A committee was instructed to present the case of the complainant to the proper authorities of the Penitentiary, and to ascertain, in the first place, on what principle the over-work of prisoners was estimated, and to make especial reference to the case of the United States prisoner, which had suggested the investigation. It need scarcely be said that these inquiries were to be made with that friendly feeling and high respect which have marked the intercourse of the Society with the authorities of the Eastern Penitentiary, and that the questions were answered with the freedom and feeling of those who have an established, well devised plan of action, and are conscious of an adherence to that plan in all its execution; and the friendly spirit of the Committee of this Society was reciprocated by those to whom the appeal was made.

As settling a question about which some doubt existed, and especially as giving information that must be valuable to many, and interesting to all, the report of the Chairman of the Committee on the Penitentiary is subjoined.

To the Acting Committee, &c.

As Chairman of the Visiting Committee of the Eastern State Penitentiary, I have been requested to make some inquiry into the manner of determining the value of the work done by the prisoners, and the allowance to be made to them for “over-work.” The inquiry has been made accordingly, and the following may be given as the result:—

In the first place, it is an important fact, that the law of the State only directs that convicts shall be sentenced to “hard labor,” leaving the manner of executing the sentence to the Inspectors and Wardens, or those having the immediate control of the Jails and Penitentiaries. There is no provision for any compensation to the prisoners for this labor; the primary, and probably the sole purposes for which it was made a part of the sentences, being to enforce it as a salutary part of the prison discipline, and also as a means of compelling the prisoners to contribute something towards the expense of their maintenance; consequently, any allowance made to them for over-work is altogether a gratuity, which they have no right to claim.

In the exercise of the discretion vested in the Inspectors and Warden of the Penitentiary, they judged that the introduction of rewards to the prisoners for industry would have a salutary tendency in several directions, and they therefore allotted to each of them, a certain quantity of such kind of work as should be given him, to be performed in a day, or a month, to pay for his keep. This is sometimes called “the task,” and is so moderate, that with ordinary skill and application, it can be accomplished with ease. Such a money valuation is affixed to this work, as will admit of the Institution obtaining from their outside customers a small advance, to provide tools, working materials, &c. The prisoner is expected, at the price affixed, to earn for the Institution from twenty to twenty-five cents per day. No penalty, however, is visited on him for a failure, unless it is the result of culpable sloathfulness or insubordination. Every thing done beyond this allotted task, is credited to the prisoner as “over-work,” at the same rate affixed to the “task,” half of it for the use of the County, and the other half for his own use, to be paid to him at the expiration of his term; or portions of it, during his imprisonment, are applied, at his request, to the purchase of books, or, perhaps, a carpet for the floor of his cell, or some other little comforts beyond the prison allowance which the authorities may permit him to be supplied with, or remitted to his family.

Under this system, many of the convicts, on the well known and generally acknowledged principle, that “the hope of reward sweetens labor,” are stimulated to so apply themselves, that they not only fully do what is claimed of them by the Penitentiary, (and which, without this encouragement, would often fail to be performed,) but they sometimes accumulate the very handsome sum of several hundred dollars against their discharge. One of them recently earned $14.31 for his own use in one month—equal to $171.72 per annum—and remarked that with a full supply of materials, he would have been able to have doubled his earnings. The system, indeed, works admirably, and its influences are salutary in several respects. The interests of the Institution are advanced by it, and the present comfort of those in confinement is promoted, and the susceptibility of their minds to the favorable action of reformatory influences is increased by having their time occupied by what they feel to be profitable employment. Also, without having the character of compulsory labor, it trains them to habits of industry, and practically convinces them of the important truth, that labor is a thing of real value. These habits, and this conviction, will be of great value to them when they again enter into the world, and the money they take with them will be an important aid in starting them afresh in the business of life.

In allotting the tasks, if any of the prisoners appear to be disheartened under an apprehension that they are greater than they can accomplish, and therefore think it useless to attempt it, the Warden reduces them, and thus leads them on gradually, and the result fully proves that a greater amount of work is actually obtained from them under this system, than would be by the more exacting plan.

The law and rules in these respects, as applied to United States prisoners, having also been under discussion in our Society, special information has been desired on that branch of the subject. It being understood that the General Government pays for their board, doubts have been expressed whether they are bound to labor at all; and if they do, it has been suggested that they should receive a credit for the whole value of their work. The first branch of the question is answered and settled by the fact, that they are sentenced to under go imprisonment for a certain term, in conformity with our State Laws—that is, “at hard labor.” Next, as to compensation, their board being paid. It is true the United States pays for each of its prisoners $2.50 per week, which is for board, clothing, fuel, medical attendance, and, indeed, all his ordinary wants, and is hardly half of the cost to the Commonwealth, of each of those in confinement. The Penitentiary was erected by the State of Pennsylvania, at a cost of about $600,000, for its own use. The interest of this sum, and an annual appropriation made, to meet current expenses, such as salaries of officers, &c., amount together to about $50,000 per annum, which, as the average number in confinement does not exceed 400, makes a yearly cost to each of, say $125, in addition to their board and incidentals. It is fairly said, that, although we may be willing to submit to the loss on our own prisoners, it is but reasonable that we should be protected from it, when accommodating the General Government. The result is, that United States prisoners, as regards labor and compensation, are treated throughout in the same manner as our own.

The same principle, as to compensation for labor, though differing somewhat in its practical details, has been introduced into our County Prison, with very satisfactory results. Whether it has been adopted in our Western State Penitentiary at Pittsburgh, or not, we are not clearly informed; and we are not aware that it is to be found in any Jail or Penitentiary beyond the limits of our State. It is one of the advantages of the Pennsylvania Separate System of imprisonment that it better admits of such an arrangement, than where the prisoners are congregated together in the workshops.