Waterbury evening Democrat., 1894-12-11
BROCKWAY IS TO STAY.
The Governors Decision In the
 Reformatory Investigation.
THE CHARGES ARE ALL DISMISSED.

great care both the majority and the mi nority reports and concludes that corporal punishment has not been administered in such n way as to cause anybody any per manent injury.
 He concludes that the managers arc in no way to be blamed for the punishment inflicted. There should be a medical su- pcrintcndent who should look after pris- oners put under puni and see that it Is not ovcrdone. If Broadway erred. he did so by not knowing how far a belliger- ent prisoner could indurc physical punish mcnt.
 Judge Lsarned's report contends that there is absolutely no need for such vio- lent punishment as was given
 The reports upon which Governor Flow | CTS decision in the Elmira case Is based were filed on Saturday and are very volu minous indeed, that of the majority mak ing 20, 900 and that of the minority mem- | Der making 16. 900 words. All three mem- bers agree that Governor Flower could not remove the superintendent.
 The charges were made originally against Superintendent Broadway, and after pros- ecution and conviction by tho state board of charities the governor was requested | to remove Broadway He refused on the ground that it was not in his power, and then to satisfy public sentiment he ap- pointed the commission that presents the | report
 No Injuries to Convicts. In his finding the governor says: Ut Is a source of much qualification that the tcs- | timony shows. according to both reports of | findings that there was no truth in the | narrowing statements published in news paper of injuries alleged to have been in- | fictcd by the general superintendent or his suborIlinates upon inmates of the re- formatory. Upon this point all three com misSioncrs find substantially the same | facts and cxOncratc the managers and the | superintendent. McsSrS Flint and Deyo | say:
 In no case does it appear that a con- | vict has received any serious or permanent | injury. mental or physical. at the hands | of the general superintendent or any of the subordinate officers or keepers of the l rcfOrTatOry. or even an injury leaving any permanent mark. Tho charges that con victs have died or been maimcd from the | effect of violence or neglect on the part of | the officers of the rcformatory, or my of them. arc unsubStantiatcd in every partic. | ular
 And Judge Learned says: The proof | presented has shown satisfactorily that in any case prisoner has never been pcrma- | nCntly injured by q tlogginS in the reform | atory. Men have claimed that cyesight I this cause and rupture produced. Very | possibly these claims have been made in | good faith, for the rupture or defective | cycsight or defective hearing existed, but | they were not caused by the flogging. Nor | do think that any teeth were broken out | by the blows of the superintendent fists or scars of any magnitude made by his | punishmcnts. either by the blows of the | strap or by the handcuffs.
 I IRpfnr,a Yr,,-.ariinr ftIr b.sT. in l. 1 rectinn il becomes necessary to consider | whether corporal punishment in the re- l formatory iS not prohibited by statute. | The question iS not strictly pertinent to | this inquiry. for il wns not claimed in the charges against tho managers that cor. | poral punishment is unlawful. or that they wcrC violating the law in permitting | the superintendent to iutiiCt corporal pun. ishmcnt But the claim was made by | counsel on the submission of the case to | the commissioners, and one of the commits | sionCrs, Judge Learned, decides that in | his opinion the prohibition against cor. pOral punishment contained in tho laws of ISi7 and 1869 is applicable to the rc. | fOrmatory, although he says hc has nc reason to think that this was the view oi the managers or of Mir. Broadway The other two commissioners. however. do not consider the question within their prov. incc to determine. and in this l agree with them. Ono of the original charges investigated by the state board of charitie: was that the corporal punishment inflicted by Superintendent Brockway was 'unlaw full
 | Cruelty Not Proved.
 The board of charities however. while finding 1t cruel, brutal. excessive. dcgrad ing and unusual. failed to find 1t 'unlaw' full. and indeed specially recommended tC the legislature that corporal punishment as praCticcd in the rcformatory should bc prohibited by law. thereby implying 1t. present legality. The charges before mo which consisted of the report of the state board of charities, did not include tho claim that the use of corporal punishment in the rcformatory was unlawful, anG therefore that specification Is not properly before me.
 At the same time, inasmuch as the matter has been passed upon by ono of tho commissioners, and his construction of thI law has formed the basis of q somewhat different set of conclusions as to the fact than that reached by the other two com
 missioners am of the opinion that nC
 technical objection of the kind should b,
 insisted upon.
 Even conceding that Judge Learned |,
 right in his construction of the law, tn,
 real question before me Is whether the vIo
 lation of law by managers in permitting | corporal punishment has been conscious
 palpable and generally admitted. The m | swcr to this question is clear At most tn
 unlawfulncss of corporal punishment fl
 the rcformatory has been a disputed point
 with the weight of authority in favor O
 the construction contended for by tn
 managers-namely. that the reformator.
 having been established after the prohib
 itive laws of 1s47 and 1889, and all au | thOrity as to discinline refnrlnatory met h
 ods, etc, over the inmates having beer
 conferred by the special statute on tn
 board of managers and their subordinates
 the prohibition against corporal punish
 :nent did not extend to it.
 "The punishment consisted almost en
 tirely of spankings. administered by tn
 general superintendent in person, with
 strap p inches long, 3 inches wide an,
 three-sixtecnths of an inch thick, moisten
 cd in water as to make 1t soft and pli able MeSsrs Flint and Dcyo say that tn
 tocks. Judge Learned says the testimon,
 on the whole shows that that was the plac
 which was struck.
 Broadway Sometimes Wrong.
 MT. Broadway also did wrong, in m,
 Judgment, in flogging the convict Face,
 for refusal to give evidence concerning al
 ofensc in which it was believed at tn
 time he was himself implicated. In tn
 case of Wallace, however, who was pun
 ished for n long period for refusing to giv
 the superintendent information about hi
 parentage, and who by reasons of persist
 ence in this refusal was afterward trans
 ferred to Auburn prison, l do not thinl
 either the superintendent or the manager
 nre at fault The evidence shows tha Wallace was insubordinate; that the in formation required of him was fairly with