Telegram-herald., 1889-10-05
WARDEN WATKINS
Tells What He Knows About Cor
poral Punishment.
GOVERNOR Luce ALSO A WIIyESS.
Progress 0f the Case-Sscessity or she
strap a Means 0f DisefpliBs-EH-
Governor Jerome and Othss Prom
inent witnesses.


stand. H. testified that there were on
the average 1900 81 1900 inmates Of the
Iona prison. Ia. average Ot strap
pings viii not exceed one per month,
and sometimes three on four months
wall elap-e witlolt one. He sald that
tine prison physician had Instructions
T. superutend all cases Of iOggng and
Wa- Instructed t0 stop lle puul snuent
Whenever tae ca.prts physical cOndi-
ton, m hls opinion, would be seriously
impaired, 0r Whenever he expressed fe-
penauce or -ubm --.ou o. Jhe dlsc.-
Pine. lie Aad never instructed hlm
not o. Interfere bat 0u the contrary
read Co hlm lhe iaw Ia regard % hls
dutes a. prison physician. he sus-
pended hlm because hc did not prop
erly attend 10 the SEX prisoners and
would report them for work when they
were not able 70 work. The witness
was not permitted % 60 into the details
Of tne charges against the doctor.
The court was prompt in excluding
all collateral issues and limited the
evidence closely % the case IN hand.
Attorney Donaldson endeavored 20
prove BY the records of the prison that
strappng- were administered tOr tne
most trivial Otenses, blt the defense
concluded that Il was irrelevant TO the
case as long as tie question OF malice
had been Withdrawn.
The court said that the whole in
curry seemed 20 be- q makeshift % gain
sympathy, that the warden was in such
eases vested with quasi judicial author
lty, and as long as he complied with the
constitution hc could not be hel q
responsible II he erred IN judgment
and inflicted punishment more
severe that the ease seemed 10 require.
Unfortunately the same thing was
sometimes done ia the courts, but the
judge could not bc held responsible. Ii
the warden violated the constitution
and the statute he was responsible for
the injuries of the complainant. He
said he would leave 10 the decision of
the jury the question of simltude be-
tween tne lash and strap, and whether
the punlshmeutwas brutal OF inhuman;
also whether the puns shment was with
out the supery sion OF a physician on
account OF restraint being put upon
the doctor. Ia the later case Tn
punishment was not authOuzed by thee
law. The defense would be permitted
% dsprOve the evidence of the doctor
II they could do 50.
William Humphrey who was warden
il The Jackson prison Tor eight years,
ul- term lasting from October, 1870, to
April, lS,3, was next put upon the
e.. @ 40. 2 D.
lect OF discipline a careful study. The
strap was one of the means of punish
ment employed during MS term Of
Office. The lash and shOwering with
cold water had been practiced IN the
prison until prohibited by law. This
was before his term OF Office.
The warden was not allowed 70 tes-
tfy rs % the difference IN the effects OF
the lash and Of the strap, but the
matter was left 20 tne Judgment OF the
jury. The defense r-s permitted TO
show what Instrument was used. The
witness had never seen q lash IL the
prs0u.
Warden II. F. Hatch was then called
e. rhe stand. He SAID he had been
warden five years next February. The
Brush stretcner was used at first but
was soon discontinue q The court held
the defense s0 clos " 90 the immediate
facts 100 the ease that very little could
D. gotten 0u5 oil tlIs WItaess, VINO WAS
expected Co testify to facts of consider
abie interest. Tie was not allowed %
testify as % taa difference in the form
or ttcot- between Che strap and the
a~n. Attorney M.tcaeli claimed that
tte act governing tbc pun s,unent of
PRISONERS diu nos prohlOit tIe use Ot the