Corrections_Today_Summer_2025_Vol.87_No.2

FROM THE ARCHIVES

inmates to wear uniforms that would help staff recognize who they were and make it more difficult for the inmates to engage in prohibited activities. In the days before modern classification was introduced, USP-Leavenworth divided its inmates into three grades. Inmates with clear conduct records were in the first grade and were entitled to a variety of privileges. Inmates in the second grade were those who had lost certain privileges as a consequence of committing infractions. The most unruly or intractable inmates were relegated to the third grade, which carried no privileges. Ready identification of an inmate’s grade helped to control inmate activities, detect contraband, and maintain discipline. USP-Leavenworth developed a color-coded system of inmate clothing to as sist with identification: first-grade inmates wore blue uniforms, second-grade inmates wore gray uniforms, and third-grade inmates wore gray uni forms with large red markings. The Bertillon system, fingerprinting, and color-coded uniforms were important turn-of the-century methods for identifying inmates. Technology for keeping inmates securely in cus tody also was evolving as the 20 th century dawned. Improving cell-door construction The most far-reaching advance was in cell-door technology. For most of the 19 th century, cell doors typically were hung on hinges and constructed of flat straps of iron that were interlaced in a lat ticework pattern. This type of door was still being installed after 1900. The military prison built on Alcatraz Island in California between 1909 and 1911, for example, featured swinging, strap-bar cell doors that were not replaced until 1934, when the Federal Bureau of Prisons acquired the facility. At the turn of the century, however, prisons were beginning to adopt a more secure type of cell door. These doors slid on tracks, were operated mechanically from a single point on the tier, and

were constructed of cylindrical, case-hardened, tool resistant steel bars. The brand new federal penitentiaries at Atlanta (1902) and Leavenworth (1906) featured this new type of cell door, which became the standard for 20 th -century prisons. Meanwhile, one innovation in cell-door construction that did not win wide acceptance was the brainchild of P. Emerson Glafcke of Cheyenne, Wyo. Heralded in the April 8, 1893, issue of Scientific American as “Glafcke’s Improvement in Prison Construction,” it promised “nearly absolute security” and a foolproof means of re vealing any tampering with bars. Grilles, as designed by Glafcke, actually were interconnected series of articulat ed pipes carrying water under pressure. When a bar was cut, water would leak out, the pressure would dimin ish, and alarms in the warden’s office would sound. The system apparently held less appeal for prison adminis trators than the tool-resistant bars. Improving cell construction All-steel cell construction also was being developed, as an alternative to brick cells with full steel fronts. More steel cells could be constructed in a given space than brick or stone cells, and they could be more easily cleaned and disinfected. On the other hand, Superinten dent James E. Heg of the New Jersey State Reformatory confessed to the 1901 National Prison Congress that he preferred brick cells because he believed it was easier for inmates to cut through steel and conceal their handiwork than it was for them to breach masonry. Using firearms and restraints For more forceful control of inmates, institution ordinances typically included 30-30 Winchester rifles, Winchester shotguns, Colt revolvers, and other fire arms that, in 1900, staff often carried in close proximity to inmates. For a time, the armory at USP-McNeil Island even contained a mountain howitzer. In addi tion to the usual selection of handcuffs, shackles, and leg irons, there were such hobbles as balls and chains,

Corrections Today | Summer 2025

40