restrain the passions and give the mind a correct bias, by proper parental influence.

The chaplain of the Clinton County Prison says,—

"through gambling,

66

through keeping bad company.

"The divine oracle directs us to 'train up a child in the way he should go.' Now, it strikes me, if this was done, there would not be as many young men in our State Prisons as there are at the present day. Let parents, therefore, make their best efforts to elevate the minds of their children to that high standard of morals which God has established in his holy word. It would seem that too many parents are content to teach their children, that a few acts of mercy and humility are all that is required to constitute a religious life. But we find that a simple belief in the doctrines of religion, alone, does not always make them honest not even sufficiently so to keep them out of our State Prisons; while we frequently meet with men of sterling integrity, who are wholly destitute of religious faith. While parents teach humility and mercy to their children, many overlook the equally important duty of instructing them in the sterling principle of justice in their business transactions with their fellow-men. Is not the want of justice in the common transactions of life, where the great evil lies which disturbs the peace of society? Let parents teach their children that, without integrity and the sterling principle of justice, their claims to piety will be like the morning cloud, which passeth away. Let them insist that goodness is inseparable from greatness, that honesty is always the best policy, and that it is also the only true road to honor, fame, and wealth. I say, therefore, to parents, who am also a parent, Let us teach our children that they cannot place too high an estimate on honesty and a good character.' If this was done in early life, should we not save ourselves from the mortification of having our children, after they have become members of a religious church, go back to crime and the State Prison, and thereby bring down our gray hairs with sorrow to the grave? for we have the promise that if we train up a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not depart from it.'

"ABRAHAM HAFF, Chaplain."

The chaplain of the Prison at Auburn says,

"302 attribute to intemperance the cause of their malefaction."

" And 110 confess they were gamblers."

Causes assigned by convicts in the Prison at Sing Sing, New York, December 2, 1845, for committing the offences for which they are now in Prison :

Want of protection in early life, nine,
Intemperance, one hundred and fifty,
Intemperance of their parents, two,
Destitution, eighty-two,

No conscience, two,

Innate depravity, eight,.

Insanity, nine; weak principles, thirty-one,

150

D

Sudden temptation, twenty-four; anger, twelve,
For gain, sixty-four; self-defence, nine,
Evil associations, one hundred and ninety-five,
Imbecility of mind, six; jealousy, three,
Don't know the cause, three,.

Innocent, as they assert,

Refused to answer any questions,

36

73

195

9

3

165

14

790

Of the above, it appears, from the keeper's report, 502 could read and write, 197 could read only, and 91 could neither read nor write; 210 had no opportunity of early religious instruction, and 381 had been intemperate, 474 were never married, and 290 had neither mother nor father living.

INSANITY IN PENITENTIARIES.

The warden of the New Hampshire Prison, Samuel G. Berry, Esq., says, in his report to the legislature at the June session, 1845, (p. 10,) —

"In Massachusetts, provision is made by law for the removal of insane convicts to the State Lunatic Hospital. Cases of insanity exist here, and I cannot think you will shrink from any humane and merciful provision that, under the circumstances, may be proper."

The physician of the Charlestown Prison, J. W. Bemis, M. D., says, in his last report to the inspectors, (p. 28,)

"The beneficial operation of the establishment of the Board of Commissioners on Lunacy to investigate cases of insanity in the Prison, has had but little occasion to display itself during the past year. No instances have occurred requiring the removal of an insane prisoner to the State Lunatic Hospital. But I have been glad to avail myself of their advice in one instance, where, though I was persuaded of the insanity of the convict, I thought fit to yield to the prisoner's own request, and permit him to return to labor. This was after he had become tranquil, and when employment would obviously be better for his health than confinement.

"At the meeting of the cominissioners, the others were of the same opinion and the convict soon regained his health.

"It must be obvious, however, that the cooperation of skilful and scien tific physicians, who have devoted an exclusive attention to the intricate sub ject of insanity, must be of great advantage in judging of the responsibility o those who are made the subjects of Prison punishment, and of the expedienc of their removal."

The superintendent of the Clinton County Prison, in th Northern District of New York, says,

"Of the convicts received here by sentence the past season, 1 was an idiot, and 2 were insane. The two latter were convicted in counties where they were strangers. One of them, at least, has been notoriously insane for several years, and his insanity upon all subjects is evident to the most ordinary capacity. The frequency of similar occurrences at the other State Prisons, as well as those referred to, have a tendency to produce the painful apprehension that the cupidity of jailers may sometimes lead them to conceal the insanity of a prisoner from the court that tries him, in order to obtain the fees for transporting him to a distant Prison. One that is really insane will not himself interpose that plea; and when those charged with crime are without friends in the counties where arrested, some provision by law for an examination of the criminal by the court of physicians seems to be necessary in order to guard against the conviction of those who are not accountable for their deeds. One of the insane here is very troublesome and dangerous. The disease of the other is of a milder type, and his propensity to crime only in one direction. For want of other accommodations, we are occasionally compelled with pain to confine the most violent one in a dungeon used for refractory convicts. The best arranged State Prisons are not adapted to cure this malady. The attention of former legislatures has been twice called to the propriety of providing for the confinement of insane convicts in our State Lunatic Asylum. The existing law in regard to this subject is singularly defective. (See R. S. Part IV. Tit. 2, Chap. 3, Art. 3.) It gives a conditional authority to the keepers of our State Prisons to remove insane convicts to the Lunatic Asylum in the city of New York, to be there confined' until the expiration of the term for which he shall have been sentenced, if he shall so long continue insane.' This gives the officers of that institution no authority to retain the convict after the expiration of his sentence; and, as their compensation for keeping him ceases at the same time, he is liable to be turned loose upon society, however mad he may be. The next section of the law is as follows:-If such insane person shall recover from his insanity before the expiration of the term for which he was sentenced, the agent of the Prison from which he was sent shall cause such convict to be returned to such Prison.' No distinction is here made between those who have become insane while in Prison, and those who committed the offence with which they are charged while in that state of mind. To return the latter to a State Prison would be aggravated injustice, and would probably produce a revival of their malady. The attention of the legislature is respectfully called to this subject."

RECONVICTIONS IN SEVERAL PENITENTIARIES.

According to a written statement furnished by the clerk. on the 15th of September, 1845, the number of prisoners in the New Penitentiary in Philadelphia was 319, of whom 55 were on second conviction to that institution, 9 on third conviction, and 1 on fourth conviction. Total, 65 reconvictions, among 319 prisoners, or 1 in 4.9.

In the Massachusetts State Prison, in 1844, of the 270 convicts then in Prison, 38 were on second conviction, 13 on

third conviction, 1 on fourth conviction, 1 on fifth conviction, and 1 on sixth conviction. Total, 54 reconvictions, out of 276, or 1 in 5.11.

Showing more reconvictions, in proportion to the whole number of prisoners, in the New Penitentiary in Philadelphia, than in the State Prison at Charlestown.

And this, too, notwithstanding the fact that the New Penitentiary in Philadelphia had been in operation only during a period of 16 years, from 1829 to 1845, while the State Prison at Charlestown had been in operation during a period of 39 years, from 1805 to 1844, and had had the benefit of the new building on the Auburn plan for separate confinement at night less than one half that period; so that the New Penitentiary, instead of having fewer reconvictions in proportion to its number of prisoners, has more; and, as the reconvictions are considered the best test in regard to the reformatory tendencies of a system, the inference is, from the reconvictions as above stated, that the New Penitentiary in Philadelphia is less reformatory in its tendencies than the State Prison at Charlestown. This has often been urged as the great point of superiority in the Pennsylvania system, that it was more reformatory; that prisoners, having been there once, would not return; that old convicts would flee the state. It does not prove so on trial. The proportion of reconvictions is larger. in the New Penitentiary in Philadelphia than in the State Prison at Charlestown.

The New Penitentiary in Philadelphia bears a still less favorable comparison with the State Prison at Auburn, in regard to its reformatory tendencies, by comparing the reconvictions in the two institutions. When the New Penitentiary in Philadelphia had been in operation 18 years, from 1827 to 1845, inclusive, there had been 1580 discharges, and 206 recommittals, or 1 in 7.66.

When the Auburn Prison had been in operation 21 years! from 1817 to 1838, inclusive, -3 years longer than the New Penitentiary in Philadelphia, there had been 2170 dis charges, and 178 reconvictions, or 1 in 12.19.

Showing that there were 28 more recommittals in Philadel phia than at Auburn, although the period of time was 3 year less, and the number discharged 590 less.

If the reconvictions at Auburn had been in the same propo tion as in Philadelphia, there would have been 282 recommi tals instead of 178.

It appears, therefore, from the above, that the proportic of recommittals is larger in Philadelphia than at Aubur

and therefore, so far as any judgment can be formed of the reformatory tendencies of the two systems from the recommittals, that the reformatory tendencies of the Auburn Prison are the best.

Again, the results of a comparison of the reconvictions in the same Prisons during the last year are in favor of the Auburn Prison.

In Philadelphia, 143 were committed, of whom 18 had been in the same Prison before; i. e., 1 in 7.94; besides 15 old convicts, committed to the New Penitentiary for the first time, who had been once or twice before in some other Prison.

At Auburn, 179 were committed, of whom 21 had been in the same Prison before; i. e., 1 in 8.52.

Showing a smaller proportion of reconvictions at Auburn. than in Philadelphia.

A similar result in favor of Auburn in regard to reconvictions appears by comparing the number of those in Prison at one time in both institutions.

We have already seen, that the reconvictions in Philadelphia, of 319 in Prison on the 15th of September, 1845, were 65, which is 1 in 4.9.

At Auburn, out of 683 in Prison January 1, 1846, 105 were reconvictions; i. e., 1 in 6.5.

Of the 437 committed in the two years ending December 31, 1845, 71 were reconvictions, or 1 in 6.1.

Reconvictions to the New Jersey State Prison :

From 1799 to 1823 inclusive, during a period of 25 years, under the old system, 788 convicts were discharged and pardoned, and 53 committed a second time, and 4 a third time; i. e., 1 in 13.82 were reconvictions.

From 1824 to 1836 inclusive, during a period of 13 years, 483 convicts were discharged and pardoned, and 43 were committed a second time, 12 a third time, 7 a fourth time, and 1 a fifth time; i. e., 1 in 7.66 were reconvictions.

From 1837 to 1845 inclusive, a period of 9 years, 796 convicts were discharged and pardoned, 72 were committed a second time, 14 a third time, 2 a fourth time, and 1 a fifth time; i. e., 1 in 8.94 were reconvictions.

From 1799 to 1845 inclusive, a period of 46 years, 1867 convicts have been discharged, and 209 recommitted a second, third, fourth, or fifth time; i. e., 1 in 8.93.

The reconvictions, therefore, were no fewer, during the latter period, under the operation of the solitary system, than during the whole period, in a large portion of which the old