Dr. Edward Townsend a short but most impressive eulogy on the character and services of Mr. Conard:

At a stated meeting of "The Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons," held eleventh month 26th, 1871, the following resolutions, offered by Edward Townsend, were adopted: Resolved, That this Society has heard with deep regret of the death of our friend and coadjutor, Lewis R. Conard, who has been for several years a faithful laborer in Prison reform, and whose company was always hailed with pleasure and satisfaction by those under penal confinement.

Resolved, That this Society sympathizes with the family of our friend, Lewis R. Conard, in their deep affliction, and direct that a copy of these resolutions be sent them.

JOHN J. LYTLE,

Secretary.

DESULTORY THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT OF PRISON DISCIPLINE.

We have often expressed our high gratification at the new hold which the subject of prison discipline, in its broadest sense, has taken upon the public mind; or, perhaps it would be better to say, upon the minds of those who influence public opinion; and we may as well add that our complacency has been a little enlarged in the consciousness that the "Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons" was early in the field, with suggestions as to the advantages to be derived from a proper investigation of the subject, and a full understanding of the capabilities of improvement on existing

systems. And this Journal takes to itself a portion of the credit due to services that awakened in Pennsylvania the inquiries and led to the good results.

It is the fulness of time, however. All circumstances seem to concur in awakening public feeling, and the best efforts of the humane have been used to enlighten public sentiment, in the direction of improving prisons, and modifying and humanizing prison discipline. Like all reactions of this kind, there are noticeable some efforts that partake more of enthusiasm than of judgment, and that seem directed more to private views than to public benefit. To become conspicuous by officious meddling, and to promote personal objects under the appearance of plans for general improvement, cannot be regarded as new in character, though being new in this instance, it shocks the feelings of the philanthropist and lessens the zeal of the convert, and ultimately postpones a work that cannot be undertaken too soon, nor carried forward with too much prudence.

These things we must expect; they belong to great enterprises. The purse-bearer often forgets that the funds which he manages are for general use, and he ruins himself and jeopards his work by his attempt to enlarge his coveted treasure by thirty pieces of unlawful gain.

What is required, is a sober, just appreciation of the enterprise, whatever it may be; a devotion to the proper means of promoting that enterprise, and a patience that will await the operation of new means upon the public mind that shall allow of seed time and culture, before the harvest is looked for.

Of course, also, all who engage in the work, and place themselves, or allow themselves to be placed, forward in the presentation and advocacy of the plan, must feel themselves and their interests secondary to the work, and learn to sacrifice their own feelings, and hold in abeyance their own aspirations, till something permanent is effected. The weight of the advocate who is determined to rise with his scheme, usually breaks down that scheme, and the concession which the intended advocate is tempted to make to opposing systems, often defeats the expectation of friends, and results in the sacrifice of the distinguishing benefit of a great plan, to personal views. The weight which is used to overbalance opposition is placed upon that arm which should rise, and thus it defeats all hopes of success.

It is one thing to agitate the public mind; it is another and more important office to quiet that agitation and direct it to rest upon an assured means of good. For the last ten years the question of prison discipline has been largely discussed-less comprehended. Almost all admit the importance of the subject; very few comprehend all its bearings. Humanity mourns over the moral evil of unregulated imprisonment. Cold morality comforts itself with the conclusion that the convict suffers no more than his offences have deserved. Prisons have always existed, say the latter, and prisoners are little better for the kindness that has relieved their incarceration from a portion of its bitterness.

Kindness, says the philanthropist, has not only lessened the misery of the convicts, but it has often sent them forth improved in their morals.

Society," says the rigid moralist, "is at least saved from the depredations of the bad while they are in prison, and steady severity will excite those terrors which deter from easily detected and severely punishable offences."

"But society," says the philanthropist, "is not more concerned in the punishment of the guilty than in the improvement of the criminal. And society derives greater and more permanent security from the restoration of the repentant offender than from the graduate of the penitentiary that lurks around to make his freedom an occasion for mischief."

That the philanthropist is right a large part of the community will admit; that he is right, those who have had experience really know.

These, then, are not questions for discussion. They are admitted, and on that admission are founded the arguments for improvement in prison discipline. For, if only punishment for crime, or the withdrawal of the criminal from opportunities of criminality, was the object of imprisonment, then it would seem that the discipline of the prison is not sufficiently severe, and that the term of punishment is not of adequate length. Vengeance, if admissible, must be proportionate to the cause, or it is ridiculous. Withdrawal of the criminal from society lest society should be injured by him must be of a permanence to insure the object, or the criminal will only return with augmented energies and renewed motives for mischief.

The mode of producing the true ends of imprisonment is that which occupies the public mind in some

degree, though, perhaps, not so extensively as is inferred by some from the activity of many who are moving in the question of prison discipline. But the modus operandi is now the true matter at issue. Imprisonment is a necessity-the vengeance of the law and the higher motives of humanity, motives that begin now to be discernable in recently enacted laws, are to be gratified. But another consideration has been eliminated by the agitation of the prison question, viz., the improvement of the criminal convict and the strengthening of society by the restoration of some of those elements which crime and its consequence and punishment withdrew.

Taking into consideration, then, the old and the new elements, the question is how may all be accomplished,

1. How may the offender be kept from the opportunity of adding to his offences if he desires to increase his guilt?

2. How may the righteous vengeance of the law be inflicted upon the violator of the statutes?

3. How may society be relieved from the apprehensions of the repetition of evils which the bad have inflicted?

4. How, with all this, may the felon himself be improved in morals and made a better man?

All of these divisions, though separate and worthy of consideration apart, must be regarded as composing one great object in prison discipline. Though one of them may seem to be receiving special attention to the neglect of the others, yet all are in progress if one is rightly conducted. The reception and punishment must initiate