GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN PRISONS***


E-text prepared by Wayne Hammond, Chris Curnow, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made
available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org)



Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
      file which includes the original illustrations.
      See 51065-h.htm or 51065-h.zip:
      (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/51065/51065-h/51065-h.htm)
      or
      (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/51065/51065-h.zip)


      Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive. See
      https://archive.org/details/historyromanceof08grif





THE HISTORY AND ROMANCE OF CRIME FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES
TO THE PRESENT DAY


[Illustration]


The Grolier Society
London


[Illustration: _Heidelberg_]


GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN PRISONS

Prisons of Prussia, Bavaria,
Saxony and Austria-Hungary
The Fortresses Of
Magdeburg And Spielberg

by

MAJOR ARTHUR GRIFFITHS

Late Inspector of Prisons in Great Britain

Author of
“The Mysteries of Police and Crime
“Fifty Years of Public Service,” etc.







[Illustration]

The Grolier Society

Edition Nationale
Limited to one thousand registered and numbered sets.
Number 307




INTRODUCTION


Interest in penal matters in Germany and in Austria-Hungary centres
rather in the nature and number of persons who commit crimes than
the methods pursued in bringing them to justice or the places in
which penalties have been imposed. The character and extent of crimes
committed from time to time, attracts us more generally than the
prisons designed and established for their punishment. This is the
more marked because such prisons have not achieved any remarkable
prominence or notoriety. They have been for the most part the ordinary
institutions used for detention, repression and correction, more noted
for the offenders they have held than their own imposing appearance,
architectural pretensions, or the changes they have introduced in the
administration of justice. Only in more recent years, since so-called
penitentiary science has come to the front and the comparative value
of prison systems has been much discussed, have certain institutions
prominence in Germany and become known as model prisons.
These have been erected in various capitals of the empire, to give
effect to new principles in force in the administration of justice.
Among such places we may specify a few, such as Bruchsal in Baden; the
Moabit prison in Berlin; the prison at Zwickau in Saxony; the prisons
of Munich and Nürnberg in Bavaria and of Heilbronn in Württemberg. To
these may be added the prisons of Stein on the Danube, of Marburg on
the Drave, and of Pankraz Nusle near Prague in Austria-Hungary. Many
others might be mentioned which have played an important part in the
development of penitentiary institutions.

The conflict of opinions as to prison treatment has raged continuously
and as yet no uniform plan has been adopted for the whole German
Empire. Each of the constituent states of the great aggregate body
has maintained its independence in penal matters and the right to
determine for itself the best method of punishing crime. At one time,
after 1846, the theory of complete isolation was accepted in all German
states, although the means to carry it into effect were not universally
adopted. Reports from the United States had deeply impressed the
authorities with the merits of solitary confinement, among others the
well known Professor Mittermaier, one of the most notable judicial
authorities of his time. But reaction came with another no less eminent
expert, Von Holtzendorff, whose works on prison administration are
still held in great esteem. After visiting Ireland, he was won over
to the seeming advantages of the progressive system, the gradual
change from complete isolation to comparative freedom, and he strongly
favoured the policy of cellular imprisonment. His proposals laid hold
of the practical German mind, and to-day the scheme of continuous
isolation finds little support; it left its mark, however, in several
prisons which will be referred to in the following pages.




CONTENTS


  CHAPTER                                        PAGE
  INTRODUCTION                                      5

  I. PRINCIPAL PRISONS                             13

  II. FRIEDRICH VON DER TRENCK AT MAGDEBURG        41

  III. NOTORIOUS POISONERS                         81

  IV. THREE CELEBRATED CASES                      106

  V. CLEVER IMPOSTORS AND SWINDLERS               137

  VI. TYPICAL MURDERERS                           173

  VII. THE STORY OF A VAGRANT                     201

  VIII. SOME REMARKABLE PRISONERS                 224

  IX. SILVIO PELLICO AT SPIELBERG                 249

  X. BRIGANDAGE AND CRIME IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY      273




List of Illustrations


  HEIDELBERG                                _Frontispiece_

  FRIEDRICH VON DER TRENCK, IN HIS CELL IN
      THE STAR FORT                             _Page_ 52

  SILVIO PELLICO AT SPIELBERG                      “  256




GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN PRISONS




CHAPTER I

PRINCIPAL PRISONS

    The Bruchsal in Baden--The Moabit in Berlin, the prison
    Stein--Penal methods in force--Adoption of solitary confinement
    not universally accepted--Bruchsal opened in 1848--Penal
    methods employed--The annex where prisoners are kept in
    association--The Protestant brotherhood and their work in
    the Moabit prison--Munich--The work of Obermaier--Bavarian
    penal code--Capital Punishment--Long Trials--Case of
    Riembauer--Hans Leuss’ account of Celle and his imprisonment
    there--Flogging--The “bed of lathes”--Zwickau in Saxony--Humane
    treatment in force--Heilbronn--Prison reform in Austrian and
    Hungarian prisons--Three new prisons erected in Austria-Hungary.


The cellular prison at Bruchsal in the grand-duchy of Baden was
commenced in 1841 and opened on October 10, 1848. It stands at the
northeast of the town of Bruchsal, on the highway to Heidelberg, in a
pleasant part of the country, enjoying a mild and healthy situation.
Hills rise in the background, while in front stretches the plain of
the Rhine, with its rich fields and wealthy villages. Immediately
adjoining the prison are two larger and two smaller buildings
containing official abodes for the superior and lower officers of the
penitentiary. The main building is a stately edifice, on an elevated
site, and the entire group is surrounded by a wall. This wall, of
considerable thickness and height, is a regular octagon, flanked by
turrets at the angles, which serve above as sentry boxes for the
military posts and below as dark cells. The soldiers who guard the
penitentiary walk about on the wall, which is four hundred feet long
and encloses a plot of ground of more than seven acres.

The discipline imposed at Bruchsal is very severe in character and
it has been found that the rule of isolation cannot be persisted in
for much more than four years. Only nine per cent. of the prisoners
could support so long a term; and the director has reported that after
three years of cellular confinement the muscular fibres become so
weakened that it is almost impossible to expect hard work from those
subjected to it. Bruchsal has an annex or auxiliary establishment
where association is the rule for certain prisoners: First, those who
have undergone six years of cellular confinement, unless they elect
to remain in the cell; second, those who are above seventy years
of age; third, those whose bodily or mental health unfits them for
separation. Industrial and other education go hand in hand at Bruchsal;
the earnings of the inmates at many various trades are substantial and
the prisoners value the teaching of the schoolmaster. The trades are
various, to avoid interference with private labour. The contract system
is not employed, but the prison authorities manufacture goods on their
own account. All needful attention is paid in the Bruchsal prisons,
whether cellular or associated, to hygiene, diet, clothing, bedding and
so forth.

In Prussia, long before the establishment of Bruchsal, the method of
solitary confinement found many advocates, and, beginning in 1846,
several large, separate cell prisons were built. The first, the Moabit,
which was organised by Dr. Wichern, the famous creator of the Hamburg
Raue Haus, is a cellular prison on the “wheel” or radiating plan, with
four wings and 508 cells in all. An interesting feature of the Moabit
is its management by a Protestant brotherhood, that of the Raue Haus,
or Hamburg reformatory, whose members are regularly trained for this
useful work on lines laid down by Dr. Wichern. All the brothers do
not devote themselves to prison management, however, but are sent as
required to various fields of labour.

At Moabit it soon became evident that the separate system was not
suitable, and that secret intercourse among the convicts was not
preventable. The doors of the cells were therefore left open during
working hours, and a number of convicts worked in company. In church,
during exercise, and in school no isolation took place, but silence was
always enforced. On the whole, the Prussian authorities were not in
favour of prolonged isolation. As to the general result, it has been
thought that the cellular system lessened the number of reconvictions,
but that the experience had no lasting effect upon hardened or habitual
criminals. On the other hand, first offenders, or those who had been
tempted by opportunity or carried away by passion, were believed to
have been returned to society changed and reformed after a period of
cellular confinement. Progress continued to be made, although the
introduction of a new system of criminal procedure in 1849 led to such
an increase in the number of sentences that much overcrowding of the
prisons followed. Attention was in consequence directed rather toward
providing further accommodation than to experiments in treatment.
Such reforms as were urgent, including the separation of the sexes
in different buildings, were accomplished, while the building of new
prisons went steadily on and the fine specimens of the Stadtvogtei in
Berlin, the cellular prisons at Ratibor in Silesia and Rendsburg in
Schleswig-Holstein, a cellular police prison at Altona and similar
institutions in other provinces, showed that improvement did not tarry
by the way in Prussia.

Bavaria made the most marked progress, which was worthy of the country
that produced the famous Herr Obermaier, and the great state prison of
Munich is still worked upon the lines he introduced in 1843, although
cellular confinement, which he did not favour, has been to some extent
installed. Obermaier was one of those rare characters, another
Montesinos, who left his mark on prison administration. He was a man
of the same indomitable will and commanding personal influence, who
could work wonders with prisoners and change their natures entirely.
When he assumed charge, the prison of Munich contained some six or
seven hundred prisoners in the worst state of insubordination. They
defied all discipline, although the harshest and most severe had been
tried. They were chained together and to each chain so heavy a weight
was attached that even the strongest found a difficulty in dragging
it along. Soldiers, a hundred of them, were on duty all through the
prison, at the gates, around the walls, in the passages, inside the
work-shops and dormitories; at night, as an additional precaution,
a pack of from twenty to thirty large and savage bloodhounds roamed
at large through the yards. Obermaier called the place “a perfect
pandemonium, comprising within the limits of a few acres, the worst
men, the most slavish vices, and the most heartless tyranny.” By
degrees he relaxed the severity of the discipline, lightened the chains
and sent away the soldiers and the dogs.

The prisoners became humanised and in return for the confidence placed
in them, grew well-behaved. They managed themselves, and public
opinion among them checked flagrant misconduct, all yielding ready
obedience to those of their fellows who were appointed overseers.
If a prisoner was inclined to break a rule, the warning, _es ist
verboten_, was sufficient to deter him. The most satisfactory industry
prevailed, and the prisoners became self-supporting, making their own
clothes, building their own walls, forging their own fetters, and
more especially manufacturing useful articles which found ready sale.
In these employments they earned good wages, part of which was given
to them on discharge. Nor was the conquest thus achieved over these
turbulent spirits merely evanescent, disappearing after release. It was
proved, “on irrefutable evidence,” that about five-sixths of those sent
out from the Munich prison returned to society improved and that the
percentage of relapse was exceedingly small.

Bavaria has four cellular prisons in all; one at Nürnberg and three
others intended to serve the district courts of justice and filled
mostly with prisoners not yet tried. Other prisons are conducted on
the collective system. Many of them are ancient convents and castles,
little suited for the purpose to which they have been converted. Crime
is very prevalent, owing to a generally low standard of morality,
the neglect of education and the rough manners and customs of the
population. The peasants in many parts of the country are in the habit
of carrying long stiletto-like knives at public houses and dancing
places, and murderous conflicts, after nasty quarrels, when grave
injuries are inflicted, are very common.

The penal code of Bavaria, compiled chiefly by Anselm von Feuerbach,
a distinguished criminal jurist, was adopted by the government in
1813, and became the basis of criminal legislation for all the German
states. In Bavaria the peculiar merits and defects of this code
were strongly accentuated. The laws are severe and the punishment
merciless, but blood is never shed until the most minute pains have
been taken to secure proof of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is never
held sufficient to justify the extreme penalty, and sentence of death
cannot be passed unless the culprit has confessed his crime.[1] Two
witnesses are deemed sufficient when they testify to facts seen with
their own eyes, and the statement of one witness is accepted only
as half proof. By far the most important evidence is that given by
the prisoner himself. He is questioned by the examining judge in the
presence of the notary only, who is employed to take down his replies.
The judge seeks to elicit a full statement by suggesting that ample
confession may soften punishment. An attempt is made to entrap the
prisoner into untruthfulness by asking him if he knows the real reason
of his arrest, and if he affects ignorance or gives a false answer he
is gravely admonished and warned that lying will prejudice his case.
All the questions put to him are aimed to mislead him and obtain
unwary admissions inconsistent with innocence. If the prisoner has
replied truthfully, he is closely cross-examined on his own story,
which is twisted and inverted until he is confused into contradicting
and committing himself.

[1] This practice of requiring confession in capital cases doubtless
had its origin in the influence of the Church and the doctrine of the
confession as necessary to absolution.

All this time he is kept in the dark as to the exact nature of the
accusation laid to his charge, and it is illegal for him to seek
enlightenment. He is not furnished with a copy of his own evidence or
of that of the witnesses for or against him. Pitfalls are laid for him
by his unexpected confrontation with an accomplice. If he obstinately
refuses to speak, he is sentenced to bread and water. If it is a murder
charge, he is brought face to face with the bleeding corpse, or it may
be that the decaying remains are exhibited to him. The most curious
feature in the proceedings is their prolixity.

Criminal trials in Bavaria have lasted for years. The reports in one
leading case, that of the priest-murderer Riembauer, filled forty-two
folio volumes. The most minute and searching investigation was made of
the secret motives and inmost feelings of the accused, as well as his
open actions. Feuerbach has written an account of remarkable crimes and
lengthy trials in Germany, and among others tells the story of Francis
Riembauer. He was a parish priest whose first worldly venture was the
purchase of a farm near the village of Lauterbach between Ratisbon
and Landshut, where he lived with the former owners, a widow, Mrs.
Frauenknecht, and her two daughters, Magdalena and Catherine. All were
esteemed by their neighbours. Riembauer passed for a model of apostolic
zeal and charity. Though the son of humble parents, he had a fine
person and was an eloquent preacher. In 1808, after passing with great
distinction the examination for ecclesiastical preferment, he obtained
the benefice of Priel, sold the farm and moved with the Frauenknecht
family to his new parsonage.

Soon after the change, the mother and the elder daughter Magdalena
died. Riembauer then endeavoured to persuade Catherine, the remaining
daughter, to continue to live with him as his housekeeper in her
sister’s place. She refused, however, and left him to take a position
as a domestic in another family. It was noted that for some time
afterward she was subject to periods of great gloom and depression.
Finally she confided to a friend, and then confessed to a priest, that
she was the possessor of a dreadful secret: that Riembauer had murdered
a woman; that she and her mother and sister had witnessed the deed; and
that he had also appropriated the entire fortune of her family. The
priest to whom she confessed counselled silence, but wrote Riembauer
in an attempt to bring about the restoration of the fortune, with no
result.

Catherine was bright and clever and she was not satisfied