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, edited
by faculty
of Columbia University, XVI, 109, states
in reference to the conduct of
the Penitentiary from 1816 to 1890,
"Its management has been in the
hands of a board of directors appointed
at first by the Legislature and
later by the Governor and the Senate.
Practically the only changes in
administration have been in the members
of this board, their method of
appointment and the designation of
subordinate officers they may appoint.
These changes have been dictated by
party politics, the penitentiary being
a fruitful source of party
manipulation."
384
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
nually. Each inspector was to receive
the sum of $2.00
per day for each and every day
necessarily employed
in the duties of their appointment. In
addition to the
duties of the Inspectors as mentioned
above the law
provided that they hold meetings
quarterly in the prison
and that two inspectors appointed by
the board itself
(to be changed as often as convenient)
should visit the
prison once each week to inspect its management
by the
Keeper and assistants, and to examine
the accounts of
the clerk.5 The law of 1819 reduced the
number of in-
spectors from five to three members.6
The board of
control of the Penitentiary continued
to be designated
as a Board of Inspectors until the
passing of a law of
March, 1831, which provided for a Board
of three
Directors whose duties were virtually
those of the Board
of Inspectors.7
The law of 1815 provided that the
Keeper be elected
annually.8 Four years later,
1819, the law was changed
and his term of office was extended to
three years, and
he was to be elected directly by the
Legislature instead
of by the Board of Inspectors. By this
same law, how-
ever, the Inspectors were given the
power with consent
of the Governor to remove the Keeper at
any time. In
case the Keeper died during his term of
office the Gov-
ernor appointed his successor.9 In
1821 the law restored
the provision for annual elections and
this law continued
in operation until the office of Keeper
was changed to
that of Warden in October, 1834.10
5 Laws of Ohio, 1815, 120-127.
6 Chase, Statutes of Ohio, 1056,
passed January 28, 1819.
7 Laws of Ohio, XXIX, 227, 228--Act passed March 12, 1831.
8 Laws of Ohio, 1815, 122.
9 Chase, Statutes of Ohio, 1058.
10 Chase, Statutes of Ohio, 1179.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 385
The salary and duties of the Keeper
varied somewhat
from time to time. The law of 181511
provided that his
salary be $700 per year; in 181912 his salary
was fixed
at $600 plus 3% of the sale value of
articles manufac-
tured in the Penitentiary. His salary
was again changed
in 1821,13 when the keeper was to be
given $600 plus
2% of the income derived from the sale
of all manufac-
tured articles, but his salary was not
to exceed $1000.
By the law of 182214 the
Keeper's salary was fixed at
$1000, but from this amount he was also
to pay his
clerk. The salary remained at this
figure until the in-
stallation of a Warden, in 1834.15
It was the duty of the Keeper, with the
approval
of any two inspectors, to contract and
purchase tools
and clothing for the prisoners, to keep
separate ac-
counts relating to the maintenance of
prisoners, to the
articles manufactured and sold, and to
materials and
stock on hands; to provide coarse and
wholesome food
for the prisoners, to punish convicts
by confinement in
solitary cells and to pay all prison
debts.16
The office of the State Agent was
created in January,
1819.17 He was elected18 by the Legislature
for a term
of three years, at a salary of $600 per
year, plus 2%
of the money paid by him into the
treasury. The salary
was not to exceed $1000, however. The
duties of the
State Agent were to sell articles
manufactured in the
11 Laws of Ohio, 1815, 124.
12 Chase, Statutes of Ohio, 1057.
13 Ibid., 1180.
14 Ibid., 1182.
15 Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 369.
16 Laws of Ohio, 1815,
120-124.
17 Chase,
Statutes of Ohio, 1058.
18 Ibid., 1181--the
act of 1821 provided that the Agent be elected
annually and at a salary of $500 plus 3% on all
money deposited by him
in the treasury; Howe, Historical Collections of
Ohio, I, 643.
Vol. XXXIII--25.
386 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Penitentiary for cash or on credit at
his discretion, but
no accounts were to run for more than
six months. The
latter precaution seemed necessary
because purchasers
were frequently tempted to take
advantage of the Peni-
tentiary credit system.19 It was also
the duty of the
Agent to deposit in the treasury each
week the amount
of money received from sales and
collections during the
preceding week, together with a statement
from whom
received; to keep a careful account
with the State; to
call on the Keeper each Saturday night
and receive
from him all articles manufactured in
the Penitentiary
during the week, together with a list
of prices at which
the Keeper decided the manufactured
articles should be
sold; and to deposit such goods in a
store-house con-
tiguous to the prison.20 Pursuant
to this law the former
clerk,21 Colonel Griffith
Thomas, was elected agent. He
performed his duties faithfully until
the office of agent
was abolished by law in 1822.22
The law of 1821 provided that a
Director be ap-
pointed by the Legislature at a salary
of $500 per year.
He was to make application in writing
at the beginning
of each quarter for money to purchase
materials and
clothing to be used in the
Penitentiary. It was also
19 The following quotation which refers
to this subject is found in
Lee, History of the City of Columbus,
II, 579: "A considerable propor-
tion of prison-made goods seems to have
been disposed of on credit.
On February 20, 1817, James Kooken,
Keeper, O. P., made the following
appeal: 'The time has arrived when the
subscriber finds himself under
the necessity of calling all those who
are indebted to him for articles
purchased from the Penitentiary to
immediate payment. His indulgence
to them has been at his own risk and
injury and he now has express
orders from the board of inspectors to
put all notes and accounts in
suit, which shall remain unpaid on the
tenth day of March next'."
20 Chase, Statutes of Ohio, 1058.
21 Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 371.
"The successive clerks, after the
office of agent was abolished in 1822,
and until their removal were
Cyrus Fay, Henry Matthews, George
Whitmore, W. T. Martin, Nelson
Talmage, Timothy Griffith and Uriah
Lathrop.
22 Ibid., 371.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 387
his duty to relieve the Keeper of the
payment of prison
expense, to instruct the Keeper in
regard to what articles
should be manufactured and the quantity
thereof, and
to direct the agent to make contracts
with merchants
for the sale of manufactured articles
in exchange for
such materials or produce as could be
used in the Peni-
tentiary.23
A Mr. H. Brown held this office for one
year when
the duties of Director were transferred
to the Agent.
After the abolishment of the office of
Agent in 1822 the
duties of both Agent and Director were
assumed by the
Keeper and Clerk.24
The first provision for the employment
of a Physi-
cian for the Penitentiary is found in a
law of January
29,1821, giving the Director the power
of appointment.
This law provided that the compensation
paid such
Physician for attendance and medicine
for any one year
should not exceed $200. According to
the Report of
Director Brown made December 3, 1821,
the expense
for medical attention for the
Penitentiary was saved
during that year by making use of one
of the convicts
who was a physician.25
Such were the duties of the corps of
officers who
assumed the management of the Ohio
Penitentiary.
Their aims and policies were sometimes
at variance with
the real purposes of a prison system as
defined by Gov-
ernor Meigs in his Annual Message of
1811. In this
he had suggested that the first result
to be secured by a
Penitentiary should be the safety of
the public, and the
23 Chase, Statutes of Ohio, 1180,
1181. The following statement in
regard to such exchange is found in Lee,
History of the City of Colum-
bus, II, 579. "An advertisement of 1826 stated that
pork would be re-
ceived at prison in exchange for manufactured
articles."
24 Chase, Statutes of Ohio, 1180;
House Journal, 1821-22, 66, 67.
25 Chase, Statutes of Ohio, 1183;
House Journal, 1821-22, 67.
388 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
second, the reformation of the convict
and his eventual
restoration to society.26 In
contrast with these aims, a
careful inspection of the annual
reports of the officers
of the Penitentiary from year to year
(1816-1834) re-
veals the fact that the idea of making
"the Penitentiary
pay," of making it produce a
revenue to the State, was
paramount in the minds of the
administrative officers,
and the desire to reform the convict
was only a secon-
dary, or even incidental consideration.
As early as
December 8, 1817, Jeremiah McLene,
President of the
Board of Inspectors, deplored the fact
that the institu-
tion had not been so productive from a
financial point
of view as had been desired. He
attributed this failure
to the lack of room to properly employ
the convicts.27
Discipline in the early years of the
history of the
Penitentiary was necessarily
exceedingly lax. The build-
ings from 1815 to 1834 were always too
small to care
adequately for the convicts. Housing
facilities were
poor, and the equipment was inadequate
both for the
punishment and also the reformation28
of the prisoners.
Very early during the administration of
Keeper Kooken
there were few convicts in the Prison.
The Keeper was
a kind-hearted man and at times when
work for the
prisoners was slack, much freedom was
given to them.29
Kooken was succeeded by Barzillai
Wright whose elec-
26 Senate Journal, 1812, 8.
27 House Journal, 1818,
70-72.
28 Boston Prison Discipline Reports, 1826-32, Annual Report, June
1, 1827, 84.
29 Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 370--states
the following, "There being
at times but little work for the
prisoners, they were allowed to amuse
themselves in various ways. One was to
play ball against the west end
of the north wing of the building. They
had a dog in the yard so trained
that when the ball fell over the wall,
he would go to the main door of
the front building, summon the guard, pass out, get the
ball, and return
it to the prisoners."
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 389
tion in 1822 was the occasion of much
opposition. This
arose from the fact that Wright had
only been a resi-
dent of the State for three months and
was thought to
be ineligible according to the
Constitution of Ohio, which
provided that office holders in any
county must have
been residents of the State for one
year previous to
election. The friends of Kooken also
felt that he should
have been retained because of his seven
years of faith-
ful and acceptable service. Since the
office of Keeper
was a state position and not mentioned
in the Constitu-
tion, Wright30 was finally
allowed to enter upon his term
of office. His death occurred in the
summer of 1823
after less than two years of service
and Nathaniel Mc-
Lean was named by Governor Morrow to
serve out his
unexpired term. He remained as the
Keeper of the
Penitentiary until 1830. For the next
two years the
office was filled by Byram Leonard of
Knox County.
The last Keeper was W. W. Gault who
held the office
from the spring of 1832 until the
official title of Keeper
was changed to that of Warden when the
prisoners were
removed to the New Penitentiary in
1834.31
An account of the management during the
first
period of the Ohio Penitentiary's
existence would be
incomplete without some reference to
the methods of
punishment employed and the slight
attention paid to
the reformation of those confined
within its walls. The
only provision relating to the
discipline of the Ohio
Penitentiary specified by law prior to
1834 was for con-
finement in solitary cells and
deprivation of tobacco and
other privileges. The former appears to
have served as
30 House Journal, 1821-22, 323-329.
31 Cf. Martin, History of Franklin County, 350; Studer,
Columbus,
Ohio, 370.
390 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
punishment for almost any misdemeanor
of the pris-
oners. Section 15 of the law of 1815
gives the Keeper
power to punish prisoners guilty of
assault and battery,
cursing and swearing, idleness,
negligence in work, wil-
ful mismanagement of it or
disobedience, by confinement
in the gruesome solitary cells or
dungeons. During this
confinement, which was not to exceed
five days, pris-
oners were to be fed only bread and
water. The law
also provided that prisoners guilty of
any other crime
not named in Section 15, upon advice of
the inspectors
might be sentenced by the Keeper to
thirty days in
these cold, dark, unsanitary cells.
Upon commitment to
the prison the courts also sentenced
prisoners to short
periods of confinement in the solitary
cells as well as to
imprisonment at hard labor.32 Keeper
McLean in his
annual Report of November 15, 1823
suggested the
adoption of the Stepping Mill as an
additional and most
effectual method of punishment. He
quoted writers on
the subject to the effect that
officials seldom found it
necessary to inflict this punishment
twice.33 No account
has been found to show whether or not
the Stepping
Mill was ever put in use. Just how often
and with what
severity these modes of punishment were
inflicted can-
not be determined from the Annual
Reports of the
various Keepers.
As evidence of some real need for moral
reforma-
tion among the convicts of the Ohio
Penitentiary a law
passed in 1821 provided that each
convict be furnished
with a Bible by the Director, the cost
of such Bibles to
be paid out of the State treasury. It
also provided that
the Director should permit, as often as
he thought
32 Laws of Ohio, 1815, 120-124.
33 House Journal, 1824, 32-40.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 391
proper, a regular minister of the
Gospel to preach to
convicts.34 This is the
first law found relating to re-
ligious help and instruction. Keeper
Wright suggested
in his annual Report of November 15, 1822,
that min-
isters of different denominations be
requested to preach
to the prisoners.35 In
182636 Keeper McLean reported
that the need for religious instruction
was greatly felt
and he was disappointed in the hope he
had entertained
that the Prison Discipline Society,
newly organized in
Boston, Massachusetts, would send under
their patron-
age a minister to the Ohio
Penitentiary. The Rev.
James Chute, who served as chaplain in
1828, was ap-
pointed by the Synod of the
Presbyterian Church at a
salary of $30 per month. This was made
possible by
personal subscriptions of the
Presbyterian Ministers re-
siding in that region.37 Religious
services were held
under his direction almost every
Sabbath, with some
profit to the convicts. Governor
Trimble in his annual
message expressed appreciation for the
service rendered
by the Synod in furnishing a temporary
chaplain for
the Penitentiary.38 No
definite provision was made
34
Chase, Statutes of Ohio, 1183.
35 Ibid., 1221.
36 House
Journal, 1827, 38-42.
37 House Journal, 1829, 13-15; Lewis, The Development of American
Prisons and Prison Customs, 262.
38 House Journal, 1827-28, 19, 20--In regard to conditions
of
reformation and punishment, he
continues, "The utter inability of the
Penitentiary to meet the constantly
accumulating charges upon it, and
failure to produce reformation on
convicts has given rise to prejudice
against the system and to the opinions
favorable to a, more summary,
severe, and less expensive mode of
punishment. That there is something
appertaining to the institution
radically wrong requires no proof, it is
obvious to all . . . . it is the old
building rather than the manage-
ment--And is it not equally unreasonable
to expect the present mode
of discipline to effect reformation? Our prison with
such a community
as we find within its walls, crowded in
workshops during the day, and
in lodging rooms at night, the old
hardened and accomplished villains,
indiscriminately mingling with the young
and comparatively innocent,
would more properly be called a school of vice than a
place of probation
for civil society--the plan of hard
labor by day and solitary confinement
by night is advisable."
392 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
by law for a regular employment of a
religious instruc-
tor or chaplain for the Ohio
Penitentiary with salary
paid by the State prior to the year
1834.
According to laws passed regulating
their employ-
ment, the inmates of the Penitentiary
were to work
every day of the week except Sunday and
for as many
hours each day as the seasons of the
year and the kind
of work, on which they were employed,
would permit.39
They were in the main employed in
manufacturing or
working on State account until 1834.
The materials
and machinery were furnished by the
Officers of the
Penitentiary who also used or sold
their products. Their
chief employment was work in the prison
at various
trades, for instance, in coopering, blacksmithing,
tailor-
ing and shoemaking.40 As
different forms of employment
were found to be successful and
remunerative, they were
introduced and encouraged. Care had to
be taken at all
times not to produce an article beyond
the demand for
its use and so overstock the store
house41 and produce
idle capital. It was also necessary to
manufacture
articles the raw materials for which
were cheap. The
spinning and weaving42 business
were carried on with
profit. A storehouse was kept for
reception and dis-
posal of the manufactured articles of
the Prison and a
system of barter was carried on.43
39 Laws of Ohio, 1815, 118; Chase, Statutes of Ohio, 1057, 1058,
1179.
40 Contract Labor System. Report of Commission, 84.
41 A brick store-house was erected for
the purposes in 1823--See
Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 371.
42 In Lee, History of Columbus, II,
579 is found the following ref-
erence to carpets woven in the Penitentiary, "Mrs.
Emily Steward in-
forms the writer that her mother had her
carpets woven in the prison,
and that when she delivered the raw
material she always took with her
a large basket filled with cakes, pies,
and doughnuts, which she gave to
the prisoners to insure good work."
43 Ibid., 579.
History of Penal Institutions in Ohio 393
Prison labor was apportioned according to the
adaptability of the prisoners to certain lines of work.
In the year 1822 among the one hundred and fourteen
prisoners employed were found four blacksmiths, four
blowers and strikers, twelve spinners, six quillers and
warpers, three wagon makers, three lathe turners, two
tinners, five wood and iron turners, two tailors, two
flax and hemp dressers, one butcher, one baker, one
soapmaker, three chair makers, eight coopers and
twenty-one shoemakers.44
The following table (for the year 1826) illustrates
the results gained by the systematic manufacture of
articles found to bring fair profits.45
Raw materials Manufactured
Profits
and repairs articles
Blacksmiths .......... $2,913.44 $ 3,783.93 $ 875.49
Coopers .............. 1,051.74 1,473.96 422.22
Wheelwrights ......... 676.79 1,343.37 666.58
Shoemakers .......... 2,722.18 4,838.09 2,115.91
Cabinetmakers ........ 913.91 1,681.76 767.85
Gunsmiths ............ 431.11 967.62 536.51
Turners ............. 90.18 299.87 1/2 209.69 1/2
Weavers ............. 341.92 1,170.62 828.70
Tailors ............... 13.02 818.50 805.48
Combmakers .......... 149.47 421.32 271.85
Ploughmakers ......... 30.00 51.50 21.50
----------- -------------- -------------
$9,433.76 $16,350.54 1/2 $7,521 78 1/2
In addition to the employment of convicts within
the prison walls, prisoners aided in 1818 in the con-
struction of the new prison building.46 In 1827-28 in
accordance with a law passed by the Legislature in 1826
44 House Journal, 1823, 6,
7.--Report made by B. Wright, K. O.
Penitentiary.
45 House Journal, 1827,
120-121, Report made December 26, 1826, by
Keeper
McLean.
46 House Journal, 1819,
121-124, a Report of Board of Inspectors,
December
18, 1818, in regard to the enlarging of the penitentiary.
394
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
commuting punishment of certain
convicts for labor
on the Columbus Feeder of the Ohio
Canal, seventy-
nine prisoners were employed in this
public work. The
prisoners selected were only those
whose record gave
them some claim to a pardon, and who
would probably
from necessity have been discharged
from the prison
during the season to make room for new
convicts. $3000
thus earned during the year 1827 was
regarded as clear
profit to the State as those who earned
it would have
remained idle in the Prison for want of
room to work.47
Prison labor was also employed in the
construction
of the new Penitentiary building. Brick
making, and
stone cutting, as well as such mechanical
labor as the
making of locks, doors and grates was
performed by
the convicts. They were also engaged in
the actual
construction of the building, a
resolution having been
passed by the General Assembly in 1832
which author-
ized the Commutation of sentence48
for this purpose.
Governor Lucas' comments (December 3,
1833) are
significant, "from fifty to eighty
persons were employed
in the early part of the season; but a
small portion of
the mechanical work at the new Prison
could be done
by the prisoners. They had first to
learn the trades;
many of them were found to be ingenious
and mani-
fested a desire to learn and make
themselves useful.
This happy result may in a great
measure be attributed
to the effects of the resolution of the
last General As-
sembly, authorizing the commutation of
the sentence.
The proposition was made to the
prisoners generally,
and on condition of continued obedience
and good con-
47 House Journal, 1827-28, 19.
48 Studer,
Columbus, Ohio, 370.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 395
duct.
. . . The effect of said resolution may be
easily seen, when it is known that
upwards of a hundred
able-bodied persons have, the latter
part of the season,
been kept at work at the new prison
through the day,
and marched in perfect order to and
from the old
prison, mornings and evenings, with
from six to eight
guards, and without an escape."49
In spite of the efforts of Prison
Managers to make
the Ohio Penitentiary a source of
revenue to the State
it proved to be a liability rather than
an asset. No doubt
the old prison building which was
inadequate for the
employment of all the convicts
contributed to this finan-
cial failure. Then, too, the costs of
conducting prosecu-
tions in the counties in which the
prisoners were con-
victed and the expenses of their
transportation to the
Prison were charged to the Penitentiary
treasury and
were a constant drain upon its resources.
During the
period from November 15, 1823 to
November 15, 1829
the average expense for prosecution and
transportation
amounted to $4,620.88. It was felt that
this expense
should be charged to the various
counties of the state
from which the convicts came.50
The general health of the prisoners was
often im-
paired because of the unsanitary
conditions existing in
the old building. The cells were damp
and unheated.
According to a report of 1830 it was
found necessary,
to economize with the covering, to put
as many as four
convicts in each cell in the winter
time. They slept
49 Senate Journal, 1834, 16, 17--Annual Message--; Ohio Annual
Reports (Penitentiary)
1833-1850, 1, 2. Annual report of W. W. Gault,
K. O. Penitentiary, November 15, 1833.
50 Senate
Journal, 1831, 493, 494.
396
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
upon beds of straw on the floor.51 The
year 182252 was
marked by a great deal of illness in
the Prison and in
1833 a mild epidemic of cholera broke
out among the
prisoners. Its cause was partly
attributed to the un-
sanitary condition of the Prison, but
the epidemic was
prevalent in the city of Columbus at
the time time. Of
the two hundred and three convicts in
prison at the time
very few escaped an attack. W. W. Gault,
then Keeper
of the Ohio Penitentiary reported that
during the month
of July, 1833, about one hundred were
confined to the
hospital with premonitory symptoms,
that forty had
perfect cholera and that eleven died.
It was not until
early in September that the prisoners
had recovered
from the epidemic sufficiently to
enable them to resume
their work.53
This epidemic occurred just a year
before the open-
ing of the new Penitentiary. It was
earnestly hoped that
the new institution would correct the
defects of the old
Penitentiary System, and make the
institution not only
a profitable enterprise for the State
treasury, but a
place for the reformation of the
unfortunate inmates
as well.
THE SECOND PERIOD OF THE HISTORY OF THE
OHIO PENITENTIARY (1834-1850)
The second period of the history of the
Ohio Peni-
tentiary begins with the removal of the
convicts from
the old prison building to the new
Penitentiary October
28 and 29, 1834. The number of convicts
had grown
51 House Journal, 1830, 360-363.
52 House Journal, 1824, 32-40--Annual Report.
53 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850, Annual Report of
W. W. Gault, K. O. Penitentiary
(November 15, 1833).
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 397
from seven in 1815 to one hundred and
eighty-nine.1
A complete reorganization took place
with the opening
of this new building, which had been
planned and con-
structed with a view to installing the
Auburn system
of management.2
In accordance with a law for the
erection of a new
Penitentiary and regulation of Prison
discipline passed
February 8, 1832, the General Assembly
made provision
for a Board of three Directors for the
Penitentiary, to
be elected by joint ballot of the
Legislature. It was the
duty of this board not only to direct
the building of the
new Penitentiary but also to appoint a
superintendent
of construction for the same, as well
as to make rules and
regulations for the discipline of the
Penitentiary, to in-
spect the Warden's accounts and to make
reports to the
General Assembly. The members of the
Board of Direc-
tors received a salary of $100 per
month. The first
member elected was to hold his office
for a term of three
years, the second for two years and the
third for one
year.3 This change in tenure
of office of the Board of
Directors indicates a step in advance
in prison manage-
ment. It had been possible up to this
time to have a
complete change in the membership of
the board an-
nually. Politics could not play as
active a part in the
affairs of the Prison when but one
member of the Board
was changed each year. Such a provision
was made
with the expectation that it would
conserve the best
interest of the Penitentiary and the
State.
1 Report of the Commission on
Contract Labor System in the Ohio
Penitentiary, 1884,
12.
2 Lewis, The Development of American
Prisons and Prison Customs,
260.
3 Laws of Ohio, XXX, 24, 25. February 8, 1832.
398
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
As soon as the new Penitentiary was
fitted for the
reception and employment of convicts
the Directors were
authorized to appoint a Warden who was
to hold his
office during their pleasure. His
salary was to be $1000
per year. The Warden was to appoint his
own assist-
ants (not to exceed twenty) whose
salary should not
exceed $25 per month; to purchase raw
material to be
manufactured in the Penitentiary, to
attend to the sale
of all articles manufactured therein,
to provide food
and clothing for the convicts, and to
have general charge
of the operation of the institution.
All moneys drawn
from the treasury for the use of the
prison were to be
drawn on the order of the Warden,
countersigned by at
least one of the Directors and under
such rules and regu-
lations as should from time to time be
prescribed by
law, or by the Directors. Such rules
and regulations,
made by the directors, must, of course,
be in accord with
law.4
Anticipating that upon the transfer of
the prisoners
to the new Penitentiary their labor
would necessarily be
applied for a year or two on the
completion of the new
building, the Board of Directors
decided to temporarily
unite the offices of Superintendent of
Building and War-
den. Since it was found that
Superintendent Nathaniel
Medbery had qualifications to fill the
office of Warden,
the Board elected him the first Warden
of the new Peni-
tentiary, October 27, 1834, and he
entered upon his
duties at once.5
4 Laws of Ohio, XXX, 26-28; Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary)
1834-1850, 4. In Annual Report of
Directors December 10, 1834; Studer,
Columbus, Ohio, 379.
5 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850. Annual Report of
Directors, December 10, 1835, 4, 5.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 399
The election of Warden Medbery during
the third
quarter of Keeper Gault's term
considerably compli-
cated matters as regards Mr. Gault's
salary. It was the
occasion for several investigating
committees. Mr. Gault
had been duly elected to serve as
Keeper for one year
beginning February 28, 1834. Upon
removal of the
convicts to the new Penitentiary Mr.
Gault continued
to remain in and to occupy the
buildings of the old
prison until March 1, 1835, taking care
of and super-
intending such property6 belonging
to the state as had
been left there. Having given bond, he
was liable for
neglect of duty at any period of the
year for which he
was elected and he therefore remained
until March 1st.
It was finally decided that the
remainder of the year's
salary ($333.33) was due him and a
resolution to the
effect that it be paid was passed by
the Legislature Jan-
uary 28, 1839.7
Since the new Prison had been planned
to prevent
the familiar intercourse among
prisoners that had so
demoralized and corrupted the old
prison, the Board of
Directors felt that the time was
favorable for a real
experiment with a reformatory system of
discipline.
The Board urged the Legislature to
provide for a Chap-
lain who was expected to do individual
work among the
convicts, visiting them in their cells
and giving them ad-
vice. He was also to organize a Sunday
School and act
as teacher. In accordance with these
recommendations
Rev. Russell Bigelow was appointed
Chaplain in 1835.8
6 Senate Journal, 1837, 538, 539. Two horses, one cow, fourteen
head of hogs besides some lumber and
tools were left in his charge at
the old prison.
7 House Journal, 1835, 330-334, 855, 856; Ibid., 1837, 633, 634; Ibid.
1849, 45, 46; Senate Journal, 1837,
538, 539, 685, 686.
8 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850. Report of Direc-
tors, Dec. 10, 1834, 7.
400
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
The Board of Directors also advocated
the appoint-
ment of a deputy Warden, to be named by
the Warden
and to be responsible to him. He was to
be called the
Principal Assistant. Isaac Cool was
appointed to this
office March 5, 1835, at a salary of
$500 per year. His
duties according to the new rules and
regulations for
the Penitentiary, formulated by the
Directors, included
a general inspection and superintendence
over the entire
plant and the enforcement of the rules
and regulations
of the institution. He was charged with
the responsibil-
ity for the security of the Prison and
the prisoners. In
case of absence of the Warden the
deputy Warden was
to be in full charge.9
Provision was also made for a Physician
for the
New Penitentiary who was to look after
the general
health of the convicts and to act as
medical adviser in
cases of illness.10 Dr. M.
S. Wright was appointed
physician March 5, 1835 at a salary of
$200 per year.
On the same day H. Z. Mills was
appointed Clerk.11
It is a noteworthy fact that two of the
Directors in
that early day visited most of the
improved prisons of
the United States anxious to acquaint
themselves with
the best and most modern methods of
prison manage-
ment and discipline As a result of this
tour of investi-
gation the Directors formulated a set
of rules and regu-
lations12 for the management
of the Penitentiary cover-
ing explicitly the duties of Warden,
deputy Warden, the
9 Ibid., 7, 10; Martin, History of Franklin County, 360.
10 For other duties of Physician, see appendix.
11 Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 379.
12 On pages -- --- of the Appendix is
to be found an exact copy of
these rules and regulations which
accompanied the Report of the Direc-
tor, December 10, 1834. With the
addition of the rules on pages VII,
IX of the Appendix they continued
in force with slight modification
during the period from 1834-1850.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 401
Assistants and the prisoners. The rules
were very
severe. They conformed to the Auburn13 system of
prison management and were put into
operation at once,
and rigidly enforced. This system of
management in-
cluded solitary confinement of
prisoners by night, their
association at hard labor during the
day, and absolutely
no communication among the prisoners.
It continued
in force with some modifications from
1834 to 1850.14
The aims of management were similar to
those fol-
lowed in the old Penitentiary. The
ultimate ends desired
by the State and prison officials in
this new building,
under this new system of management,
were the ref-
ormation of the convicts and the use of
prison labor
to yield revenue to the State. Far more
attention was
given during this period to the
reformation of the con-
vict, with the hope that upon leaving
the Prison he
would be an asset rather than a
liability to society. The
work of the Chaplain was greatly appreciated
and
proved the wisdom of establishing such
an officer. It
was indeed a source of great regret to
the management15
that after less than two years the
office was discontinued
by law and dependence for such
assistance in the moral
reformation of the convicts was again
undertaken by
leaders who voluntarily interested
themselves in such
good works. A young Men's Prison
Society of Colum-
bus was the first outside agency to
undertake the sup-
port of a Minister of the Gospel
(Chaplain) for the
new Penitentiary, after the law
providing such an officer
13 Wines, Punishment and Reformation,
156.
14 Lewis, The Development of American
Prisons and Prison Cus-
toms, 260; Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary)
1833-1850, Report of
Directors, December 3, 1834, 8, 13.
15 House Journal, 1836, 222-225.
Vol. XXXIII--26.
402 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
had been repealed.16 Examination
of Governors' mes-
sages, reports of the officers and
Directors of the Peni-
tentiary and other sources of
information reveals the
fact that the labors of a chaplain were
most beneficial
not only in the religious reformation
of the convicts
but also in matters of discipline. In
further proof of
this fact it is to be noted that, in
the absence of a law
providing for a Chaplain, the Directors
and officers con-
stantly tried to find a method to
provide payment for
such an instructor. For a time money
for this purpose
was taken from a fund obtained by
charging prison
visitors an admittance fee.17 There
was a period, how-
ever, when the Directors themselves
were indifferent
towards the moral reformation of the
prisoners and
made no effort to secure the services
of a Chaplain.
From 1840 to 1845, no provision being
made for such
an officer, the Rev. Samuel F. Mills
donated his serv-
ices18 for a portion of this time. Rev.
J. B. Finley, who
was Chaplain from 1846-1848 inclusive,
realized the
need for good reading matter for the
prisoners, and in-
terested himself in enlarging the
Penitentiary Library.
During his term of service he made
appeals for books
to public spirited citizens, churches,
and other benevo-
lent agencies. By this means the
Library was increased
from three hundred to seven thousand
volumes.19 The
16 Lee, History of the City of
Columbus, II, 580.
17 Senate Journal, 1840, 3-6.
18 Report of the Commission on Contract Labor System in
the Ohio
Penitentiary, 1884, 12; Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary)
1833-1850,
Report of Directors, 7.
19 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850 -- Report of Moral
Instructor, December 11, 1846, 18; Ibid.,
Report of Warden Dewey, No-
vember 30, 1848, 9; Fornshell, The
Historical and Illustrated Ohio Peni-
tentiary, 13, 14; Ohio Annual Reports, (Penitentiary), 1833-1850,
Report of
Warden November 30, 1849, 14; also for a
detailed account of Finley's
work see J. B. Finley, Prison Life, 3-354;
Weekly Ohio State Journal,
September 8, 1847.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 403
Board of Directors in 1846 became
impressed with the
need for moral improvement among the
female convicts,
and authorized the Warden to appoint a
matron. Miss
Mary Williams of Guernsey County was
the first woman
to serve in this capacity.20
After the New Penitentiary had been in
operation
about one year under its new
management, Governor
Lucas in his Annual Message of December
8, 1835,
commented at length on the success of
its organization
and its methods of discipline. The main
features of
this new discipline were solitary
confinement at night,
and labor, in silence, by day.21
An examination by the
Board of Directors of the duties22
of the prisoners pro-
vided in the rules and regulations for
the New Peni-
tentiary shows under what strict
discipline the pris-
oners lived. In them provision was
made for the
"odious" lock step and for
corporal punishment for all
wilful violations of the rules.23 The
"cat" sometimes
called the cat-o'-nine tails, or
nine-tailed cat, said to
have been the "most terrible and
degrading instrument
of human torture ever invented"24 appears to
have been
one of the modes of punishment in vogue
during this
20 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850, Report of Direc-
tors, 1846, 2.
21 Senate Journal, 1836; Ohio
Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-
1850, Report of Warden Medbery, 15.
22 For a complete list of duties of the
prisoners see Appendix, --
---- (Rules and Regulations of the new
Penitentiary).
23 Ibid., 7; Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850, for the
year 1834, 10-13.
24 Dyer, History of the Ohio
Penitentiary, 10.
|
|
|
(404) |
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 405
period.25 According to Lee
in his History of the City
of Columbus public sentiment in 184326 was against
such severity and may have influenced
Warden Patter-
son to make some changes in the modes
of punishment.
In his Annual Report27 of
December 12, 1844, he states
that he has aimed to avoid all
unnecessary severity and
to use the lash as sparingly as
possible. Warden Pat-
terson constructed a shower bath as a substitute
for
some of the cruel punishments that had
been used and
said he found it most effective. His
idea was that no
punishment should be inflicted hastily,
that cases re-
quiring punishment should be most
carefully considered,
and that all punishments should take
place in his pres-
ence. He considered "eternal
vigilance" on the part of
those in charge of convicts more
effective by far as a
means of discipline than either the
lash or the shower.28
25 Report of the Commission on the
Contract Labor System in the
Ohio Penitentiary, 1884, 19. "A great improvement in discipline was
inaugurated by the law of 1856 when
corporal punishment was forbidden,
and imprisonment in a cell upon bread
and water alone substituted.
Before that time punishment by "the
cat" and "shower bath" were com-
mon, and in 1852 the Warden, in his
report elaborately defends corporal
punishment. Since 1856 the reports have
continually spoken of the very
valuable effects of a discipline which
did not brutalize the prisoners by
corporal punishment, but appealed rather
to his manhood"; Historical
Sketches of Higher Educational
Institutions and also of Benevolent and
Reformatory Institutions of the State
of Ohio, 1876.
26 Lee, History of the City of
Columbus, II, 582 quotes from the
Ohio State Journal of 1843. "If
half we have heard on good authority
is true, the walls of the Ohio
Penitentiary, could they speak would dis-
close 'prison house secrets' that would
make the blood curdle. We are
against flogging in the army,
navy, madhouse or Penitentiary. If it can
be dispensed with . . . . If the manager
of that Institution (Ohio
Penitentiary) could substitute such a
persuasive as cold water for cats
and other instruments of torture and
blood-letting as heretofore em-
ployed, we are certain they would elicit
an 'expression' of universal
commendation from the community"; Ibid., 645,
Martin, History of
Franklin County, 359, 360; Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 379.
27 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850, Report of Warden
Patterson, December 12, 1844, 5.
28 Ibid., 5, 6;
also Annual Report, November 30, 1845, 9.
406
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
As the question of effective modes of
discipline was
one of great concern to the management
of the new
Penitentiary so also was the question
of the satisfactory
employment of prison labor. The new
building and the
prison work shops were not entirely
finished in 1834
and so for a time part of the convict
labor was employed
by them. Prior to that time the system
had been that
of manufacturing or working on State
account. In its
stead the contract labor system was
introduced in the
new Penitentiary by which the convicts
were hired to
contractors or large manufacturers who
employed them
in the prison workshops. The old system
of barter, and
the keeping of a prison store-house,
were abolished
under this plan.29
The first contract for such labor was
made with
Peter Hayden on June 10, 1835.30 The
contract pro-
vided for the employment of from fifty
to one hundred
convicts for five years in saddle-tree
and hame making
and in the plating and manufacture of
saddlery and
harness trimmings generally. In order
that all prisoners
might be employed at work of some kind,
applications
were also made in 1835 for other and
similar contracts.31
Numerous contracts were closed from time
to time. One
was made with M'Coy for shoemaking for
a period of
three years, beginning December 1,
1837. It provided
for the employment of twenty-five men.
A contract
with Johnson and Burdell for the labor
of not more than
twenty men for tailoring was made June
15, 1837, for
29 Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 379; Ohio
Centennial Celebration, 1903,
498.
30 Report of the Commission on Contract Labor System in
the Ohio
Penitentiary, 1884, 12.
31 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850, Report of Direc-
tors, 1835, 8.
|
History of Penal Institutions in Ohio 407 a term of five years. Another was made with J. O. B. Renicks for making corn brooms for a term of five years beginning June 6, 1838. Fifteen men were to be employed in the making of brooms. The contract with Hayden and Co., entered into on June 10, 1835, and to continue for five years after October 1, 1835, was sup- plemented on September 30, 1836 by a contract entered into by the same parties increasing the number of con- victs employed to two hundred and authorizing in ad- dition to the manufacture of the articles mentioned in the original contract, the production of sacks, shovels |
|
|
|
and men's silk hats.32 The report of the Standing com- mittee on the Penitentiary made by Mr. Stadden on March 13, 1839 shows that shoe-making, tailoring, coopering, bucket-making, saddle-tree making and the making of corn brooms occupied the time of two hun- dred and forty-five convicts at that date.33 32 Senate Journal, 1839. Report of Standing Committee on Peni- tentiary by Mr. Stadden, 86. 33 Ibid., 86, 87. |
408
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
According to Mr. Stadden's report the
labor of con-
victs was carefully selected to avoid
to the greatest pos-
sible extent injurious competition with
the free labor
of the State. The Penitentiary
officials tried to compete
with "foreign markets" rather
than to produce articles
that were manufactured in Ohio. For
instance, in 1839
forty-nine convicts were employed in
manufacturing
bridle bits, stirrup irons, etc. The chief
supply of these
articles for home consumption being
derived by im-
portation from foreign countries, it
was felt that no
reasonable objection could be urged
against their manu-
facture by prisoners.34 Mr.
Stadden also stated that
while some complaints were made by
would-be com-
petitors that the prison had not been
able to supply
workers for all the contracts offered
them, the revenue
to the State from such contract labor
for the period
from November 30, 1837, to December 12,
1838, had
amounted to $23,449.12 1/2 35
From 1839 to 1850 there was growing
hostility
toward the convict contract system.
People were jeal-
ous of this system and, in 1839, the
Legislature changed
the directors, and selected a new Board
of Directors
which was believed to be hostile to the
contract labor
system. Nevertheless, the system was
continued, some-
times apologetically, through this
period and the finan-
cial results continued to be favorable
to the institution.36
The hostility of the Legislature to
this system is
especially apparent during the years
between 1846 and
1850. The Legislature insisted that the
labor of con-
victs be employed in public works.
Convict labor valued
34 Senate Journal, 1839, 86, 87.
35 Ibid., 87, 88.
36 Report of
the Commission on the Contract Labor System in the
Ohio Penitentiary, 1884, 12.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 409
at $25,000 was employed in the
enlargement of the
Central Lunatic Asylum.37 The
services of the pris-
oners on this job were valued at fifty
cents per day.
This meant that the contract labor
system and the in-
come to the Penitentiary were being
sacrificed38 for the
interest of the State. The convicts
were also employed
by the state in construction of a new
State House and
in a stone quarry located two and one
half miles west
of the Prison which had been purchased
by the Board
of Directors (according to an act of
March 12, 1845) to
furnish material for these state
buildings. They also
furnished the labor to construct a
railroad to this
quarry.39
A law was passed by the State
Legislature in 1848
which forbade any contracts to be made,
or renewed,
without being first submitted to that
body for approval.40
Consequently there were now only two
contracts in
existence in the institution in 1850,
namely, one with
Mr. Hayden which provided employment
for two hun-
dred convicts and would expire in
October of that year,
and the other, a contract with Mr.
Burdell for fifteen
men to be employed in the tailoring
business. The
37 Ibid., also Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary)
1833-1850, Report
of Directors, 1847, 4.
38 In the Report of the Commission on
the Contract Labor System in
the Ohio Penitentiary, 1884, 13, is the following quotation: "The
unfriendliness of the legislature to the
Penitentiary was shown, not only
in employing the labor unprofitably in
the public buildings, but in neg-
lecting to provide that such labor
should be paid for to the Penitentiary.
This proceeded so far that when a new
Board of Directors was elected
in 1852, they protested most vigorously
against the injustice of a system
which, for the sake of enabling the
State to boast of its asylums and
splendid capitol, had impoverished the
prisoners, reduced the prison to
want and destroyed the credit of the
Institution."
39 Ibid., 12, 13;
Studer, Columbus, Ohio, 379.
40 Report of the Commission on
Contract Labor System in the Ohio
Penitentiary, 13.
41 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850, Report of the
Warden, November 30, 1850, 17.
410 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
latter contained no renewal clause and
would therefore
expire on April 1, 1853.41
Not only was the attitude of the
Legislature hostile
to the contract labor system but the
frequent change of
Directors and officers42 of
the Penitentiary due to party
manipulation was detrimental to the
management and
discipline of the institution.43 The
change in Directors
was accompanied by a change in the
administrative
officers of the Penitentiary. In many cases a faithful,
upright and efficient Warden was
removed in order
that so-called "political
debts" might be paid.44 The
removal of Warden Stadden in 1842 is an
example of
such political interference. The
removals were made
in spite of a meeting of public
spirited citizens to pro-
test against it.45
Another serious interruption in the
discipline and
management of the Penitentiary was the
Asiatic Cholera
epidemic of 1849 which proved to be a
"reign of terror"
during the summer of that year. The
epidemic had been
raging in the City of Columbus for a
short time prior
to June 30, when the first cases
occurred in the Peni-
tentiary. Two deaths were reported that
day. By July
9 out of four hundred and twenty-three
convicts three
hundred and ninety-six had cholera in
some of its stages
and twenty-one died. Workshops were
converted into
temporary hospitals in order that the
suffering prisoners
42 In the Appendix, p. 421, 422,
may be found a list of the officers of
the new Penitentiary from 1834 to 1850
taken from Martin, History of
Franklin County, 362-363, but verified by the author from Ohio Annual
Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850, and the frequent change of
officers,
especially that of Warden may be noted.
43 Lee, History of City of Columbus, II,
582, suggests that this change
was worse for the management and
discipline of the Prison than the
cholera epidemic.
44 Lee, History of the City of
Columbus, II, 582.
45 Ibid.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 411
might be well cared for. On July 10
twenty-two deaths
occurred, the greatest mortality on
record for any one
day.46 From that day the
number of deaths diminished
regularly until July 30 when the last
fatal case was
recorded. During August and September
there were
twenty-three cases reported but none
proved fatal. A
total of one hundred and sixteen
prisoners died as a
result of the epidemic. Two physicians,
Dr. H. Lathrop
and Dr. B. F. Gard, who had rendered
faithful and
heroic service during the siege became
victims of the
epidemic. Other doctors who aided
during the epidemic
were Dr. Trevitt, Dr. T. Thompson, Dr.
J. B. Thomp-
son, Dr. J. Morrison, Dr. Norman Gay and
Dr. G. W.
Maris. The services of several medical
students and
nurses were also employed.47
During the epidemic a number of
panic-stricken
guards fled from the Penitentiary. The
prisoners too
begged to be freed so that they might
flee from the
scourge and as was to be expected,
exhibited all grades
of character from "manlike
heroism, and stoical indiffer-
ence to the most timid, sensitive, and
shrinking agita-
tion."48 All business and labor of
any kind was nec-
essarily suspended. The strict discipline
of the prison
was relaxed. For sixteen days and
sixteen nights no
key was turned upon a prisoner yet
perfect order pre-
vailed and when the proper time came
for resuming
prison discipline the convicts returned
to their cells and
to the ordinary habits of prison life
without complaint.49
46 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850, Report of Phy-
sician, November 30, 1849, 29. Also see Weekly
Ohio State Journal, July
18, 1849.
47 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850. Report of War-
den Dewey, November 30, 1849, 11.
48 Ibid., 12.
49 Ibid., 12, 13.
412
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
During the absence of Governor Ford
from the city
in the early part of the epidemic, a
supply of pardons
which had been left for cases of
emergency with the
Secretary of State were soon exhausted.
Upon being
notified of the fact, Governor Ford
returned at once
to Columbus. He went to the prison and
persuaded the
convicts that it would be best not to
grant any more
pardons until the epidemic had
subsided. He insisted
that even if freed they would be
treated as a public
menace and that they could be better
cared for in the
prison hospitals than at home. For good
conduct and
assistance rendered by convicts among
the sick prisoners
he promised pardons as soon as the
epidemic was over.
As a result fifty-two convicts were
pardoned that year.50
During the following summer (1850) the
hospitals
were crowded with cholera patients but
the siege was
much less serious and there were no
fatalities reported.51
This account has now been carried down
to the year
1850, which marks the end of the second
period in the
history of the Ohio Penitentiary. This
period saw the
realization of the hope, cherished by
prison officials and
the Legislature that after the Penitentiary
was recon-
structed according to the Auburn type52
it would be-
come a source of substantial income to
the state. Gov-
ernor Vance in his Annual Message to
the General As-
sembly December 4, 1838, said "Our
Penitentiary was
never before in so flourishing a
condition. The earn-
50 Ibid.; Executive Documents, 1849, I, Special Report of Warden
on Cholera, February 2, 1850, Executive
Document No. 31.
51 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850, Report of Dr. J.
B. Thompson, November 30, 1850, 45-49.
52 Lewis, The Development of American
Prisons and Prison Cus-
toms, 260, states "Ohio's State prison became after its
transformation
into a prison of the Auburn type an
exceptionally noteworthy money-
maker for the State -- and this is its
chief characteristic in this period."
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 413
ings and profits of the prison exceed
all expenses by
$23,000."53 According to
Lewis in The Development
of American Prisons and Prison
Customs, the profits
of the prison for 1841 were $21,897, a
larger profit
than that earned in any other American
prison for
that year. Lewis reported that in the
opinion of com-
petent judges who had visited the Ohio
Penitentiary
and compared it with other institutions
in other states
the Ohio institution was inferior to
none.54 In 1850
the earnings amounted to $35,740.70.55
An examination of the Prison reports
shows the
progress made in the reformation of the
prisoners as
well. The separation of the convicts
which was ac-
complished by the better planned and
equipped building,
the influence of the moral instructor,
and the installa-
tion of gas lights56 in 1848
making the more general
use of the new library possible, all
contributed to the
moral uplift of those confined in the
Penitentiary.
Laurin Dewey, Warden in 1850, realizing
that the
youths in the prison ought not to be
associated with old
and hardened criminals felt that the
time had come when
the Legislature ought to consider the
erection of a
"House of Refuge or
Correction" for boys, in some
part of the State.57 That he
was in advance of his day
in advocating this plan is evidenced by
the fact that no
such provision was made for a number of
years there-
after. The Boys' Industrial School was
not authorized
53 Executive Documents, 1838, 15, 16.
54 Lewis, The
Development of American Prisons and Prison Cus-
toms, 263.
55 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850. Report of Warden
Dewey, November 30, 1850, 19.
56 Daily Ohio Statesman, September 11, 1848.
57 Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850. Report of Warden
Dewey, 1850, 14.
414
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
by the State Legislature until 1847.
The Standing Com-
mittee on the Penitentiary in a report
of 184858 also
revealed an interest in more
progressive methods by
recommending the classification of
prisoners according
to disposition, age and degree of crime
thus placing all
young men under twenty-one years of age
in shops by
themselves and at work which would
prove beneficial
to them when discharged.59
The report submitted by Henry C. Noble,
W. D.
Patterson and Henry Luskey concluded
with the signifi-
cant statement -- "That the
history of the prison makes
the impression on us that reformation,
rather than
financial success, has never been made
the first object
of any administration. Some officers
and Wardens
have deeply sympathized with this
feature of prison
management, but even under such men,
the require-
ments of the contracts have been met at
the expense of
classification, school instruction, and
other reformatory
measures."60 For a number of years to
come, the
policy of reforming prisoners remained
subsidiary to
the policy of using the labor of these
misfits of society
to yield financial returns to the
state.
APPENDIX
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE NEW PENITENTIARY
(From Ohio Annual Reports
(Penitentiary) 1833-1850
Year 1834, 9-13).
The following Rules and Regulations
have been
adopted for the government of the New
Penitentiary:
58 House Journal, 1848--Appendix
19-24 in the report of Mr.
Anthony, January 3, 1848.
59 Report of the Commission on
Contract Labor System in the Ohio
Penitentiary, 1884, 20, shows that in Sec. 7 of an act passed in 1854
such
provision for classification of
prisoners was made.
60 Ibid., 15.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 415
It shall be the duty of the Warden to
attend constantly at the
Prison, except when performing some
other necessary duty con-
nected with his office. As soon as the
building now being built, is
so far finished as to be comfortable, he
shall remove to, and after-
wards constantly reside at the Prison.
He shall keep a Register
in which he shall regularly enter the
reception, the previous moral
character, habits and education, (as far
as the same can be ascer-
tained), and the discharge, death,
pardon or escape of any
prisoner; and also, the complaints that
are made and the punish-
ments that are inflicted for breach of
prison discipline, as they
occur; the visits of the Directors and
of the Physician, and all
other occurrences of importance, that
concern the Prison, except
the receipts and expenditures and other
pecuniary transactions of
the Prison -- the account of which is to
be kept as hereafter
directed.
The Warden shall examine daily into the
state of the Prison,
and the health, conduct and safe keeping
of the prisoners; and
for that purpose he shall visit every
cell and apartment, and see
every prisoner under his care at least
once in every day.
The Warden shall pay particular attention
and constantly
use his best endeavors for the moral
reformation and culture of
the convicts; and shall permit nothing
to be done or said in the
presence of any of the prisoners under
his charge, calculated to
interfere with so desirable an object.
All his orders should be
given with mildness and dignity, and
enforced with promptitude
and firmness; but he should carefully
guard himself against per-
sonal and passionate resentment.
The Warden shall use proper means to
furnish the prisoners
with constant employment, the most
beneficial to the public --
having proper regard to their various
capacities; and he shall
employ such prisoners as are not engaged
in the building of the
Prison, in such manufacturing or mechanical business,
as he may
find to be most proper.
It shall be the duty of the Warden to
cause the books and
accounts to be kept in such a manner as
clearly to exhibit the
state of the prisoners -- the number
employed in each branch of
business, and their earnings -- the
number in the hospital -- the
expenses of the Prison -- and all
receipts and payments -- pur-
chases and sales -- and to exhibit the
same to the Directors at
their quarterly meetings, and at any
other time when required.
The Warden shall appoint a suitable
person to act as his
Deputy, who shall be called the
Principal Assistant; whose duty
it shall be to exercise under the
direction of the Warden, a general
inspection and superintendence over the
whole of the establish-
ment and all its concerns, and to see
that the rules and regulations
416 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
of the institution are enforced, and
that every precaution is taken
for the security of the Prison and the
prisoners; and in case of
the absence of the Warden or of his
inability to perform his
duties, the Principal Assistant shall
perform the duties of the
Warden, until the Warden shall resume
his station.
As it is by law made the duty of the
Directors, to see per-
sonally to the condition and treatment of the prisoners, no
regula-
tion or order shall be made to prevent
prisoners having ready
access to a Director, who may be
present; nor shall any punish-
ment be inflicted upon them for speaking
to a Director. In dis-
charging this part of their duty, the
Directors will deem it proper
not to suffer a convict to hold any
conversation with them in the
presence or hearing of other prisoners.
DUTIES OF ASSISTANT KEEPERS
Assistant Keepers are required to be at
the Prison at all
times during Prison hours, unless
prevented by sickness, or hav-
ing previously obtained leave of
absence.
They are required, as they are bound by
their oath of office,
to enforce rigidly every rule and
regulation of the Prison.
The preservation and the effect of the
whole system of dis-
cipline depends upon non-intercourse
between convicts. They
will, therefore, make use of every
exertion to prevent any com-
munication between them.
They are required to say nothing in the
presence of any of
the convicts respecting the police of
the Prison, unless it be for
the purpose of directing them in their
duty.
They are to hold no unnecessary
conversation with convicts,
nor allow them to speak unless it is
absolutely necessary.
They are not to take one convict's word
against another, nor
countenance in the least degree, one
convict's complaining against
another, nor are they to allow any
convict to speak lightly or dis-
respectfully of any officer of the
Prison.
They are to require of convicts, labor
in silence and striot
obedience.
They are required to report every
convict under their imme-
diate direction and control, to the
Warden or his Assistant, for
all wilful violations of discipline or
duty; and all violations of
discipline or duty which Assistants
discover in convicts who are
not under their immediate direction,
they are required to report
to the Warden or Deputy Warden, with the
name of the trans-
gressor.
When on duty, they are required to
govern themselves in
strict conformity to the rules of the
institution. They will avoid
all whistling, scuffling, loud laughter,
and all acts which are un-
dignified, and in all their intercourse
with each other, it is hoped
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 417
they will exercise mutual respect and
kindness, and cultivate a
desire to exalt the character and
promote the interests of the
institution.
All Assistant Keepers, when within the
precincts of the
Prison, are to consider themselves on
duty, and govern themselves
accordingly.
As soon as the prisoners are locked up
at night, each Assist-
ant having charge of a division, and
those having charge of the
mess room, hospital, etc., must report
immediately to the Deputy
Warden, the number they have locked up
or have in charge re-
spectively.
All unnecessary talking or conversation
on ordinary subjects
in the halls, is strictly forbidden. And
all loud talking in the
Keeper's hall (or guard room), and all
arguments on the subject
of politics or religion, which are
calculated to excite and to prej-
udice, are to be avoided.
The deportment of Assistant Keepers
towards convicts, in
all situations, should be manly and
dignified, in order not only to
inspire the convicts with respect
towards them, but also, to set the
example of good order and decorum.
Their deportment towards each other, in
the presence of con-
victs, should be characterized by the
most gentlemanly demeanor;
they are not to gather into groups for
the purpose of conversa-
tion; and all conversation except such
as is necessary in the dis-
charge of their official duties, should
be avoided whilst on duty.
They are not to indulge any petulance
toward each other,
nor indulge in levity of any
description, and especially to avoid
the use of profane and vulgar language,
in the presence of pris-
oners or about the Prison; and in short,
to do nothing in this
respect, that they will not allow a
convict to do.
They will require from convicts the greatest
deference, and
never suffer them to approach but in the
most respectful manner;
they are not to allow them the least
degree of familiarity, nor
exercise any towards them; and finally,
they should be extremely
careful to command as well as to compel
their respect.
They are not to suffer any stranger or
other person, (except
such as authorized by law), to hold any
conversation with, or to
speak to any prisoner, without the
consent of the Warden; nor
are they to suffer any paper, letter or
writing of any kind, to pass
in or out of the Prison, without the
inspection or knowledge of
the Warden.
If a prisoner is sick or from any cause
unable to work, the
Assistant under whose charge he may be,
will, (in the absence of
the Physician), take him to his cell or
to the hospital, as his situa-
tion may seem to require, and immediately make out in
writing,
Vol. XXXIII--27.
418 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the name of the prisoner or prisoners,
complaining or disabled,
stating where he or they may be found,
and deliver the same to
the Warden or to his Deputy.
DUTIES OF THE PRISONERS
They are to labor faithfully and
diligently, to obey all orders
promptly, and to preserve unbroken
silence.
They are not to exchange a word with
each other, under any
pretence, not to communicate any
intelligence to each other in
writing; they are not to exchange looks,
winks, laugh with each
other, nor make use of any signs, except
such as are necessary to
convey their wants to the waiters.
They must approach their Keepers in the
most respectful
manner, and be brief in their
communications. They are not to
speak to them on ordinary topics, nor
address them except when
it becomes necessary in relation to
their work or their wants.
They are not at any time, nor under any
pretence, without
leave, to speak to any person who does
not belong to the institu-
tion, nor receive from them any letter,
paper, tobacco or other
thing whatever.
They are not to leave the place where
they are put to work
nor the work they are set to do, without
the special permission or
orders of the proper officer; they are
not to suffer their attention
to be taken from their work to look at
visitors, nor are they to
gaze or look at them when unemployed.
Their whole demeanor must be in
accordance with the most
perfect order and in strict compliance
with the rules and regula-
tions of the Prison.
No convict is wilfully or carelessly to
injure his work, tools,
wearing apparel, bedding, or any other
thing belonging to, or
being about the Prison; nor will any
prisoner be suffered to mark,
injure or in any way deface the walls or
any part of his cell or
night room, nor is he to execute his
work badly, when he has the
ability to do it well.
The law provides "that no convict
shall receive or transmit
any letter or paper, except under the
inspection of the Keeper,
nor shall such convict hold any
correspondence in or out of the
Penitentiary, nor converse with any person, except the
Governor,
Heads of Departments, members of the
General Assembly, Judges
of the Supreme and Common Pleas Courts
and officers of the
Prison;" no violation of this
provision of the law will be indulged.
Each prisoner, so far as is practicable,
will occupy the same
cell every night; as they enter their
respective cells, each prisoner
after setting down his room bucket and
can, must draw the door
of his cell until it strikes the latch,
and in this position stand,
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 419
holding his door until the
Turnkey approaches and enters the
key; the prisoner will then instantly
close his door.
At the ringing of the bell, every
prisoner must go to bed im-
mediately, (but they may go to bed
previously if they choose,)
and a profound silence must be observed
from that time until the
bell rings in the morning, at which time
every prisoner must im-
mediately dress himself and prepare to
march out.
They will always march in the lock step,
and in such order
as may be designated by the officers in
charge. While in their
cells and while marching, and at all
other times, all unnecessary
noise must be avoided.
No prisoner will be suffered to sleep
with his clothes on.
If a prisoner becomes sick or from any
cause feels unable to
work, he will report himself to the
officer under whose charge he
may be.
For all wilful violations of the above
rules, corporal punish-
ment will certainly be inflicted.
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE
INSTITUTION
(From Ohio Annual Reports,
1833-1850--Year 1847, 24-26)
DEPUTY WARDEN
It shall be the duty of the Deputy
Warden to exercise, under
the direction of the Warden, a general
inspection and super-
intendence over the whole of the
establishment, and all its con-
cerns, and to see that all its rules and
regulations are enforced,
and that every precaution is taken for
the security of the prison
and the prisoners; and in case of the
absence or inability of the
Warden to perform his duties, the Deputy
shall act in his place
until the Warden shall resume his
station.
PHYSICIAN
Shall visit the prison every morning, or
in case of sickness
or necessary absence, procure the
services of some other good
physician to perform his duty.
He shall examine any new prisoner or
prisoners that may
have been received since his last visit, and report
their condition
to the Warden.
He shall see that all proper medicine is
administered to those
who are sick, and perform all surgical
operations that may be
necessary; and if necessity require it, pay extra
visits.
MORAL AND RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTOR
It shall be his duty to see that each
convict that can read is
furnished with a Bible or Testament.
420 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
To preach to the prisoners every
Sabbath, or when necessarily
absent, to engage some suitable person
to fill his place.
To see that the Sabbath School is
properly attended and sup-
plied, as far as practicable, with
suitable teachers and books.
It shall be his duty, as far as
practicable, to have prayers
with the prisoners every morning at the
breakfast table, and to
visit those that are sick in the
infirmary, and administer to their
spiritual wants.
To be present as far as he can, at all
funerals of deceased
prisoners, and see that they are
interred with proper religious
services.
He shall have the liberty of visiting
any prisoner who wishes
to see him, and it shall be his duty to
give them such advice as
they may seem to require.
He is to use his best exertions to
promote the religious and
moral welfare of the prisoners, as well
as the harmony and gen-
eral interests of the Institution.
All officers, contractors, agents and
foremen, are required
not to hold any conversation with the
prisoners, except in rela-
tion to their respective duties, and
while in the prison will be
subject to all the rules and regulations
established for its govern-
ment.
|
History of Penal Institutions in Ohio 421 |
|
|
422 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
NAMES OF OFFICERS OF THE OHIO
PENITENTIARY
(1834-1850)
Year Directors Warden
1834 Joseph Olds, Charles Anthony,
Samuel F. McCracken.............
Nathaniel Medbery
1835 Joseph Olds, Charles Anthony,
Samuel F. McCracken............
Nathaniel Medbery
1836 Joseph Olds, S. F. McCracken,
Benjamin Allen...................
Nathaniel Medbery
1837 Joseph Olds, S. F. McCracken,
Benjamin Allen..................
Nathaniel Medbery
1838 Joseph Olds, S. F. McCracken,
Benjamin Allen..................
Nathaniel Medbery
1839
Allen Latham, Joseph Olds,
John McElvain.................. W. B.
VanHook
1840 John McElvain, Samuel Spangler,
William Spangler................. W. B.
VanHook
1841
William Spencer, Samuel Spangler,
John McElvain.................. W. B.
VanHook
1842 William Spencer, A. H. Patterson,
Andrew McElvain................ Richard
Stadden
1843 Robert Lee, A. H. Patterson,
Andrew McElvain................ John
Patterson
1844 Robert Lee, John Greenwood,
Andrew McElvain............... John
Patterson
1845 B. F. Gard, Robert Lee,
John Greenwood................ John
Patterson
1846
B. F. Gard, Horatio J. Cox,
J. Ridgway..................... Laurin
Dewey
1847
B. F. Gard, Horatio J. Cox,
J. Ridgway................ Laurin Dewey
1848
Thomas Brown, Horatio J. Cox,
J. Ridgway...................... Laurin
Dewey
1849
Thomas Brown, Matthias Martin,
J. Ridgway...................... Laurin
Dewey
1850 D.
Gregory, Matthias Martin,
Thomas Brown.............. Laurin Dewey
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 423
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. Source Material.
Andrews, Martin R., Copy of
Manuscripts Illustrating Ohio
History, 4 Vols. The manuscripts in Vol. IV are all in
Marietta College Library, excepting
those about the
Barker family.
Andrews, Martin R., Notes and
Quotations from Unbound
Manuscripts in Marietta College
Library.
Boston Prison Discipline Reports 1826-1832.
(Annual Report of Board of Managers of
the Prison
Discipline Society, Boston, January I,
1827) Boston,
T. R. Marvin, Printer, 32 Congress
Street.
Chase, Salmon P., editor, Statutes of
Ohio and of the North-
western Territory adopted or enacted
from 1787 to 1833
inclusive together with the Ordinance
of 1787; The
Constitution of Ohio and of the
United States and
various public instruments and Acts of
Congress Illus-
trated by A Preliminary Sketch of
Ohio 2 vols., Cin-
cinnati: (Corey and Fairbank 1833).
Executive Documents (Ohio 1836-1850.
Ford, Worthington Chauncey, The
Writings of George
Washington, vol. XI, 1785-1790 New York and London.
G. P. Putnam's Sons, The Knickerbocker
Press 1891.
Laws of Ohio 1803-1850. Published by Authority, Printed
by the Printer to the State.
House Journals (Ohio) 1811-1850.
Printed by the Printer to the State.
Ohio Annual Reports (Penitentiary) 1833-1850.
Report of the Commission on
Examination into the Con-
tract Labor System in the Ohio
Penitentiary to the
General Assembly of the State of Ohio.
Columbus,
G. J. Brand & Co. State Printer,
1884 (Commission--
Henry C. Noble, W. D. Patterson, Henry
Luskey).
Senate Journals (Ohio) 1811-1850).
Printed by Printer to the State.
Swayne, Wager. The Ordinance of 1787
and the War of
1861. New York. Printed by C. G. Burgoyne 1892.
Laws of the Northwest Territory (1788-1802).
II. Guides.
Hasse, Adelaide R., (Librarian
Department of Public Docu-
ments, New York Library). Index of
Economic Ma-
terial in Documents of the States of
the United States,
Ohio 1787-1904. Prepared for the Department of
424 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Economics and Sociology of the Carnegie
Institution of
Washington -- Published by the Carnegie
Institution
of Washington 1912.
Mills, Z. and Coggeshall, W. T., Index
to the Laws of Ohio
1788-1857. An index to all the laws and
Resolutions
of the State of Ohio including the laws
adopted and
enacted by the Governor and Judges and
Territorial
Legislation. Columbus, 0. 1846-1858.
Mudge, Isadore G., New Guide to
Reference Books, Ameri-
can Library Association, Chicago, 1923.
Thomson, Peter G., A Bibliography of the State of Ohio
Being a Catalogue of the Books and
Pamphlets Re-
lating to the History of the State
and a complete Index
by Subjects. Cincinnati, Published by the Author, 1880.
III. Newspapers and Magazines.
Daily Ohio Statesman (Columbus, Ohio) 1848-1849.
Weekly Ohio State Journal (Columbus, Ohio) 1849.
American Pioneer (Columbus, Ohio) Vol. I, May 1842.
(Monthly periodical) Published by John
S. Williams,
Cincinnati.
IV. General Histories and other
Secondary Works.
Abbott, John C., History of the State
of Ohio, Detroit;
Northwestern Publishing Company; sold
exclusively
by R. D. S. Tyler and Co., Subscription
Book Publish-
ers, Detroit, Mich., 1875.
Atwater, Caleb, The General Character
of the People of
Ohio, Columbus: P. H. Olmsted and Co., 1827.
Atwater, Caleb, A History of the
State of Ohio, Natural
and Civil, Cincinnati, Glezen and Shepard, 1838.
Andrews, Israel Ward, Washington
County and the Early
Settlement of Ohio. Cincinnati: Peter G. Thomson,
Publisher, Cincinnati, 1877.
Bates, The Hon. James L., Alfred
Kelley, His Life and
Works, Privately printed.
Columbus, Ohio, Robert
Clarke and Co., Cincinnati, 1888.
Black, Alexander, The Story of Ohio. D.
Lothrop Com-
pany, Boston, 1888.
Burnet, Jacob, Notes on the Early
Settlement of the North-
western Territory, Cincinnati; Derby, Bradley and Co.,
1847.
Chaddock, Robert E., Ohio Before 1850. New York: Co-
lumbia University, Studies in History,
Economics and
Public Law, Vol. XXXI, No. 2. Longmans,
Green and
Co., 1908.
History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio 425
Channing, Edward, History of the
United States, 5 Vols.
Macmillan Co., New York.
Clark, C. M., The Picturesque Ohio, Cincinnati:
Cranston
and Curts, 1887.
Dyer, Benjamin F., History of the
Ohio Penitentiary, Ohio
Penitentiary Print, Columbus, 1891.
Fogle, H. M., The Palace of Death or
the Ohio Penitentiary
Annex. Published by the Author, Columbus, Ohio,
1908.
Fornshell, Marvin E., The Historical
and Illustrated Ohio
Penitentiary 1910-1911. Marvin E. Fornshell, 1903.
Harris, Thaddeus Mason, The Journal
of a Tour Into the
Territory Northwest of the Alleghany
Mountains
(Made in Spring of 1803) with a
geographical and his-
torical account of the State of Ohio.
Boston: Manning
and Loring, No. 2, Cornhill, 1805.
Hildreth, S. P., Contributions to the
Early History of the
Northwest. Cincinnati: Published by Poe and Hitch-
cock, 1864.
Hildreth, S. P., Pioneer History
(being an account of the
first examinations) of the Ohio
Valley, and the early
settlement of The Northwest
Territory, Cincinnati:
H. W. Derby & Co., Publishers, New
York, A. S.
Barnes and Co., 1848.
Hinsdale, B. A., The Old Northwest. Silver,
Burdett and
Company, Boston, New York, Chicago,
1899.
Historical Sketches of the Higher
Educational Institutions
and also of Benevolent and
Reformatory Institutions
of the State of Ohio, 1776. Published by Authority of
State, Columbus, 1876.
Howe, Henry, Historical Collections
of Ohio, 3 Vols.,
Henry Howe and Son, Columbus, 1891.
Howells, William Cooper, Recollections
of Life in Ohio
(1813-1840); Cincinnati: The Robert
Clarke Co., 1895.
Howells, William Dean, Stories of
Ohio. New York, Cin-
cinnati, Chicago, American Book Company,
1897.
King, Rufus, Ohio, First Fruits of
the Ordinance of 1787,
American Commonwealth Series, Boston and
New
York, Houghton, Mifflin and Company,
1888. The
Riverside Press, Cambridge Copyright.
Lee, Alfred E., History of the City
of Columbus. Munsell
and Co., 2 Vols., New York and Chicago,
1892.
426 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
Lewis, O. F., The Development
of American Prisons and
Prison Customs (1776-1845). Published by the Prison
Association of New York, 1845.
Martin, William H., History of
Franklin County, Columbus,
Published by Follett, Foster and
Company, 1858.
Orth, Samuel P., The Centralization
of Administration in
Ohio in Columbia University Studies in History, Eco-
nomics and Public Law. Vol. XVI,
Columbia Univer-
sity, New York, 1902-1903.
Powell, Lyman P. (Editor), Historic
Towns of Western
States. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York and London.
The Knickerbocker Press, 1901.
Robinson, L. N., Penology in the
United States, Philadel-
phia. The John C. Winston Company, 1922.
Randall, Emilius O., and Ryan, Daniel
J., History of Ohio,
5 Vols. The Century History Company, New
York,
1912.
Ryan, Daniel J., A History of
Ohio (with biographical
sketches of her Governors and the
Ordinance of 1787.)
Columbus, Ohio, A. H. Smythe, 1888.
Smith, William Henry, The St. Clair
Papers. 2 Vols., Cin-
cinnati: Robert Clarke & Company,
1882.
Thwaites, Reuben Gold, Early Western
Travels (Vol. XIX,
1903, 32 Vols.) The Arthur H.
Clark Co., Cleveland,
O., 1904-1907.
Wines, Frederick Howard, Punishment
and Reformation,
New York: Thomas Y. Crowell and Company.
Studer, Jacob H., Columbus, Ohio. Published
by Author,
Columbus, 1873.
THE HISTORY OF PENAL INSTITUTIONS IN
OHIO TO 1850*
BY CLARA
BELLE HICKS, M. A.
THE EARLY TERRITORIAL PERIOD
The History of Penal Institutions in
Ohio properly
begins with the first settlements in
the great North-
west Territory. The development of institutions in
a frontier colony naturally depends to
a large ex-
tent upon the character of the settlers
and the need for
such institutions.
The first settlers arrived at Marietta,
the first perma-
nent settlement in Ohio, on April 7,
1788.1 They came
under the auspices of the Ohio Company,
a company
composed of prominent citizens of New
England, or-
ganized expressly for the purpose of
establishing a
pioneer settlement in the Northwest
Territory.2 The
boundaries of the County of Washington
in which
Marietta was located were created July
25, 1788 by
Governor St. Clair and they included
nearly half of
Ohio. On July 2, 1788 the town was
named Marietta
in honor of Marie Antoinette, Queen of
France.3 The
great majority of the settlers were
from New England
and brought with them characteristics
and ideals of that
section.4 George Washington was
personally acquain-
ted with several of the early settlers
and he believed
* A thesis presented for the degree of
Master of Arts in Ohio State
University, prepared under the direction
of Professor Carl Wittke, Ph. D.
1 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio II,
459.
2 Hildreth, Pioneer History of the
Ohio Valley, 193-202, 206.
3 Ryan, History of Ohio, ch. III,
43.
4 Ibid., 35, 36
(359)
(614) 297-2300