It appears that our Society has failed to make any discrimination with regard to the different classes of cases which I have set forth, indulging in one constant, sullen, undistinguishing, uncompromising opposition to the system in all cases,--so much so as to give occasion for an eminent foreign writer to say that it had sworn against it "war to the knife." Early in its existence it gave its adhesion to the Auburn Prison, saying, "Here, then, is exhibited what Europe and America have been long waiting to see,--a prison which may be made a model for imitation." This adhesion was confirmed by the declaration of an officer of our Society, at a public anniversary in 1837, that the System of Auburn was "our system," and still more by a resolution of similar effect offered in 1838 by the Treasurer, who now opposes, not unnaturally, the efforts to release the Society from the bands he helped to tie. I do not found complaint merely on the character of advocacy which our Reports have assumed, though it were well worthy of inquiry whether this is not improper in an association like ours. I go further. I wish to state distinctly, that, in the zeal of devotion to Auburn, and in the frenzy of hostility to Pennsylvania, we have been betrayed into a course which no candid mind can hesitate to regret. I will not dwell on language that fell from our Secretary at the anniversary of 1845, which was in part the occasion of the letter from President Wayland already read; nor am I able to review all our Reports. One will be enough. I confine myself to the Eighteenth Report, which appeared in 1843. This Report has already been the subject of much remark here and elsewhere. A French writer of authority, M. Moreau-Christophe, Inspector-General of Prisons in France, has characterized it as "_a perversion of truth_";[178] while an English author has spoken of it in stronger terms. "With the nature of framing recurring documents connected with public institutions we are not unacquainted," says Mr. Adshead, "_and we believe a more flagrant instance of trickery has never come within the range of our experience_."[179] I am unwilling to adopt this language; but I cannot forbear terming the Report uncandid and unjust. This I shall show; and I am especially moved to do so, since the Treasurer has undertaken to vindicate it, and to vouch for the accuracy of its quotations. I shall consider it under _six_ different heads. [178] Revue Pénitentiare, 1844, p. 421. [179] Prisons and Prisoners, p. 128. _First._ It adduces against the Pennsylvania System the failure of experiments in Maine, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, on the principle of _absolute solitude without labor_, which, of course, were entirely inapplicable in the discussion of a system recognizing labor and many other solaces as essential parts of the system. Was this candid? Was it just?