SPECIAL
BOARD OF STATE COMiMISSION1ER
GENERAL SUPERVISION
OF
Charitable, Penal, [PalpBr, and  RQf,rmtorI Institlltion".
On the Revision of the Laws for the Care of the Po        t
of certain State Institutions, the Punishme
and the Control of Offenders.
''32    s 9                        f
I                                        9
",t -1.                                  v|Bi5,!       -t.,
BY AUTHORITY.
W. S. GEORGE & CO., STATE PRINTERS AND BINDERS...
1875.
86(1
. M 
.2 3,3 2-?
1 8 7S
R EP O RT
OF TH U
FOR THE
LANSING:  
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE, JOHN J. BAGLEY,
HoN. CHARLES I. WALKER,...
Hoe, HENRY W. LORD,.....
HoN. Z. R. BROCKWAY,....
Ho-. UZZIEL PUTNAM,....
OFFICERS:
CHARLES I. WALKER,.....
(CHARLES M. CROSWELL,.....
ri.
j
.0a
EX OFFIOIO.
DImpROrT.
PONTIAC.
DETROIT.
POKA,GON.
..
~.,  HAIRM.AZ.
~~SFCRRTrrAR~. 
I 
REPORT.
To JOHN J. BAGLEY, Governor of the State of Michigan:
The act of the Legislature, directing the appointment of a Board of Commnissioners for the general supervision of penal, pauper and reformatory institutions, as amended April 1, 1873, provides, in addition to the annual visits
and inspection to be made of the several pauper and reformatory institutions
jails, prisons, and asylums in the State, that said board shall make a thorough
examination of all the penal, criminal, and other laws of the State, relating to
the penal and reformatory institutions by them to be visited, or in anywise
relating to the custody and punishment of criminals, and the care and confinement of the county poor and pauper insane, for the purpose of a revision
of such laws by the Legislature. And to accomplish this end, said board were
directed to collect together all acts and parts of acts in any manner appertaining to the control, punishment, and reformation of criminals, and to the
care and custody of the county poor and pauper insane; and to report the
same to the Governor, together with such revision, amendments, and suggestions for the improvement thereof, as to the board should seem necessary and
expedient.
The purpose and intention of the Legislature in the passage of this act, as
plainly indicated by the language of its provisions was to prepare the way for
such needful legislation as may be required for the restoration, better care and
protection, and more prudent and economical support of those who, by reason of indigence, poverty, and the misfortunes of disease, have, under existing
laws become chargeable to the public, as objects of its bounty; and, in relation to the criminal laws, to effect such amendments, additions, and reforms,
with respect to the measure and temper of the punishments to be inflicted for
crime, and the care, control, and treatmeat of offenders while under sentence,
as will secure the greatest protection to the community and the most effectual
reformation of the delinquent.
That no general revision of the criminal laws of the State, nor the preparation of a new penal code declaring and defining offenses, and regulating the
mode of procedure, as well as prescribing punishments and the means of
reformation, was intended, is apparent from the terms of the act, which
requires the Commissioners to report amendments and suggestions for the
improvement of such acts and parts of acts only as appertain to the control, peunishment, anid reformation of criminals, thereby limiting the work of revision
and reform to such parts of the criminal enactments as affect the offender after
trial and conviction, and prescribe the nature and extent of his punishment,
the manner of administering it, and the methods of discipline and means of
-0 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
reformation to be employed; leaving those portions of the laws which create
and define offenses, and relate to arrest, detention, trial and procedure before
sentence, to such future consideration as the Legislature may deem proper to
bestow. Besides, for a work of such importance and magnitude as a general
revision of the criminal laws, no suitable or adequate provision is made
in the act. Considering, however, the incompleteness of our system of criminal jurisprudence, its want of harmony, its many contradictory, inconsistent,
obsolete and ineffectual provisions, the work of a general revision is, in the
judgment of the Commissioners, of so great importance as to call for the early
and careful attention of the Legislature.
Our criminal laws are found scattered through the statutes, enacted at different times, and often without reference to, or harmony with previous enactments for tlhe same or similar purposes. Some provisions creating offenses
refer to other acts to fix the punishment, but generally each law or provision
creating an offense or prohibiting an act, prescribes its own penalty. Sometimes laws are enacted affixing new penalties for transgressions falling clearly
within former provisions where a different punishment is prescribed, and both
are allowed to remain. Occasionally acts have been so penned as to nullify, or
by implication repeal previous laws which are permitted to retain their
places on the statute books, while still other provisions have, by time and
change of circumstances, become obsolete and ineffectual.
This condition of the laws has made it necessary in order to make such an
examination and collection of the penal, criminal, and other laws of the State
relating to the custody and punishment of criminals, as the act seems to
require, and as would be useful in the work of revision and amendment, for
the Commissioners to collect not only those provisions of the~law which prescribe the punishment for offenses and the treatment of the convict while
under sentence, but to include also those provisions which create and define
offenses. Such a collection, arranged under appropriate heads and with reference to,the various classes of crimes and their punishments, has been made
and is submitted herewith.  But the suggestions of the board for amendments
and improvements, commence with the sentence, and where by conviction
the offender is first regarded by the law as a criminal and stands awaiting the
punishment which the law pronounces, and the restraint and discipline which
follow for the protection of society and his own reformation.
Included with the acts so collected, as constituting a part of the laws
appertaining to the control, punishment, and reformation of criminals, are the
laws relating to the State Prison, Reform School, Detroit House of Correction, and the county jails. The laws appertaining also to the care and custody of the county poor and pauper insane, providing for the support of the
poor by relatives and by the public, and relating to the poor houses, hospitals,
asylums for the insane, and for the deaf, dumb and blind, and to the public
school for indigent and neglected children, have been collected and arranged
by the Commissioners in accordance with the requirements of the act, and are
reported herewith.
An appendix is also attached to this report, in which is briefly pointed out
certain sections of the statute law of the State, relating to the subjects considered by the Commissioners, which seem to need revision and amendment,
with the reasons therefor.
In the suggestions which the Commissioners have to make upon the several
subjects to which their examinations have been directed by the act, attention
will be first called to the laws relating to the support of the poor.
6 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
CARE AND CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY POOR.
The great ilncrease of pauperism in the State within the past few years, and
the enhanced expense consequent upon the maintenance of this class of the
population, causing in many localities nearly, or quite the heaviest burdens
of taxation which the people are called to bear, demand the most vigorous
measures, and the enactment of the most efficient laws to protect the authorities from imposition, and to prevent the public bounty from being used for the
support of any except the needy and deserving. It is quite apparent to all
who have considered the subject, that a considerable proportion of those who
are partly or wholly supported by the public are oftentimes persons who, in
justice, should not receive such aid. In some cases the application is a fraud,
the persons asking relief having concealed and hoarded means of their own.
In other instances the relief sought may be really needed, but should be contributed by relatives who evade liability through some imperfection in the law,
and thus impose burdens on the public which they themselves should bear.
Again, others soliciting the public bounty, are tramps or roving paupers, who
come or are sent into the State from localities beyond our borders, without
means, and at once, without any residence or right of settlement to authorize
it, appeal to the authorities of the locality where they may be for temporary
support or money to carry them further on in their journey. The number of
this class has of late greatly multiplied, and there is reason to apprehend that
the laxity of the law, and inattention on the part of those who administer it,
is tending to open a wide door through which the idle, the thriftless, and undeserving are too often foisting themselves upon the public for support, at the
expense of the frugal, the industrious, and economical. To meet and obviate
the case first mentioned, to-wit: the concealment and hoarding of property by
pretended paupers while supported by the public,-the courts as we understand
holding that public aid to the alleged pauper being a gratuity cannot be afterwards recovered from him, nor his property made liable therefor after his discharge,-we believe that some provision of law should be made whereby persons applying for relief should, before receiving the same be examined upon
oath, and a statement in writing and upon oath as to their property and effects
be made and preserved, so that if it should  subsequently appear  that any
such person had made any false statement, or had any concealed property or
effects while receiving aid of the public, he should be held liable to re-imburse
the township or county for all such relief given, and for all expenses incurred
on his account, and that the township or county affording the relief should have
a lien upon his property and effects for the re-payment of the amount of all
such aid and relief with the expenses incurred.
This not only for due protection of the public purse, but because it changes
the aid bestowed from an absolute gratuity to a loan, producing thereby a very
different effect upon the mind of the recipient. A gift from the public purse
tends to pauperize the beneficiary, while a loan properly made tends to preven tpauperism, and is sometimes a cure for it.
GRANDPARENT AND GRANDCHILD SHOULD CONTRIBUTE. 
It would seem also that the provisions of the statutes requiring the father,
mother, and children, being of sufficient ability, of any poor person wh6:is
blind, old, lame, impotent, or decrepit, so as,to be unable to maintain himself,
t 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
to relieve and maintain  such poor person, etc., should be amended so as to
include and extend the liability to the graindparent and grandchild. These
persons being in the direct line of descent, it would seem that there should be
thbe strongest moral and also a legal obligation on the part of the grandchild,
".well-to-do" in the world, to look after and contribute to the support of the
?grandparent, who by reason of the infirmities of age or through misfortune has
become unable to care for himself.  The population of our poor-houses is
made up largely of very old people, some of whom have had property and
given it to their children, expecting in return to be cared for and supported
during life.  The son or daughlter receiving the property, perchance, dies, and
the property goes to grandchildren, who take and use it, leaving the old grand parent to whom it justly belongs uincared for and a beggar asking alms of the
public or a tenant of the poor-house.  It seems to us that it will promote that
respect for age and honor for parents which has ever been pronounced a publie virtue, to require the young in the direct line of descent to contribute to
-t,he support of those ag(ed ones who are in reality of their own houselhold. WVe
would make the obligation reciprocal, and require the grantmdparent, when of
sufficient ability, to contribute to the support of the indigent grandchild. Such
a provision is neither new or unusual, having been already incorporated into
The poor laws of several other States of the Union. Thus in Pennsylvania it
s held that a grandfather or grandmother, being of sufficient ability, is liable
for the support of the grandchild, and one having such a grandparent, even if
the father is living and indigent, is not a pauper in contemplation of the law.
A MOTHER WITI PROPERTY OF HER OWN SHOULD CONTRIBUTE.
"Ag-in, by ~ 1804, wliich prescribes the order in which parties may be called
'upon to contribute to the support of their indigent relatives, the mother is
exempt ed so long as there is a father or child who is ab)le to afford relief. But
,since the law bas given to the wife and mother the independent control and
management of her own estate, it would seem not to be unreasonable, that the
mother having sufficient estate of her own, should (in the discretion of the
court) be required to contribute, notwithstanding the father and children may
be of ability to afford relief to the pauper.
,OU'TY SUPERINTENDEN-TS OF THE POOR AND SUPERVISORS SHOULD DIRECT
THfE M3ANNER OF CONTRIBUTION.
~And sinc the law has devolved upon county superintendents and supervi:)rs the performtance of most of the duties formerly discharged by directors of
:the poor, it -seems desirable that the laws (see ~ 1801 ) should be so amended
as toigive those officers as well as directors of the poor, authority to direct the
-manner in which relatives shall contribute.
, SERVICE OF OTDER TO COMPEL CONTRIBUTION FROM RELATIVE WHO RE                       MOVES TO ANOTHER COUNTY.
Again-it not unfrequently occurs, that persons chargeable with the support
6f indigent relatives leave or abandon them in one county, and removing take
up their residence in some other and distant county, leaving the former county
burdened with the support of the pauper. Under the present provisions of the
law (see ~ 1802) it is necessary in order to compel support l)y such relative, for
the superintendents of the county where the pauper may be, to make application
,:to the circuit court of thecouinty where the delinquent relatives may dwell for
'o
I 
PAUTPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
an order to compel contribution.  In such cases it frequently happens that the
'expense and inconvenience of making the application, and carrying on the procee(lings in the distant county where the relative resides, are so great as to
cause the application to be neglected, or if made, to exceed the benefits result
ing.  To meet such cases it would seem advisable that the statutes should
be so amended as to give the Circuit Court of the county where'the poor person is left or has a settlement, jurisdiction to make the order for support, and
in its discretion to order tlhe non-resident relative to be summoned to appear
and answer the applicationi atd obey the order in the county where he had
wrongfully lel't the poor relative without support.  Still it would seem proper
that it should be left to the'discretion of the Circuit Judge, upon an examination of the circumstancesotr the case, as to whether thie conduct of the relative had been such as to make it just that he should be subjected to the expense of answering the application out of the county of his residence.
REPORTS WHERE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TOWNSHIP AND COUNTY POOR
HAS NOT BEEN ABOLISHED.
And it has been further suggested that for the purpose of securing fuller
information as to the expenses of supporting the poor, that the law requiring
reports of the expenditures of moneys in the several counties to be made annually to the Secretary of State should be so amended that the proper officers
in cities, wards, and townships, where the distinction between township and
coLunty poor has not been abolished, shall be required annually, on or before
the fifteenth day of October, to report to the cotunty superintendents of their
respective counties a detailed statement of all the expenditures in such city,
town, or wards, for the support of the poor.
DISTRICT POOR-HOUSES.
The  considerable sum invested  in alms-house estaiblishlments, the large
aggregate sum required to maintain them, their influence to perpetuate pauperism through succeeding generatiolns, and the appalling evils to the paupers
themselves from their residence in these estalblishments, have moved  us to
most earnest inquiry lor some better system.  The result of our deliberations
will be found fully presented in our geceral report, consisting in the recommendatio(n for district establishmen)ts, under State control, in place of the
present counity system, and the reasons therefor.
!THE MWICHIGAN INSTITUTION FOR THE EDUCATION OF TEE DEAF AND
DUMIIB ANI) THE BLIND.
The laws providing for the organization, location, buildings, officers, management, support, admission of patients, name, etc., of the Michigan  Institution for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb and the Blind, are lound in seyeral separate acts. See Comp. Laws, viz.:
Act of April 3, 1848, Comp. Laws, page 6?4.
Feb. 19, 1850,   "         "     "  625.
April 2, 1850,   "         "    "  627.
"Feb. 14, 1853,   "            "      627.
F "eb. 12, 1855,   "        "    "  628.
"Feb. 9, t857,'        "    "   628.
Feb. 12, 1857,   "         " "       630.
"   "March 25, 1867,    "         "   643.
"April 12, 1873, Laws of 1873, page 148.
i)  
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
'This institution and the Asylum for the Insane were both organized under
the same act of the Legislature, and both were managed by the same Board of
Trustees until the passage of the act of Feb. 9, 1857, Which provided a separate board for each institution; and all the acts above named, exccept the last
three, applied alike to both asylums. A new and independent act for the reorganization, government, and support of the Asylum for the Insane was
passed Feb. 14, 1859 (Comp. Laws, ~~ 1911 to 1956), leaving the authority for
the management of the Institution for the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind alone to be
gathered from the above named laws passed prior to that date, the object of
some of the provisions of which have been accomplished, and many others
were in effect repealed or superseded by the act of Feb. 9, 1857.
Under these circumstances it would seem desirable that a new act should be
passed, enforcing such of the present operative provisions of the acts above
mentioned, together with such modifications and additions as may be necessary
for the proper support, superintendence, and government of this institution,
and for the regulation of admissions and providing for the instruction of its
inmates.  Should such an act be passed, the several sections of the above
named laws not retained or embraced in the new enactment should be repealed.
At best the present condition of the statutes relating to this institution, having the operative and obsolete provisions mingled and combined as they are
with provisions relating to the Asylum for the Insane, is awkward and inconvenient, and renders them liable to misconstruction. And the propriety of
such new act is the more apparent since the government of the Insane Asylum
is wholly withdrawn from the provisions of these former laws.
THE ASYLUM FOR THE INSANE.
Previous to the act of Feb. 9, 1857 (see Comp. Laws, ~~ 1905-6-7-8), the laws
relating to this asylum were combined with the enactments establishing and
regulating the Asylum for the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind, both institutions being
under the control and management of the same Board of Trustees.
By the act of Feb. 9, 1857 (Comp. Laws, p. 628,) a separate Board of
Trustees was provided for each of these asylums.
By the act of Feb. 14, 1859, separate and independent provisions were made
for the organization, regulation, and management of the Asylum for the Insane. (See Comp. Laws, ~~ 1911 to 1956.) This act superseded the provisions
in the act of Feb. 9,1857, relating to that institution, as well, also, as nearly
all the former enactments then in force relating to the asylum.
Hence those obsolete provisions (see Comp. Laws, ~~ 1884 to 1908) should
be repealed.
THE REFORM SCHOOL.
The Commissioners also desire to call attention to the length of sentences to
the Reform School. The law now provides that offenders committed to the
school shall be detained therein until they arrive at the age of twenty-one years,
unless their reformation warrants their discharge at an earlier date, Experience,
however, has shown that if upon the inmate's arrival at the age of eighteen a
sufficient reform to permit his discharge has not been accomplished, but little
if any good may be expected to result from his further detention in the school.
If incorrigible at that age, the institution thenceforth, as to him, partakes more
of the character of a prison than of a school of reform. And the influence of
offenders who have passed that age without amendment is, in generals most
'10 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
pernicious upon the younger inmates. Upon this subject the Board of Control of the School say, "that it may be taken for granted that if boys are
found in the school beyond eighteen, who are still indifferent to their character and are making no effort at self-restraint, they for the general interest of
the other boys, had better be removed.
For such reasons, a change in the law, limiting the sentence of detention
until the age of eighteen only, is recommended.
If this recommendation should be adopted, then some provision for the
transfer to some other institution of boys so released at the age of eighteen
years should be made, for it would be unwise, manifest]y, to send out into
society at this age, when the criminal impulse is most active and uncontrollable, incorrigible youths who for years have resisted the good influences of this
school, and have been retained because in the judgment of the officers they
were and are unfit to be released.
DETROIT HOUSE OF CORRECTION.
By the establishment of the Detroit House of Correction a place of detention was provided which, for some classes of offenders, afforded facilities for
confinement, employment, discipline. and reformation superior to those found
in any other prison or place of detention within the State.  This institution,
however, belonged to the city of Detroit, but the Legislature, in order to enable
other portions of the State to secure the advantages of the institution, provided, by act of March 15, 1861, that certain classes of offenders convicted in
any county having an arrangement for that purpose with the city of Detroit,
might be sentenced to confinement and discipline in the Detroit House of
Correction.
Subsequently, by the third section of the act of March 27, 1867 (Comp.
Laws, ~8167), it was enacted, that any person found guilty of disorderly conduct or breach of the peace by a court in any county having such arrangement with the city of Detroit, if sentenced to give bail for good behavior, or
upon other condition, might, for the non-giving of, or until such bail is given,
be confined in the Detroit House of Correction, there to be detained until the
end of the term of commitment, or until the Superintendent is served with a
certificate, signed by a circuit judge of the circuit including the county where
such person was convicted, stating that by giving bail or otherwise, the terms
of the commitment of such person have been complied with.
By an examination of this provision it will be observed that no means are
provided whereby the convict, after arriving in the House of Correction, can
give the bail or comply with the condition in order to relieve himself from
imprisonment. Previous to this it was provided in relation to disorderly persons (Comp. Laws, ~1965) that any person committed for not finding sureties
for good behavior might be discharged by any two justices of the peace of the
county, upon giving such sureties for good behavior as were originally required
from such offender. And by ~1968 the Circuit Court is also authorized to
discharge the offender from confinement upon receiving sureties for his good
behavior. When these, ~~1965 and 1968, were enacted, disorderly persons were
always confined in the jail of the county where convicted, and being confined
in the same county where conviction was had, there was no practical difficulty
in giving bail after confinement, before two magistrates or the Circuit Court of
the same county.  But as to how a disorderly person, sent from a county other
i'll, 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CIHARITABLE, PENAL,
than Wayne, and perhaps from a distant part of thie State, is, while confined
in the Detroit House of Correction, to give bail in the county where convicted
is not p)lain; and it would seem that some legislation in connection  with
these ~~ 1965, 1968, and 8167, would be desirable to obviate the difficulty.
Bv Sec. 4, of the act of April 3, 1869 (see Comp. Laws, ~~ 8172 to 8181), it
was provided that, "Every person more  than fifteen years of age who  is a
common prostitute, shall, uponi conviction thereof; be punished by imprisonmenit in the Detroit House  of Correction a term of three years."   It is
quite evident that it was the intention of the Legislature to make this section
4 apply to the State at large.  The first three sections of the act were, however, clearly intended to apply to the county of Wayne only, and at the end of
thne third sectio  (~8174) a clause is added, declaring that the provisions of
the act shall apply to the county of Wayne only.  Probably the intention was
by this clause to limit the operation of the first three sections only to the
county of Wayne; but the Supreme Court have held (20 Mich., 14-17) that
by force of this clause as it stands the operation of the fourth section (~8175)
was also limited to Wayne county.  It it is desired to imprison prostitutes
from other counties, who are over fifteen years of age, in the D)etroit Hotse of
Correction, an amendment to the above named clause will be required.
COUNTY JAILS.
Several of the provisions of the law relating to the county jails which seem to
require amendment or repeal are noted in the appendix to this report and need
rno further mention here.
The management and use of the jails as prisons, and the result of their
eml)loyment as places of punishment for offenders, has called tor and received
the careful consideration of the Commissioners.
Under the present systenm, these places, firom  the necessity of the case, are
the common receptacles of all persons and every grade and class of offenders
subje,cted to imprisonment in the counties.  As a rule, they are filthy and
poorly ventilated; within them not only those awaiting trial. but vagrants,
the disorderly, young offenders, convicted criminals, and the old and hardened
experts in vice and crime are mingled in promiscuous association in enforced
idleness, without discipline, or means of improvement or incentive to reform.
While thus held, the less abased are constantly subjected to the contaminating
influence of all the vices and criminal propensities of their more hardened
associates.  Thlus the jails become moral pest-houses, foster places of idleness,
and schools of crime.  Pernicious as this condition of things is, not only to the
incarcerated offender, but to the community at large when he is turned loose
upon them degraded in self-respect and with increased propensity and capacity
for crime, yet it seems impossil)le to remedy the evil under the present jail
system, or so long as these prisons are without the means of a proper classification and separation of prisoners, or the facilities of employing the inmates
in suitable labor or useful occupation. 
The whole jail system as at present conducted is radically wrong and obntioxious, and should be discontinued.  In place of the jails, two or three  prisons
or houses of correction, intermediate between  the jails and  penitentiary,
should be provided lor vagrants, disorderly persons, and all offenders now punished by imprisonment in the jails. Such intermediate prisons should provide for the employment, discipline, and reformation of their inmates, and
12. 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
thus prevent the evils of idleness in the jails; and henceforth jails under
propelr regulations should be used oily as houses of detention for such persons
as'are held for examination or trial merely.
These intermediate jails or houses of correction may be provided without
erecting therefor expensive and complicated establishments.  The selection,
alteration, and enlargement of existing jail structures, each to be used for several counties, is deemed leasible and economical.
IMPRISONMENT OF WITNESSES.
A practice relating to the jails and permitted by the law, is that of the
imprisonment of wirnesses in criminal causes, and holding themni in custody
to secure their attendance at the trial. This practice has been characterized
as "one of the relics of barbarism, which has outlived the growth of civilization," and should be abolished.
That a person who by accident or otherwise may have witnessed the commission of a crime sLould, because  unable from poverty or other cause to
give bail when required, for his atten(ldance at trial to testify, be incarcerated
in jail as the companion and associate of vagrants and criminals, for we(kand months perchance, to the detriment of his own interest and the de,riivation of his liberty, is a hardship and an injustice which calls for condemnation.
The means for securing the needful testimony in such cases, by provision for
an immediate examination and cr,,ss-examination of the witness in the presence of the defendant, and committing his evidence to writing, to be used on
the trial, or otherwise, without further resort to this pernicious practice of imprisonment, calls for early and appropriate legislatioii.
AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL LAWS.
With respect to such amendments to the criminal laws as may be deemed
necessary for such an administration of punishments as will most effectually
prevent the commission of crime, a few suggestions deemed worthy of consideration in the performance bf the work may be made. That there may be no
misapprehension as to what acts are prohibited by the law, or as to thile penalties which iollow its violation, and in order that the application of punishmenits shall be certain and effectual, all offenses to which those punishments
are intended to apply should be plainly, clearly, and concisely defined.  Penalties prescribed in laws which have become obsolete, or which have been
superseded by subsequent enactments, should be stricken from the statutes
Inconsistent and inappropriate punishments should be abolished or harmonized.
Laws enacting different or double punishments for the same offense should
not be permitted.
Whenever on account of public opinion or other cause a penalty ceases to
be enforced, it should be stricken out, or so modified as to render it effectual.
Penalties so trivial as to be generally disregarded, should be abrogated or so
increased as to command obedience to the law.
All punishments should be proportioned to the enormity of the offense and
the turpitude of the offender, and should be accompanied with the proper
means and suitable efforts for his reformation, but as the protection of society
is 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
is the chief object of punishment, it should be continued until his reformation
gives reasonable assurance that the offense will not be repeated.
And all laws declaring offenses and prescribing penalties therefor should be
collected and arranged in an orderly system, so as to be of easy access and
readily ascertained.
That our criminal laws are defective in many of these respects is apparent
from even a cursory examination. Our penal system had its foundation chiefly
in the common law, where punishments often partook more of the spirit of
vengeance than of the purpose to reform the delinquent. With the expansion
of trade and the progress of the arts, and with the opportunities attending the
growth, development, and enterprise of the country, new forms of crime and
evil practices unknown to the common law have sprung up. To repress these
we have sometimes copied from the criminal laws of other States, and at others
have amended our own or have passed new acts to meet the emergency. These
acts and amendments have generally been passed and the punishment measured
to meet some particular form or phase in which the new offense has presented
itself, at the time to the notice of the Legislature; and often with little regard
to their agreement or consistency with, or effect upon other provisions in the
general body of the laws, but always more with a view to thrust the offender
beyond the power of causing present annoyance by his crimes, than with regard
to the consequences of his return to liberty unreformed, to renew his depredations upon society.
UNLIMITED PUNISHMENTS.
For causes like these, acts have been passed, under which punishments may
be imposed bearing no reasonable proportion to the injury done, or to the
guilty purpose of the offender. Thus by ~2114 of the Compiled Laws, for
injuring or destroying cranberry vines upon the premises of another, the
offender may be fined not less than five dollars, or imprisoned not less than five
days, but the extent of the punishment allowed in the other direction is unlimited; he may be fined thousands of dollars, or be imprisoned for months or
years, and all for an offense which may have resulted in an injury to an amount
even less than a single dollar.
DOUBLE PUNISHMENTS.
Again, through inattention or misunderstanding of existing laws, new acts
have been passed having the effect of repealing former provisions, or of prescribing new and additional punishments where penalties were already provided.
A noticeable example of the uncertainty and confusion occasioned in the
statutes by the passage of such successive acts imposing new, additional, and
different penalties for the same or similar offenses, leaving former acts unrepealed (unless by implication), is found in the different laws enacted for the
protection of trees.   Thus, Comp. Laws, ~1317, prohibits injuries to trees
planted or preserved by any one upon his own land within certain highways,
for shade or ornament; the penalty is not less than $5 nor more than $100.
By ~7600, punishment in jail not more than one year or by fine not exceeding
$100 is imposed upon any person who shall willfully injure or destroy any fruit
or other tree not his own, standing or growing for shade or ornament, or other
useful purpose. This section would seem to punish the same offenses named in
p1317.  And  ~~5525, 7602 also seem to prohibit some of the same offenses
it 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
prohibited in ~7600; if so, they prescribe still different measures of punishment.   And ~7609 subjects the offender to punishment in the State Prison
not more than five years, or in jail one year, or to a fine not exceeding $500,
for injuring or destroying fruit trees or any other trees not his own, standing!
for shade or ornament, on the land of another, when the damage amounts toQ
$25; this section also seems to include and punish with increased penalties
the same offenses named in ~1317, ~7600, and ~7610, and would seem also to
inflict its penalties for the offenses named in two other sections, 3845 and 3346,
where still other penalties are prescribed; and still further another, ~7610,
seems to prohibit a part or all of the injuries to trees named in the several
other sections above mentioned, and provides still other measures of punishment therefor.
Here, it will be observed, are six or eight different provisions, passed at different times, all standing upon the statutes, and each imposing a different
grade of punishment for the same transgression, or at least for the same class
of offenses.
To determine as to whether any of these laws supersede, repeal, or annul any
of the others, and as to what is a valid punishment for any offense falling
within the scope of these laws, are questions which completely puzzle legal
skill to solve.  And yet they include a class of offenses for which magistrates
who make no claims to such skill are frequently required to administer the
law and pronounce the penalty.
Like incongruities and double punishments may also be found among the
different provisions of similar acts. Thus, in the act for the protection of
fish and the preservation of fisheries; Comp. Laws p. 673, Sec. 1, imposes a
fine of $300, or imprisonment not more than 30 days for the violation of its
provisions; Sec. 8 of the same act imposes another fine of $100 for the same
offense. For violations of Sections 2, 4, and 5, a penalty of $100 under each
section is imposed by Sec. 8, and Sec. 6 prescribes an additional punishment
for the same offenses under each of the sections by fine of not less than $25,
aor more than S00, or by imprisonment not exceeding 30 days. Boat owners,
for violating certain provisions of sec. 10, are there fined $50, and for the same
offense Sec. 8 imposes another penalty of $100, and Sec. 11, a third penalty of
the same amount. For the offense named in Sec. 3, a punishment is there imposed of $300, fine and a forfeiture of the fish nets named in the section, while
Sec. 8 adds another fine of $100 for the same offense. Here there are six sections under which double penalties are imposed, and one under which three
different penalties are prescribed, in the same act.
Again, Sec. 8 declares that all forfeitures collected for violations of the adot
shall be paid into the county treasury, and, notwithstanding that the constitution devotes all penalties to the library fund, yet Sec. 9 of the act applies
one-half of the fines collected under the act to a pauper fund and gives the
remainder to the prosecutor. It also authorizes the anomalous proceeding of
recovering fish nets, forfeited under Sec. 3 in the action of debt, and gives onehalf of the net to the pauper fund and the other half to the prosecutor.
OBSOLETE LAWS.
In some instances, laws have become obsolete, the occasion calling for their
enactment having passed away. Of this class is the whole of Chap. 241 of the
Compiled Laws relating to the detention and release of fugitive slaves. Other
provisions u-lpon the same subject, and relating to the kidnapping of persons
1 5;. 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
of color to return them to slavery, are noted in the appendix, and should be
repealed.
Some statutes passed while the c(ounty courts wvere maintained, have provisions applicable only to that system.  These being allowed to remain, sometimes cause embarraqssment or prevent the operation of measures wli(-h ought
to be observed.  Of such aire sections 8033, 8039, a-nd 8040 of the Compiled
Laws.
OFFENSES UNPUNISHED.
For many acts injurious to the public and to individuals, no punishmenerts
are provided, or the evils are but partially ramodied. T'lhus, while cruelty to;
animals is punished, and so the exposure of children under six years of age
with intent wholly to abandon them, yet for cluelty to children generally,
which may be practiced by exposure to hunger, cold,  neglect, disease, and in
the numerous ways which passion and cupidity may devise, and not amounting to assault and battery, no acdequtte punishmenzt is provided.
Any person having a husband or wi;fe living whlo shall marry another is
punishable for polygamy.  A penalty should also be imposed upon an unmarried person who shall marry another knowing such other person to have a
husband or wife living.
More effectual protection would seem desirable against the conduct of those
who at unusual hours of the night disturb the peace by unusual noises anG
offensive behavior.  So also for the suppression of frauds and swindling by
means of cards, sleight-of-hand performances, and those practices and devices
known as confidence games.
INCONSISTENT AND UNEQUAL PUNISHMENTS.
A want of consistency in the extent and severitv of the penalties prescribed
for different offenses, and of suitable adaptation of the mode and measure of
punishment to the character and circumstance of individual offenders, and
the nature and extent of their criminal habits and disposition. is observable
throughout the criminal laws.  This inequality and want of appropriateness in
punishments, not only with respect to different classes of crimes, but also as
between offenses of the same class and grade, will be mora apparent by a comparison of a few of the provisions found in the statutes.
Thus, it may be noticed that for stealing in a dwelling house  (Comp. Laws,
~7560), or from the person (~7568), the punishment may be imprisonment in
the State prison five years, or in jail one year, or in the former case, by fine not
exceeding $500. If, however, the offender should steal the same amount firom
his fellow traveler in a railroad car while detained by accident, he may be imprisoned (~7620) in the State prison twenty years or fined to the amount of
three thousand dollars; although if the same theft were committed while the
car was moving on its route over the road, the punishment could not exceed
five years in the State prison, or a fine of five hundred dollars.  For such inequality in the severity of the punishment, especially in case of the theft in the
car while detained and while in motion, no reason can be found either in the
differences in the thefts, or in the difference of the guilty purpose of the
offender in the two cases.
Again, for a simple larceny to the amount of twenty-five dollars or less, the
punishment may not exceed one year in jail or a fine of $100 (~7569). But
if the same amount were obtained of the owner by false pretenses with intent
le
-1 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
to defraud (~7590), the offender may be imprisoned ten years or fined $500.
But should t le same amount be taken by a judge, sheriff, or other officer as
illegal fees (~~7460, 7462), which involves atill the turpitude of deception and a
like intent to detfraud as in false pretense, the offense is a misdemeanor only,
and the punishment cannot exceeed one year ill jail or a fine not exceeding
$250. And by another section (~7674), for willfully and corruptly taking the
same illegal fees, the punishment of the judge or officer is limited to a fine
only, which shall not exceed $100. So, while defrauding a woman of her money
to the amount of $25 or less, by the deceit and falsehood of false pretense,
renders the offender liable to imprisonment for tenl years, yet if by deceit,
betrayal of confidence, and false promises of marriage, he accomplishes her
seduction and utter ruin, he can be punished (~7697) no more than five years
in the State prison or one year in jail, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000. And
the law, as if seeking to add hardship to misfortune, will not permit her when
delivered of her child, even though dead when born, to hide her wrongs by
the concealment of its birth (~7698) under pain of imprisonment and fine.
And by ~7552 the burning of the dwelling-house of another in the night,
there being no one lawfully therein at the time, is punishable in the State
Prison for a term of years only; bult for burning the same dwelling or any building adjoining thereto in the day time (~7553) the offender may be imprisoned
for any term of years, or for life even; thus rendering him liable to a severer
punishment for the latter act than for the graver offense of burning in the
night, when greater danger is to be apprehended from the crime.
Again, by ~7729, if any physician or other person shall, while intoxicated,
imperil the health or life of another bv administering any poisonous drug or
medicine, he may be punished by imprisonment a year in jail], or by a fine of
$500.  But a railroad engineer or conductor of a passenger train (~2403 and
Laws of 1873, p. 535, ~6), for jeopardizing by his intoxication the lives of all,
on board his train, is guilty of a misdemeanor only, and punishable by not
more than one year in jail, or by fine not exceeding $250, while a drunken
driver may imperil those within his coach for the modest forfeiture of $5 per
day (~2004).
And as inadequate as these penalties imposed upon engineers and conductors
for intoxication while in charge of passenger trains, appear to be, yet it would
seem that if they were first prosecuted under ~2138 for the penalty of $S
there imposed for intoxication, that it would be a bar to further punishment.
So the director of a manutacturing company, for neglect of certain duties in
respect to annual reports of the affairs of his companyv, may be fined to the
extent of $5,000, or be imprisoned two years  ( ee ~2858), while by ~2840, in
the same act, the director of a mining company, for the neglect of a similar
duty, may be fined not more than $1,000, or be imprisoned not exceeding one
year. As between these offenses it will be observed that there is no difference'
in the degree of guilt, and if injurious in their consequences, the mischief may
be just as great in the one case as in the other.
Again, by ~1449, any person for knowingly importing, selling, or offering for
sale any adulterated wine or spirituous liquors, may be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than thirty days; but, by ~1454, for putting such adulterated liquors into a cask marked "Pure," by an inspector, and
selling or offering the same for sale for the purpose of deceiving, he may be
imprisoned in the State prison one year. And yet, it is difficult to discover
any difference in the grade or wickedness of these offenses, or in the injuries
a
iT, 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
resulting. While for an offense comparatively insignificant and harmless as
compared with the sale of adulterated and poisonous liquors, viz: the selling
of a bushel of uninspected salt, the manufacturer may be fined one thousand
dollars.
By ~7530, for the offense of forcibly or fraudulently enticing away a child
under twelve years of age with intent to conceal it from its parents, the punishment may be ten years in the State prison, although there may be no physical or moral injury to the child either effected or intended. But for enticing a
girl under sixteen from her father or mother without their consent for the
,purpose of prostitution, whereby unmeasured injury and ruin may be brought
upon the child and a lasting stain upon her family, the deliberate villain cannot (~7533) be punished more than three years in prison.  And he may be let
off with a fine of five hundred dollars (~7691) for enticing away, seducing, and
committing adultery with a wife, whereby the whole family may be crushed
and broken, and the woman (ast out to a life of infamy and crime.
Again, if a cashier or clerk in a savings bank (~2247) shall embezzle or
appropriate to his own use any money deposited with, or belonging to the
bank, he may be fined ten thousand dollars and be imprisoned twenty years.
But if the treasurer of a savings association shall by his defalcatious (~2272)
be guilty of the same offense with respect to the moneys belonging to or
deposited with his association, his punishment cannot exceed two years in the
State prison; yet the criminal intent and the nature and extent of the mis chief in the case of these offenses are not distinguishable.
And these are but instances of the want of the due adaptation of penalties,
and of the degree and appropriateness of punishments to crimes, to be found
everywhere in the statutes. Many it is true are not so glaring as the instances
cited, but all such have a tendency in a greater or less degree to lead either to
unjust or inappropriate punishments, or to render the administration of the
criminal laws uncertain and often ineffectual for the punishment and suppression of crime.
DIFFICULTY OF MEKSURING CRIMINAL PUNISHMENTS  IN ADVANCE
But, however carefully and skillfully the penalties for crimes may be
measured and apportioned in the law to the offenses to which they are
intended to apply, still but slight reflection will be sufficient to show that no
legislative foresight can always determine  in advance of the commission of a
crime what will be the just and appropriate punishment for the offense.
If, in prescribing punishments, nothing more were required than to measure
the punishment by the amount of the injury caused by the offense, as in case of
theft to grade the penalty by the amount stolen, then the appropriate punishment to be inflicted might be pre-determined with some degree of precision.
But this is not sufficient. While the injuries caused by crime vary in their
nature and extent with each offense, ranging from those minor mischiefs which
a few dollars may repair, up through every degree of wrong and injury to
property, life, liberty, health and reputation; so the different offenders against
the law exhibit in the perpetration of their crimes every grade of depravity
and criminality. In one case the only offense may be the stealing of a few dollars merely, committed under some pressing need, peculiar temptation, or misguided impulse, by one who is neither bad at heart nor criminally disposed; while
in another a theft of the same amrount is committed bv an old offender, an expert
in crime, who has deliberately, and in disregard of every principle of honor or
18 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
morality, and in defiance of law and the public good and the commnon rights
of men, entered upon a life of crime, and omits no opportunity to commit his
depredations upon society.  In both cases the injury to the victim is the same,
but as between the depravity and guilt of the offenders there is no comparison:
and between these extremes are offenders of every grade of moral turpitude
and guilty purpose. That all these offenders, irrespective of their degrees of
guilt, should receive the same measure of punishment for the same crime is
repugnant to our sense of justice and propriety.
SUCH PUNISHMENTS FAIL TO REFORM THE CRIMINAL OR TO PROTECT SOCIETY.
Again, as punishment neither compensates the victim of crime nor repairs
the injury done, its chief object is and must be for the protection of society
against the depredations of the offender and the repetition of his offense. This is
sought to be accomplished by making the punishment so severe that the terror
of its repetition shall overpower the criminal propensity, or by detention and
discipline reform the offender, and thus eradicate the desire to renew his
transgressions. But until the criminal propensity of the offender is overawed
by fear, or eradicated by reform, the punishment is ineffectual and fails of its
end.  For a return of the offender to liberty with these vices and propensities unchecked and unreformed, is to assure his return to his former criminal
habits and evil practices. That the term of punishment is not always sufficient to deter offenders from crime is too clearly shown by experience.
Formerly in England many petty and trifling offenses were punished with
death, and in most of the States of this country murder is now so punished. Yet
it has always been found that even death, the severest of all punishments, is
not sufficient for the protection of community. Therefore it follows that the
reformation of the criminal is the only safeguard to society, and any system
of punishment which fails to accomplish this must be regarded as radically
defective and so far ineffectual. That the extent of the injury caused by the commission of crime cannot be a guide in determining the measure of punishment
and discipline required for the reformation of the offender is self-evident.  In
the work of reform we have to deal with the criminal character and moral turpitude of the man, the extent of his vices, the strength of his evil habits, his
want of moral perception, his passions and prejudices.  Clearly, then, the time
and means required for this work of reformation will vary with each offender,
and will depend upon the _character and moral depravity of the man rather
than upon the mischief and nature of the l~cuar offense in which   e has
beean detected, and for which he is brought  to triaWit the novices in
crime and those who still value the good opinion of community, or who have
gone astray from the force of circumstances, or through the influence of the
evil associations into which they have fallen, the work may be comparatively
brief; but with the hardened offenders, the experts and professionals in crime,
those who have coolly surveyed the field and counted the chances of success andt
the risks of detection and punishment, and have deliberately resolved to take
the hazards of a life of crime, the work of reform is far more arduous, and is of
smost vital importance to the safety of society; for the release of such without
reformation is only sending them back to their chosen field of depredation and
plunder upon community.
REAL CHARACTER OF CRIMINALS IS NOT UNDERSTOOD.
lIf we would repress crime we must apply the remedy to its cause; and that f
cause is found in the character and disposition of the offender.  Hence, to i
19 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
make punishment effectual, it must be measured not so much by the evil con sequences of particular offenses as by the evil propensities of the offender; and
the true measure required to accomplish the woi,k can be ascertained only
from an acquaintance with the offender, and a knowledge of his character,
habits, vices, and propensities.
These considerations serve to show the impropriety and hazard of establish ing common measures of punishment for the different classes of offenses, arind
without knowledge of the character of the offenders or the circumstances of
their crimes, of pre-arranging fixed and definite punishments to be applied
indiscriminately to all who shall be guilty of the designated offenses. Such a
system involves, in practice, the application of the offender to the punishment
rather than the punishment to the offender.  And whether it be too long or
too short, too light or too severe, he must receive it as he finds it, and be fitted
to it as best he may.  That penalties so determined often operate harshly and
with too great severity upon some and ineffectually upon others, is too certain
to be merely presumed and too painfully apparent in practice to be denied.
The Legislature, however, recognizing to some ext(nt the evils of this system,
have sought in many instances to remedy the mischief, by prescribing the
limits within which the penalty may be imposed, and then delegating to the
judge at the trial the power to determine upon some definite punishment within
those limits, hoping that the knowledge of the criminal which he may acquire
at the trial will aid in determining the appropriate punishment. This obviates
the difficulty to some extent, but still very imperfectly.  The offender comes a
stranger before the judge, and the knowledge he may obtain of his habits,
character, and disposition must all be acquired within the few hours, or few
days at most, during which his trial is in progress.  That such acquaintance
with the accused as this opportunity offers must be very imperfect, and liable
to produce erroneous impressions, either in favor of the offender or against
him, is evident.  On the one hand every motive operates and every artifice is
resorted to to conceal the guilt of the offender, and every unfavorable circum stance in his history, and every vice in his character is as far as possible hid den, with the hope of escape or of lightening the punishment; and the more
ex erienced and shrewd the offender may be, the more successful he is usually
found to be in the use of these artifices.  On the other hand, the public prose cutor and those urging a conviction too often seek to distort and lighten
every circumstance which may be beneficial to the accused.  Under such cir cumstances, it is beyond hope that a judge will always, or even frequently, acquire
that just appreciation of the character and actual criminality of the offender
which will enable him to pronounce the just and true measure of punishment.
Besides, he, too, must inflict some fixed and definite punishment, which, if
ibased on an imperfect or erroneous understanding of the criminal or of the
circumstances of his offense, may still be fraught with all the evil consequences
which it was hoped to avert by such delegation of power to the judge.
After much and careful investigation, we are opposed to the systemof time
sentences as it now exists, and recommend a change in that system, and the introduction of reformatory senteces applicable to all crimes punishable with
imprisonment in the State Prison, with the exception of some of the most
aggravated crimes.
PROPOSED LAW.
We know of no better way to present our views than in the draft of a law at
20
I 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
once embodying the principles of the proposed amendment and the practical
details necessary for its successful operation:
SeCTIoN 1. The Peopleof the State.of Mihegan enact, That any person who shall be con.
victed of any offense punihable t)y impr)lisnmment in tlhe State Prison, and  who may be
Sentenced to iml)risonmnent under any law now in f,)rce or hereafter to t)e enacted, shall be
,ubject to impris:,intnt in the custody and under tire control of the Commissiotiers of Cor rection as hereinalter provi(de(i Iy tliis act.  Thle Secretary of the Board of Commissioners
for the supervision,f Charitable, Penal, and Reformatory Institutions for the time being,
togetiler with the Inspectors of ilie Stare Prison, shall constitute and be denominated  the
Commissioneis of Correction, whose powers  and duties shall be as further provided by
this act.
SEc. 2. All courts of record hIaving criminal jurisdiction in the State of Michigan, which
in the exercise of th)ai jurisdiction, and under the provisions of law may sentence offenders
against the criminal law to confinement in the State Pris.)n, shll sentence all offenders
convicted before them or any of tilhem, of any offense now or hereafter made punishable by
imprisonment in the State Prison to imprisonment in the custody of thie Co(mmissioners of
Correction afoires:iid, but slhall not fix upon, state, or deteirmine any definite period of time
for the continuance of such imprisonment and custody, Provided, T'hat in cases of treason,
murder in the first degree, and ral)e, inmprisonment in the State Prison may be imposed in
accordance with existing laws.  And  provided further, That this section shall not be con itrued to take away any power to suspend sentence tlat said courts may have, and in case
of such suspended sentence thie courts before whlom such offenders may have been convicted
may at any time cause the re.arrest (if such offenders for the purpose of having such sus.
pended sentence p~rimounced and executed.
SEc. 3. Toe court imposing such sentence shall in each ease furnish the Sheriff or other
pro)ier (offlic(er a copy of tihe coti plaint, idformnation, or indictment upon  which such con viction is had, a stalement of thedefendant's plea, the names and residences of the witnesses
sworn in the case, an tab)stract (if the testimony given, the sentence rendered, and the date
thereof, which copy, statement, and ibstract, signed by thie clerk of the court, shall be
delivered withi tle p)risoner to thie commlissioners, their secretary, or the superintendent of
any prison est-.il)isliment under their control, as the said commissioners may direct, either
by general reoulatlions or specially, and in the absenice of such directions, to tlie.agent
of the State Prison at Jackson, which  copy, statement, and abstract, signed  by tilhe
clerk ot the court, fhall i)e prima facie evi(lence ag~ainst the tnrisner in all proceedings for
the release of said pris)ner ty writ of habeas corpus or otherwise.
SEc 4. It is hereby madle the duty of any sheriff or other proper officer to convey forth witb such persons so entenrced to such p)rison as the said commis-ioners shall have directed
or shall direct, and deliver them into the custody of the superintendent thereof, and in the
absence of any such direction, to the agent of the State Prison at Jaickson, for which
service and all necessary expenses he shatll receive sucb comnpensation as may li)e allowed
by the bh}ard of suti)ervisors of the county where such conviction is had.  The agent
of the State Prison or Superintendent of the State House of Correction, when erected and
establishedl, as the case may I)e. is hereby required to receive all persons so sentenced and
delivered, to (letain them subject to the autbority of the C,inmiissioners of Correction, to
transfer tlhemn fromi the said State Prison to the said State House of C,)rrection, or from tihe
said State House of Correctiont to the State Prison, ur toi release tihemn under the pr,ivisions
of this act, as said c,minissioners may direct.  The following form of commitment of pris.
oners sentenced as aforesaid sihall be sufficient authority for the officer to transf,er, and for
the agent of s, id State Prison and Superintendent of the State House of Correction to receive
and detain such prisoners:
-....iCounty, sq.. To (thle proper officer)of the            --        of -
and the agent of the State Prison (and the Superintendent of  the State  House  of
Correction ), Greeting:
Whereas, Alter trial upon a complaint duly taken by me,, of      -
in said co-unty, was c,)nvicted of, an(l was by mc sentenced to be imprisoned
In the custody of the Commissioners of Co(rrection, as required hv law, now therefore, you,
-.., of the, of             -, are hereby required to convey said 
-    to the State Pris4)n or State House (if C(:rrecti,n, as the commissioners have
directed (and in the abseice ol- any such direclion, to the agetit of thle State Prison, at
Jackson), or shall designate.and deliver, into tihe custody br the agtnt
thereof, and you the said( agent of said Stite Prison or Superinten(lentof salidStateHouseof
Correctiin atre c,mmanded to receive sai(ld            - into your custody and(
ILaf,ly keel uiitil ii,schaigt-d in iiccr(lrdauce with law.  Given uiti(tr mv hand at the
f- -f    —, this -                       day,f  —, A. D. 18-.
SiC. 5. The said commlissm oners  shalov       e   to detain ia tho State Prison and in the
21 
SPECIAL REPORT ON -CHARITABLE, PENAL,
State House of Correction, subject to the rules and regulations thereof, all prisoners committed to their custody, power to establish rules and r(aaulations under which such prisonerx
may be transferred fromn either of the above named institutions to the other, or may. upon
showing evidence of improved character, be abs(,]utely or conditionally released from confinement in said institutions or from'other guardianship, custody, and control; power to
resume such control and custody wholly or in part, hand to recommit to said institutions or
either of them any prisoner, at any time prior to their absolute release.  The written order
,of said c(ommissi(sners, signed by the secretary thereof, shall be due authority for any mem-'
ber of said Commissioners of Correction, or their agent, any sheriff or other proper officer, to
re-arrest and return any prisoner not theretofor e absolutely discharged, to the custody of said
commissioners in said institutions or either of then)  And it is hereby made the duty of all
agents, sheriffs, or other officers, as aforesaid, to execute such order the same as it is now
their duty to execute ordinary legal process.
I The said commissioners shall also have power, all and singular as is now conferred by
-law upon the Inspectors of the State Prison, and to make rules and regulations for the employment, discipline, education, release, and re-arrest and recommital of all prisoners sentenced to their custody under this act.
SEc. 6. It shall be the duty of said commissioners to maintain such control over all prisoners committed to their custody under this act as shall prevent them from committing.
crime, best secure their self-support, and accomplish their reformation.  The said commissioners shall actively undertake the reformation of the prisoners aforesaid by requisite
restraints, by means of culture calculated to develop true perceptions of duty, right purposes
and adequate self-control, and by permitting such social opportunities among themselves,
such relaxation of disciplinary and domiciliary restraints as will best promote correct conduct and cultivate the power of self-co)ntrol. When any prisoner shall be received into the
custlody c)f the said commissioners, they shall cause to be entered in a register the date of
such admission, the name, age, nativity, nationality, with such other facts as can be ascertained of parentage, of early social influences, etc., as seem to indicate the constitutional
and acquired defects, tendencies, and propensities of the prisoner; and, based upon these,
an estimate of the then present condition of the prisoner, and the best probable plan of treat-,
mnient.  Upon such register shall be entered quarter.yearly, or oftener, minutes of observedimprovement or deterioration of character, and notes as to methods and treatment employed
also all orders or alterations affecting the standing or situation of such prisoner, the circumstances of the final release, and any subsequent facts of the personal history which may be
brouglht to their knowledge.
SEc. 7. The commissioners shall, under a system of marks or otherwise, fix upon a uni orm plan under which they shall determine what number of marks or what credits shall1bi earned by each prisoner as the condition of increased privileg(es or of release i'rom their
control, which system shall be subject to revision trom time to time.  Each prisoner shall
be credited for good personal demeanor, diligence in labor and study, and for results accomfplished, and be charged for derelictions, negligences, and offenses.  An abstract of the
record in each case remaining under the control of the commissioners shall be made up
isemi-annually, considered by the commissioners at a regular meeting, and filed with the
Secretary of State, which abstract shall show the date of admission, the age, the then pressent situation, whether in the State Prison or State House of Correction, or elsewhere,
iwhether and how much progress of improvement has been made, and the reason for release
'or continued custody as the case may be —.   The commissioners shall establish
rtules and regulations by which the standing of each prisoner's account of marks or credits
shall be made known to him as often as once a month and oftener if he shall at any time
request it, and may make provision by which any prisoner m-y see and converse with some
one of said commissioners during every month.  When it appears to the said commissioners'
that there is a strong or reasonable pr(,bability that any prisoner will live and remain at
liberty without violating the law, and that his release is not incompatible with the welfare
of society, then they "shall issue to such prisoner an absolute release; but no petition or
other f'irm of application for the release of any prisoner shall be entertained by the
commissioners.
SEc. 8. If any offender against the criminal law, as specified in the second section of
this.act, shall be, through oversight or otherwise, sentenced to imprisonment in the State
Prison or the State House of Correction for a definite peried of time, said sentence shall not.
for that re-son be void, but the person so sentenced shall be entitled to the benefit and subject to the liabilities of this act in the same manner and to the same extent as if the sentence
had been in tlhe terms required by said section two of this act, and in such case said comrn ntisionera shall serve upon such offender a copy of this act and written information' of his
relations to said commissioners.
Sec. 9. The said conmmissioners shall designate a suitable person in each county to act as
their agent in supervising prisoners who are conditionally released, and who shall be subject
22 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
to removal by them.  Said agents shall be paidl for the duties performed under the direction
of said commissioners, antd upon their certificate of such duties performed, lby the supervisors
of his county, in such sutm or stums as said supervisors may award.  The duties of such agent
shall be limited to investigation as to the life and halits of conditionally released prisoners
to their re-arrest and return to tle more immediate custody of the commissioners, when said
comtmissioners shall so order, and to report to the commissioners upon such investigations,
and in relation to crime and the causes thereof within said county.
SEc. 10. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.
The practical object aimed at in this recommendation is better protection
against criminal spoliation through the reformation or restraint of convicted
criminals.  That the fullest possible protection is desirable, none will deny. 
That it is not now had, the steady and recently remarkable increase in thenumber of convicts in our prisons sufficiently attests.
THE DEFECTS OF TIME SENTENCES.
That time sentences, determined by statute before the criminal is arraigned,
and imposed at the time of conviction, cannot secure it, is now a well settled
conviction among those best competent to judge, and seems to the undersigned
well nigh a self-evident truth. The criminal law, with its penalties and prisons, is for the few.  The great bulk of the population are a law unto themselves,-that is, their natural and habitual impulse is towards probity andl
good citizenship. They have no consciousness of the law, and would probably
not be perceptibly influenced if the whole criminal code were at once repealed. 
It may be said, also, of the few who commit crimes, that they too are, as the
rule, unconscious of the law until they come in conflict with it. So long as
men are at liberty they are under play of innumerable influences unconsciously determining their conduct, among which there is the statutory law.
In a long period of time the spirit of the criminal laws becomes  impressed
upon a people, tending to cultivate a public tone favorable or unfavorable to
the commission of crimes, and it becomes important in this regard that the
laws shall be high-toned and benevolent, not uninecessarilv severe or vindictive.
The effect of the penalties of the law upon character is more apparent upon
criminals. directly subjected to them, and a somewhat extended observation
shows that the effect of the present system is often injurious, fostering the
criminal cast of mind and repressing the better growth.  The  natural andl
habitual impulse of those who commit crime is predominately inharmonious
with the better sentiment of society and the laws, and while they may live
loug in mixed society without committing any overt act of crime, unconsclously restrained by the influences around them, when this rubicon is passed.
there is no sure protection for society until such reforms are wrought in their
habitual desires and inward strength, as under average circumstances will
make them safe citizens.  No human foresight can predetermine the period of
time required to effect these changes, as has already been said, not even if the
treatment under sentence could be ordered by the same authority that sentences, and certainly not since little knowledge and no voice can be had in relation to it.  The effect of a definite sentence upon the prisoner's mind is to
first exasperate and then depress if he esteems it too long; to encourage the
cherishing of his then present preferences and hope for return to old associa-[
tions and vicious practices, if too short.  In any event, a time sentence is at
most pernicious power to divert his mind from the matter of his own improve-i
ment by engrossing his attention upon the passing time, to be endured asi
easilvy as may be, and with as little effort as possible; and it would -be a rarity
indeed to find a prisoner who, upon conviction, esteemed his sentence just.
23 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
The present systemn of sentences renders impracticable also the release of
the prisoner at the right time.  It is often found that prisi)nels experience for
once, or at a particular stage of imprisonment a strong impulse to reformation, which if fo)stered. as is possible tinder the reformatory sentence, and the
prisoner propeilv released, would frequently become of a permanent state of
minid, but which at present dies out under the hopelessness of imprisonment,
or is crushed out by the servility and degradation of his circumnstances.
OPINIONS CITED.
We beg leave to insert here, instead of an argument of our own, the senti ments of distinguished men on this subject as gleaned from their recent writ ings:
Sir John Bowring of England says:  "The judge and the jury can have
only information fromn the faicts which evidence brings to them. It is when
the sentence is pronounced, and the guiltvy one is handed over to pay the pen alty of his offense that his special character ought to be thoroughly expl)lored.
And in this respect prison discipline is sadly deficient. It is the business of
wise legislation to maximize the motives to good, to minimize the motives to
evil."
Since the desire for liberty is the strongest motive among prisoners, and
liberty under this act is made to depend upon good, is not the suggestion of
Sir John Bowring met by it?
H)on. Robert Pitman of Massachusetts says:  "In some  courts, especially
those of inferior jurisdiction, the spectacle is often exhibited of hurried and
apparently careless infliction of setitences.  Even when such sentences uipon
the general scale of criminal punishments rank as among  the lighter, the
weight of them uponi thle individual offender may be of great severity.  Nor is
Wthere less danger of undue lenity.  A  month's imprisonment of a minor for
larceny, or a virtuous female, may crush the better aspirations of the offenders
,and place them for life in the ranks of the criminal classes; while for one who
'has already entered upon a career of profligacy, such a sentence would afford
~but slight protection to society, and have trifling deterrent influence upon the
offender.  And upon the public, and even upon the criminal himself, the spectacle of an inconsiderate infliction of punishment is injurious."
Onr recommendation is designed to remedy the dificulties cited by Judge
Pitman.
Fr. Brutin, Inspector General of Prisons in Denmark, remarks that:  " The
ameliorating intention of punishment cannot always be obtained; for, in the
first place, the criminal may be too obdurate to be influenced, or, secondly, the
time of the punishment may be too short for rendering possible any improves
.ient.  On the other band, the time of punishment-as punishment is now
Iinflicted-may be too long, because the uniformity of the infliction, its wearing
monotony, often stuns instead of strengthening; nay, ofttimes even destroys in
'the end what it had at first effectefl."
Rev. J. S. Milligan, cbap)lain of the Western Penitentiary of Pennsylvania,
givres his testimony to an evil, incident to the present practice of determinate
sentences, as follows:  "Every conscientious and closely observant prison
)officer knows of many prisoners utinder his charge who, if lie wu)nld confe-ss it
to himself, be believes would be saved to society and the ranks of honest inIdustrv it they were made citizens again" (at the opportune moment).  " E[ow
lften hlre we seen the stolid and soulless movements of the prisoner who is
24 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
under a judicial sentence, tyrannical rather than just?  Give utis a revised
Criminal code!"
The 28th article in the declaration of principles adopted by that remarkable'
gathering, the Prison Congress of 1870, is as follows':  "The proper duration)
of imprisonment for a violation of the laws of society is one of the most perplexinig questions in criminal jurisprudence.  The present extraordinary inequality of sentences, for the same or similar crimes is a source of constant irri tation among pirisoners, and the discipline of our prisons suffers inll consequence.  The evil is one for which some remedy should be devised."
The samne Congress adopted an 8th article which, in a sententious utterance,
goes at once to the needed reform, viz.: " Peremptory sentences ought to be.
replaced by those of indeterminate length.  Sentences limited only by satisfac- 
tory proof of reformation should be substituted for those measured by mere
lapse of time."
HHon. W. H. Merrell, Secretary of the Board of Managers  (Hon.  Horatio
Seymour, President) of the projected adult reformatory at Warsaw, N. Y., il
explaining the pro)ject as to sentences, says:  "They (the prisoners) shtll
come with the sentence of the law suspended over them, bound to remain until such time as the governor (of the reformatory) and board of managers shall
pronounce them ready to be restored to societv."
Dr. Byers, late Secretary of the Ohio Board of Charities, takes position on
the subject in the following language:  "A  principle of organization  for
prisons must be that of retention until reformation; and if reasonable evidence of such reformation is not furnishled, then  duiring life, but in another
establishment, designed fior incorrigibles," recognizing, thus, both reformatory
sentences and graduated prisons as desirable.
Dr. Bittenger of Pennsvylvania closes his valuable paper entitled "Responsibility of Society for the Causes of Crime," with these words: "The hLrmotniing of lab)or and capital fobr the honest poor, compulsory education for the
ignorant, legislative control of the idle, the vagrant, the helpless and the
deserted, a rigorous and vigorous prosecution and punishment of the capitalists and caterers of crime, and an enlarged and enlightened applic.tion of the/
law of' kindness to prison discipline, will reduce crime to a minimum, either(
by preventing its first occurrence, or by converting it to virtue, or if that be
found inpossible, by holding the criminal till he secures his discharge at the
hand of death.'
Dr. E. C. Wines, LL. D., Sec'y of the National Prison Association, in his
paper contributed to the Prison Reform Congress held at Cincinnati, 1870,
entitled  "The Present Outlook of Prison Discipline in the United States," in
enumerating the great principles which students and workers in the field of
penitentiary discipline have come to agree upon. gives as the seventh of his
category the bfollowing, viz:  "The principle that imprisonment ought to be
continued till reformation is wrought, and if never attained, then during the
prisoner's natural life."
James Freeman Clarke of Massachusetts writes, viz:  "The protection of
the community seems co require that instead of short terms, there should be
substituted a sentence of indefinite confinement, the termination of which
4houti depend on the behavior of prisoner." 
Ex-Governor Conrad Baker of Indiana, declares that, "When we reach the
{rue idea oF prisons, we sha]  ha'Lve indeterminate sentences."
Dr. Despine of France says: "When prisons become real reformatories, as
D
25 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
this was their avowed aim, the incorporation of the principle of indefiniteo
sentences in the penitentiary system would become an absolute necessity."
A. Woodbury, Chairman of the Board of State Charities for Rhode Island,
savs:  "The matter of reformatory sentences has been under consideration inRhode Islantd, and they had adopted substantially this system and found it
practicable."
Dr. Marquardon of Bavaria, Hon. Williamn Tallack, Secretary of the Howard Association, England, Signor Martino Beltrania Scalia, Inspector of Pris:;
ons in Italy, all have written upon the defects in the present system of sentences, recognizing the soundness of the principles underlying the change we
recommend.  But we submit, finally, on this point, a quotation from the letter
of, Hon. M.D. Hill (now deceased), who was for forty years Recorder of Bir-2
mingham, England, and whose remarkable charges to juries are published in
i a volume of over 700 pages: "As a general principle, I apprehend the dimi-;
!nution of crime, so far as it is to be effected by punishment, must be sought
for in the reformation of the criminal; and for that purpose it is a necessary
and a legitimate exercise of human authority to detain him until this effect
shall have been produced, even if such detention extend to the term of his
whole life.
"* *  *     To fix, then, at its commencement, the length of a sentence, is to
incur two risks:  First, that of turning the malefactor loose on society before
he is cured; or, on the other hand, to detain him after the cure is effected;:
the latter alternative being, however, much less injurious and much less frequent of occurrence than the former. It will be at once admitted, that if wecould, with certainty, so train a criminal during his imprisonment as to relieve;
him forever from all disposition to relapse into crime, any length of incareera-*
tion would be well spent; assuredly well spent as regards the interests of
society, and as assuredly well spent as regards the interests of the criminals,'
both in this world and in the next.  But I have been asked if it is right that'
for a small offense the offender should be deprived of his liberty for the remain-"
der of his days, if his proclivity to crime proves irremovable?  
.s To this objection I have answered that, if the offense does not imply the,
necessity for privation of liberty, then do not inflict such a punishment, even
although the alternative may be the escape from all punishment, but let:
society rather bear the consequences, than administer the pain of an imprison-'
ment which may be unlimited.  Having regard, however, to the evils flowing!
from impunity, whether the offense be large or small, it would  be probably
found that the instances to which I have adverted would be of rare occur-:
rence; and that, as a general rule, such impunity; could not be permnitted. 
" If, then, the offender must be sent to prison, what is to measure the duration of his punishment?  Time sentences are,so familiar to our minds, and"are enforced by such long ages of prescription, that an inquiry into their reasonableness demands efforts which few can be induced to make; and yet.I can->
not think the question presents any peculiar difficulty.
"In apportioning a time sentence to a given offense, we assume that:some
assignable proportion exists between offenses and inflictions; that a pound
weight of crime should be visited with a pound weight of punishment.  But,'
although we are able to establish in our minds some vague proportion of thiS?
kind, yet all that we can do carries us but a very little way toward the exactitude required fbr practical purposes.  This failure is manifested by daily expertiene.  Whenever a case is tried by a plurality of judges, it is well kuown
26. 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
that it is only by compromise that they agree upon a sentence wherever thee
Legislature has left them discretionary power.  And if this be true of judges?
who, sitting together for month after month, are worn into an approach to
mental uniformity, the differences of apportionment between one court and;<
another must be acknowledged to be so great as to destroy all hope that crimess
will meet, as a lule, with their desert,-neither more nor less.
"In our attempts to award pain according to desert, we are fated to err eitheron the side of mercy or of severity.  Hence it has been a favorite habit with
editors of newspapers to compare two discrepant sentences with a chuckle of
triumph over the folly of one or other of the judges on whose proceedings,
they are animadverting, without a thought that the judges  have neither
weight nor scales.  It is true that, by reason of that vague approach to proportion between crime and penalty to which I have referred, the problem to be,
solved by the judges is not quite so hopeless of a rational answer as the school-,
boy's question,' How far is it from the 1st of March to the Tyburn turnpike?'
but it, nevertheless, is quite as incapable of satisfactory solution.
"When the jury has convicted the prisoner, it remains to be considered!
whether the offense is mitigated or aggravated by its incidents; then must bet
considered the circumstances of the offender.  Is he young, or of mature age?,
Has he had the advantages of education, or has he been left to the influences;
of ignorance, bad example, and evil associations? Itas he been previously
convicted, so frequently as to make it clear that he has adopted crime as his
calling or profession; or is his deviation from  honesty an exception, and not.
made in pursuance of his rule of life? All these, and many other points for,consideration, will rise up in the mind of a thoughtful judge, but they.
asuredly will notbe dealt with by any two minds so as to result in precisely.
the same infliction. And if we take into account the modifications of opinion'
which society undergoes from time to time, and observe its effects on the sen-...
tences pronounced at various periods for offenses of similar magnitude, we
shall, I think, all come to the conclusion that standards of punishment are:;
much more easy to imagine than to realize. In the early years of the presentcentutry boys of fourteen were not seldom hianged for picking pockets, the executioner, in order to expedite their death, humanely weighting the wretched;
little creatures with stones! And shortly after that date Horace Walpole tells s
us he saw from his carriage a cartload of girls going to execution,'and never,>.
he adds,' did I behold such weeping!'  Such a spectacle in these days would.:
fill our whole island with horror and indignation.
"But even if it were possible to docket every prisoner's offense with its just:
amount of punishment, how little good would be accomplished by such a 1eat,e,
Would the deterrent power of the punishment secure Society from the repetition of the offense?
",Such a consequence is perpetually assumed by writers on criminal administration.  Deterrents are not, indeed, absolutely nutgatory; they have somepotency, though very little; but, having watched the operation of non-reform-:
atory punishmentsfor more than half a century, I can offer myself as a witness.
to the illusory nature of all expectation that they can be made effectual.  My:
testimony, however, sinks into utter insignificance when compared with that
o~f.history, which at every page furnishes evidence leading to the same con-.
clusipn.
"If, then, it is impassible duly to adjust penalties, and if simply deterrents3,
punishments are inefficacious, in what principle can we find refuge, excepbf;
2 7,. 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
that of reformation or cure?  But as a cure cannot be predicted ill any cae
with absolute certainty, and as, even if it cotld, the time required  for its as
complishmnent cannot be measured in advance, I can perceive no rational alternative but that of sentences undefined in extent.  But how, it may be fairly
asked, is the fact of cure to be ascertained? As 1 have already intimated, all
that can be aimed at is to secure a strong presumption in favor of reformation
before the prisoner shall go free.
"This is the only proof of which the case admits. Indeed, upon careful
analysis, all moral certainty resolves itself'into a high degree of probability,,such a probability, says Beccaria, as justifies us in acting upon it.
" The training of the prisoner must consist of a series of endeavors made by
himself to keep in the right path, and to stimulate his ardor, it is necessary
-first that his restoration to freedom should be held out as the reward of his
success; and, next, as Maconochie has forcibly urged, that he should have
from the first, some power of choice as regards his actions,-a choice, the
limits of which should widen with his progress in the art of self-government.
On this part of the subject I have, on various occasions, entered into details.
You have done me the honor to pay so much attention to what has proceeded
from my pen, that I believe I may venture to refer to my writings in these
general terms, which, indeed, is all my dimninishied strength enables me to do."
THE SPIRIT OF THE SYSTEM NOT VINDICTIVE.
While the purpose of the proposed change of sentences is protection, as
!stated. its spirit is not as it might appear to some from the unexplained quota tions given, severe and pitiless, nor does it contemplate detention until refor.mation, in such prisons and imprisonment as now obtains; nor is it expected
that under this system the aggregate of prisoners will increase, but on the conjtrary there is good ground to hope for a decrease.
We are repugnant to the present custom of consigning convicted criminals
to prisons as to a tomb, where (with the limited ameliorations recently aind
occasionally introduced) their imprisonment remains a round of duties and
,discipline,-a period of depressing and degrading experiences; as we are also
opposed to their release and return to society unimproved.  It is confidently
believed that when penitentiary science in Michigan shall be placed upon its
trne plane, the duty of protecting society from criminals fairly undertaken, and
the responsibilities connected therewith squarely assumed, there will evolve a
generally increased interest in the prisoner, more thought will be given to the
matter of his reformation, more vigorous measures introduced; and that reults
will be achieved most gratifying to the philanthropist and satisfying to the
statesman.
The erection of the proposed new House of Correction will provide a better
grade or stage of imprisonment, which will at once relieve somewhat the rigors
f prison discipline for those whose worthiness warrants their removal thither
or comsitment there, and will inspire and probably necessitate such increase
of reformatory means in the State prison as shall measurably change the dispiriting and deteriorating effects, into the revival of hope and atn exaltation of
the vital energies.  Still further ameliorating effects, and at the samne time the
means for diminishing the prison population, is found in the power of the
.commissioners to conditionally release prisoners to their homes, and to supervise them thereafter so long as the due protection of societv may seem to
demand.  The testimony of Uhaplain Milligan, before quoted, concurs with 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
that of our worthy Governor, and our own observation and experience as well,,
viz: that there is in prison now under the present system of sentences a considerable proportion of the whole number of prisoners who might be conditionally released with suitable subsequent supervision, and so as to promote their
own interest, the happiness of the families in some cases dependent upon them,
and the welfare of society, which needs every honest producer in his appropriate place at the earliest possible period.
THB COMMISSIONERS MUST HAVE DISCRETION AND BE HELD RESPONSIBLIL
The more particular measures to be applied in the administration of the sys tem cannot be definitely described now, nor, as we believe, is it competent for
-any legislative body to enact them into a law without jeopardizing the results
sought. This matter must be left largely to commissioners, whose constant
study and practice shall enable them best to devise.  Ordinary intelligence
would prompt them to cure the bodily diseases and conditions that contribute
to indolence and the criminal impulse (of such there are); it will be comparatively easy, with the aid of the indeterminate or reformatory sentence, the
graded prisons and conditional release privilege, to stimulate their hopefulness
and secure their co-operation in the efforts for their improvement; healthly,
hopeful men, can certainly be employed at productive industry without serious difficulty and such intellectual and moral impression must be made as
constitutes the proof of progressing improvement.
The commissioners should be held responsible, in a sense, for every crime
committed by those who have come out from their hands'and also that the
number of prisoners be kept down to the proper point and the capacity of
prisons.  We believe this system will obviate the necessity of large expendi-!
tures for prison establishments that otherwise will, in a few years, again be
required; that it will prove the best possible deterrent for general effect upon
the criminal classes in society; that it will accomplish the reformation of a
large percentum of prisoners now hopelessly criminal; therefore that it will
operate to repress crime, and by its sound statesmanship, true philanthropy,
and manifest humanity, will place our criminal laws in an honored position
compared with the laws of other States, and prove a source of satisfaction to
sucoeeding generations, likely to form the vast population of Michigan.
OOMMENDATIONS OF EXISTING SYSTEMS INVOLVING THE SAME PRINCIPLES.
We are supported in this hope and confirmed in these recommendations by
the commendations of the Irish prison system, by F. B. Sanborn, Esq., late Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of State Charities, whose wise suggestions
and work have achieved so much in that State, and by the operations of the
system itself as hereinafter stated. Also by the experience of Denmark, where
four stages or grades of imprisonment have been introduced, producing among
the prisoners (in the language of Fr. BrLutin), "a life and vigor hitherto
unknown," affording the prisoner an aim to struggle for, something to lose,
something to gain, by which the will is tried and strengthened."  And, by the
recommendations of an intermediate stage of imprisonment, from Count Sallsohub of Russia, Count de Foresta of Italy, Dr. Fj ey of Austria, Mr. Hastings of
England, and Sir Walter Crofton.  The pian of united control is also commenl-ed  by the distinguished gentlemen named, and also by Mr. Leyson of
France, where the plan is adopted, by Mr. Stevens of Belgium, and Dr. Guil
laume of Switzerland.
.20 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
The plan of supervision of prisoners after release from confinement in prisons has been successful in England, and is heartily approved by Mr. Frederick
Hill, Maj. Du Cane, Berkly Baker, Mr. Stevens of Belgium, and others.
THE TRUTH OF THE  PRINCIPLES OF OUR  PROPOSITION FOR A  BETTER
PRISON SYSTEM, SEEMS TO HAVE IMPRESSED ITSELF UPON LEADING MIXDS
IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD AT ABOUT THE SAME PERIOD, PRODUCING SUGGESTIONS AND EXPERIMENTS OF REFORM, ALL CONFIRMATORY
OP OUR CONCLUSION.
FRENCH CRIMINAL REGISTERS.
M. Bonville de Marsaugv, member of the Legion of Honor and Counsellor
of the Imperial Court of France, sought to remedy the evil of improper sentences, and to provide better protection from criminals by a system of "Criminal Registers," under which every criminal court should have in its files a
complete history of every convicted criminal in the empire, to the end that
-when again brought up for fresh crimes, a better adjustment of sentences
might be had.  He says: "Punishment cannot be properly meted out to a
criminal without a knowledge of his moral character.  We cannot equitably
and effectively proportion the penalty to the offense committed." It is scarcely
necessary to add that while under Police of France such a system might be
possible, it is quite impossible in America.  Or, that our plan for ascertaining
the moral character of criminals by daily observation of them in addition
to such know]edge as may be obtained from their trial, and correspondence as
to their previous history, is preferable to any system of official records or
Registers."
THE NORFOLK ISLAND EXPERIMENT.
The most convincing experiment possible to be made is that of Alexander
Maconechie at the English penal settlement on Norfolk Island, between 1840
and 1850. The condition of that settlement was brought under the particular attention of the Transportation Committee of the House of Commons in
1-837-8.  It was shown that very undue severities were inflicted in it, and that
the necessary result, extensive demoralization among the men, had ensued.  In
the strong language cited by one of the witnesses, the Rev. Dr. Ullathorne, as
having been addressed to him by an unhappy victim of the system on the
Island itself:  "When a prisoner was sent to Norfolk Island, he lost the heart
of a man and got that of a beast."  About the same time, a plan of managing
prisoners suggested by Maconechie in Van Diemen's Land in 1837, was also
brought under notice of the committee, and received its qualified approbation.
Its principles are as follows in his own language:
I1. "That the duration of sentences be measured by labor and good conductu
combined, with a minimum of time, but no maximum,-instead of as now, by
dime only.  The purpose of this is to make a man's liberation, when he is
once convicted of a felony, depend on the subsequent conduct and character
evinced by him, rather than on the quality of his original offense.  It is in
-the first that society really has an interest, and on which depends the securi'ty
,with which he may be again released.  The last is an immutable fact.  Amidst
the varieties of constitution and temptations we catts rarely estimate its real
ttitrpitude. When we can we are still unable to balance it against a due pro-:
,portion of pain. And no amount of this last can either recall, or atone for it,
or in any perceptible degree, as experience shows, prevent its recurrence. 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
2. "That the labor thus required be represented by marks;-a certain numher of these, proportioned to the original offense, being required to be earned
in a penal condition before discharge. Then, according to the amount of
work rendered, a proportion of them should be credited day by day to the
convic,t;-a moderate charge be made in them for all provisions and other
supplies issued to him,-and should he misconduct himself a moderate fine in
them be imposed on him,-only the clear surplus, after all similar deductions,
to count towards his liberation.  By this means it is sought to place his fate
in his own hands, to give him a form of wages, impose  on him a form of
pecuniary fine (instead of flogging, ironing, or shutting him in a dark cell)
for his prison offenses,-make him feel the burthen and obligations of his
own mnaintenance,-and train him, while yet in bondage, in those habits of
prudent  accumulation, postponing  the gratification of present tastes and
impnlses to ulterior advantages, which after discharge will best preserve him
.rnom again falling.
3. "That to strengthen these moral checks and stimulants, when prisoners
are kept together inl numbers thev be distributed into small parties (say) of
six, with common interests, each man thus laboring and refraining for othersas well as for himself.  By this means it is hoped to implant  and cultivate
kindly and social feelings, instead of the intensely selfish ones which  usually
characterize the criminal, and especially grow up in the solitude of an uncon"n,ected crowd.  It is thus also sought to createa shadow of domestic ties even
when in prison, to give an interest to the strong to assist the weak, thereby:
equalizing penal inflictions,-and to make offense unpopular because injurious,
and good conduct popular because beneficial to several together, thereby grad-.
ually creating an esprit de corps in all toward good.
"And lastly, these several moral impulses being well orga,nized, it is recommended that they be confided in, with as little mixture of direct force in obtaining the ends contenlplated in them as possible.  The two sources of action
are considered essentially antagonistic, and cannot, with advantage, be in large
measure combined.  And though wherever prisoners are kept it is indispensable to have physical force present, it is yet undoubted that frequent recurrence
to it, being in itself moral failure, will always be found rapidly productive'of;
more.
"These principles, then, having been brought before the committee, though.
they did not receive its unqualified assent, were yet deemed promising, and
recommended to be tried.  And shortly afterwards I was appointed  to the
command of Norfolk Island.
"I arrived there on the sixth of March, 1840, and found the state of things
certainly not better, and in  some respects even rather worse  than  I had
expected; 1,400 doubly-convicted prisoners, the refuse of both penal colonies
(for the worst offenders were sent here from Van Diemen's Land, as welil as
New South Wales), were rigorously coerced all day, and cooped up at night in
barracks which could not decently accommodate half the number.  In every.
way their feelings were habitually outraged, and their self-respect destroyed.
They were required to cap each private soldier whom they met, and even each
empty sentry-box that they passed. - If they met a superior officer they were
to take off their caps altogether, and stand aside, bare-headed, in a ditch.if
necessary, and whatever the weather, till he passed, in most cases without taking the smallest notice of them. For the merest trifles they were flogged,
ironed, or confined in jail for successive days on bread and water. The offenses
31 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
most severely visited on them were at the same time chiefly conventiona
those against morals being but little regarded, comp[ared with those against an
unreasonable discipline. Thus the most horrid vices, with acts of brutal violence, or of dexterity in theft and robbery, were detailed to me by the officers
as being exhibited among them, with little direct censure, and rather as anodotes calculated to astonish and amuse a new-comer, while the possession of a
pipe, a newspaper, a little tea, some article of clothing not furnished by the
government, or the omission of some mark of respect, or a saucy look, or word,
or even an imputation of sullenness, were deemed unpardonable crimes.  They
were also fed more like hogs than men. Neither knives, nor lorks, nor hardly
any other conveniences were allowed at their tables. They tore their food with
their fingers and teeth, and drank for the most part out of water-buckets. Not
more than about two-thirds of them could even enter their mess-shed at a
time; and the rest, whatever the weather, were required to eat as they could in
an open shed beside a large privy.  The Island had been fifteen years a penalsettlement when I landed, yet not a single place of worship was erected on it.
It had been seven years a settlement before even a clergyman was sent. There
were no schools, no books; and the men's countenances reflected faithfully this
description of treatment. A more demoniacal looking assemblage could not
be imagined, and almost the most formidable sight I ever beheld was the sea
of faces upturned to me when I first addressed them.  Yet, three years afterwards, I had the satisfaction of hearing Sir George Gipps ask me what I had
done to make the men look so well?-he had seldom seen a better looking set,
they were quite equal to new prisoners from England.  And this testimony
seems to me the more valuable here because it indirectly attests also the usual
effect of the old colonial management even in its best form (for assignment
still existed when Sir George Gipps arrived in New South Wales) on the aspect
of those subjected to it.
"It is impossible to state in detail the means by which I accomplished this
great change, indicating, as it did, other changes still greater and more important.  Besides introducing most imperfectly my own system of manalgement
among them (for my marks never had a fixed value towards liberation assigned
them, which could alone make their accumulation really important), I sought
generally by every means to recover the men's self-respect, to gain their own
wills towards their reform, to visit moral offenses severely, but to reduce the
number of those that were purely conventional, to mitigate the penalties
attached to these, and thus gradually awaken better and more enlightened
feelings among both officers and men.  I built two churches, —ot a catechist
added to the establishment to assist the chaplain,-almost every Sunday during
all my four years read the service myself, with a sermon, at some one or other
out-station,-established schools, —distributed books,-gave prizes for assiduity,
-was unwearied myself in my counsels and exhortations wherever I went,and went everywhere, alone and unattended, showing confidence, and winning
it in return. I also gave every man a small garden, which was a boon to the
industrious, but none to the idle; those whom I camped out in the bush I
encouraged also to rear pigs and poultry, thereby improving their rations. and
still more, infusing into them by the possession of property that instinctive
respect for it which makes it safer in a community than any direct preservatives. I thus also interested my police, who were all prisoners, in the maintenance of order, their situations, which were much coveted, being made to
depend on their success I gave the messes knives, forks, a itw cooking uten
32 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
sils, tin pannekins, etc.  I allowed the overseers, police, and other  first-class
men, to wear blue jackets, and other articles of dress not portions of usual con vict clothing; and nothing contributed more than this to raise their spirits,
revive their self-respect, and confirm their good purposes." Mr. Maconechie
then gives account of the humanizing means he was enabled to safely employ
under his system-answers objections made to it, and proceeds to say:
"The system that I advocate avoids all these errors, and does not, I think,
fall into any others worth naming. It may be improved in its details, but I
doubt if any of its principles can be advantageously dispensed with. It seeks
to grant no weak or unmeaning indulgences; but it desires to gain soul as well
as body, to influence, and not merely coerce. It draws the line of duty under
the guidance of religion and morality, not of conventional regulation. It seeks
to punish criminals by placing them in a position of severe adversity, from
which only long-sustained effort and self-denial can extricate them; but it
does not desire to aggravate this position by unworthy scorn, or hatred, or contempt; and on the contrar:, it respects our common nature, however  temporarily fallen or alienated.  It does not encourage a man approaching his freedom, by an abatement of task, or improvement of diet, the low rewards of
existing low systems, which flatter the spirit of self-indulgence that leads most
criminals to their first fall; but it at once proves, and stimulates, and cheers him
on, by an increasing,-and ever-increasing, scope of free agency, with motives
to guide it, yet not unmingled with difficulty to resist its temptations. And
seeking thus to train men for discharge into any circumstances, it is not afraid
of being able to qualify them for even the most difficult.
"My task was really not so difficult as it appeared. I was working with Nature, and not against her, as all other prison systems do.  I was endeavoring
to cherish, and yet direct and regulate those cravings for amelioration of position which almost all possess in some degree, and which are often strongest in
those otherwise the most debased. Under the guidance of right principle they
rose with me easily to order and exertion, while under mere control they not
unfrequently either explode in violence, or being crushed, drag the whole man
down with them. I looked to them for success, and in them I found it. I did
not neglect the object of punishment in my various arrangements; but I sought
it within the limits assigned alike by the letter and spirit of the law, not by
excesses of authority beyond them.  The law imposes imprisonment  and hard
labor as a retribution for offense; and these, in the fullest sense of the words,
my men endured. Every one of them performed his government task, besides
the labor that he bestowed, as he could catch an opportunity, on his owa garden or other interests. But he was saved, as far as I could save him, front unnecessary humiliation, and encouraged to look to his own steady efforts for
ultimate liberation and improved position. And this, not the efforts of an individual, zealous as they doubtless were, was the real secret of the altered aspect
of Norfolk Island in my time firom what either preceded or followed it."
SIMILARITY OF THE PROPOSED A.ND MACONECHIE'S SYSTEM.
It will be observed that the mark system of Maconechie scarcely differs illn
principle from that outlined in the foregoing draft of an act.  Believing, as
w, do, that the difficullty of determining beforehand the number of marks
to be earned as evidence of reformed character, is as great as the difficulty of
determining beforehand the number of months or years necessary to produce
it, we recommend leaving that matter to the commissioners to be determinedl
I I
33
B 
SPECIAL REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL,
(by the observed improvement actually made by the prisoner. Maconechie's
succcss hinges upon the value of the mark system to inspire the hope and effort
of the prisoner, and this advantage we have in this plan also.
THE IRISH SYSTEM EXPLAINED BY SIR WALTER CROFTON.
There is abundant testimony to the success of Maconechie's system, and the
English home government intimated the intention to make a more extended
application thereof. But the death of Maconechie depriving of an agitator,
left it to sleep awhile, and until Sir Walter Crofton was raised up to transanimate the soul of Maconeehie's work, and produce the celebrated Irish Prison
system. It is this latter which, with suitable modifications to adapt it to our
institutions, nearly all agree should be immediately applied in America, and
which we ask the legislature to enact for Michigan. We find a concise explanation of this system, now in active operation, by Sir Walter himself, in a letter and memoir to the N.Y. Prison Association, 22d Nov., 1873. It is as follows:
(1.)  In writing this memoir I take it for granted that the convicts to be
liberated on certain conditions before the expiration of their sentences, and
'placed under supervision, will be only so liberated as the result of recorded
~good and industrious conduct in prison; for, without an improved prison
treatment, very little, if any advantage, can be obtained by'supervision.'
(2.) It is stated that in the six penitentiaries and three state prisons of
New York, there are 5,500 convicts, and that the crowding of some of these
prisons is so excessive as to endanger both discipline and health.
"(3.) So long as this state of things is allowed to continue, it will be clearly impossible to carry out improvement, and it will therefore be well to
consider whether some steps might not be taken which would remedy the
overcrowding, and at the same time be the means of gradually introducing
sound principles of prison treatment.
"(4.) The abbreviation of the sentences, when permitted, should be made to
depend on well tested and duly recorded good and industrious conduct in prison, subject of course, to exceptional crimes which, for example's sake, could
not be so dealt with.
"(5.) Now, in the state in which the prisoners are represented to be, the best
of conduct and industry which should govern the early liberation of the criminals will, no doubt, in the first instance be crude.  A certain number of long
sentenced prisoners would be selected for general prison good conduct,  and
informed that if within the next six nmonths, or some other more convenient
probationary period, they proved by well tested and duly recorded good con"duct and industry, deserving of the privilege, they would be liberated (conditionally as to good conduct when at large), a year, or any other period decided
upon, before the expiration of their sentences.
"(6.) The probationary period of six months is, of course, a crude proposal
caused by the gravity of the present state of things in order to remedy the
over-crowding. The same motive power to improvement should ultimately
be made to apply throughout the sentence from its commencement by a grad uated scale of remissions arranged on a systematic plan.
"(7.) In adopting this course it would be well to arrange to place the selected
men in a special part of each prison, so as the better to be informed with regard
to their individual circumstances. I believe that a sort of cooperation with
the authorities would be the result, and the subsequent supervision of those
liberated become more practicable and effective.
-34 
PAUPER, AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS.
"(8.) The prisoners should be liberated upon such conditions with regard to
bad associates and their general conduct, when at large, as would reasonably
deter them from pursuing a criminal life. They should be obliged to report
themselves monthly, aid be prepared to prove their means of livelihood, etc.
The prisoners should be thoroughly informed as to their liabilities, previous to
their liberation, and that a forfeiture of the conditions upon which they are
released would cause a reconsignment to prison.
"(9.) If the constabulary are distributed in such a manner as to render
supervision by them practicable, it would be better that special and responsible officers of the force should be selected for that purpose. Otherwise special
agents might be appointed, or advantage taken of the magistracy, or of some
minister in the locality, willing to act for the purpose.  It would be wel to
call on the prisoners, before liberation, to name persons in their localities likely
to befriend them; and then to arrange with competent persons a supervision
of a friendly character to the well-doer, but at the same time of a nature which
will restrain the evil-disposed, by compelling them to observe the conditions
upon which they have been treated.
"ORTLINE OF A PLAN.
"Probationary test, supposing six months to be the period entitling to remission of sentence. This is very simple, and will realize itself to the minds of
the criminals.
"Each day's work. if very satisfactory in amount, to entitle the prisoner to
one mark.
"If six months is the probationary period, he would have to earn one mark
daily, or in all 1821 marks.
"Each day that the mark was missed, the prisoner would be delayed another
day from his liberty.
"The marks for industry to be only given on the assumption that the conduct is also good.
"It will be observed that even by this crude plan a prisoner will realize that
his progress to liberty will depend upon his own exertions.
Some care will be required in recording the marks, which should not be
given for skill, but industry."
THE AMERTCAN " GOOD-TIME LAW."
In our own country, while a strong public sentiment favors the Crofton or
Irish system, but little progress of legislation toward it has been made.  But
so far as we have gone the spirit and principles of it are in harmony with Maconechie, Crofton, and with the enlightened statesmanship of the age. The
law now upon the statutes of nearly every State, and of the Federal government as well, known as the"" good-time law," granting convicts an abatement
of sentence to be allowed for good conduct in discretion of prison governors
and inspectors, is designed to illumine the dark prospect of prisoners with a
ray of hope, and to appeal to their love of liberty for motive to good conduct.
There is but one expression as to its operation, which is, that it is good as far
as it goes, and is founded upon natural and sound principles.  The draft of an
act hereinbefore recited, and the system it will inaugurate, does but extend to
its true sphere the principles of the good-time law, applying the very motive)
it summons to produce good conduct among prisoners in prison, to produce'
good character and safe citizens. 
36    REPORT ON CHARITABLE, PENAL, ETC., INTITUTIONS.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS SAFE.
It will be observed that while the ultimate effect of the measure proposed is
tb produce important changes in our prison system, no sudden or dangerous
effects are probable. The crimes of murder, arson, rape, and treason remain
subject to the same penalties as before, while the change of sentence in the
other and lesser offenses can (of course) only apply to convictions after
the passage of the law, coming thus into gradual effect. The controlling board
of the State Prison remaining undisturbed, any changes of discipline or management will take place after full consideration, and upon a deliberate and
gradual plan.  It must be that the more efficient  administration required by
the change proposed will demand and engage a higher type of officers than
have sometimes obtained, and that this important department of public affairs
will be put upon a better basis.
CONCLUS1oN.
It may not be out of place in concluding this exhibit to note that sentence
and treatment of prisoners will by this plan be individualized. The duration
of detention, the restraints and treatment will not as now be directed for a
class but for each prisoner separately, and certainly with better adaptation.
This is not new, but rather a return to the primitive practice of the ancient
law. It is said that in the infancy of the Roman Commonwealth many
offenses were punished by separate acts of the legislature; that the earliest
conception of crime was that of "an act involving such high issues that the
State instead of leaving its cognizance to the civil tribunal or the religious
court, directed a special law or privilegiuni against the perpetrator.   Every
indictment therefore took the form of a bill of pains and penalties, and the
trial of a criminal was a proceeding wholly extraordinary, wholly irregular,
wholly independent of settled rules and fixed conditions." It is not worthy of
inquiry whether the more modern determination of treatment for criminals by
elective courts varied and numerous, may not be better performed by a Permanent Comnmission, analogous to the Questio Perpetua of the Romans?
We will only add that we are impressed with the great importance of instituting the true system now when we are about to make further provision for
criminals, while no formidable obstacles, by way of expensive establishments
wrongly constructed and organized, are in the way, and during the present
formative period of our institutions.
CHARLES I. WALKER,
HENRY W. LORD,
Z. R. BROCKWAY,
UZZIEL PUTNAM,
Commissionters.
0. M. CROSWELL, Secretary. 
O
I I
}
I
I 
i 
APPENDIX.
~~ 7803, 7804 provide for the indictment and punishment of accessories
before the fact.
t  These sections are the same as sections 1 and 2 of R. S. 1846, Chap. 161; and same
as Comp. Laws of 1857, ~~ 5937, 5938.
These ~, 7803, 7804 of Comp. Laws of 1871 are repealed by ~ 7934, which abrogates the
distinction between accessories before the fact and principals, and between principals
in the first and second degree in case of felony.-[Se[&e 5 Mich., 84. See 10 Mich., 173;
24 Mich., 12, 13.
M As these ~~ 7803, 7804 are repealed, they should be stricken from the statutes.
~ 7805. Any person charged with the offense mentioned in the preceding
section may  be indicted and tried in the same  county where  the  principal
might be tried, etc.
As the preceding section (7804) is repealed, how does the repeal affect this ~ 7805?
' As this ~ 7804 is repealed by ~ 7934,-See 5 Mich., 84,-should not the section 7805
be so amended as to make its application definite as to those offenses to which it applies?
APPEALS-CRIMI.AL CASES-JUSTICES' COURTS.
~ 5565. If any of the provisions of this section need to be retained, the section should, as county courts are abolished, be amended  so as to apply to
circuit courts.
IMAs to appeals to the circuit courts, see ~ 5542.
ARSON.
~ 7552 provides:
First. Every person who shall willfully burn, in the night time, the dwelling house of another; or, shall willfully, in the night time, set fire to any
building, by the burning of which the dwelling of another shall be burnt in
the night, shall be punished by imprisonment in State Prison for life.
Second. But, if at the time of committing the offense, there was no one lawfully in the house so burned,-the punishment, instead of for life, shall be only
for a term of years.
~ 7553 provides,-if any person shall willfully burn the house of another, in
the day time; or, shall willfully burn any building adjoining such dwelling, in
the day time; or shall, in the day time, set fire to any building, willfully,
whereby such dwelling shall be burned in the night, the punishment may be
for life, or for any number of years in State Prison.
It will be observed be comparing the above sections 7552 and'7553, that the burning,
in the day time, of a dwelling, there being no person lawfully therein at the time, is by
~ 7553, made a graver offense, and subject to a severer punishment than is provided by
the last cause in ~ 7552, for burning such a dwelling, in the night time.
Thus, while greater danger is to be apprehended from the commission of such an offense
in the night than in the day time, yet the greater punishment may be inflicted for that
which is practically the lighter offense.
I 
ACCESSORIES. 
APPENDIX.
BANKING LAWS.
~ 2207 provides forfeiture and punishment for violations of ~~ 2204, 2205,
2206 of the Banking law.
,   Does not this ~ 2207 impose a double punishment upon individual bankers by sub   jecting them to the $1,000 forfeiture, and also to fine and imprisonment for the misde.
meanor?
~ 2272 provides punishment for defalcations by treasurers of savings associations. The offense is made a misdemeanor, and the punishment not exceeding two years in the State Prison.
Here i.s a misdemeanor punished by imprisonment in the State Pri,on.
BRIBERY.
~ 7661.  Every person who  shall corrupt or attempt to corrupt any  Vaster
i  Chactncery, juror, arbitrator, referee, etc., shall be punished by, etc.
As the office of Master in Chancery is abolished, and superseded by that of Circuit
Court Commissioner, it would seem that the section should be so amended as to make
it apply specifically to attempts, etc., to corrupt any Circuit Court Commissioner.
~ 7662.  If any person summoned as a juror, or chosen or appointed as an
arbitrator, or if any _faster in Chancery shall corruptly take, etc.
This section should also be amended so as to apply to Circuit Court Commissioners
instead of Masters in Chancery. See note to. 7661.
CHILD EXPOSING, ETC.
'~ 7540. If the father or mother of any child under six years of age, or any
~other person to whom  any such child shall have been  confided, shall expose
-such child, etc., with intent wholly to abandon, etc.
Punishment, State prison not m6re than ten years.
.,    The principal offense created iby this section can be committed only by a person
standing in one of the three relations of father, mother, or a person to whom the hild
was conided.  Exposing with intent to abandon, by any other  person, is not made
criminal by this section. To constitute the offense, there must be both an exposure and
an intent to abandon -[5 MiSch., 71.
Should not this section be so amended as to make it criminal for any person to
expose with intent to iTrure, or wholly to abandon?
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS.
-~ 3768.  No county superintendent shall act as agent for any  author, publisher, etc.  *  *  *  *  Any act herein prohibited shall be deemed a violation
of his oath of office, etc.
This section should specifically and definitely prescribe the punishment to be inflicted
upon the county superintendent for the commission of the acts prohibited, or it should
be repealed.
DAMS, RESERVOIRS, CANALS, ETC.
~ 7597 provides punishment for maliciously destroying dams, reservoirs,
:canals, etc.
Should this section be so amended as to punish for destroying levees, etc.?-[Sm  t3
IMih., 93-4-5.
DETROIT HOUSE OF CORRECTION.
~~ 8172, 8173, 8174,-being sections 1, 2. and 3 of act of April 3, 1869.
These sections relate to the release upon habeas co?pus of persons  detained
-in the Detroit House of Correction.  The last clause of section 3 (~ 8174), is
:as  follows:
40
I -- 
APPENDIX.
"The provisions of this act shall apply to the county of WVayne only."
The effect of this last clause above quoted is to make the whole act of April 3,1869,
being ~. 8172 to 8181 inclusive (except sec. 6, ~ 8177), apply to the county of Wayne
only.-20 Mich., 14-17.
It was probably the intention of the Legislature in adding said last clause to ~ 8174, to
make only the first three sections of the act apply exclusively to the county ot Wayne;
And that sec. 4 (~ 8175), as.well as sec. 6 (, 8177), should apply to the State at large.
To effectuate this purpose, however, an amendment of the last clause of ~ 8174, making
it refer only to the first three sections of the act, will be required.
Does the Supreme Court intimate the invalidity of the act?-See 20 Mich., p. 16.
~ 8175.  Every person more than 15 years of age, who  is a common  prostitute, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the Detroit House of Correction a term of 3 years, etc.
[ Tils ~ 8175, by force of the last clause of ~ 8174, applies to the county of Wayne
only-20 Mich., 14.-See note to ~~ 8172-34 above.
ELECTIONS-REGISTRY ACT.
~ 192. Any willful violation of duty by any person charged with the executtion of this act, etc.
{This ~ 192, so far as it goes, is merely a repetition of the provisions in ~ 183, and
there would seem to be no occasion for retaining it.
EMBEZZLEMENT.
~ 309.  Provides punishment for lending or otherwise embezzling public
funds, by collecting and disbursing officers or agents.
The penalty is fine and imprisonment, the imprisonment not to exceed five
years.
MThe place of imprisonment, whether in jail or in the State Prison, is not prescribed
in the section.
PROTECTION OF FISH.
~ 2072.  The penalty for violations of this section is prescribed in the section, viz: a fine not exceeding $300, or imprisonment not exceeding 30 days,
or both.
Q~ 2079, being sec. 8 of the same act, says all persons concerned in the breach of  a
zt, shall forfeit the sum of $100, with all costs of suit, which seems to be an additional
penalty, and inconsistent with that prescribed in ~ 2072.
~~ 2073, 2075, 2076. The punishment for violations of these sections is
prescribed in ~ 2077, viz: a penalty of not more than $100, nor less than $25,
with all expenses of prosecution, or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days,
or both.
~ 2079, being section 8 of the same act, makes all persons concerned in the breach of
tile act subject to a forfeiture of $100 and costs of suit. This seems to be an additional
punishment, and inconsistent with the penalties prescribed in ~ 2077.
~.2074. This section prescribes the penalties for the violations of its provisiolis, viz: forfeiture of the nets, or fine not exceeding $300, or both.
'  2079, being section 8 of the same act, makes all persons concerned in the breach of
the act forfeit the sum of $100. with all costs of suit. This seems to be an additional
penalty, and inconsistent with that prescribed in ~ 2074.
~ 2079 imposes a forfeiture of $100 and costs of suit upon all persons conerned in the breach of the act ~~ 2072 to 2082 inclusive.
This forfeiture seems to be in addition to the fines and penalties imposed in ~ 2072
2077, 2081, 2082 of the same act, and is inconsistent with them.
F
41~ 
APPENDIX.
~ 2080 provides that all forfeitures occurring under ~~ 2072, 2073, 2074, 2075
2076, 2077, 2079 of the same act may be recovered in an action of debt,               *
*     *     and oiie moiety thereof shall be paid to the prosecutor and the other
moiety to the county treasurer, to be used exclusively as a pauper fund.
WIt will be observed that one of the forfeitures referred to in this section is that of
fish-nets.-(See ~ 2074). The action of debt would scarcely seem to be the appropriate
remedy to enforce a forfeiture of the nets. Another statute, ~6841, prescribes the action
of trover to recover a forfeiture of property.
And in so far as this ~ 2080 attempts to appropriate and divide fines imposed in ~. 2072,
2074, and 2077 between the prosecutor and pauper fund, it would seem to be unconsti    tional.-See Const. Art. XJllI., &ec. 12, and 8 Mich., 392. Fines go to the library fund.
~ 2081. This section, among other things, imposes a fine of not more than $50
upon boat owners and captains of vessels, who shall willfully run into any nets
or fishing fixtures, etc.
[f    2079 of the same act seems to impose an additional forfeiture of $100 for the same
offense; and ~ 2082 seems to make the same act a misdemeanor, and to impose still
another punishment by way of fine, not exceeding $100, or imprisonment not more
than 90 days, or both.
~ 2082. This section, among other things, seems to impose a penalty upon
boat-owners and captains of vessels, in addition to, and inconsistent with, the
punishment inflicted for the same acts in ~ 2081. See note to ~ 2081.
~~ 2083, 2084, 2085, 2086. These sections prohibit fishing with seines, etc.,
in certain inland waters and lakes in the State.
U The above sections are virtually superseded b.y ~  2087 and 2088, as amended by
laws of 1873, p.49.  Therefore the two acts on page 676 of the Compiled Laws of 187f,
which include those sections, should be repealed.
GOOD BEHAVIOR-COMMITMENT FOR WANT OF SURETIES.
~ 1965. Any person committed for not finding sureties for good behavior
may be discharged by any two justices of the peace of the county, upon giving
such sureties for good behavior as were originally required from such offender.
And  by, 1968, the circuit court may also discharge the offender from confinement,
upon receiving sureties for his good behaviour.
When these ~~ 1965 and 1968 were enacted, the jail of the county where the conviction
was had was the place for the confinement of the offender, and being confined in the
same county where convicted, there was no practical difficulty in giving bail after con   finement, before two magistrates, or the circuit court of the same county.
But after the Detroit House of Correction was established, the Legislature, in 1867, Comp.
Laws, ~ 8167, provided that disorderly persons, in any county having an arrangement
with the city of Detroit, etc., failing to give bail for good behavior, might be committed
to the Detroit House of Correction, and should be there detained until the end of the
term of commitment, or until the superintendent is served with a certificate of the cir   cuit judge of the circuit, in which is included the county where the conviction was
had, stating that the offender had given the required sureties for good behavior, etc.
As to how an offender, sent from a county other than Wayne, is, while confined in the
Detroit House of Correction, to give bail in the county where convicted, is not plain.
It would seem that some legislation in connection with these @~ 1965, 1968, and 8167
would be desirable to obviate the difficulty.
JAILS-FUGITIVE SLAVES-BREAKING JAILS, ETC.
~ 7362.  The provisos in this section prohibit the detention of fugitive
slaves in the jails of this State, and prescribe punishment for so doing.
Since the abolition of slavery the occasion for the provisions in these provisos no
longer exists, and they should be expunged.
~ 8018. The proviso at the end of the third clause, or subdivision of this
section also relates to the detention of fugitive slaves.
This proviso should be repealed for the reason stated in note to ~ 7362, above.
42
71
f 
APPENDIX.
Comp. Laws, chap. 241. This chapter relates to the capture, detention, and
release of persons claimed as fugitive slaves.
t  As the occasion for this enactment no longer exists, the chapter should be expunged
for the reasons named in note to ~ 7362, above.
~ 8033. In each county the judge of the county court, together with the
county superintendents of the poor, shall be inspectors of the jails therein.
As the office of judge of county courts has been abolished, this section, if retained'
should be amended.
And if jail inspections are to be maintained, as provided in ~~ 80345-6-7-8, an effective
board of inspectors should be provided for.
~ 8039 provides that keepers of county prisons shall report, etc., to every
county court at the opening thereof the names of prisoners, etc.
* By the abolition of county courts this section has ceased to be effective, and should
be expunged or so amended as to make it operative.
~ 8040 requires the county court within 24 hours after the discharge of every
grand jury to cause all persons in confinement, and not indicted, to be discharged without bail, unless satisfactory cause be shown for detaining, etc.
-This ~ 8040, under the present practice of prosecuting upon information, and there
being no county court, has become obsolete.
If retained, the section should be amended to meet the present practice.
~ 8045. If any person lawfully imprisoned in any jail, under sentence of
confinement at hard labor, shall break such prison and escape,   *  *  *  shall
be punished in State Prison-or county jail not more than 3 years in addition
to his unexpired term, etc.
~ 8046.  If any person imprisoned lawfully in any jail, for any cause not
mentioned in ~ 8045, shall break such prison and escape, he shall be punished
in State Prison or county jail, not more than one year in addition to the unexpired portion of his term, etc.
~ 8047. If any person lawfully imprisoned for any cause, in any prison, etc.,
other than State Prison, shall forcibly break the same and attempt to escape, or
shall by any force or violence attempt to escape, etc., shall be punished in jail
not more than one year in addition to any term for which he was at the time
of such breaking, etc.
Under the Massachusetts statutes from which the above sections seem to have been
copied, and which are substantially the same as those sections it was held in 5 Hetecaf'a
R., 555, that the language of those sections imported that only such prisoners as had
been actually convicted and sentenced, and were held for a definite term under such
sentence, were liable on breaking, or attempting to break, etc., to the penalties pre    scribed in those sections, and that the sections did not apply to or provide punishment
for breaking or attempting to break, etc., by persons who had not been convicted, "but
were merely held for trial or for want of bail.
If such is the correct construction of these sections, it would seem advisable
that a law should be enacted providing a punishment for persons lawfully held
in jail awaiting trial, or for want of bail, who shall break jail and escape, or
who shall with force and violence break jail, or by force and violence attempt
to escape.
KIDIAAPPING.
~ 7534. Every person who willfully and without lawful authority shall forcibly or secretly confine or imprison any other person,  *  *   *  or kidnap, etc.
~The provisions of this section relating to the kidnapping, etc. of persons of. color,
etc., with intent to sell into slavery, etc.; and relating to the sale and transfer of the
service or labor of any negro or person of color, and relating to the bringing of any
person into this State. claiming such person as a slave, etc., would seem, since the aboli   tion of slavery, to be obsolete, and should be expunged fromi the section.
4&, 
APPENDIX.
~ 7535. Every offense mentioned in the preceding section, may be tried, etc.
B   If ~ 7534 is amended by omitting the obsolete provisions, this section (~ 7535) should
also be so amended as to expunge all which relates to the obsolete provisions in ~ 7584.
LARCENY-RAILROAD PASSENGER TICKETS.
~ 7570. Every person who shall have been convicted upon indictment, either
of the crime of larceny, or of'being accessory to the crime of larceny before
the fact, etc.
The distinction between accessories beforethe fact and principals having been abol    ished by ~ 7934, and as there can now be no conviction of an accessory before the fact
by that name, would it not be desirable so to amend ~ 7570 as to make the punishment
apply in terms to one convicted of having aided or abetted in the commission of a
larceny?
Railroad passenger  tickets.   A  provision to punish for stealing passenger
tickets from railroad companies would seem to be desirable.
See the statute relating to the embezzlement of such tickets.-~ 7623.
SUPPORT OF THE POOR-BY RELATIVES.
~ 1801. The father, mother, and children, being of sufficient ability, (,f any
poor person, who, unable to maintain himself, etc., shall maintain such poor
person in such manner as shall be approved by the directors of the poor of tle
township
Should not superintendents of the poor and supervisors in city wards, as well as di    rectors of the poor in townships, be authorized also to direct the manner and extent of
relief to be given by the relatives.
~1802. Upon the failure of the relatives to relieve or maintain such (See
~1801) poor person, the superintendents of the county where the poor person
may be shall apply to the circuit court of tIle county where the relative may
dwell for an order for support, etc.
If the relative leaves the poor person in one county and goes to another to dwell,
should not the circuit court of the county where the poor person is left, or has a settle
ment, have jurisdiction to make the order, and be authorized in its discretion to order
the non-resident relative to be summoned to appear and answer the application and
obey the order of the court, in the county where the poor person is left?
Because, if a relative wrongfully leaves or abandons a poor person, whom it is his duty to
support, or aid in supporting, and goes to another county to dwell, it would seem
that the county left burdened with the care of the pauper should not be compelled to
incur the expense of following the recreant relative to a distant county, and there in    stituting proceedings to comipel him to perform his legal duty-but rather that the rela.
tive should bear the expense of answering the application in the county where he
wrongfully abandoned the pauper.
Still it would seem proper that it should be left to the discretion of the circuit judge after
an examination of the circumstances of the case, as to whether, under all the cir    cumstances, the conduct of the relative had been such as to make it just that he should
be summoned to answer out of the county of his residence.
~ 1804 provides the order in which  relatives may  be called upon  to contribute to such support, viz:  1st. The father.   2d.  The children.    3d.  The
mother, if there is no father or children able to contribute.
-But since the passage of the married woman's act, should not the mother, if she has
estate of her own, be requiredl (in the discretion of the court) to contribute, notwith   standing the father or children may be of ability to affor:d relief to the pauper?
SUPPORT OF THE POOR-DRUNKENNESS.
Where, byI)v reason of the intemperance, and habitual intoxication of the husband or
lather, the wife or children becalme chlargeable to a town or county for support, should
not all persons who by sale or gift of spirituous liquors have contributed to the intern.
perance or intoxication of the husband or father, be held liable at the suit of any super
44 
APPENDIX.
visor or of the county superintendents to reimburse the town or county for all expenditures and expenses incurred in the relief or support of the family?
POORHOUSES.
~ 1822. Tax for building poorhouse, etc., supervisors may raise $12,000
by tax in county to defray expense of purchasing lands and  erecting house
See ~ 1821.
Would this apply to a county having an old or insufficent poorhouse, but desiring
and finding it necessary to build a new one?
Can the money, $12,000, be raised by tax withotlt a vote of the electors of the county?'
See Const., Art. 10, ~9.
RAPE.
~ 7529.  If any person shall ravish and carnally know any female of the age
of ten years or more, by force and against her will, etc.
Penalty-State Prison for life,nor a term of years.
Rape is the carnal knowledge oL a woman by force  and against her will.  13
Mich., 432.   "Against her will," means against her inclination and desire.  Ibid. 4,7.
Intercourse with a female over 10 years of age, without force, is not rape.   In such a
case, if the woman is a willing participant, it is not rape, even though she had no intel    ligent understanding. 13 Mich., 427.
In Caswell v. People, 13 Mich., 427-437, it was intimated that if sexual intercourse was
accomplished with the woman's consent obtained by fraud but without force, it would
be rape. But this is overruled by 25 Mich., 364.
ABut should not the statute make sexual intercourse unlawfi]lly had, without force and
by consent of the woman, obtained by fraud, deceit, false pretense, falsely personating
the husband, or by a physician fraudulently inducing a female patient to believe such
connection essential to a course of medical treatment, etc., or had with a woman inca   pable by dementia or idiocy from exercising her will intelligently, constitute the
offense of rape? See the remarks of the court as to this. 25 Mich., 364-65.
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES-BEING INTOXICATED.
~ 2403. Railroad engineers and conductors, on railroads not organized
under the general R. R. law, for being intoxicated while in charge of any
engine or train of cars shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
Gen. R. R. Laws of 1873, Art. 4, Sec. 6, 1873, p. 535. Engineers and conductors, or persons in charge of engines or trains running upon roads of companies organized under Gen. R. R. law, for being intoxicated while in charge,
etc, shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor.
t The punishment for the misdemeanors named in the above sections is under ~ 7679,.
imprisonment in jail not more than one year, or a fine not exceeding $250, or both,
in the discretion of the court, Considering the damage and loss of life which may
result from the intoxication of engineers and conductors, etc., while in charge of R. R.
trains, is not the punishment prescribed entirely inadequate, should not the offense be
made felony, and be severely punished in the State Prison, or by a large fine, or both?
Again, under ~ 2138 of the Prohibitory Liquor law, the offense of being intoxicated is
punished by a fine of $5, or imprisonment in jail not more than 20 days. If a con   ductor or engineer were punished for his intoxication by the light penalty imposed in
this section, would it not be a bar and protection against the greater punishment pre   scribed in the two sections first above named?
RAILROAD STOCKS.-SALE AND PLEDGING, ETC.
~ 7757 prohibits issuing certificates for, or the selling or pledging shares of
stock, until such shares shall be full paid.
The violation of the provisions of this section is therein made a misdemranor, and is
to be punished as provided by law in the case of issuing false railroad stocks. Thile sec.
tions should be amended, making the offense a felony, and should state the specific pun.
ishment to be imposed.-See ~ 7753 and laws of 1873, p. 542, sec. 9.
45 
APPENDIX.
~ 7759. Any violation of the provisions of this act, etc.
The punishment imposed by this section is uncertain and indefinite, and in so far as
it relates to any of the offenses named in ~ 7757, would seem to impose a double and in consistent penalty.
RELIGIOUS MEETINGS-DISTURBANCE OF.
~ 1989. If any person on the first day of the week shall interrupt or disturb
any assembly met for the purpose of worship, etc.
Penalty.-Fine not less than $2 nor more than $50, or jail not exceeding
30 days.
~ 7709. If any person on the first day of the week OR  AT ANY OTHER TIME
shall willfully interrupt or disturb, etc., shall be punished by imprisonment.
In jail not more than 80 days or by fine not exceeding $50.
~ 7714 prohibits the same offenses named in ~~ 1989 and 7709,-and also
some others,-but by ~ 7715 the punishment is limited to a fine not exeeding
$25, and no imprisonment is imposed.
:r It would seem desirable that the provisions of the three sections above named should
be embodied in a single section, and the punishment made definite and uniform.
~ 7715 provides that persons violating any of the provisions of 87714 may
be convicted summarily, before any justice of the peace of the ccunty, or any
mayor, recorder, alderman, or other magistrate of the city, etc., and on conviction shall forfeit a sum not exceeding $25, for the benefitof the township libraries in the township in which the conviction is had.
Should the conviction be summary? and should not the section if retained at all for any
purpose except to prescribe the punishment, be so amended as to leave the prosecutions
to take the ordinary course of criminal prosecutions before justices of the peace? An
attempt to prosecute before an alderman would scarcely be practicable.
Again, the section provides that the fine shall be for the benefit of the township libraries
in the township where the conviction is had; and would seem to imply that the money
should not be paid into the library fund in the hands of the county treasurer, as other
fines for library purposes are now paid in.
This is not in consonance with the practice under the present constitution, Art. 13, ~12,
and Comp. Laws, ~ 6856, 6857, 6873, 6880.  See 8 Mich., 392.
~ 7716. It shall be the duty of all sheriffs, etc., and all presiding elders, ministers,
deacons, stewards, and  official members  of any  church,  etc., who  may be
present, to arrest on sight any person disturbing, etc.
MShould there not be added to this section a penalty for resisting or interfering with
any presiding elder, minister, etc., making, or attempting to make such arrest on ight?
~ T718. If any person convicted of any of the offenses herein referred to,
shall not immediately pay the penalty incurred, with costs, etc., or give security,
etc., for payment in 20 days, etc., he shall be committed  until the same be paid,
or for such term not exceeding 30 days, as shall be specified in the warrant.
W  The offenses referred to in this ~ 7718, undoubtedly include those named in ~ 7714,
but does the section refer to any of the other offenses named in the same chapter?
The section should be so amended as to refer to the section naming or including the
offenses intended.
And should be otherwise amended so as to require of the defendant immediate payment
of fine and costs, or imprisonment for a definite time, unless payment should be
sooner made, and the provision allowing security for payment should be omitted.
~ 7719. It shall be lawful for any person complained of for the violation of
any of the provisions of either of the last two preceding sections, etc.
-    The reference in this section, ~ 7719, to the provisions of the last two preceding sec    tions seems to be a mistake, and renders the section in this respect indefinite and mean    ingless.
And in so far as the ~ 7719 attempts to repeat the provisions for the trial of criminal
46 
APPENDIX.
causes before justices of the peace, it is superfluous, and in so far as it requires or
provides for any proceedings not in the usual course of criminal proceedings before
justices it is unnecessary.
Should not the whole section be stricken out?
RURAL CEMETERIES.
~ 3420 authorizes the superintendept, landscape gardener, overseer and
watchman of rural cemeteries, to -arrest summarily, persons guilty of crime,
misdemeanor, or disorderly conduct in such cemetery, and to take such offenders before a justice of the peace, or other magistrate of the town in which such
cemetery is situated, and there make complaint, etc.
There seems to be no good reason for limiting the authority of the person making the
arrest, to take the offender before a justice of the town where the cemetery is situated.
He should have the right to take the offender before any justice of the county, the
same as in the case of other offenses cognizable by justices.
It is not clear as to what officers were referred to by the expression  "or other magistrate
of the town," therefore that expression should be stricken out.
And the remainder of the section is merely a repetition of the duties and proceedings
provided for in other parts of the statutes and is superfluous here, and should be omitted.
~ 3421. No person shall use fire arms, etc.
[~The last sentence of this section should be stricken out. ~ 5525 gives justices juris   diction of such offenses as are named in this ~ 3421, and there is no good reason for
requiring the offenses named in this section to be tried only before justices of the town
in which the cemetery is located.
TREES, SHRUBS, ETC.
(Act of March 27, 1867.)
~1317. Any one who shall willfully injure, defaces tear, or destroy any tree
thus planted along the margin of the highway (i.e. highways, 3 rods wide and
over), or purposely left there for shade, or ornament, etc., shall forfeit not less
than five dollars, nor more than one hundred dollars.
- *This ~ 1317 refers to trees planted or left for shade, etc., by the owner, upon his own
land, in the highway.
R  S., 1846, p. 670, Sec. 49.
~ 7600. Every person who shall willfully, and maliciously, etc., destroy or
injure any fruit tree, or any other tree, not his own, standing or growing for
shade or ornament, or other useful purpose, etc.
Punishment.-Jail not more than 1 year, or fine not exceeding $100.
This ~ 7600 would seem to include the same offenses named in ~ 1317, and allows a
greater punishment than is permitted by that section.-[See ~ 1315.
Do not ~ 5525, clause 6 and 7602 cover some of the same offenses as to trees as are named
in ~ 7600? If so, they prescribe still different measures of punishment.
Act of Feb. 11, 1853.
~7609. Every person who shall willfully, etc., cut down, destroy, or otherwise injulre, any fruit tree, or other tree or trees, not his own, standing or
growing for shade, or ornament, on the land of another, the damage of which
shall amount to $25.
Punishment.-In State Prison not exceeding 5 years, or jail not exceeding 1
year, or by fine not exceeding $500.
B   This ~ 7609 seems to cover and include offenses named in ~ 1317, ~ 7600, ~ 7610, and
may not the offenses named in ~ 3345 and ~ 3346 also be punished under this ~ 7609? yet
in it the penalties prescribed are different from those mentioned in any of those sections.
Act of Feb. 14, 1855.
~ 7610 provides for taking or carrying away from any place, wrongfully, any
fruit, ornamental or shade tree, shrub, plant, vine, etc., with intent to deprive the
4:7 
owner thereof; or without right and with wrongful intent, for detaching from
the ground or injuring any fruit or ornamental tree, shade tree, vine, etc., is a
misdemeanor.
Punishment, in jail not more than six months, or by fine not exceeding $250
or both.
This ~ 7610 seems to include offenses namned in all the ~  1317, 7600, 7609,3345, 334X,
and prescribes a measure of punishment different fiom any of them.
Act of darch 27, 1867.
~ 3345. For cutting down, mutilating,'or destroying trees set by permission, etc., in the streets in incorporated villages.
Punishment-Same as for mutilating or destroying trees in inclosures or
occupied premises.
*It would seem that resort may be had to any one of the ~~ 1317, 7600, 7609, 7610, to
ascertain the punishment to be inflicted under this ~ 3345; each of which sections. pro   scribes a different measure of punishment; and it would seem that the penalty in ~ 3346
may be imposed.
~ 3346. And for mutilating or destroying shade or ornamental trees that had
been standing in streets of villages 5 years at the time of the passage of the
~ 3346 (March 27, 1867), or any shade or ornamental tree planted previous to
the passage of the act.
Punishment-Fine not exceeding $25; or in jail not more than 60 days
M  This ~ 3316 ly its terms, seems also to provide a penalty for the violations of ~ 3345,
which is differeit and inconsistent with the penally prescribed in ~ 3345.
There is much incongruity and inconsistency among the foregoing provisions for the pro   tection of trees, leaving much uncertainty in the statutes on the subject.
It would undoubtedly be better that a single section, or a short act, should take the place
of these various provisions.
WILLFUL TRESPASS.
~ 5525. Subdivisions 3 and 5. For the commission of the offenses named in
these subdivisions, the accused may, if prosecuted before a justice of the peace,
be punished, see ~ 5566, by a fine of one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment
3 months, or both.
Yet by ~ 7601, the offender for the commission of the same acts, may be imprisoned
six months, but shall not be fined more than fifty dollars.
~ 5525.  Subdivision 6.  For the offenses named in this subdivision, the pun
ishment by ~ 5566, may be a fine of $100, or imprisonment 3 months, or both.
And by ~ 7602, the same offenses may be punished by a fine of $100, but the inpr/.
onment is limited to 60 days.
~ 5525.  Subdivision 7.  The offenses named in this  subdivision, may by
~ 5566 be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars, and by imprisonment
three months.
tBut by ~ 7603, it is provided that the punishment for the same acts shall be a fine not
exceeding twenty dollars, or imprisonment not more than thirty days.
r
'48
APPENDIX.