Mr. Allen Folger, wrote out a synopsis
of the doings, which has been published in a pamphlet of 50 pages, by
the authority of our State, for distribution, showing the interest our
Governor and Council take in these matters.

The questions before spoken of were taken up by each country and
elaborate answers given, papers were read upon them and thorough
discussion had. The order was not to take any votes but to bring in
facts of the various prison workings, to interchange views, criticise
and thus sift out the best, in which, evidently, great enlightening of
mind was obtained, and a great advancement made in the right direction.
On page 537 of Transactions we have the following reform sentiments:
"Man, in the state of penal servitude, is no longer a thing, but a moral
being, whose liberty human justice has not the right to confiscate
absolutely and irrevocably, but only within the limits required by the
protection and security of social order. The logical sequence of this
view is, that it is the duty of society to reform the criminal during
his temporary privation of liberty, since, in this way only can the
peril of his relapse be successfully combatted, and the public safety
effectually maintained. The reformation of imprisoned criminals is not,
therefore, in our day, a work of philanthropy, but an obligation of the
State."

In one or two prisons they have been so successful in reform efforts,
that, having taken some of the very worst criminals, they have led them
to such order and good behavior, as to be able to dispense with locks
and bars, rendering the prison more like a great family, kindness being
the great controlling element.

In the abridged report of the proceedings of the International Congress,
under the head of "Cumulative Imprisonment," we learn that the following
question was submitted, and several important suggestions followed its
presentation.

QUESTION: Ought prisoners on reconviction to be subjected to more severe
disciplinary treatment than on the first sentence?

It was opened by M. Peterson, of Bavaria, who maintained that cases
required treatment according to the degree of demerit shown on the
prisoner's trial, and therefore, that instead of laying down one
principle, the right course was to leave the judges to decide what
should be done in each case.

M. Ploos Van Amstel, of Holland, and M. Stevens, of Belgium, advocated a
merciful treatment as likely to have more effect than severity.