V ^. \^. ^^^ ^ ijr IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^< ^ .**. ^/ ^^ ITJs; .^OOUNI^ 1 - 1 : 'i' r K \i o I ' A I J ; . .1 . c ! . 'i^ xV ( ^ II K , riiAiH OF nil; iiOAiu>. Rc-prinfcd JroiN the " Morning Chronicle.'^ QUEHEC : riUNTEIi AT TlIK on ICE OF TIIK " MOUNINQ CnUONlCI.E, " FOOT OF MOfNTAlN IIII-L. 18G4. • W< ««i««HM ■§■ c t THE BOARD OF rf J^^|IlW^, ^■■' PRISONS AND HOSPITALS ANI> ITH ^VOOUSEH^S. ••''****-'^**"*,#»»#"^**v<»*,*"».»'^.«"H^» LETTER OF MR. J. ITS ACCUSERS, LETTER OF MR. J. O. TAOHllfe. CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. ( Re-printed from the « Morning Chronicle,") QoiBio, JaQQary 24tb, 1864. Mb. Bditob,— As you hare had the kindness, of yonr own accord, to answer the attacks of the Mercury upon the Board of Inspectors of Asylums and Prisons, I have no doubt that yon will hare no objection to insert the following commnnicationin your columns. To the Editor of the Morning Otronicle, Quebec. Tour** truly, J. C. TACHfi. Mb. Editor, Jakdabt, 1864. For nearly three months some newspapers, amongst which th9 Briti$h ^mtrkon, of Kingeton, and the Mtrcvry, of Quebec; hare made themselres 1^ pre-eminent, following an old path of the Globe of Toronto, have accnmu* lated attacks upon attacks, insults upon insults against the Board of Asylnms and Prisons Inspectors, all in relation to the management of the ProTincial Penitentiary. To this Tcrj moment I hare endured with a good deal of patience those aspersions, and I would have probably continued to despise those ritupera- tions, had I been alone concerned in the matter ; but, as others are inrolred in them, as my family has a right that I should defend for them my position as a functionary, and, moreorcr, as the authority of our Board is suffering and may suffer still more from the tactics adopted against us by those papers, I thought it my duty to cease being silent. Let it be well understood, however, that my intention is not to battle with our accusers fur any length of time ; I intend simply to show, in as few words as possible, once for all, the fallacy of their arguments and the total Inaccuracy of their statements. To answer seriatim to the numerous columns written against the Inspectors by the above designated writers, would require a Tolnme. Fortunately there is no necessity for such labour to show the amffluc of those writings, and to upset the whole fabric of their indictment against the Board. To bring, first, some order in writings in which there is none, let us make an abstract of all the accusations referred to. We are accused, in one place, of ntlpable. negligence or incapacity, in another place of incompetency or xomething worse ; here we are taxed of ignorance, there of wan^ of vigilance, elsewhere of extravagance and folly. A little further we are accused of lavishnens in the expenditure, of a want of watchfulness and of unbecoming familiarily with the convictx during our visits. They complain that our reports do not contain all the detailed informa- tion desirable, and that they are not distributed in sufficient number and in good time ; that the Inspectors have created new offices at the Penitentiary, have appointed a greater number of guards than that fixed by law, and have increased the salaries of those same guards to a collective amount — asserted to be $11,070 in one article, and $6,720 in another — in the face, too, of the laws and the statutes provided in the case : and, at last, comes the accusation, which is not the least grave, of having erected, at Rockwood, an immense and costly building, without necessity and without authority. All that I have heretofore related may be called fl ▼itapera- fe ioTolred position as Bering and •papers, I fo batti* tbe total ftinst the ▼olame. ' against e. let us «<^y, in axed of '%. A Want of r visits. iforma- aod in ntiarj, d have iBerted 3f the )s the odfan ni/ia- owed I the spre- Ithe the lec* WD, lata fui improTementa which had never been dreamed of before, and vhicb, unfor- tunately, have only lasted jast the space of time during which Meurs. Brown and Bristow — pardon — Bristow and Brown remained Inspectors of the above-mentioned, and, ever since, very badly managed institution. * * " Verily ye are wise, and wisdom will die with you !' From all that is drawn, as an unavoidable con3eI on ml " di o X c It was in the month of November, 1848. Several convicts had been for a length of time plotting, with the intention of setting fire to the whole establishment ; setting at naught the watchfulness of guards, overseers, officers, including the Inspectors and Commissioners Extraordinary. They had, for a long time, with a deal of labor, and more than common facilities, manufactured torches, firepots, containing, amongst other things, tallow and spirit of turpentine, procured candles and matches, cut the hose and otherwise damaged and rendered useless the fire engines, penetrated under the roofs, where they had no business to be, deposited their apparatus, Mflipera, the ore time to beir object ■ome good on to what |wUnd the '"- of heart of our les ea ■Ulance oa ded, with 1 coining ber of the time and bas been It is that itablishea s on the lagement me Want > the In- cannot '7, the neither " com- le little oducta at the entiarij le one Ii the daily 'hops, ^reda te a !um- BOit aor- ited ring lich sen ale rs, w [d If i lighted them, and finallj burned to aihoa, oa the 2&th of Nor. , the large roof of one of the prison wiogi, several other parts of the buildings hariog prerioualy escaped by happy chances, as waa subseqaentlj discovered. Does all this prove that Messrs. Brown and Bristow are i^orant, Inzy or fomething worse ? Not at all. But it proves that watchfulness is not unfailing, and that ihe penitent iarits are the very f lace from which evil doingi are to be moit expected. If another argument Tras wanted to establish that with the best of motives and earnedtucss, there are irregularities and evils which are difScult to prevent, even when they are easily foreseen, a^ain the high authority of Messrs. Bristow and Brown could furnish it. In their report of 1850, speaking of the constant introduction amongst tbn convicts of prohibited articles, they say :—" The Warden and his subordinate officers have used "every exertion to put a stop to this improper and injurious practice ; but '■ not, we fear, with success. We suggest the propriety of introducing into " the new Penitentiary Acta clause, making it penal to bring such articles "iato the Penitentiary.'' It would have been better to ask for a clause to discover the guilty parties, for there lies the whole difficulty ! Who, then, are to succeed, where Mcssri. Brown and liristow have signal- ly failed V But not only are we reproached for not having prevented a convict from imposing upon his guards, but we are also accused of having not anticpated the supposed culpability of an ofticer of the institution, and of not having prevented its perpetration. It would be just as reasonable to accuse a Government for the defalcation of an employs, tlie directors of a bank tor having been robbed by an absconding clerk, a general for the act of a sentinel leaving his post, or delivering the pass- word to the enemy. Such reasoning does not realy require any refutation ; it falls to the ground of itaelf, to the shame of the utterers. As to the accusation of lavishness and extravagance iu the expenditure of the Penitentiary, such a statement disappears before an honest examina- tion of the facts ; for to sustain it, our detractors affect not to take into consideration that nearly a fourth of the sums voted under the name of Penitentiary is expended at Rockwood for the benefit of another institution. In other words, they charge against the current expenditure of the Pen- itentiary the entire outlay for tlie erection of vast and costly buildings for the use of another, and, to all intents and purposes, entirely distinct and separate institution. The Provincial Penitentiary is neither the least costly of institutions of the class, nor is it, on the other hand, amongst the more costly ; it ranks, in I'lict, us will be shown, amongst those that are most economically managed. The question of cost will be considered hereafter, with statistical information taken from o^cinl documents. The Mercury has a pet argument, which is repeated by him very often as a masterpiece of cleverness, I suppose. Here it is : — '• • • • prison and "reformatorymanageraent, together with prison inspection, entail upon the " Province burdens amounting to $ir»o,6rj o:; !" It is a good deal, but it is uot all. All the asylums, hospitals, prisons and reformatories, under the inspection of the board, do cost a great deal more than that sum ; and still it is no argument against the board. One thing may cost a large sum and be cheap ; another thing may cost a sum, small in itaelf, and yet be very dear. The support of indigent and dangerous classes is everywhere a very heavy burden upon society, but it is an unavoidable one. I am really astonished at the short-sightedness of the writer of the Mercury ou this point ; if, instead of expres-dng tlic above-mentioned sum in dol- lara, he had doce it ia fartbiugs, he would have gathered tucb figore* as to astonish ercry one of his readers disposed to be satisfied with bis argument as it stands. TLe Inspectors, it is said, do nutgiveenough of detailed information in their reports, and those reports are not distributed widely ecough. The answer to that charge is as simple as it is conclusive. The Inspectors have no control whateTer iu tho printing and distributing of their re- ports, which are so printed and distributed under the supervision of the Printing Committee of the House of Assembly. No matter how concise are the appendices of those reports, where the details of information are to be found, they are always curtailed for the printers. Furthermore, it would appear that the British Jlineriian, who utters that complaint, is, after all, \ ery little interested in the question, as ho is always asking questions, the answers to which are given, at length nnd in print, in reports evidently in liis possession. It will be seen, hereafter, that the printing of Provincial Statutes, in full, has had a small influence on his knowledge of the questions he undertakes to expound. In relation to the iucreiise of the salaries uf ofticers and guards of the Penitentiary, and of creating new ufBccs, the answer is, that the In- spectors have no power to do it, and have in fact not don*) it. The salaries were, indeed, increased to the extent of nearly a fourth of the whole, several years before the appointment of our iioard ; and what those tAle and practical writers believe, in their conscience I suppose, to be a discovery, is nothing more than a display of ignorance. On that score the editor of tho Britixltjimericun puts on his best appear- uucti and lets out a little of his constitutional knowledge. After having said, in the number of the 30th November last :— " The additions made to " the salaries of the guards by the Inspectors, apparently without any •* authority, represents an annual expenditure of $6,720." * * He adds, on the 1st December. * "' " Possibly there may be 8om» authority *' which does not appear on the face of tho statutes, for the deviations wc " have noted from the statutory provisions ; but we know of no authority, <• except Parliament itself, which !ia3 a right to override the enactments of '* an act of Parliament. " For the peace of mind uf the dutiful watchmuu of public interest aud parliamentary privileges, 1 can happily inform him that the increase of salaries alluded to was ordered by His Excellency the Governor in Council, agreeably with the dispositions of tho Act 18th Vic, chap. 89, (1S55,) which is commonly called tho Percentage Act . So tho editor of the British Jimtriran can enjoy a comparatively com- fortable sleep ! True, these horrid Inspectors do hold offices coveted by others ; ♦ • » but they are not guilty of the usurpation of the powers of either tho Parliament or tho I'^xccutive. As far as the number of subordinate othccrs is concerned, and the aggregate amount of their salaries, including the percentage, it has always been brought within the letter and intention of the law. True, the number of employes called guards is apparently more numerous, but the number of a superior class, called keepers, ismuch less than allowed by the law —the transfer from one class to another loss paid being in the interest of the institution. Astonishment is expressed at the increase of the salary of tho Inspectors, as compared with that of the former Penitentiary In- spectors, who had nothing else to do than to look after the Penitentiary ; but tho appointment of tho present Board is not made in virtue of the Penitei lloteoV Jlf«rcttT| does nl beea fq Ub Ilia 9 PeniMnlury Aci aloae, but agreeably to the Act 20U] Vic. ebap. SSth. MoreoTtr, the sabsection on which the British Jmerican (the writer of th» Mtreury being a little wiser or more elevated in the eitimation of himgtlf, does not object to the salary of the Inspectors,) bases his argnment, has been formally repealed by an act of Parliament. ^ But the most astouiahing ot all tboso accusations, perhaps, is that to which the Mercury, in his issue of the 9th January, gir .a a form in the follow- ing terms :— *' Wo cut off all charges for materials and labor on account of « the asylum at llockwood, because the buildings in progress there afford " one of the strongest illustration; of the waste and folly which hare " disgraced the management of the iioard. Whatever fate awaits them, " the Rockwood Asylum will be a lasting monument of their recklessness "or incompetence. Year after year it has absorbed large sums. There " is, however, absolutely no necessity for it ; from its inception to this " day it has been a job that would be ludicrous but for its costliness. The « Inspectors cannot but be aware that for the accommodation of the insane •' prisoners, a ward of the Penitentiary would be ample; yet these build- " ings have been allowed to go on, year after year, although their inutility " for Penitentiary purposes has been notorious from the outset. To reach " the truth of the credit side of the amount, even approximatively, the " $35,050.90^ which are charged as for the Rockwood buildings must be " transferred to the debit aide, as representing so much materials and labor " thrown away — literally wasted, thanks to these vigilant inspectors." Ignorance and blundering are decidedly getting the bettor of bad faith in this passage, which evidently proves that one may have the venom of the serpent without its wisdom. The erection of the Rockwood buildings, proclaimed by the writer to be unntcessary^ ludicrous and foolish, owes its origin not to Inspectors, recent or ancient, not to the Eexecutive Government, but to the will of the three branches of the Legislature, as expressed in an Act of Parliament passed in 1857, and embodied in Revised Statules of Canada, chapter 108. In chapter HI aro contained the legal dispositions authorising convict labor to be employed in erecting the Ifockwood liuildings, and in the chapters already mentioned, and the chapter:; 101> aid 110, is prescribed what it to be done with that fasting moiumad of the recklessness or incompetence of the Inspectors. At the time of the oiganizalluu of tho present Board of Inspectors (in December 1859), the plans of the Rockwood Asylum, prepared by an able architect and approved by distinguished alienists, had been sanctioned by the Governor in Council, and the work was already in progress. Since that, time all the sums expended at Rockwood have been voted by Parliament for that very purpose. Tho Inspectors have no more part in any cen- sure that may be passed on tlic Rockwood buildings than in the eulogiums pronounced on them by the jtnwicua JournU of Insanity, (page 240 of the XIX vol.), the highest authority among periodicals on the subject on this continent. All that tho Inspectors have had to do with tho work has been to render the cost of those buildings (costly in their nature) as little as possible, and. on that point, they have saved on a single item several thousand dollars, by a well-timed and well-directed alteration in the specifications of materials. As, therefore, the Inspectors have uuly acted in obedience to the laws, and the orders of their superiors in this affair, it is only just and proper that the Mercury should restore to the credit side of our balance sheet (for 1) 10 thej^ftr meatiODed) that sum of $35,050 OOJ which han been so unmercifallf " cut oflf" by him; nay, " traruftrred to the debit side." I now come to the comparisons, drawn by those clever accountants, between the penitentiaries of the State of New York, and the Provincial Penitentiary ; such comparisons being based upon the mere assertion that American prisons are self-sustaining ; not only that, but a source of income tor the State, such income being set down at the collective sum of $76,404 for the years 1859, 1860 and 1861, as derived exclusively from the Auburn Penitentiary. My best answer to this is comprised in the following statements of expenditure and receipt of the three New York State Prisons, taken from the Public Accounts as presented to the Legislature of the State of New York, by the Comptroler : — (Sec "jSssembly documents" for each corresponding year.) 1855. JSarpcnrit7Mre—Sing Sing, $122,069. 48c ; Auburn, $GG,666.G'7 ; Clinton, $68,323.03. More for debts— H'mg Sing, $125,008.10; Auburn $40,533.54 ; Clinton, $36,834.87. Total receiptsSing Sing, $82,079.46; Auburn, $71,156.08; Clinton' $857.70. 1856. Expenditure— Sing Sing, $114,264.42 ; Auburn, $70,030.19 ; Clinton, $55,039.38. JUore for books, $500. More for debts— Siag Sing, $8,773.16; Auburn, $288.27 ; Clinton, $132.03. Receipts— Sing Sing, $86,935.00 ; Auburn, $74,518.48 ; Clinton, $6,- 151.04. Toi $23,2731 Olintoi $16,09C It I at ibis I respond . deduct) I done curredl less il^ expend to the] York accoui peniteil genera novoher 1857. Expenditure— Sing Sing, $109,975.83 ; Auburn, $74,492 ; Clin- ton, $47,651.41. More for books— Sing Sing, $200 ; Auburn, $200. More for criminal insane asylum, Auburn, $15,000. More for debts — Sing Sing. $19,893.56; Auburn, $47.75 ; Clinton, $859.79. Total receipts— ^ing Sing, $81,867.92 ; Auburn $64,121.42 ; Clinton, $26,050.54. 1858. Expenditurc—Siag Sing $119,387.74; Auburn, $77,213.98; Clinton, $58,026.65. More for criminal lunatic asylum — Auburn, $20,000. More for debts— Qmg Sing, $8,733.30 ; Clinton, $435.77. Total receipts— Sing Sing, $39,818.92; Auburn, $33,300; Clinton, $3,762.04. 1859. £a;;»endj7Mr«— Sing Sing, $i30,994.95 ; Auburn, $87,l(;0.lU; Clinton, $72,526.40. More for boola, $700. More for //e/»^s— Olintou, $19,690. Total receipts— Sing Sing, $89,208.71 ; Auburn, $75,917.62 ; Clinton $17,313.94. 1860. Expenditure— Sii\:, Sing, SlG3,7lG.4i ; Auburn, $100,854. 10 : Clinton, $81,362.61. More for crim inu I asylum, ^19, 586. ^'i. More fordebts—^ Clinton, $36,000. 11 ercifulij OTincial on that income 75,404 Auburn snts of n from f New 06.67 ; iburn inton> Sing, 56,- :!!in. More ton, 08; '00. Jn, Total r«cctp/<— Sing Sing, $99,993.77 ; Auburn, $98,286.63 ; 6linton, $23,273.02. 1861. JEjrpendi/ure—Sing Sing, $163,231.32 ; a jbura, $111,614.63 ; Clinton, $69,069. 15. More/or criminal asilum, ^14,:i22.53. Total receipts— Siag Sing, $28,780.80 ; Auburn, $48,067.85 ; Clinton, $16,090.46. It would require a great deal more time and space than I can dispose of at tfais moment to draw, from the above figures as compared with the cor- responding items relative to our Penitentiary, all the conclusions and deductions which they suggest. Let it be well understood, however, that I do not mean to convey the idea that any part of the large expenditure in- curred on account of the New York State Prisons was unnecessarily, much less illegitimately incurred, on the contrary I am convinced that such expenditure was unavoidable. My sole object was to oppose those facta to the gratuitous assertions of our adversaries, namely : That the New York State prisons are more than self-sustaining establishments. Those accounts of the Gomptroler of the State of New York show that the three penitentiaries in question are far from constituting an exception to the general rule, that everywhere penitentiaries are costly institutions and that nowhere do the receipts approach in amount their expenditure. As the reader must have noticed the great difference in the relative figures of expense and receipt for those three penitentiaries, it is well to remark that they are all under the direction of the same Board of Inspectors ; hence the conclusion most be drawn that direction alone is not all that influences the results, but that localcircumstances have also % great deal to do, in these matters, as well as in many others. To sum up the aggregate of the figures above related, let us remark that, during the seven years elapsed between 1855 and 1861 inclusive, the self-sustaining penitentiaries of the State of New York have cost $2,329,- 359.16, that they have produced $1,067,551.90, making a total deficit of $1,261,807.26 in all. How does it happen, then, that so many people are deluded with the notion that these institutions are self-sustaining 7 I answer : By the sys- tem of arranging the figures in the annual reports of the wardens of those institutions ; making an imaginary distinction between ordinary and extra- ordinary expenditure ; the latter being kept out ; entering as receipts, be aides the cash, all sorts of items under the different titles of available, wiavailable earnings, excess of inventory, and so on. Such manoeuvres have induced the Comptroler of public accounts to say in his report for 1854 : — " The sequel of this nice adjustment ot " accounts is, vhat Auburn prison owes for its support and maintenance, '* as reported to mo by the committee for investigatiug the pecuniary affairs " of the State Prisons, $38,485.88." The same system of account-keeping have compelled the new Warden of Sing Sing, when reporting for the first time on coming into office, and being desirous of representing things us they are without being afterwards subject to the invidious and unjust comparisons such as these from which our detractors are trying to make us sutler, to say ia his report for 1862 — " U will bo my aim to avoid tlie great error which has prevailed in the '• reports of the operations of this prison for ii number of years past, namely Ri I 12 << <— endisavoring to mako it appear, on paper, at least, that this prifloa was " paying more than its current expenses." After having given in figures a small part of the discrepancies between the facts and the words:, he adds :— " The above statements are undeniable " facts, and yet you will find, by a perusal of the annual reports, that the " acconnts are so footed up as to roake it ap]iear every year that the income " has been nearly equal to tho expenses, and in some years much more." It is with such statements, and something added to them, compared with exaggerated deficits for our Penitentiary, that our detractors are arguing against the present Prison Board. If it was only an error it could be pardoned very easily ; but what must one think of men like the writers of the Mercury, for instance, who, after having been shewn the exact truth, after having seen clearly the untruthfulness of their former statements, still repeat them, and continue, notwithstanding, precisely the same arguments for week after week ? I leave it to the conscience of honest people to frame the answer. Let I beginnl lavisbnef To under dj ing «o misceUa not cor It ever o^ contrac with ye tvrvtiln The same writer of the Mercury, feeling, after all, the weakness of such arguments, has tried to operate a diversion by accusing us of what be calls cooking accounts, by this is meant attempting to make people believe that the Provincial Penitentiary defrays its expenses out of convict labor, which is exactly the reverse of all we have thought and said on the question. In order to induce his readers to give credit to his assertion, he tries to bring the Board in contradiction with the Auditor General's accounts, by contrasting the administrative expose of the worth of the labor performed at the Public Works, entrusted to the authorities of the Penitentiary, and the balance-sheet published in the Public Ac- counts ; without reflecting tlmt the said balance-sheet is exactly the same as the one published in the very same report of the Board, which he quotes. Those two pieces of information given by the Inspectors, in the same report (1862), at pages 21 and 183 of the French, 21 and 184 of the English copy, are simply the completion of one another. The first shows how many days of labor have been employed on pnblic works, and the value of such labor, besides the number of days of labor on contracts, for which cash lias been received. The second is the simple summary of cash transactions, in account current with the Province. The administrative expose of page 21 is as fair and as candid as can be ; the balance-sheet of page 184 is also perfectly correct, so correct that the Auditor General has published it, in the second part of the Public Accounts, page 92, with the simple alteration ot changing the place of one item, on the same side. The Brithh American discusses the prices of 40 cents and 50 cents a day, alTixed to the labor of our best working convicts, and, to show that we are not justifiable in making it so high, he says :— " The highest con- " tract price for convicts in tho Penitentiary, that we heard of, is 35 cents '* per day." Tho only thing I can say is, that any one attempting to discuss such questions with the knowledge of what he has heard of, must necessarily commit many blunders, as we have already proved to be the case with the Brititk Ami'iirah. I'ov his information, then, we convey the intelligence that there have been at the Penitentiary several contractfi at 40c., one at 45c,, one at TiOc. ami onu at 51 cents. i m iii tin 15 ion was 9tween eniable ti«t the income Id with rgoinff Md bS Let ua now cast a look on the question of receipts and expenditure, beginning with the latter, in order to know whether there is or is not lavishneBS and gross mismanagement, as alleged by our detractors. To facilitate the examination, it is necessary to classify the expenditure under difihrent heads, namely : 1st, salaries ; 2nd, provisions ; 3rd, cloth* ing and bedding ; 4th, fuel and light ; 5tb, building and repairs ; 6th, miscellaneous, which includes, as well understood, a variety of small items not comprised in any of the others. It is well to explain, at first, that ttte Inspectors have no control what- ever over the salaries *, that they have scarcely any control over the supply contracts, which are given out by public advertisement ; that, in fact, with very little exception, the responsibility of the Board is confiDCil to the mtrveillance of the proper usage and consumption of articles. It would be altogether too long to enter into a full discussion of the multifarious questions connected with feeding and clothing prisoners, and in warming, lighting and otherwise providing such institutions as penitentiaries, and to consider all that in relation with the climate, situa- tion and habits of the people. The simplest way of dealirg with the question will be to show, by figures taken from the proper sources, that, notwithstanding many disadvantages, the Provincial Penitentiary occupies a distinguished rank amongst institutions of the sa'jie nature ; for I suppose that our adversaries do not mean to say tba'i. all penitentiaries are ill- managed, and that they ought to be appointed Inspectors of all of them. I have no complete series of reports of the American prisons, so I make use of the most recent in my possession, giving, of course, the year and the mean annual population : that mean is established, for all in the same way, by adding the numbers at the beginning and end of the year and dividing by two. The Provincial Penitentiary is the only one iu which lunatics of dif- ferent kinds are kept, fed, &c., &c. It has been the case for several years at Kingston. All the male lunatics of the so-called criminal asylum of Rockwood have been maintained out of the Penitentiary stores ; it was only during the year 1862 that, a part of the new buildings at Rockwocd having been temporarily iltted up, the crowding of tiic insane ward at the Penitentiary was a little relieved. I give this information to explain to the reader that in the mean population of the Proviucial Penitentiary, for 1862, are included 44 male lunatics, who, while they give no work, being added to the number of consumers, must necessarily be counted with them. This is a very important clement in the calculation, which has been completely, overlooked by sundry writers on the subject the more so that, for several years past, the mean number of male lunatics so kept to the cost of the Penitentiary has been over sixty. — Now, I will go on with the abstracts from reports above referred to : Kingtton Penitentiary, (1862), mean population, 808 : — 1. salaries, $34,- 409.92. II. provisions, $23,334.88. III. clothing and bedding, $11,587.97. IV. fuel and light, $0,190.45. V. buildings and repairs, $9,139.09. VI. miscellaneous $7,999.85. Sing Stng Penitentiary , (1862), mean population 1,228:— 1. salaries, $49,668.53. II. provisions, $44,376.33. III. clothing and bedding, $14,- ♦526.57. IV. fuel and light, $4,527.01. V. buildings and repairs, $4,689.92. VI. niscellaneous, $13,334.45. 14 «ftt&uru Penittntiary, (1862,) mean population, 795 :»I. salaries, $33,- 832.02. II. proTieiona, $22,491.61. III. clothing and bedding, $6,416.61. IV. fuel and light, $3,171.25. V. buildings and repairs, $11,009.81. VI. miscellaneous, $11,482.05. Clinton Penitentiary, (1862,) mean population, 478. — I. salaries, $29,- €83.10. II. provisions, $17,699.27. III. clothing and bedding, $5,454.37. IV. fuel and light, $2,241.45. V. buildings and repairs, $2,259.76. VI. miscellaneous, $6,247.95. Philadelphia Pent7en. For 1850 the estimates of Messrs. •* Bristow and Brown, lacludiny dullay upon LuildinKS on an extensive '■' scale, were X7,5i;!, or lea than one halt Ol' the yearly expenditure pre- '• vious to inrestigaiion. The In^^iiectori li:id then commenced the system '* of making prison labor produetivr, though their plana had been put only " into incomplete operation. Rejxjrting aj^ain in April, 1851, they stated " that the comparatively small grant of the previous year iiaii been found " adequate, and a still further reduction was indicated as possible. The " amount applied for to mci>t the want;? o!" the then ensuing year was " £4,977." The Mercury adds, a little fuilLer : — " 11 will bu aeen, tlicu, that up to " this time maladministration and ret'oini had each had its trial. A growth "of annual cost from £2,050 to £16,437, exemplified the former; whilst *•' the reality of the reforms afterwards introduced is attested by a reduction " in the cost from £16,437 to £4,977, with a reasonable certainty that in " following years a grant from the Provincial Treasury would not be " required. Indeed, it has been stated, we believe truly, that the iutentiun " of the unpaid Inspectors was to ask for the year 1852 only .about £1,500, " and even this sum for building material ; it liaving been then ascertained " that the labor of the institution was sulliciently productive to defray all " the cost of the establishment, and oven yield a surplus of £1,000. Under " Messrs. Nelson and Dickson, tho management speedily relapsed into its " original expensiveness ; and the formation of the Boaril of Inspectors, in- '* stead of checking the backward tendency, se(.'ms to have rendered it '• worac." It would be difficult to accummulato in tho samu number uf words more silliness and untruth than is contained in tho iireceding quotations ; in fact, thero is not a word or a figiue correct, except the figures of the estimates. Could any one imai^iuc tuiythiu-' more ^iily ih;iu iht; ablouishment manifested at tho comparative cost of iho Peuiieutiary in 1835, the very first year of its organization, when n iow do/.cn of prisoners had been ad- mitted, with tho cost, thirloeu yeaiv; ul'ter, when tho mean annual popula- tion reach several hundred convict.;. Tho author of such a wonderful comparison ought to have carried it turtlier and said: Why is It that the cost of the Penitentiary had rl.^i'!i fVui-i 81100,00 iu ISJl to S18,!)'J8 in 1851, under tho management uf Messrs. Bii^low am! Brown ? And, going still deeper in the question, to have askcLl : ^Vliy i-s it thai the revenue from convict labor was only £7yi; In l.^'U>, umler Messrs. Biistow and Brown, while it has been Sl6,r'30 iu 1800, utidcr tiio management of the present Board ? Who would not admire the siuplicii^ ot the writur who verily believes that the unpaid Inspectors had, within themselves, " the intention " of giving £1,000 to the Province instead of asking money to defrey the cost of the Provincial Penitentiary ? '■ How liappy Achilles to have bad Homer C 18 " to ting hii prowess I " hut 'ow much happier are Messrs. Bristow and Brown I Let us now proceed to discuss the real facts of the case. As parts of the reports of Messrs. Brown and Bristow as Inspectors, in 1849, 1850 and 1851, are embodied in t)ie Mercury's statements, it is necessary to remark that, in those reports, as well as in the reproduction of them, the cost of former administrations has been somewhat exaggerated by the simple prac- tice of including tht balance t/« hand in the expenditure ; it is thus that the expenditure for 1835 is not £2,050, but X 1,830 ; and the areraga cost for the years 184G, 1847 and 1848 is not /;iC,314, but £15,334. The cost of the Penitentiary under the management of Messrs. Bristow and Brown has been, on the other band, greatly underrated, by quoting «itimate$ and taking no notice at all of expenditure. In this way the cost for maintenance alone is not £10,589 for 1849, but £12,627; the ex- penditure for 1850 is not .i'7,513, but £11,995; and the ordinary disburse- ments for 18S1 are not £4,977, but £12,232. And let us bear in mind the consideration that the number of prisoners was a good deal smaller during the years 1849, 1850 and 1851, in Messrs. Brown and Bristow's time, than for several years before, and also that the relatire number of military prisoners was larger for a part of the same time than it had been for most of the time before or ever sines. Let us add, again, that Messrs. Brown and Bristow left a debt to their sucessors, Messrs. Nelson and Dickson, without leaving adequate means to pay it. The very reverse had taken place with them ; they mention in their report for 1849 a debt of £5,000 left by their predecessors in office ; but they forget to tell that their predecessors had also left £5,450, in hard cash, to settle it. How- ever, the thing is made known by the balance-sheet of the transactions of the year. If we were to charge Messrs. Brown aud Bristow with the total amount at the foot of the balance-sheet of that year, without discriminat- ing the items and without deducting the balance in hand, as they do for others, their expenditure would appear by far, proportionately, the heaviest of the whole history of the Penitentiary, being £18,249 for a mean of 432 prisoners. To compare the relative yearly cost of each prisoner during Messrs. Brown and Bristow's time, with the cost under the management of the present Board, let us give the real figures of ordinary expenditure with the complementary data, viz : 1849— Mean population, 432 ; expenditure, $50,508 ; receipts, $3,180. Proportion of expenditure, $116.91 ; proportion of receipts, $7,37. 1850 — Mean population, 403 ; expenditure, $47,980; receipts, $10,7l«. Proportion of expenditure, $119.05 ; proportion of receipts, $26.59. 1851 — Mean population, 417 ; expenditure, $48,928 ; receipts, $18,268. Proportion of expenditure, $117.33 ; proportion of receipts, $43.80. I860— Mean population, 822 ; expenditure, ?91,986 ; receipts, $46,530. Proportion of expenditure, $111.90 ; proportion of receipts, $56.60. 1861 — Mean population, 838 ; expenditure, $102,810 ; receipts, $45,291. Proportion of expenditure, $122.68 ; proportion of receipts, $54,40. 1862 — Mean population, 803 ; expenditure, $95,662 ; receipts, $40,044. Proportion of expcnditvirc, $118,39 ; proportion of receipt?, $49.05. ,» 19 ft ■a ). t e I, li r- >f il t- •>• It 2 .. Bj these figures it is scca that, singly taking them as thej appear, tho cost of each prisoner had been a littlo more during the three years' admiai- atration of Messrs. Brown and Bristow than during the three years ot oar adnsinistration ; the arernge for the whole being $117.7C for the former,«nd $117.65 for the latter. These figures show, moreover, that tho proportion of the products of couvict labor have not reached, during the most faror- able year of Messrs. Brown and Bristow, the proportionate amount of the least favorable of ours. But the above result implies still more, when the following facts are taken into consideration : That the statutory salaries now paid arc larger than they were at that time ; that, comprised in the Penitentiary population of Mesari. Brown and Bristow'a time, was a very largo number of military prisonera, whose expenses were smaller than those of the others, and whose labor be* longed to the prison ; while, on the contrary, in the population of 18G0, 1861 and 18G2 are included, for 18G0 and '61, the number of 64, and for 1862 the number of 44 male lunatics, who, while they received exactly the sama treatment as the convicts, were not g'ving any work to the Penitentiary. During the year 18G2 (and it has been unfortunately the same in part of 1863) the typhoid fever, which prevailed also outside, disturbed, to a con- siderable extent, the whole institution, causing additional labor, anxiety and expense, and curtailing by several thousands the working days, both on contracts and on other kind of work. It reminds me that the unpaid Inspectors, in their report for 1849, have given, as the reason for the non- realization of their estimates of return (which, by tho bye, was not only small, but smaller than it had been the year before under their predecea- Bors ; though the her viest works on the buildings had been done by these predecessors), that the cholera had made its appearance in the institution. But, on referring to the report of the physician, it appears that the whole of the ravages of the disease during the year amounted to 17 cases of that aickness. We have had, unfortunately, more than 150 cases of typhoid fever during the year 1862. The history of the administration of the unpaid and untiring Inspectors would bo an extraordinary one. I should never have referred xo it, but that the attacks of the Globe, from the date of the first organization of our Board, and the recent accusations, on behalf of Mr. Bristow, in the Mer- cury, forced me, in self defence, into a little raid into those quarters. Such history, if it became necessary to write it in full, could be divided into two chapters, comprising two periods, and be summed up as follows : 1st period — Messrs. Brown and Bristow are Commissioners ; they deal in Penitentiary littcrature, not of tho best description, however ; they manu- facture codes, establish principles and proclaim aphorisms and axioms ; they throw blame upon everything and everybody previously connected with the provincial Institution, and embellish the future with wonderful expectations and promises. 2nd period— Messrs. Brown and Bristow are inspectors; called upon to administer, they pass minutes, several of which are withou t heading or signatures, all being characterized by haste and negligence ; they forget all their aphorisms, axioms and rules ; they pay themselves, in their reports, magnificent praises and compliments in contrast with their predecessors, butdo not realize any of their predictions, and signally fail in all their promises. A part of which I have just stated is to be found in clear types and figures, in the public documents, and especially in such documents as Appendixes B.B.B.B.B. Journal of 1849. R.R. Journal of 1850. W. Journal of 1851 and I.I.I. Journal of 1852*53 ; tho lemaiudor is to be seen ia the records of the Feniteutiary. so Bat the authors of tfaote articles of iLe Mtreury and Drilith Aminran must \fMfti had some object in view, ia uccumulatiofc such an amount of nn- fonnded and ill ^ot up accuaations ? . . . Vcs, and the end wan as thameful as the means employed to attain it ; but I am convinced all in vain. Such object is clearlj shown, almost without pretence of concealment, in sereral passages of those writings. The Mercury of the 30th November has thn following: " The demand for a {AorougA investigation &nd for speedy ehan^*' " is urged with an earnestness that has excited alarm in quarters which " are interested in the maintenance of things as they are." r^^But, worthiest and most iionest of writers, why aslc for aa investiga- tion and a change in the same paragraph ? In your earnfttness, you have failed to consider that if a speedy change is to be made, then there is no use for an investigation ; unless, perhaps, considering that the pay of a Commis- sioner is larger than the pay of a permanent officer, you have deluded yourself with the idea that you could bag, successively, the two offices, with a clear gain of a few hundred dollars. . .^v^ The British American, in hia number also of the 30th November last, said ; — " Perhaps a new Board, composed of able and practical men, would " remedy the evils of mismauagemeut without further difficulty." What an easy settlement for such complicated evils ! • ♦ A great pity it would be, if the country was not benefitted by the speedy appointment of those "able and practical men " and especially of that " commanding mind' alluded to in the Mercury. As for cabbagging, doaliu^ iiini loutU di'awiujr Billy Ocssiji, Billy (iossip i^ the mau ! I tbanii jQ'S; Mr. Editor, for the large space you have allowed me in occupy in your columns. I would beg your pardon for so awkwardly handling your language, but that I have no pretention to be an English ucholar. Vour's truly, J. C. TACHE. V'