previously arranged. Soon hearing of his
locality, I called, found his new pants with a bad rent, after only part
of a day's wear, and furnished him with suitable clothing, pointing out
the place also of my arrangement to which he could go, or remain where
he was.

Another leaving prison, and calling on me, remarked, "I asked the warden
where you lived, to which he answered, "I don't know;" an additional
specimen of the truthfulness there.

But one queries, "Why was the warden determined that you should not see
the men coming out?" He could have had but one reason, the fear that
they would tell me the stories of their sufferings. The one ticketed for
N. Y., I learn, gives some spicy accounts.

54. _Prison report for '72._ This claims a better financial show than
that of the previous year. Thus says the warden, p. 4, "I am permitted
to record another year of financial success." Then the committee, p. 10,
"The financial affairs are in a highly prosperous condition. You will
find, by looking at the treasurer's report, that there has been a net
gain, to the State, of $5,501,03, after paying all outstanding bills,
which is a greater gain than the previous year, considering the less
number of convicts and the larger outlay for clothing, &c. When we
consider the large appropriations that have been required from year to
year to run the prison, it must be encouraging to the tax-payers of the
State to know that the prison has added the two past years, $10760,20 to
the revenue of the State, with no outstanding bills, and no complicated
matters to embarrass the institution."

This, surely, is a glowing picture; one so greatly enjoyed by its
authors, that it would seem almost too bad to spoil it by letting in a
gleam from the light of truth. We see from the Report that our present
managers here follow closely in the footsteps of their immediate
predecessors as to their statement of financial facts, though intent on
outdoing them in appearances at least. Like them, they reckon only a
part of the expense in running the prison, leaving out the warden's
salary, and other large items, and thus pretending the gains to be what
they are not. They could equally as well have omitted the sums paid the
physician, deputy, guards and overseers, thereby making the figures
indicate a gain of over twenty thousand for the two years, instead of
over ten thousand. The principle of statement would have been the same
and equally truthful. It c