Art. IV.—PENNSYLVANIA PENITENTIARIES.—

Twenty-Fourth Annual Report of the Inspectors of the Eastern State Penitentiary of Pennsylvania, dated January 1, 1853, pp. 36.

Report of the Inspectors of the Western Penitentiary of Pennsylvania, dated January 10, 1853, pp. 24.

These two documents embrace the details of the convict-discipline of the State of Pennsylvania for the year 1852. It is well known that both the institutions are established on one and the same principle, and are administered, so far as the discipline is concerned, under one and the same law. It may not be uninteresting to review them briefly in connection.

E. State Penitentiary.W. State Penitentiary.Grand Total.
Whites.Blacks.Total.Whites.Blacks.Total.
Male.Female.Male.Female.Male.Female.Male.Female.
On hand January 1, 1852,310174484
Received during the year,109412112684110196222
In custody at date of report,219124842831653181181470
Disch’d by exp. of sentence,5652889256148
Disch’d by pardon,40221452469
Disch’d by death,2235
Removed,12214

In the Eastern State Penitentiary, the labor of the prisoners has nearly defrayed the expense of their subsistence; while in the Western State Penitentiary, the labor of the convicts has not only earned their support, but has paid four-fifths the salaries of the officers.

The number of commitments to the Western State Penitentiary has increased so much, as to require the erection of a new range of cells—for want of which in the crowded state of the prison, the required separation has been in some cases impracticable. But no departure from the strict observance of the discipline has been allowed, except where a necessity which knows no law, required it.

If it should be supposed that the apparent increase of crime betokens the inefficiency of the discipline, it would be an unwarranted inference. The increased number of convictions might tend to show the increase of crime, or of sagacity and thoroughness in detecting and prosecuting it; but there is another and abundantly adequate cause to account for the increase in the present case, and it is the one assigned by the inspectors, viz.—the intemperate use of intoxicating drinks. Of the ninety-six received during the year, eighty-nine are regarded as having been brought to the felon’s home by such indulgence! Of one hundred and twenty-six received into the Eastern State Penitentiary during the year, only thirty-two are registered as temperate, leaving ninety-four on the list of drinkers, moderate or immoderate.

Of the one hundred and twenty-six admissions to the Eastern State Penitentiary, ninety-eight were never apprenticed to a trade; and of one hundred and eighty-seven in custody at the Western State Penitentiary at the date of the report, forty-one were never bound; and of the one hundred and forty-six that were bound, ninety-seven (or two-thirds) ran away from their masters!

Among the 126 admissions to the Eastern State Penitentiary, there were fifty-six different trades or occupations, and of thirty-eight of these only one representative. The largest of any class were laborers, 27; the next, boatmen, 10; shoemakers, 7; and store-keepers, and farmers, and butchers, 5 each. Of the 187 in custody at the Western State Penitentiary at date of report, 67 were laborers, 18 shoemakers, 12 boatmen, of farmers and blacksmiths 6 each, cooks, 5.

The Warden of the Eastern State Penitentiary gives us, as the result of another year’s experience, an increased conviction of the unabated confidence and regard to which the system of separate confinement is entitled; and the Warden of the Western State Penitentiary speaks of the success of the past year “as having proved the separate system to be what its earliest friends desired.”

In the report of the medical officer of the Eastern State Penitentiary we have the following testimony:

I think I may state without hesitation, that there has never been, during the history of the institution, so great an exemption from disease for so long a time, as during the period for which I now report. There are but four men in the Infirmary who are not at work. It is true, there are some others in delicate or infirm health, but the greater part of these were received in that state, of whom again the majority are greatly improved.

And from the medical officer of the Western State Penitentiary we have a similar report of the uniform prevalence of good health. There has been less indisposition within the prison during the year just terminated, he says, “than during any similar period of time since my professional connection with this institution, and yet the number of prisoners has never been so great.”

As to the mental health of the convicts in the Eastern State Penitentiary, the physician reports it to be “no less satisfactory than their physical condition;” and of the Western State Penitentiary the medical report is, that “no case of insanity has originated within the prison during the year.”

Of the sentences of the one hundred and twenty-six admitted, ninety-one were for three years or less. And of ninety-six received into the Western State Penitentiary, seventy-five were sentenced for three years or less.

Of the one hundred and twenty-six commitments to the Eastern State Penitentiary, ninety-six were for offences against property, only seven of which were accompanied with violence; twenty-five were for offences against the person, and five for violation of marriage laws. While of the ninety-six admissions to the Western State Penitentiary, eighty were for offences against property with and without violence, and sixteen were for offences against the person. The general summary of the two Institutions is as follows:

East. State Peni.West. State Peni.
23 years.26 years.
Of the whole number received, there
were disch’d by expira’n of sentence,		20051061
Pardoned,422305
Deaths,23081
Removed,314
Escaped,110
Remaining December 31,283187
----------
Total,29721648

A very slight examination of this statement reveals some singular differences, especially in the items of pardons and deaths, which an analysis of the annual returns would doubtless satisfactorily explain.

The moral instructor in the Eastern State Penitentiary adverts to the circumstance that only nineteen of the one hundred and twenty-six commitments were over thirty-five years of age, and that twenty-eight were under twenty. He very justly regards the ignorant, vicious and depraved youth of the land as the reservoir of convicts. The moral instructor of the Western State Penitentiary says, “there is a larger proportion of mere youths in the prison than at any former time. More than three-fourths of the prisoners confined within these walls have confessed to me that their early youth was passed almost entirely without moral teachings. The records of our Courts bear ample testimony to the fearful and distressing increase of crime among our youth. There are in this prison, received within the past year, nineteen convicts not over twenty-one years of age!”

These considerations show the seasonableness and importance of a proposition from the Managers of our House of Refuge, which will be found on our last page.

A large section of the report of the inspectors of the Eastern State Penitentiary is occupied by a discussion of the provisions of the Act of Assembly of May 4, 1852, and the proceedings under it, to which we shall make more particular reference in a separate article.

Art. V.—SHOULD CONVICTS BE RECEIVED INTO THE STATE LUNATIC HOSPITAL AT HARRISBURG?

The General Appropriation Act of 1852, provides $25,000 to complete the unfinished range of cells of the Western State Penitentiary, and for the payment of gratuities to convicts discharged from the two penitentiaries, $1417, viz.: $667 to the Eastern, and the remainder ($750) to the Western. Then follows §42. “That the further sum of ten thousand dollars be and the same is hereby appropriated to the Eastern State Penitentiary, for the purpose of grading, curbing and paving the street adjoining, preserving the buildings from decay, and altering and repairing a part of them for the suitable accommodation of prisoners whose mental or physical condition requires, in the opinion of the inspectors, a temporary relaxation of the separate confinement system. Provided, That whenever in the opinion of the inspectors of the Eastern State Penitentiary, any of the prisoners therein confined shall develope such marked insanity as to render their continued confinement in said Penitentiary improper, and their removal to the State Lunatic Hospital necessary to their restoration, it shall be the duty of the said Inspectors to submit such cases to a Board, composed of the District Attorney of the County of Philadelphia, the principal physician of the Pennsylvania Hospital for the Insane at Philadelphia, and the principal physician of the Friends’ Insane Asylum at Frankford in Philadelphia County; and in case a majority of them cannot, at any time when required, attend, a competent physician or physicians, to be appointed by the Court of Quarter Sessions of the County of Philadelphia, in the place of such as cannot attend, upon whose certificate of insanity, or the certificate of any two of them transmitted to the Governor, and if by him approved, he shall direct that said insane prisoner shall be by said Inspectors removed to the State Lunatic Hospital, there to be received, safely kept and properly provided for, at the cost and charge of the county, from which they were sent to the Penitentiary, and if at any time during the period for which any such insane prisoners shall have been sentenced to confinement in the Eastern Penitentiary, they shall, in the opinion of the trustees of said Lunatic Hospital, be so far restored as to render their return to said Penitentiary safe and proper, then the said trustees shall cause the said prisoner to be returned to said Eastern Penitentiary, due notice being given to the clerk of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the County, from which such prisoners were sent to the Penitentiary, of all such removals or transfers.”

In pursuance of the authority enforced by this law, the commissioners met at the Penitentiary on the 20th of October last, and at various times thereafter, and examined eighteen cases presented for their investigation—eight of whom they regard as proper subjects of hospital treatment; two, they think, will be as well or better off where they are; the sentence of one expired during the pendency of the proceedings, and he was discharged, four are not suitable inmates of an Insane Hospital, and three, who were committed for safe keeping, are regarded on all hands as unfit to be placed in any hospital, or elsewhere where the means of close custody are less efficient than in the Eastern State Penitentiary.

In the course of their report to the executive, the Commissioners very properly speak of it as a grave question, how far it is justifiable to mingle convicted criminals (however afflicted) amongst the meanest whom the hand of God has visited with mental derangement, or how many insane criminals can be sent there without seriously jeopardizing the best interests of that institution, and risking the safety and well being of its inmates. They add, “that no wards can be specially appropriated to the class particularly under notice, and as a consequence the insane criminal must be in contact directly with the insane innocent.”

In the absence of a hospital constructed with exclusive reference to the custody and treatment of convicts deprived of their reason, and considering “the great security afforded by the penitentiary and the character of its arrangements,” the Commissioners are of the opinion, that “it will be quite possible, inside its enclosure, to make the limited number of this class now confined there, more comfortable than they could be in any ordinary hospital, for the reason, where a just regard to the safety of others would require a much closer degree of confinement,” in which opinion we cordially coincide.

As this is the first proceeding under the provision of the law, it has received particular attention in the report of the Inspectors, and may claim a brief notice in our pages.

And we must in the first place take exception to the phraseology in a clause of the Act of Assembly, which is open to misconstruction. “A certain class of prisoners” is mentioned, “whose mental and physical condition may require, in the opinion of the Inspectors, a temporary relaxation of the separate confinement system.” The framers of this paragraph were probably unaware that all the provision which any body ever considered necessary for the class of prisoners alluded to, may be enjoyed without any “relaxation (temporary or permanent) of the separate confinement system.”

It is the unbroken solitude which, by an existing law, should be relieved two or three times a day, but in some past periods has not been relieved for days together; it is the confinement to an unwholesome or stultifying trade; it is the brooding over a seven or ten years’ sentence, a ruined and helpless family, and a blasted reputation,—these are the causes, and not separation from other convicts that threaten to undermine the health and derange the reason of convicts of a peculiar temperament. Now, if the money appropriated could be expended in a few extra lodges, with ample exercising yards, and perhaps one-tenth of it for an additional attendant or two, to have charge of enfeebled prisoners (whether they were so when admitted, or became so as a natural effect of prison-life) this provision of the section would be very reasonable. The separation, however, may safely and should certainly remain intact.

But there is another class of convicts whose case is embraced by a proviso. It is those who “develope such marked insanity as to render their continuance in the penitentiary improper, and their removal to the State hospital necessary to their restoration.” In order to determine whether a convict answers to this description, a competent Board is appointed to examine and report.

Now we will suppose a case is presented of a prisoner who was committed for safe keeping merely. This is certainly not a case within the proviso. No matter how marked the insanity is, it was developed before commitment, and his continued confinement is, therefore, in no sense “improper.” Competent authorities disposed of him with due reference to all the circumstances of the case, and the Act of the Legislature is not designed to disturb the acts judiciary.

Another case is presented to the Board, and they are satisfied that it is a “manifest” development of insanity, but that with proper medical treatment, and such out-of-door exercise as is quite compatible with the discipline of the institution, the party may be restored. This is clearly not within the proviso, for it is only such cases as make “a removal to the State Hospital necessary to their restoration,” that are to be transferred. It is evident, therefore, that the medical Board are not to be restricted to the inquiry, whether there is or is not a development of insanity, but whether the case presented is one which the proviso meant to include. The medical Board are presumed to know the provisions of the act from which they derive their authority, and they cannot read it without perceiving that they are to decide not only whether a prisoner is insane, but also whether his insanity is of such a type or character as to render his continuance in the prison improper, and a removal to the State hospital indispensable to his recovery. Now, suppose they are satisfied of the insanity, and also that his removal to the State hospital or elsewhere would not be likely to restore him. This is the very point for which their professional knowledge and experience is required—quite as much as (if not more than) to determine the naked question of insanity. Surely a wise Legislature could not have meant to ask a medical Board to determine the question of insanity, and leave it to the Inspectors to say whether the insanity might be safely and properly treated in the prison, or whether a removal to the State Hospital would be likely to issue in restoration!

On the whole therefore it must be obvious, we think, to any candid mind, that the Legislature designed to give the Inspectors the benefit of the official judgment of a competent Board, as to the manner in which they should treat or dispose of insane convicts.

Upon the general question of the removal of any insane convicts to the State Asylum, we indicated an opinion in our number for July, 1852, and farther inquiry and reflection confirms the doubt then expressed, whether a general State Lunatic Hospital should receive convicts of any class.

If an offender has been convicted and sentenced according to law, he must be regarded and received into the cell as a suitable subject of convict-discipline. A process of law so terminated, is tantamount to incontrovertible evidence, that the party is in all respects amenable to the penal sanctions of the law. Otherwise he is not a convict, but an oppressed and abused sufferer. Having thus been committed, he must abide the life of a convict. If his health fails, humane provision should be made for him in a proper apartment, called an infirmary or hospital, with proper attendance, medicine, nourishment, &c., but why should he be pardoned, removed or discharged? Sickness in prison is one of the risks he voluntarily takes in committing the offence. If he breaks a limb or loses an eye, it is what happens to honest men as well as convicts, and he can claim no exemption from such calamities, and must be satisfied with prison fare when they overtake him as a convict. Why should the failure or loss of mental soundness be a cause of discharging a prisoner, any more than the weakness or maiming of the body? Why should not provision be made within the prison-bounds for the proper care and treatment of this class of ailments, as well as any other? Certainly not because it is not practicable to do it, for the medical records show that the recoveries among convict-lunatics here and in England, bear quite as high a proportion to the cases, as in our best Insane Asylums. If it should be maintained that the proper room and attendance cannot be obtained, the same reason might be urged for discharging the sick and lame, that there was no room for an infirmary, nor for surgical operations, nor for nurses, &c. We do not see what reasonable ground can be urged for the removal of the former, which might not be quite as tenable in relation to the latter.

It seems to us that when the Commonwealth, whose peace and dignity have been violated by a breach of the law, seizes on the offender, and separates him from honest citizens, clearly proves his guilt, and commits him for punishment to hard labor in the penitentiary for a term of months or years, nothing should avail to discharge him from that sentence, except the discovery of some evidence of its injustice. It is assumed, of course, that he has been legally and fairly dealt with in the whole process of the prosecution, and that the sentence is as light as the law or the circumstances of the case will justify; and this being conceded, we confidently maintain that the State takes him into her custody as a convict, and that, as a convict she is bound to provide for him whatever he needs, whether in health or sickness, in strength or weakness, in life or death, until he has accomplished his full term.

We venture to make these suggestions the more plainly, because we perceive not a little confusion in the views which are gaining ground on the subject.

In the recent report of the Inspectors of the Eastern State Penitentiary, cases are mentioned of prisoners who were clearly insane when first sentenced to the Penitentiary. How this fact was proved in any case, does not appear. The question would be relieved of much embarrassment if it did. But the report hazards another and much graver remark, viz: that the “experience and observation” (of the Inspectors) “have convinced them that the commission of crime is more frequently connected with mental disease than courts or juries suspect.” We had supposed that the danger, if any, was in the opposite direction. It must be very rare, we apprehend, that the plea of insanity is not urged where there is the slightest pretence to sustain it. And courts and juries, in our country at least, have been regarded as quite sufficiently indulgent towards it whenever it is urged.

It is scarcely safe, as it seems to us, after conviction by due course of law, to go behind the proceedings and attempt to avert their legitimate consequences by alleging the existence of a fact which should have stayed them entirely. That property is taken, mischief committed, and violent deeds done by persons of insane mind and of course irresponsible for their acts, we all know; but these acts are not offences, nor are the perpetrators of them offenders, nor can they, by any process of law, be turned into convicts. Yet the time to show this (if it is not plainly apparent) is when they are arrested for such acts, and their state of mind is relied on to exempt them from any responsibility. If it is not shown then, it is our duty (in ordinary circumstances) forever after to hold our peace.

It is not our province to vindicate the established tribunals of the country from the charge of “presumption” or “inhumanity,” when they direct a maniac, who, in a paroxysm of his malady, has taken the life of his wife or his friend, to be confined within the cells of a penitentiary as one dangerous to society. But we suppose the community has a claim to be protected against the violence of the lawless, whether they are rendered so by the visitation of God or by the indulgence of depraved and malevolent passions.

That this protection can be made sure by existing arrangements in our State Hospital, or that adequate provision can be made therein without injuriously affecting the interests of third parties, we are not prepared to say. But we are well persuaded that proper provision for all classes of convicts, whatever their physical or mental condition, can be made in either of our State Penitentiaries; and we shall not cease to consider those institutions very imperfectly constructed or organized, so long as such provision is not made within their walls.

Before our readers pronounce judgment on these views, we trust they will take sober thought and established facts into their counsels.

While these sheets were passing through the press, we were favored with the report of the New York State Lunatic Asylum at Utica, for the current year, in which the most emphatic remonstrance is made to sending thither persons acquitted of crime, on the ground of insanity, or convicts who become insane. The reasons are plainly stated:

These unfortunate persons are discharged from punishment and committed to the asylum. The buildings not having been designed for the custody of this class of the insane, they cause much extra expense, watchfulness and care; and as experience shows, with but little prospect of benefit. The number is constantly increasing and encroaching upon space which might be more usefully devoted to patients who are likely to be improved, and for whom the institution was originally designed. Many of the class referred to are of the most depraved character, and quite unfit associates for the other inmates, who, for the most part, are persons of worth and respectability, and entitled to be protected against dangerous associations.

The mischiefs which are so clearly exposed by the Managers, are still farther exhibited in the report of the principal physician, who regards convict-lunatics as requiring more secure fixtures and stricter surveillance than ordinary patients, and for these and the worst class of drunkards, he recommends “the erection of a hospital for two hundred and fifty patients of the male sex only, to be carefully constructed, and fitted for the ultimate occupancy of lunatic criminals only; but to be used, until needed exclusively for this purpose, by criminal and homicidal lunatics and drunkards.”

We think these views and suggestions must commend themselves to all reflecting minds, and we hope to see them carried out.

We offer no apology for occupying so much of our limited space with this subject, inasmuch as the interests of philanthropy are involved in protecting our State Lunatic Hospitals from being prejudiced by the introduction of patients who do not properly fall under their care, and the interests of prison discipline require that the convict should not be released from any measure of retribution for his offence, which a lawful sentence imposes.

Art. VI.—REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON.

—Embracing the reports of the Joint Committee, Inspectors, Keeper, Moral Instructor and Physician. January 19, 1853. pp. 48.

We have been favored with the report of this institution for the year 1852-3. There were in confinement, at the beginning of the year, two hundred and seven. Received during the year one hundred and twenty-one, and in custody in the course of the year three hundred and twenty-nine different individuals. Of these, sixty-eight were discharged by expiration of sentence, and nearly the same number (viz. 63) by pardon! One death occurred, leaving one hundred and ninety-seven prisoners on hand at the close of the year. The average monthly population of the prison was two hundred and ten, which is a large increase on the previous year.

Of the one hundred and ninety-seven on hand, seventy-two are in on a sentence of five years or upwards; thirty-four for three years and upwards, forty-eight for between one and three years, and forty-three for one year or less. Of the whole number thirty-eight were under twenty; eighty-one between twenty and thirty, and forty-nine between thirty and forty; showing that one hundred and sixty-eight out of the one hundred and ninety-seven, or four-fifths, were under middle life.

The offences are divided about equally between those against property and those against the person. Of the latter the extraordinary number of fourteen are for rape, and five for an assault with intent to commit that crime, and fourteen were counterfeiters. Eighty-nine, or nearly half the convicts, are natives of New Jersey; sixty-three are of foreign birth. Only eight females are in the prison, four white and four colored; and of the one hundred and eighty-nine males, forty-nine are colored. It is worthy of observation, that of one hundred and twenty-two commitments last year, sixty, or about one half, had no trade!

In respect to the physical health of the convicts, we are informed that only one death occurred during the year, and this was by suicide. It was a young German, who had been in prison only five days, and whose sentence was only six months. We do not learn that any one at Trenton ascribes this melancholy event to the effect of convict-separation, but it would be in keeping with the spirit which has sometimes manifested itself in discussions of this subject, to set it down as one of the fruits of the separate system!

The State Prison of New Jersey is established on the principle of individual separation. The law provides, that “every convict shall be confined in one of the cells of the prison, separate and alone, except in such cases of sickness as are by the act provided for.” That is, if the physician reports to the keeper that a prisoner requires a nurse, the keeper, with the approbation of the acting Inspectors, may employ one of the prisoners; and “whenever, in the opinion of the physician, the enlargement of any prisoner shall be absolutely necessary to the preservation of life,” he may be removed from his cell, “but the prisoner shall in every such case be kept from the society of other prisoners, except such as may attend as nurses.”

No language could more clearly express the will of the Legislature that convict-separation should be the basis of the discipline. In addition to these positive requirements, the Inspectors are to embrace, in their annual report to the Legislature, “such remarks and statements respecting the system of separate confinement and the efficiency of the same, as shall be the result of their own observation.” The same act authorizes them to make rules and regulations for the prison as they may deem necessary and proper, “consistent with the principle of separate confinement and the laws of the State.”

Now we might naturally suppose that a body of law-makers, receiving such a report of the condition of a body of convicted law-breakers, from those who are appointed to take care of them, would be slow to countenance any direct and palpable breach of the law by themselves; and yet it must have been known to the Legislature of New Jersey that the provisions of the law establishing the State prison, are rendered entirely nugatory by their neglect to provide means for executing them. They are supposed to know that the prison contains but one hundred and ninety-two cells, and that ten of these are occupied for workshops and store-rooms. A brisk walk of five minutes would supply the honorable the Legislature with demonstrative evidence that one hundred and eighty-two cells would not suffice for the separate confinement of two hundred and thirty-two prisoners, and hence they would see fifty cells (7½ by 16 feet) occupied by two tenants each, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth (which has forbidden such association) and of course “against the form of the statute in such case made and provided.”

In such an emergency, we might further suppose that measures would be adopted at once to enlarge the accommodations and to obviate the alleged necessity for thus openly violating the law, as early as possible. With this impression, we are surprised that the Executive of the State, whose particular function it is to see that the laws are duly executed, does not urge prompt action in the premises. So far from any intimation of this sort, he speaks of the administration and management of the prison throughout, as eminently successful and commendable; of the keeper and officers as having sustained their reputation for ability and efficiency—of five thousand dollars of surplus earnings as having been paid into the State treasury during the year—and of about two thousand dollars paid to discharged convicts for overwork, all which he thinks exhibits unexampled prosperity in the affairs of the prison.

He even goes so far as to say, “that the discipline has been well maintained,” adding (rather paradoxically we think,) that the “large number of prisoners renders it impracticable to observe the law in relation to solitary” (separate) “confinement, and the necessity of association impairs to some extent the corrective regulations of the institution.”

We humbly submit that it is not the “necessity of association,” but the association itself that does the mischief, and farther that Jerseymen would better understand the case if it were said in plain English, that until cells enough are built to give each convict a cell by himself, the occupants will be more likely to become worse than better, at the expense of the State, and in deliberate violation of its positive laws.

This view of the case becomes quite imposing, when it is considered that of the one hundred and ninety-seven convicts, one hundred and sixty-eight are, or about four-fifths, are in on a first conviction. Of course, every precaution is essential to give the discipline of the prison its most benign and efficient influence. It is passing strange that an enlightened State should pocket five thousand dollars of the surplus earnings of her convict-population, while the accommodations for accomplishing the only legitimate objects of the prison are so narrow as to require a constant violation of the law, and a constant defeat of its wholesome ends. It may be, however, that to violate laws has become the rule, and to obey them the exception. As an illustration, it may suffice to say, in respect to this same New Jersey State Prison, that the use of tobacco in any form is peremptorily forbidden by law; yet we are informed, on indisputable authority, that the prisoners both chew and smoke, and that some of them have taken their first lessons in these arts after their admission to the prison!

We have made these suggestions with much freedom, and we hope without offence. We have hearty, intelligent co-adjutors in Jersey, who are aiming with us to establish the convict-discipline of the country on a truly humane, efficient, philosophical and Christian basis. To this end, we maintain that every prison or place of confinement for persons charged with or convicted of crime, should furnish a suitable apartment for each individual, separate from every other individual suspected or convicted of crime. We have often cited the State prison at Trenton as one of this class, and have uniformly espoused the views of the Inspectors and principal officers, at times when they were opposed by crotchety speculators within or without the prison; and we shall be greatly disappointed, if means are not promptly used to conform the discipline to the provisions of law.