Litchfield enquirer., 1878-02-28
Historical.

The most disgraceful feature of the county seat difficulty which has been affiicting our community for many years past is the shock ing neglect of our county jail that has been its direct result. The care of prisoners is de- cidedly the most important matter committed tOthe several counties by our statutes Five times have our county representatives met in Litchfeld on call of the County Commission CTS, or by adjournment, and once in Hartford, to take into consideration the inadequacy of our the evil has been conceded and the pressing necessity for it's reform. At first there seemed disposition on the part of most of the representatives to treat the matter on it's merits. Mir. T. M. Clark, then a representa- tive from Winchester, gave fair expression to the prevalent feeling of the first county con- vention of representatives which met at this place on the 9th of January, 1875, as follows ::
 MT. Clark said he had visited the jail and was obliged to confess that it was ruin and dilapidation; was surprised to find it so cheerless and comfortless As regards the djotsiOn 0f tds county he should fG0Or gaO sucb pIan. He didn't believe it would be for the advantage of his own town to have the county buildings there. On the other hand he should not feel warranted in voting a new jail. The question had not been agitated among his constituents and he did not know what their views might be. The old hulk across the street he considered unfit for a House of Correction but the matter should be further discussed and investigated before citi- izens were taxed to build new jail
 In accordance with Mr. Clark's views, 8 committee was appointed, of which he was a member, to examine and report to an adjourn ed meeting. Accordingly, on the 9th of Feb ruary, the committee reported against attempt ing any thorough repair of the present jail, butseemed not quite ready to build anew, though Representative Clark thought that if they could sell the old site for $10,000, and bring the net expense for the new jail within $20,000, they might as well go ahead now as ever" Finally small sum was voted for temporary repairs. In the following August, general election having in the meantime oc- cured, the new representatives were again summoned by the county commissioners to act on the question of the jail. They held their meetings in August the following October and in January 1876. Ten thousand dollars were voted for permanent repairs in accordance with proposed plan; and the money was to be laid out under the supervision of County Commis- sioner Cleveland, of Barkhamsted Spaulding of North Canaan, and Birch of Woodbury, and of an advisory committee consisting of Messrs J. Deming Perkins of Litchfeld, Monroe l.. Frost of New Milford, and Thomas M. Clark of Winchester. These gentleman procured es- inmates of competent architects and found that no thorough repairs could be made, short of an expense of nearly double the $10, 900 voted by the representatives. The county seat matter was becoming more and more prominent, and the representatives from the western part of the County were anxious to adjourn without ma king any appropriation whatever. Winsted was much fairer in the views it then expressed The Herald favored the building of new jail at Litchfeld, and Representative Gay, from that place, seemed willing to vote $15, 900 (more than is now needed, from the county) towards building new jail. The commission CTS and the committee above named, though all but one residents of towns entirely outside any Litchfeld influence, steadily refused to sanction the expenditure of the insufficient sum voted for the repair of the old jail The vote for new jail, however, was rejected by an almost purely sectional vote. The repre- sentatives from the towns south and east of us, with Washington, Goshen and Torrington were almost to a man in favor of a new jail. Senator Huntington, then in the House, re- marked at the January meeting of 1876:
 Thisisthe fifth or sixth meeting of representa- tives 1 have attended about this jail and it seems to me that if we can everact intelligent ly we can do so now. A committee appoint ed at a previous meeting reported that it was absolutely necessary either to repair or to build new. The jail was built at time when much less jail accommodation was needed than now. There are but F cells and B prisoners. Our villages send up large number of prisoners for small offences and there seems no reason to expect that the number will decrease myself heard one of the architects say on view ing the old jail that it was foolish attempting to repair such a rookery. 1 believe it is for the best interest of the taxpayers obuild anew jail, and not waste money on the old one.
 Nevertheless the western and northern u the new jail.
 The representatives of 1877 took no action, we believe, either for or against a new jail. Neither New Milford nor Winsted have, during all these years, offered the county any relief
 At the present session of the legislature a movement was again made for a new jail The necessities of the county were strenuously urged by its commissioners; the delusion of repairing the present building was dispelled by an unanimous report of an examining commit tee, upon which were members from both New Milford and Winchester. An offer of $10,0 towards new jail, here, was presented on be half of Litchfield. Winchester made no def nite proposition though passing a sort of lib eral as anybody" vote, and New Milford prom ised no assistance whatever. Yet the county meeting declined doing anything either t build in Eitchfeld, Winchester, or New Mil ford, and adjourned without even making pro vision for paying of the indebtedness of tn, county!
 The history of the movement for new jai is an instructive record of local jealousies and ambitions So great has been the necessl ty that the movement has been all the time urged by county officers resident in the very Localities most opposed to action. The chief opposition has always come from New Milford always angry because the Shepaug railroad was not run into their village instead of di verting business from it. Winsted, at frs disposed to treat the question on it's merits has had its local ambition finally aroused t the pitch of combining with New Milford in
 plan that requires two jais and two court houses, at points very difficult of access iron important portions of the county, and involv ing of necessity very large increase of count, expense. Now that the policy of mere oppo sition that has hitherto prevented the building of a new jail is at last succeeded by defnit plan of action, may we not hope that this pres sing necessity will be attended to at once