5th. That participation in a conspiracy to escape, or to offer any kind of violent resistance to the prison authorities, should be punished by additions of one to three months to the term of the prisoner's sentence, according to the seriousness of the offence.

I think that these, or a part of them, would somewhat improve the workings of the principle in question. But with or without them, I am for it heartily.

Yours,

HORACE GREELEY.

WASHINGTON, December, 17, 1849.

DEAR SIR-I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5th of November, in which you solicit my opinion upon a grave and important question of penitentiary disipline.

I have no practical acquaintance with any penitentiary in which the punishment of criminals is defined by days' labor, instead of periods of imprisonment with hard labor; and I cannot confide in my specu lative opinions, without the aid of experience to offer for your consideration.

I confess that I do not percieve that the measure suggested in the enquiry, would be necessarily benign in its operation, unless excuses of ill-health and accident were allowed; and that, if such excuses were allowed, then it would seem to me probable, that there would be great danger of relaxation of discipline. But my opinion may very probably be affected by prejudice in favor of the existing system. I am, with great respect,

Your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

BELLVILLE, December 24, 1849.

DEAR SIR-I have received your circular of the 5th ult., together with the Resolutions of the Legislature appended thereto, in due course of the mail; but my business has so interfered as to prevent me from giving that attention to the subject which its importance

demands.

The Legislature seems to have come to the conclusion that the confinement of convicts to hard larbor in the penitentiary, has, to a great extent, failed to effect their reformation, and they propose to enquire whether the system can be so changed as to effect that object.

The first enquiry should be as to the fact (which seems to be taken as granted by the Legislature.) whether the system has failed, for it is more easy to find fault or condemn present systems than to prescribe remedies.

If in devising the present penitentiary system, it was expected that all the inmates of the prison, or even a majority of them, would be "changed into useful and honest citizens," then indeed the system has failed. I do not believe that this was expected, even by the most sarguine friends of this measure. It was, no doubt, expected that tl e confinement to hard labor, with proper restraints, accompanied with moral culture, that many of these offenders against the laws of God and their co ntry, would be led to turn their thoughts inward, review their past lives, and thus become convinced of their errors. It was, do doubt, supposed that such reflections being thus forced upon them, might in many instances, produce sincere repentance, and induce them to form strong resolutions to amend their lives. That this is the result in numerous instances, I have no doubt. I believe many of them leave the prison with a full determination to conduct themselves in future so as to retrieve their lost characters, and become "honest, useful citizens." Nor have I any doubt that in many instanstances, these noble resolutions are strictly adhered to through their future lives. I am fully satisfied that not a few of these individuals, by their prudent and correct deportment after leaving the prison, have deservedly obtained the good will and esteem of their fellow citizens, and retained it to the end of their lives, who, had they never served a tour in the penitentiary, would have persevered in their wicked course to the end of their lives, and would have gone down to their graves abandoned vagabonds.

But it may be said that many return to their bad habits and again become inmates of the prison. This is no doubt true to some extent, but not so great an extent as many suppose. From an examination of the prison register, I think it will appear that second convictions of the same persons, will not exceed ten per cent. of the number released.

One object of the present penitentiary system, in the punishment of offenders, is to deter others from the commission of crime. It is contended by some, that in this respect, the system has failed. When we recur to the fact that there are in the State of Ohio, not less than fifteen hundred thousand persons of an age to commit crime, and that the convictions in the State have not in any one year, exceeded one hundred and fifty, I think it may well be claimed that some portion of the inhabitants have been deterred from the commission of crime by the fear of punishment.

But admitting that the present system has failed to a great extent in transforming the convicts into "honest men and worthy citizens."

would the change proposed by the Legislature be likely to produce this desirable result? I am inclined to the opinion that it would not.

The proposition, as I understandi, is, that instead of sentencing the convict to hard labor in the penitentiary, for a certain number of years, that he be sentenced to perform a certain number of days of hard labor, allowing three hundred days for one year. By this plan, a prisoner of sound constitution and good health, might perhaps, shorten his term one-third by performing six days labor in tour; but would he on that account leave the prison a more honest man or useful citizen? I doubt very much whether it would have any such tendency. Having performed the labor of twelve months in eight, he would be very likely to injure his constitution, and so i pair his health so as to untit him for earning his living by honest labor. But I would inquire what would be the effect of this plan upon prisoners with shattered constitutions and poor health. Would not their sentences be lengthened? This would surely be the case where a prisoner would be twelve days in performing six days' work. That there are many such prisoners, all persons acquainted with the past experience of the Ohio Penitentiary, know well. Perhaps it will be said that the Courts, in passing sentence, could determine on the ability of the convict to perform hard labor, and graduate the number of days' work to be performed according to such ability. A little reflection will satisfy any person that there would be much uncertainty in a rule of this kind. A man might be very stout and healthy at the time of trial, who might be quite otherwise in a few months or even weeks afterwards. Or he might at the time of his trial be very feeble, and a few months afterward be healthy and strong.

From these considerations, and many others which might be enumerated, I am decidedly of opinion that the change proposed, would have no salutary influence in the reformation of convicts.

I have no doubt, however, that the system might be improved, but in a different way.

The sentences of prisoners in my opinion are altogether too long. I would be in favor of reducing them to at least one-half, while at the same time, I would discourage as much as possible all pardons, except where there was a probability that the prisoner was not guilty.

I would prohibit the carrying on of any business within the penitentiary which requires persons to change their position from one point to another; and in short, make such provisions by law as would enable the Warden in the management of the prison, to prevent the prisoners from having communication with each other, and also prevent persons employed by the Contractors from holding conversation with the prisoners, or giving them the slightest information as to what was passing outside of the prison.

I would be in favor of affording every facility consistent with their sentence, in infusing into their minds correct moral principles. I would make it the duty of the Warden to notify the Governor (one month before the expiration of the term of each prisoner,) when his time would expire, and in such notice, specify what his character and

conduct had been while a prisoner, for the purpose of having him restored to his rights as a citizen, if his conduct had been good, but in no instance to restore where the conduct had been bad.

With these crude, hasty remarks, I remain,

Very truly yours, &c.,

JOHN PATTERSON.

Col. L. DEWEY, Warden.

REPORT

OF THE

COMMISSIONERS OF THE LIBRARY.

OHIO STATE LIBRARY, February 9, 1850.

To the Honorable the General Assembly:

The Commissioners of the Library respectfully submit the following as their annual report.

The amount received from Whiting & Huntington embraces the

amount due from J. R. Scroggs, $191 ment of which was assumed by them.

59, reported last year, the payTheir have also been received