ABUSES IN THE STATE-PRISON AT SING-SING.

ALBANY, APRIL 16, 1839.

TO THE SENATE:

GENTLEMEN: I recommend that Richard R. Voris, Walker Todd, John Fisher, Joseph Hunt, and Henry Romer, be removed from the offices of inspectors of stateprison at Mount Pleasant. The grounds of this recommendation will be found in a report of the committee of the assembly upon stateprisons, submitted to the assembly on the 30th day of March, 1839-Assembly Documents, No. 335.

By that report it appears, that "the inspectors," "instead of taking upon themselves the discharge of the duties required by law," "have, in effect, surrendered their principal duties, and have committed the entire management and control of the prison, its offices and affairs, to the agent.'

Among the duties which have thus been surrendered to the agent are, "the appointment of the assistants," and even the regulation of their salaries, and the "removal of such assistants," together with all the "responsibilities of providing for, treating, and punishing the convicts."

The inspectors have also "committed to the agent the duty of furnishing, at his discretion, all articles for the use of the prison, including provisions for the convicts, as well as the sale of all the wares and other articles produced at the prison."

The committee further report that the inspectors "have been deficient in vigilant and persevering attention to, and supervision over, the details of the affairs of the prison."

It is manifest that this surrender by the inspectors of their proper powers and duties to the agent, can in no degree excuse them from full responsibility to the public, for a just and wise administration of the prison. The agent of the prison, and all the

other officers are appointed by them, and are removable at their pleasure. They have never exercised this power in any instance. The inspectors must be held doubly responsible under such circumstances, for the acts and omissions of the agent and the subordinate officers.

So loosely have the supervisory powers of the inspectors been exercised, that although nearly all the assistants-keepers now. at the prison, entered upon the duties of their appointment several years ago, they did not take the oath of office until August last.

Among the consequences which have resulted from the neglect of the important duties of the inspectors, are the following: "All the assistant-keepers exercise discretionary and unlimited power in the punishment of the convicts under their care respectively, for any and all offences or omissions of duty, subject, however, to the provisions of the sixth section of act of 1835, requiring from them a written report of the extent of all punishments inflicted by them, and the offences committed."

But an erroneous construction is given to the statute by the assistant keepers and agent, in consequence of which, punishments inflicted by the agent, and by his deputy, and by the assistant keepers, in the presence of either the agent, or deputy, do not necessarily come before the inspectors. The assistants do not, in all cases, report the punishments inflicted by them in the absence of the agent, and his deputy, but sometimes report the number of stripes inflicted by them, by "guessing at the number."

The principle which seems to have been adopted and pursued at the prison is that, "of governing the convicts wholly by the fear of punishment, while, at the same time, no incentive to obedience, and diligence, or skill in the performance of their task, is held up to their view, save an exemption from stripes." The committee justly remark that, by reason of this error in discipline, "the reformation of the convict, one of the most important objects of our penitentiary system, is abandoned and lost."

"During the years 1837 and 1838, the complaints of the want of food by the convicts, were more frequent and numerous than at any other period."

The "extra rations" furnished in cases of such complaints, were "sometimes insufficient," and convicts, "who were sent by their

keepers to the kitchen for food, were frequently beaten and driven away without it by the superintendent."

By reference to pages 5 and 6 of the report, it will be seen that during a long period, the provisions furnished have not been of a suitable kind, or sufficient in quantity.

"Not only have different degrees of punishment been meted. out by different keepers, but cruel and unreasonable punishments have often been inflicted."

Such punishments have been "repeated during several successive days," and upon convicts, "in more than one instance," who were "insane."

"One witness deposes to one thousand lashes inflicted upon a maniac convict within the space of three weeks." "Convicts have been disabled" by severe corporeal punishment, and then have been "sent to the hospital to be cured." Others while actually "in the hospital," and "on the sick list," have been punished in the same manner.

It is proved and admitted, that contractors for the labor of convicts (in no sense officers of the prison), have sometimes been permitted to inflict severe chastisement upon the prisoners. In violation of every principle of law, and every dictate of natural justice, assistant keepers have, with the knowledge and permission of the agent, inflicted punishment upon a convict on his coming into prison, for insults offered to such keeper by the prisoner before his conviction.

Two convicts, who had been discharged from their imprisonment upon the ground that their terms had expired, were taken up by order of the agent, and recommitted, and detained in prison, as a punishment for alleged offences committed by them after their discharge.

Most of the facts hereinbefore stated, are general statements of the committee of the assembly, derived from the testimony submitted to them. I regret to be obliged to say that they are sustained by evidence which would justify even stronger statements than those presented by the committee.

There is reason to believe that convicts have been driven to suicide by the cruelty of officers of the prison, and that others, some of whom were insane, have died in consequence of like inhumanity.

It is stated in the testimony, that a female convict was scourged with whips until the blood flowed from her wounds.

Convicts have been beaten with unlawful and dangerous

weapons.

The privation of food has been carried so far, that convicts have been rendered incapable of performing their allotted labor, and have sometimes been punished for their failure to perform it in that condition.

A prisoner's hands were fastened in a vice, and in that situation he was severely whipped, with the agent's permission, by a person not an officer of the prison, but a servant of a contractor.

Sympathy for the sufferings of our fellow-men is so inseparable from our nature, that it will follow them in their most degraded and most depraved estate. I am aware that this sympathy sometimes operates to embarrass the administration of justice. But I have no reason to believe that either the committee by whom this report was made, or the witnesses generally from whom the facts stated were obtained, are liable to any suspicion of having acted under the influence of excessive sympathy. These facts come before me in a manner demanding my action in the premises, and from as authentic sources as any information which we may ever hope to obtain in relation to the conduct and management of our prisons.

It is possible, and not improbable, that the testimony submitted in the report may be in some instances erroneous, and in others exaggerated, or too deeply colored; but after making all reasonable exceptions, and admitting all possible extenuation, it is still manifest that the stateprison at Mount Pleasant is governed by the arbitrary will of one individual, who is held to no lawful responsibility; and that a discipline prevails there which is arbitrary, capricious, and unequal, and often as contrary to law as it is revolting to humanity.

It is not the least remarkable feature in the case, that the officers of the prison seem to justify the cruelties complained of, on the ground that they are indispensable to the successful government of the prison.

It is quite certain that such inhumanity was never contemplated by the founders of our penitentiary system, nor has it been generally known by the people that it was practised. If our system of imprisonment, with silent dormitories, and social labor, can not be maintained without the infliction of such punishments as are disclosed by this report, then it was established in error,

and it ought to be immediately abandoned. But such is not the case. Human nature has some generous and virtuous motives left in its most depraved condition. Equality and justness, kindness and gentleness, combined with firmness of temper, would, with very few exceptions, secure the cheerful obedience of even the tenants of our stateprisons. I believe that there is at least one prison in this country, in which our system has been adopted, and in which not a blow nor a stripe has been inflicted within a period of several years.*

There is a constant tendency among those who are invested with power over their fellow-men, to exercise that power capriciously, and tyrannically. It is inconsistent with the genius of republican institutions, that any department should be exempt from a constant and jealous supervision. Such supervision is vastly more important when the agents are secluded from all public observation, and when those upon whom abuses fall are defenceless, and forgotten by their fellow-citizens. The inmates of our prisons are cut off from the enjoyment of society, but they are not removed beyond the sympathies of the people, nor are they sunk below the guardian care of the government. That guardian care in regard to the prisoners at Mount Pleasant, was committed to the inspectors of the prison. Being fully convinced that they have been unfaithful in the discharge of their responsibilities, no course remains for me but to recommend their removal. * In Massachusetts.-Ed.