yhr\) 
 
 Document [K.] 
 
 BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES, 
 
 July 31, 1861 
 
 Bead and 1,000 copies ordered to be printed. 
 
 REPORT 
 
 AND 
 
 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HOUSE COMMITTEE, 
 
 A 
 
 APPOINTED TO EXAMINE INTO THE AFFAIRS OF THE 
 
 MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. 
 
 FREDERICK, MD. 
 
 E. S. RILEY, PRINTER, 
 1861. 
 
3 & 6 ~ 
 /V\3 6/r 
 
 <*o 
 
 (ft 
 
 
 5 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 > 
 
 t 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 The special Committee appointed under the resolution of 
 June 11th, 1861, to examine generally into the affairs of 
 the Maryland Penitentiary, heg leave respectfully to re- 
 port that they organized in the city of Frederick on the 
 25th of June, and selected Mr. Thomas H. Moore as clerk, 
 and adjourned to meet on the 1st of July, in the city of 
 Baltimore, at the Maryland Penitentiary. 
 
 Their duties, as pointed out in the resolution and order 
 above referred to, consisted of an investigation of the fol- 
 lowing matters : 
 
 1st. The memorial of John H. Duvall and William 
 Howard, asking relief from losses growing out of the de- 
 struction of their property by fire. 
 
 2d. The memorial of Charles Murdock, asking relief by 
 a modification of his contracts with the Directors of the 
 Penitentiary and the equitable settlement of claims in dis- 
 pute between them. 
 
 3d. An investigation of the manufacturing department 
 of the Institution generally. 
 
 4th. An examination of the financial affairs and condi- 
 tion, and 
 
 5th. An enquiry into its general management and dis- 
 cipline. 
 
 Taking the points to be examined in the order they ap- 
 pear, the Committee commenced with the memorial of 
 Messrs. Duvall and Howard. 
 
 The memorial states that on the 3d of October, 1859, 
 they entered into a written contract with the Directors of 
 the Maryland Penitentiary for the rent of certain shops 
 and yard room, and the employment of convict labor in 
 the manufacture of barrels, and in the prosecution of that 
 business had invested a large amount of money in the 
 purchase of patent rights-, machinery, and the necessary 
 stock to carry it on successfully ; that while in the prose- 
 cution of a successful business, on the 23d of December, 
 1860, their work shops were fired by some of the convicts, 
 and their property almost destroyed, entailing, as they 
 allege, a loss over and above the amount of insurance of 
 $23,150, and avers that said fire was caused partly by the 
 refusal of the Directors to permit them to have their own 
 watchman on the premises on Sunday, (the fire having oc- 
 
4 
 
 curred on that day,) whereby their property was left in an 
 unprotected state on Sundays, and partly by a want of pro- 
 per discipline on the part of the officers of the Institution, 
 by which the convicts were enabled to obtain access to the 
 shops and commit the incendiary act ; and the memorial- 
 ists plead that as the loss was by no act of their own, but 
 was indirectly caused by the officers of the State, as above 
 stated, that the Legislature should grant them relief by 
 reimbursing in whole, or in part, the loss sustained. 
 
 The magnitude of the claim, and the importance of it to 
 the memorialists, who were entirely ruined by the fire, as 
 well as to the State, whose finances are not in a condition 
 to bear any burdens that are justly avoidable, demanded 
 of the Committee the most careful and thorough examina- 
 tion of the case, it was conducted and argued by eminent 
 counsel on both sides. Numerous witnesses were exam- 
 ined, whose evidence will be found in the proceedings of 
 the Committee, pages 1 to 53, herewith submitted ; and 
 while deeply sympathising with the memorialists in the 
 heavy loss they have sustained, the Committee have been 
 unable to arrive at the conclusion that the case presents 
 any just grounds for a claim on the State, the allegation 
 that the Directors refused to permit the presence of a pri- 
 vate watchman on Sundays, was not sustained by the 
 evidence, and although it was proved that the shops were 
 fired on Sunday by some of the convicts, yet it did not 
 appear to have arisen from any lack of ordinary discipline 
 on the part of the officers, it being utterly impossible with 
 few officers and many prisoners, strictly to carry out the 
 prison rules which requires a prispner to be always under 
 the eye of an officer, neither have the Committee been able 
 to arrive at the conclusion that a loss by fire, even if 
 proved to have been caused by negligence on the part of 
 the officers, would afford just cause for a claim on the State. 
 
 The second portion of the investigation was the memo- 
 rial of Charles Murdock, asking a modification of his con- 
 tracts with the Directors and the arbitration of a disputed 
 account between them. 
 
 . It appears that Mr. Murdock for some ten years past has 
 rented work shops and employed the convict labor of the 
 Institution, principally in the manufacture of cedar ware, 
 and at the time of his memorial, had in his employment 
 one hundred convicts whose time would expire July 1, 
 1861, and fifty, whose time, under his contract, would 
 expire January 1, 1865. Mr. Murdock deemed himself 
 justified in asking relief from his contracts on the ground 
 that the existing war and blockade of the Southern States 
 had seriously embarrassed him in the prosecution of his 
 
5 
 
 business, the raw material that he uses being derived en- 
 tirely from the South, and his manufactured goods finding 
 an exclusive market there, thus completely shutting him 
 out on both sides, and rendering it impossible to carry on 
 his busines until peace should be restored. 
 
 Before the Committee proceeded to take evidence in this 
 case, an arrangement and settlement was happily made 
 between the Directors and Mr. Murdock, by which the 
 latter pays in full to the Directors the amount in dispute, 
 and retains the labor of 50 men at 50 cents per day until 
 January 1, 1865. This, with the rent of the shops, will 
 give the Institution a revenue from that source of about 
 $8,300. 
 
 The 100 men whose time with Mr. Murdock expired on 
 the 1st of July, the Directors propose to employ in the 
 weaving department. 
 
 The Manufacturing Department. 
 
 This department is devoted to the manufacture of plaid 
 cottons, with a few linseys and coarse carpets, and the 
 Committee regret to report it in a very depressed condi- 
 tion. At no time has it been a source of much revenue to 
 the Instition, arising from the inability of hand loom labor 
 to compete successfully with power looms ; still, the supe- 
 rior quality of its manufactured goods and its wide-spread 
 reputation has heretofore insured their immediate sale, 
 but the embarrassment growing out of the blockade of the 7 
 Southern States has produced the same results as in the 
 case of Mr. Murdock; nearly all the yarns used are the 
 product of Southern mills, while the manufactured goods 
 find a market exclusively in the Slave States. The con- 
 sequence is, that no sales have been made by the Directors 
 for the past three months, and none of any consequence 
 can be made until the Southern markets shall be re-opened. 
 No revenue, therefore, can be expected from this depart- 
 ment as long as the present unfortunate state of affairs 
 continues to exist. The stock of manufactured goods now 
 on hand amounts to $10,500, and of materials to $2,300, 
 which, when manufactured, will increase the stock of goods 
 to $15,000, all of which, in ordinary times, could be made 
 available to pay the debts and expenses of the Institution. 
 
 The Committee, after a patient and thorough investiga- 
 tion of this brafich of the subject, are satisfied that the 
 entire system of labor at the Institution is wrong, and 
 demands a radical change, as at present conducted, it 
 must always be, as it has been, a heavy burden on the 
 State. It has not been furnished by the State with the 
 cash capital necessary to carry on successfully a manufac- 
 
6 
 
 turing business ; its operations are, necessarily, on a 
 credit basis, and the disadvantages of this system may be, 
 illustrated by the single fact that it has paid during the 
 last five years the sum of $13,015 for interest alone, to say 
 nothing of the increased cost of supplies when purchased 
 on credit, and the saving of the discount which always 
 accompany cash payments. 
 
 A careful analysis of the operations of this department 
 for the past five years exhibits the fact that the nett earn- 
 ings of all the convicts employed by the Institution average 
 but eleven cents per day, and this, without making any 
 allowance for cost and depreciation of machinery, while 
 about the same number of convicts employed by the con- 
 tractors at 50 cents per day, gave a revenue of $28,800 for 
 labor, and $700 for rent of work shops. It is true that 
 the labor employed by the latter was of better quality, 
 but that would account for but a small portion of the dif- 
 ference. 
 
 The Committee would recommend the total abolition of 
 all manufacturing on account of the Institution, and the 
 substitution of a system farming the convict labor to con- 
 tractors. Under this system, the Institution can be made 
 to support itself and the State relieved from a heavy bur- 
 den, while the prisoners will be taught some useful trade, 
 the knowledge of which, by giving them the means of 
 procuring an honest livelihood, would in many instances 
 prevent them from relapsing into crime. 
 
 It is very true that the difficulties of the present time 
 will prevent this plan from being carried out at once, but 
 with peace will come the ordinary demand for labor, when 
 it can be successfully accomplished. 
 
 It will not be out of place here to illustrate the propo- 
 sition by an estimate of its results. 
 
 The expenses of all kinds <of maintaining the Institu- 
 tion, simply as a prison, may he estimated at about $37,000. 
 This, by a judicious economy, might be probably reduced 
 to $35,000. The prisoners average about 420 in number, 
 of which 400 are males. Suppose the sick, the infirm, 
 and those necessary to perform the ordinary house work 
 of the Institution to amount to 100, there remains 300 
 whose labor may be made available. These would not be 
 
 equally valuable, and may be thus classified : 
 
 200 worth 50 cents per day, - $31,300 
 
 50 “ 25 “ “ “ - - - 3,912 
 
 50 “ 12 J 1,956 
 
 Producing ------ $37,168 
 
7 
 
 A sum fully equal to all tlie expenses of tlie Institution. 
 This change would not entail any expense on the State, 
 inasmuch as the work shops now used for spinning and 
 weaving would be sufficient and answer for any other oc- 
 cupation. 
 
 The Financial Condition of the Institution. 
 
 In the investigation of this branch of the inquiry every 
 facility was afforded by the Board of Directors, and Mr. J. 
 J. C. Dougherty, the financial clerk and book-keeper. 
 
 The Institution has been singularly fortunate in secur- 
 ing the services of the latter officer, whose books and ac- 
 counts are kej)t in a manner highly creditable to himself 
 and those who appointed him. 
 
 This examination produced the following results : 
 Liabilities of the Institution, over ) 
 
 and above cash on hand July 1st, 1861, \ $45,298 41. 
 
 ASSETS. 
 
 Appropriation at April session 
 
 not yet collected, $25,000 
 
 Active debt due (good) by con- 
 tractors, 6,764.65 
 
 Suspended debt, 5,414.47 
 
 Manufactured goods and mate- 
 rials on hand, 12.669.29 49,848.41. 
 
 Nominal surplus, $4,550.00 
 
 The stock of manufactured goods on hand is not availa- 
 ble for reasons before stated, and the suspended debt is in 
 the same condition, from the same causes ; it consists of 
 the notes of merchants, hitherto of undoubted solvency, 
 doing business in the South, whose business is now pros- 
 trate, and whose only chance of paying their debts is in 
 the probability of being able at some future day to collect 
 the debts due them in the Southern States. 
 
 From this exhibit it will be seen that until peace is re- 
 stored, and trade resumes its accustomed channels, the 
 Institution must become a heavy burden on the State, and 
 that to carry it through the next twelve months an addi- 
 tional appropriation of not less than $25,000 will be abso- 
 lutely necessary. 
 
 The General Management and Discipline. 
 
 On this subject it affords the Committee much pleasure 
 to. speak of the faithful and efficient manner in which the 
 Directors and officers have discharged their duties, under 
 the immediate management of Mr. Alfred D. Evans, the 
 Warden, and his deputy, Mr. Isaac Gr. Roberts. The en- 
 tire prison presents an air of neatness and cleanliness rare- 
 
8 
 
 1 y met with in public buildings of the kind, and would 
 indeed be creditable to any private house ; the prisoners 
 were well clad and cleanly in their persons, and the food 
 sufficient in quantity and quality. The discipline, if not 
 at all times carried out to the strict letter of the law, is 
 as perfect as the limited number of officers and guards 
 would admit of. 
 
 But there are some matters in this connection which hu- 
 manity demands at the hands of the Legislature as early 
 action as the finances of the State will justify. The law 
 requires that each prisoner shall be confined in a separate 
 cell ; this from the want of necessary accommodations can- 
 not be carried out ; five, six, and sometimes as many as 
 eight are confined in one room, subject to all the evils that 
 arise from free intercourse between criminals ; in addition 
 to this the basement cells of the eastern dormitory (some 
 fifty in number) are under ground and unfit for the con- 
 finement of human beings — it is true the present Warden, 
 by flooring the brick pavement, has improved their condi- 
 tion somewhat, still they are not fit to be used. 
 
 A new dormitory, with not less than 150 cells, should 
 be erected as soon as the means of the State will permit. 
 
 There is another evil that requires Legislative action — 
 it is too much the practice of the courts throughout the 
 State to send persons to the Penitentiary for small offenses 
 whose proper destination would be the County Almshouse 
 or the Insane Hospital. There are now in the Institution 
 many of both classes, some who commit a petty theft for 
 the sole purpose of being provided with a home, and 
 others idiotic or insane at the time of commitment. 
 
 One case may be instanced by way of illustration ; the 
 commitment is from Calvert County and reads thus : — 
 
 “George Norfolk, presented for feloniously entering the 
 dwelling of Wm. Ogden and taking therefrom a bottle of 
 whiskey, a pan of milk, and some bread and meat. Ver- 
 dict of the jury, Guilty , and insane at the time of the com- 
 mittal .of the act and insane now , and sentenced by the 
 Court to be confined in the Penitentiary house of the State 
 of Maryland until he shall recover his reason , and be dis- 
 charged by due course of law IP 
 
 This is virtually an imprisonment for life for the offense 
 of stealing something to eat, the party being idiotic and 
 insane at the time, and the effect is to transfer his support 
 from the county to which he belongs to the State at large. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 LAWRENCE SANGSTON, ) 
 
 CHARLES H. PITTS, } Committee. 
 
 JOHN THOS. FORD, ) 
 
9 
 
 Frederick City, June 25, 1861. 
 
 The Committee appointed by the House of Delegates of 
 Maryland to examine into the questions in dispute between 
 Messrs. Duvall and Howard, and Mr. Charles Murdock and 
 the Board of Directors of the Maryland Penitentiary, as 
 also to inquire into the financial condition of the same, 
 assembled this day in Frederick, at 12 o’clock, M. 
 
 Present — Messrs. Sangston, Pitts and Ford, of the Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. Thos. H. Moore was unanimously selected as clerk 
 to the Committee. 
 
 After consultation, the Committee adjourned to meet in 
 Baltimore city, on Monday, July 1st, 1861, at the office of 
 Charles H. Pitts, Esq., at 11 o’clock, A. M. 
 
 By order, \ 
 
 THOMAS H. MOORE. 
 
 Baltimore, July 1st, 1861. 
 
 The Committe appointed to examine the questions in 
 dispute between Messrs. Duvall and Howard, and Charles 
 Murdock and the Board of Directors of the Maryland 
 Penitentiary, as well as to inquire into the financial condi- 
 tion of said Institution, assembled this morning at the 
 office of Charles H. Pitts, Esq., St. Paul street, pursuant 
 to adjournment. 
 
 Present — Messrs. Sangston, Pitts and Ford, of the Com- 
 mittee. Thomas H. Moore, Clerk. 
 
 The Clerk was directed to notify the Board of Directors 
 that the Committee would visit the Penitentiary on to- 
 morrow, July 2d, for the purpose of examining into the 
 facts connected with the contract of Messrs. Duvall and 
 Howard. 
 
 The Committee then adjourned. 
 
 By order, 
 
 THOS. H. MOORE, Clerk. 
 
 The Committee of the Legislature of Maryland assem- 
 bled this morning at the room of the Directors of the 
 Maryland Penitentiary, at 10 o’clock, pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Present — Messrs. Sangston and Ford^ of the Committee. 
 Mr. John H. Duvall, George M. Gill, Esq., his counsel, 
 
 and Messrs. John Hurst, John Hilbert, Wm. Chestnut, 
 
 R. Middleton and Lefevre Jarrett, of the Board of Di- 
 rectors. 
 
 The Clerk proceeded to read the memorial of John H. 
 Duvall and William Howard to the Legislature of Mary- 
 land. 
 
10 
 
 Isaac G. Roberts, Deputy Warden, was sworn on the 
 Holy Evangely of Almighty God. 
 
 Examined by Mr. Sangston. — Question. Were you the 
 bearer of an order from the monthly Committee of the 
 Board of Directors to Mr. Duvall, directing him to dis- 
 pense with the services of a watchman on Sunday ? 
 
 Answer. No ; not that I recollect. The order was given 
 me by the Warden to tell Messrs. Duvall and Murdock 
 that there should be no more Sunday work, and to stop all 
 work of that kind. 
 
 Question. Did that order extend to the services of Mr. 
 Duvall’s watchman? 
 
 Answer. They did not tell me that ; they only said no 
 more fires should be made on Sunday. 
 
 Question. Who was the watchman ? 
 
 Answer. I believe his name was Gam brill. 
 
 By Mr. Gill. — Question. You gave the same directions 
 to Mr. Murdock? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect whether I gave him or Mr. 
 Kimball the directions. I know that Mr. Duvall’s man 
 was at work on Sundays. 
 
 By Mr. Duvall.— Question. Did you not deliver the order 
 to me in this way, “ Your men must not be about here on 
 Sundays ?” 
 
 Answer. No, sir; the order was, that Sunday work 
 should be stopped throughout. The order I received from 
 the Warden was general. 
 
 By Mr. Gill. — Question. Did you tell Mr. Murdock, or 
 his man either, that they should not have a watchman on 
 Sunday? 
 
 Answer. The prisoners attended to Mr. Murdock’s 
 work ; he did not' have a watchman on Sunday in day- 
 time. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect any conversation had with 
 Mr. Murdock, or did you tell Mr. Murdock that you had 
 told Mr. Duvall the watchman should not be there on Sun- 
 day ? 
 
 Answer . I do not recollect such conversation. The di- 
 rections given to Mr. Duvall was sometime before the 23d 
 December, 1860. The man employed by Mr. Duvall was 
 attending to the dry-houses, who was also night watch- 
 man. The fire took place after dinner on Sunday, be- 
 tween 2 and 3 o’clock ; before 3 o’clock, 23d December, 
 1860. 
 
 Question. Did you investigate into the causes of the 
 fire ? 
 
 Answer. I did, and was under the impression that Sam- 
 uel Green, Edward Perry, John Butler and Joe Wheat- 
 
11 
 
 ley, all colored, committed the act. The men could very 
 easily get from the church to the shop — about sixty yards. 
 
 Question. Were they permitted to go about without an 
 officer under the proper discipline of the establishment ? 
 
 Answer. It is customary to go about without an officer. 
 The officers on the wall are constantly on the look out, 
 with arms in their hands. If they had attended to their 
 duty, the prisoners could not enter the shop of Mr. Duvall 
 except at one point in the rear ; Mr. Murdock’s dry-house 
 obscured the view from the officer’s box, leaving a space 
 of three or four feet a prisoner could enter. The dormito- 
 ries are cleaned between 10 and 12 o’clock. The fire took 
 place about fifteen minutes of 3 o’clock. I ascertained 
 from investigation, that three of the jmrties were guilty, 
 and one was present. Wheatley said that Green had a 
 box with yellow cotton in it ; Green set the cotton on fire 
 in the dormitory. Green and Perry went to Duvall’s 
 shop together, when they built the fire. Wheatley said 
 the whole four were connected ; that he, Wheatley, set 
 the fire, but the others assisted. Yellow cotton is an arti- 
 cle used in the manufacturing department, and makes a 
 very good slow-match. A piece three feet long would 
 burn two hours. 
 
 Question. How far is the dormitory where the cotton was 
 set on fire from Duvall’s shop? 
 
 Answer. About seventy-five yards. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Hurst. — Question. Did the Court 
 rule your testimony out ? 
 
 Answer. It did upon the second trial, because the infor- 
 mation I derived was through stratagem. 
 
 By Mr. Jarrett. — Question. How long have you been 
 connected with the Penitentiary ? 
 
 Answer. Three years under William Johnson Waden, 
 one year under I. M. Denson, and upwards of three years 
 under A. D. Evans. 
 
 Question .- — Are the present officers as great in number 
 as those of former administrations? 
 
 Answer. There are four more than under the late War- 
 den, Mr. Merry man. 
 
 Question *. How does the discipline of this Institution as 
 at present, compare with that of former wardens ? 
 
 Answer. I think it might be more strict ; my own or- 
 ders are to carry out the strictest discipline, and I have 
 endeavored to do so. 
 
 Question. Has not Mr. Duvall been notified that the 
 condition of his shops prevented the officers from having a 
 strict supervision over the same ? 
 
12 
 
 Answer. I have notified him several times that the 
 quantity of barrels prevented the officers from having a 
 full view of the entire shop during work hours. 
 
 By Mr. Sangston. — Question. Who was the watchman 
 on duty nearest the shop of Mr. Duvall? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Suter was fhe guard. 
 
 Question. Was any action taken by the Board in rela- 
 tion to the negligence of the guard? 
 
 Answer. Yes. Mr. Suter was discharged. 
 
 James Gambrell , sivorn. 
 
 By Mr. Gill. — Question. You recollect the fire at Mr. 
 Duvall’s shop, 23d December, 1860? 
 
 Answer. Yes. I do. 
 
 Question. How long prior to that fire had you been em- 
 ployed by Mr. Duvall? 
 
 Answer. Seven months and nineteen nights and days. 
 I commenced about the 4th May, 1860. 
 
 Question. What was your duty ? 
 
 Answer. Watch out for fires ; put out all fires used in 
 shop after prisoners had left ; not to permit any fires after 
 Saturday night, 12 o’clock. 
 
 Question. When you first attended, what did you do on 
 Sundays ? 
 
 Answer. The first two Sundays I was not admitted to 
 the yard of the Institution until my hour for duty arrived. 
 
 Question. What did you do for the subsequent time on 
 Sundays ? 
 
 Answer. On and after the third Sunday, I cleaned out 
 the boilers of the engine, and watched for anything that 
 might be wrong until Mr. Duvall’s foreman or sons ar- 
 rived, which continued until three or five Sundays before 
 the fire, when I stopped coming to the Institution until 
 my hour arrived for night duty, about sun-down. I 
 stopped then by Mr. Duvall’s directions. I understood 
 from him that the Directors were not satisfied with his 
 men coming upon the premises on Sunday ; after which 
 notice I did not watch on Sundays. 
 
 Question. Was any work done on Sundays after you en- 
 tered Mr. Duvall’s employment? 
 
 Answer. Nothing was done except cleaning the boilers, 
 which was done by me until stopped, as before mentioned, 
 by Mr. Duvall. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Jarrett. — Question. When Mr. 
 Duvall told you that your services on Sunday were dis- 
 pensed with, no work was then required of you? 
 
 Answer. I had the same watching to do. 
 
13 
 
 By Mr. Ford. — Question. Did you understand from any 
 person connected with the Institution that objection was 
 raised against your being there as watchman simply ? 
 
 Answer. I had no information on the subject. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Jarrett. — Question. Did the offi- 
 cer in charge of Mr. Duvall's shop complain in your 
 hearing of the condition of the shop ? 
 
 Answer. I did hear him complain, and have seen him 
 take Mr. Duvall's men and remove the cause of complaint. 
 
 Question. Have you seen Mr. Evans, the Warden, pass 
 through at late hours of the night and examine Mr. Du- 
 vall's shop ? 
 
 Answer. I have. 
 
 Question. Did the Warden sometimes previous to the fire 
 • express to you his apprehensions that because of the non- 
 employment of the convicts, and the unsafe condition of 
 Mr. Duvall's shop, a fire would result therefrom ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think the convicts were referred to, 
 but he did complain of the condition of the shop, and re- 
 quested me to keep a bright look out. 
 
 Direct examination resumed by Mr. Gill. — Question. If 
 you had continued up to the time of the fire, would you 
 not have been able to prevent the fire ? 
 
 Answer. I think I would. 
 
 Question. Could the regular watch of the Institution 
 prevent the convicts from going into Mr. Duvall's shop? 
 
 Answer. I think they could. 
 
 Mr. Charles Murdock , sworn for Complainant . 
 
 Examined by Mr. Gill. — Question. Prior to the fire, was 
 a watchman on duty on Sunday in Mr. Duvall's shop ? 
 
 Answer. I have seen one on duty, presuming he was 
 from what I have seen him do, the impression on my mind 
 being that both Mr. Lamb and Mr. Gambrell have attend- 
 ed to the fires on Sunday, although I am not sure of the 
 same. 
 
 Question. Had you any conversation with Mr. Roberts 
 prior to or subsequent to the fire in relation to the direc- 
 tion he had given Mr. Duvall as to the watchman being 
 there on Sunday ? 
 
 Answer. Aft^r the fire Mr. Roberts admitted to me that 
 he had given the order to Mr. Duvall forbidding his watch- 
 man on Sundays. The order to stop the watchmen was 
 given one or' two months prior to the fire. 
 
 By A. D. Evans. I understood Mr. Roberts to say that 
 the watchman was stopped from doing whatever he had 
 been previously doing ? 
 
 By Mr. Jarrett. — Question. — Have you heard any objec- 
 
14 
 
 tions from any Director to a watchman being employed by 
 a contractor ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; because I have had to employ no 
 watchman. 
 
 By Mr. Ford. — Question. Did you understand the order 
 as forbidding all persons employed by contractors coming 
 upon the premises ? 
 
 Answer. I did so understand the order. 
 
 By Mr. Hurst. — Question. After the order was given, 
 did you not see persons at work on Sunday in the shop 
 of Mr. Duvall ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say. 
 
 By Mr. Jarrett. — Question. Have you ever expressed 
 any apprehensions from fire because of the condition 
 of Mr. Duvall’s shop. 
 
 Answer. I believe I have. 
 
 Mr. Gambrill , recalled by Complainant. 
 
 By Mr. Gill. — Question : Did you know of any work being 
 done on Sunday while you were acting as watchman ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know of any. 
 
 Michael Conner , sworn by Complainant. 
 
 Examined by Mr. Gill. — Question. You -were the fore- 
 man of Mr. Duvall in the manufacturing department? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, from the 28th February, 1860. I had 
 no knowledge of any order being given, except that no 
 prisoners should he worked on Sundays, and no fires he 
 permitted in the dry houses on that day. 
 
 The Committee then adjourned until to-morrow, Wed- 
 nesday morning, at 10 o’clock. 
 
 Wednesday, July 3d, 1861. 
 
 The Committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present, 
 Messrs. Sangston and Ford. 
 
 Mr. Murdock , recalled by Complainant. 
 
 Examined by Mr. Gill. — Question. If the rules and regu- 
 lations of the Penitentiary, as laid down in the Code and 
 printed orders, had been followed on the day when the 
 shop of Mr. Duvall was fired, would not such fire have 
 been prevented in your opinion ? 
 
 Answer. I understand that under such rules an officer 
 should have had the supervision of the prisoners, and if 
 this had been so, it would he impossible, in my judgment, 
 for the fire to have occurred. It would be difficult among 
 so large a number of convicts to have at all times an officer 
 with each convict. When the rules and regulations were 
 
15 
 
 made, the number of shops were less, and the prisoners 
 were not so scattered, although no difference existed on 
 Sundays. 
 
 Question. Is there, or not, more danger on Sundays from 
 fire by the convicts than on other days ? If so, state the 
 reasons ? 
 
 Answer. On Sundays there is less danger from accidents ; 
 hut more danger from incendiaries, because on Sunday if 
 the prisoners are allowed in the shops the fire would not 
 he so readily discovered, there being so few persons about. 
 
 Question. How long have you been employed in the 
 Penitentiary ? 
 
 Answer. The best part of ten years, with very few in- 
 tervals. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Hurst. — Question. Were the pris- 
 oners allowed to go into the shops of Mr. Duvall, or any 
 of them, on Sundays ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that they were, except by spe- 
 cial permission, although I have seen them in the shops 
 on Sunday, and I understood from Mr. Roberts that it 
 would not be permitted for the future. I never supposed 
 that they were permitted to enter unless they had business. 
 
 By Mr. Jarrett. — Question. So far as you know, have not 
 the rules and regulations, as far as practicable, been carried 
 out? 
 
 Answer. I have no knowledge of what the rules and 
 regulations are, unless as printed ; in many respects they 
 have not been carried out as printed, in others they have. 
 
 Question. What is your opinion of the general discipline 
 of the Institution for the past three years ? 
 
 Answer. In some respects I have considered the discipline 
 has been very good, the difference between the present and 
 former administrations exists in the fact, that I have been 
 enabled to compel my men to work under the present ad- 
 ministration, when they were disposed to object; I have 
 had more control over the men ; a great portion of the dis- 
 cipline of the Institution I have no means of knowing any- 
 thing about, as it does not come under my supervision or 
 observation. The discipline in the shops under my control 
 has been somewhat better than under former administra- 
 tions; I have thought that the rules were defective in not 
 placing the watchman on Sundays on duty at noon instead 
 of at night. 
 
 Question. Is it not an utter impossibility for the officers 
 to have their eyes on every prisioner during work hours? 
 
 Ansiver. I believe it is. 
 
 Question. Was your shop ever burnt out by fire? 
 
 Ansiver. Several times; in 1851 by a very heavy fire; I 
 lost all my machinery. 
 
16 
 
 Question. Did you ever make a claim against the State 
 for damages resulting from fire? 
 
 Answer. No. I did not. At the fire of 1857 the Direc- 
 tors gave me the labor of a considerable number of men, 
 free of charge, until my shops were re-built. 
 
 Question. Was the same routine in regard to the en- 
 forcement of the rules and regulations on Sundays carried 
 out then as now ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, not being present on Sundays. 
 
 Question. Has not a disposition been manifested always 
 by the Board of Directors and officers to give your proper- 
 ty every protection and security against loss by fire? 
 
 Ansiuer. As far as I know, it has. 
 
 Cross-examined by A. D. Evans , Warden . — Question. Do 
 you remember of there ever being a watchman in the yard 
 on Sundays previous to the fire of Mr. Duvall's shop ? 
 
 Answer. I had supposed so until I ascertained much to 
 my surprise about three years ago, that the watchman did 
 not go on duty until Sunday night. I refer to the watch- 
 man of the Institution. I do not know whether I ascer- 
 tained this fact prior to, or since the present administra- 
 tion. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Jarrett. — Question. Have you not 
 considered that Mr. Duvall kept his fires at too great a de- 
 gree of heat in the dry houses, and thereby endangered the 
 premises ? 
 
 Answer. I considered that at times he did keep the fires 
 hotter than I deemed prudent to keep mine, but I had no 
 knowledge of the degree of heat, except from what I heard 
 from others. 
 
 By Mr. Evans. — Question. What degree of heat do you 
 deem proper and safe? 
 
 Answer. I think it dangerous to go above 125 degrees; 
 the material used by me, however, being lighter than that 
 used by Mr. Duvall. 
 
 The testimony for complainant here closed for the pres- 
 ent. 
 
 Mr. A.D . Evans , Way den of Penitentiary , sworn for Directors. 
 
 Examined by Mr. Jarrett. — Question. Has the same pro- 
 tection been given to Mr. Duvall’s property as has been 
 given to Mr. Murdock’s and the property of the State? 
 
 Ansiuer. Yes, sir, fully as much, no complaint of want of 
 protection has ever been made to me hy either Mr. Duvall 
 or Mr. Murdock. 
 
 Question. Has any extra advantages or favors been ex- 
 tended to Mr. Duvall in the prosecution of his business ? 
 
 Answer. In the selection of good workmen, in the increase 
 of the hours of labor, when other contractors did not desire 
 
17 
 
 it; arr extra officer placed in the wagon yard to facilitate 
 the delivery of the barrels ; and giving the convicts their 
 breakfasts earlier, so that the time of labor was increased, 
 for the space of three days, which was changed at Mr. Du- 
 vall's request. 
 
 Question. Did not Mr. Duvall keep his shop in an unsafe 
 condition, and did you not notify him of the same? 
 
 Ansioer. The shop was in a very unsafe condition for a 
 long period of time, so much so, that it was constantly 
 complained of by the officer, Mr. Lefevre, that he could not 
 perform his duties as he would like. I told Mr. Duvall the 
 Directors thought his shop was in an unsafe condition, and 
 I thought so too, and that the shop must be cleared; Mr. 
 Duvall said he could not do it, because he had no other 
 place for his stuff, and that the Directors had no authority 
 or control over his shop, as the contract did not mention 
 anything of that character. 
 
 Question. Was not the State deprived of the services of 
 convicts from accidents occurring in Mr. Duvall's shop? 
 
 Answer. Yes, of a large number. 
 
 Question. Did you make it vour duty or practice to go 
 through Mr. Duvall's shop during the week and on Sundays 
 more than through other shops? 
 
 Ansiuer. Some sixor eightweeks prior to the fire, I d id visit 
 his shop more than any other, because the shop was lum- 
 bered more than formerly, and in a dangerous condition, 
 and I feared it might be fired either by accident or design. 
 
 Question. While Mr. Duvall’s shop was in such a condi- 
 tion, was he not absent a great part of the time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, a week at a time. 
 
 William A. Wisong , sworn. 
 
 Examined by Mr. Hurst — Question. Have you not had 
 frequent opportunities to witness the operation of the In- 
 stitution, and what is your opinion of the general discipline 
 of the same ? 
 
 Ansioer. I have, and I believe the discipline to be as good 
 as that of any other of the kind, and a good deal better 
 than some. I have been connected with the Penitentiary, 
 as agent of the Prison Association, for two years past, and 
 believe that the rules are fully enforced. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Gill. — Question. Did you ever go 
 into the shops on Sunday ? 
 
 Answer. I never did. I visited only the chapel and hos- 
 pital on Sundays. 
 
 The Committee adjourned to meet on Friday morning, at 
 10 o'clock. By order, 
 
 2 
 
 THOS. H. MOORE, Clerk. 
 
18 
 
 Baltimore, July 5, 1861. 
 
 The Committee met. Present Messrs. Ford and Sangs- 
 ton. 
 
 Mr. John H. Duvall, sworn and examined. 
 
 By Mr. Gill. — Question. What was the first direction and 
 order received by you in relation to the employment on 
 Sundays of any persons acting for you, and when and by 
 whom ? What was the second order, and from whom and 
 when ? And what was done alter each of these orders ? 
 
 Answer. Some time prior to the accident by which I was 
 shot, on the 21st of April, 1861, I received an order from 
 Mr. Evans, the Warden of the Penitentiary, that no more 
 work should be done in my shops on Sunday, at the Peni- 
 tentiary, such as firing the dry houses, &c. Some time 
 prior to the fire, I do not know how long, the Deputy, Mr. 
 Roberts, told me be was instructed by the Committee to 
 say to me that any watchman or any of my men must not 
 be about there on Sundays. I directed the firing of dry 
 houses to be discontinued on Sundays. It was discontin- 
 ued. After the second order from Mr. Roberts, I directed 
 the watchman, Mr. Gambrill, not to be there on Sundays 
 until the hour of going on duty at evening, which was 
 obeyed to the best of my knowledge. 
 
 Question. Did you employ a watchman to take care of the 
 property in the shops carried on by you in the Peniten- 
 tiary, and especially on Sundays, and when did he cease to 
 do that duty, and why? 
 
 Answer. I did employ a watchman ; the first one, Mr. 
 Lamb, who continued until about the first of May, 1860, 
 when the fire of Mr. Murdock's shops occurred ; that one of 
 the Directors, Mr. Biyson, I think, sent by Mr. Howard 
 when I was confined to bed, that Mr. Lamb ought to be dis- 
 charged; he was accordingly discharged, and Mr. Gambrill 
 appointed in his stead, at the solicitation of Mr. Bryson. 
 Gambrill continued in my employment until the 23d of De- 
 cember, 1860, when the fire took place, it may have been a 
 little later. Gambrill’s duty was to watch the place at night 
 and on Sundays, and attend to the dry houses. The duty 
 was performed until the order was given herein before 
 stated, as given by Mr. Roberts* After which order Gam- 
 brill ceased to be there on Sunday in the day time. 
 
 Question. At what time on Sunday, the 23d of December, 
 did the fire at your shop occur, and to what cause do you 
 attribute the same, and if your watchman had been on duty 
 as before the order was given by Mr. Roberts, would or 
 would not the fire have been prevented in your judgment ? 
 
 Answer. The fire occurred on Sunday, 23d December, 
 about half-past two to three o’clock, the cause I attribute 
 
19 
 
 to the act of incendiary convicts. If my watchman had 
 been on duty as previously to the order of Mr. Roberts, the 
 tire could not have occurred in my judgment. 
 
 Question. Are you acquainted with the rules and regula- 
 tions of the Maryland Penitentiary, and especially in rela- 
 tion to convicts, and the course pursued to them on Sundays, 
 and state what they were? Also state if such rules and 
 regulations had been pursued on Sunday, the 23d December, 
 1860. Would or would not, in your judgment, the tire at 
 your shop on that day have been prevented ? 
 
 Answer . I know of no rules and regulations except the 
 published ones, a copy of which was handed me soon after 
 my contract. I have no information in regard to the man- 
 agement of prisons on Sundays, except from what I have 
 derived from observation. It is usual for a portion of the 
 negro convicts, some fifteen or twenty in number, to be 
 employed in cleansing the dormitories and carrying off the 
 filth to the pen ; in doing which they have to pass through 
 a large portion of the yard and around most of the shops. 
 If properly supervised by an officer, they could not enter 
 the shops without the knowledge of the officer. I think 
 the fire would have been prevented if the rules and regula- 
 tions had been enforced. 
 
 The Committee here adjourned until to-morrow raprning 
 at 10 o’clock. 
 
 Baltimore, July 6, 1861. 
 
 The Committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present, 
 Messrs. Sangston and Ford. 
 
 The examination of Mr. Duvall resumed. 
 
 By Mr. Gill. — The particular rule to which I refer, which, 
 if observed, would have prevented the fire, is to be found 
 in the Code of General Laws, Art. 73, Sec. 82 : “ The War- 
 den must not permit any prisoners to be together at any 
 time without the proper supervision of an officer.” 
 
 Question. Were there or not any fires in and about your 
 shop at the Maryland Penitentiary immediately prior to 
 the fire of the 23d December, 1860, or on the premises con- 
 nected therewith ? How did the fire which destroyed your 
 property occur as you have been advised, and what were 
 the circumstances thereof? State all of them ? What pre- 
 cautions might have been and ought to have been taken to 
 prevent the convicts from getting into your shop on that 
 day, and if taken, what would probably have been the effect 
 thereof? 
 
 Ansiver. We were running our engine the day before 
 (Saturday) with the usual fire, and on the same day some 
 
20 
 
 ♦ 
 
 fire may have been in other stoves, as it is usual to have 
 them at that season; all of which were extinguished, to 
 my knowledge, about 5 o'clock, P. M., of that day, (Satur- 
 day.) In the usual course of business there would be no 
 fires during the whole day of Sunday, and as far as I know 
 there was no fire on that Sunday; but I was not there until 
 after the fire. 
 
 From what I have learned from the Deputy Warden, the 
 fire was the act of incendiary convicts, as he had ascertained 
 by their confessions, accomplished by the use of slow- 
 matches and powdered sulphur and rosin. That they had 
 applied the matches in the early part of the day, probably 
 about 11 o'clock. 
 
 After Mr. Roberts had ascertained these facts, in company 
 with some of the officers in the Warden’s Lodge, an exper- 
 iment was tried with the yellow cotton yarn, which the 
 convicts confessed to have used as matches. The experiment 
 proved that the yarn made a good slow-match, and that it 
 would have been easy to have communicated the fire by 
 such matches. 
 
 Th# convicts who cleaned the dormitories are engaged 
 on Sundays at this work about 10 \ A. M., or later, while 
 religfjpus services are performed. 
 
 Thfe distance from the door of the dormitory to the 
 pen re, sav 150 to 200 yards, this route would pass my shop, 
 and would also pass two of Mr. Murdock's shops and dry- 
 houses, the State dry-house and smoke-house, and also Mr. 
 Murdock’s broom corn shed. Convicts passing those shops, 
 if properly supervised by an officer or officers, could not 
 have obtained access to them. 
 
 Question. Who were interested in the business carried on 
 by you at the Maryland Penitentiary? 
 
 Ansiver. My son-in-law, William Howard, and myself 
 were interested in the business referred to. 
 
 Question. What was the amount of loss sustained from 
 the fire of the 23d December, 1860, by you and your 
 partner ; state the details, and show how such loss is 
 made up. 
 
 Ansiver. According to an estimate made by Mr. Conner 
 and myself : 
 
 Materials prepared in the shop, &c., destroyed, would 
 have made up 82,500 barrels. The barrels were sold for 
 35 cents a piece. Hoops and labor 9 cents — 26 cents — 
 amounting to $21,450.00 
 
 Besides on hand 1200 barrels, at 36 cents, 432.00 
 Loss in machinery, dry houses, cost $9,500 worth, 7,100-00 
 
 $28,982.00 
 
21 
 
 Less insurance money received, 5,600.00 
 
 My claim being $23,382.00 
 
 Question. What amount did you pay the Directors of the 
 Maryland Penitentiary for the hire of convicts prior to the 
 fire, and what did you pay after the fire, and under what 
 circumstances did you make such payment after the fire ? 
 
 Ansioer. During the contract, and before the fire, I paid 
 $7,031.07 to the Directors for labor, &c. 
 
 After the fire I paid $1,075.59 to the Directors, accord- 
 ing to an account which I produce with my answer and 
 file as part of it, (marked A.) The fire ruined my busi- 
 ness, soon after which the Directors desired to know of me 
 what was my intention about going on with the contract. 
 I informed them that our misfortunes at the fire had de- 
 stroyed our business, and I was unable to do it. I was 
 asked the question by one of the Directors, if I was aware 
 that I could be required to build the shop, and pay for the 
 prisoners, while it was going on. This induced me to con- 
 sult my counsel, Mr. Grill, who informed me that under the 
 contract I could be so held. Mv counsel, therefore, advised 
 me to make the best settlement I could with the Directors, 
 and I accordingly did so, as the paper alluded to, marked 
 A, shows. 
 
 (A) 
 
 Baltimore, December 31, 1860. 
 Messrs. John H. Duvall & Sons , 
 
 In account with Maryland Penitentiary . 
 
 Work done in smithing, October, 1860, - - - $ 3 22 
 
 t Water rent from July 1 to Nov. 1, 1860, $240, - 80.00 
 
 Work done in smithing, November, 1860, - - - 4.57 
 
 Rent from August 31 to Nov. 30, I860, $200, - - 50.00 
 
 Hire, November, 1860, - -- -- -- -- 180.05 
 
 el from Dec. 1, 1860, to 22d, inclusive, - - 
 li l,157f days, at 60 cents, - - - -3 
 
 “ 19 “ at 25 “ ----- - 4.75 
 
 Work done, December, 1860, - - - - - - - 1.68 
 
 Rent from Nov. 30 to Dec. 31, 1860, ----- 16.67 
 
 . “ Water “ 1 ‘5 “ “ 40.00 
 
 $1,075.59 
 
 Or. 
 
 By 101 lbs. tobacco, at 20 cents, ------ 20.20 
 
 $1,055.39 
 
22 
 
 Cr. 
 
 1861. January 30, By cash, 
 
 140.00 
 
 Cr. 
 
 By R. Norris, Jr’s., note, dated January 31, 1861, 
 at 3 mos., for $800, less interest 3 mos., §12, 
 
 Received balance by check, January 31, 1861. 
 
 $915.39 
 
 788.00 
 
 $127.39 
 
 JNO. J. C. DOUGHERTY, Clerk. 
 
 After we bad agreed on the terms of settlement, I 
 informed the Directors that my only means of payment 
 was the property then on hand, and not destroyed. I 
 asked permission to remove some of it, and dispose of it 
 for that purpose. This permission was refused, and they 
 would not allow me to do so until the settlement was 
 made. 
 
 To make the settlement I had to encounter great incon- 
 venience and difficulty, in consequence of the misfortune 
 of the fire. 
 
 Mr. Gill, in his opinion, also advised that no suit could 
 be maintained against the State or the Directors as such. 
 If they could have been sued, he would have advised me to 
 bring suit. 
 
 Gross -examined by Mr. Brune. — Question. What work was 
 done on Sundays, before the order which you say was given 
 by Mr. Evans ? 
 
 Answer. There was no general work done on Sundays, 
 except making fires in dry houses. There was occasionally 
 other work done. It was not the practice to do work on 
 Sundays, except from necessity. The orders given by Mr. 
 Evans were followed, and the fires discontinued, so far as I 
 know, after such order had been given. 
 
 Question. Who was your watchman at the time of this 
 order from Mr. Evans, and when precisely was this order 
 given ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Lamb was the watchman when the order 
 was given by Mr. Evans. I cannot state more specifically 
 than I have done in my direct answer, the time when Mr. 
 Evans gave the order referred to. 
 
 Question. Why was Mr. Lamb discharged, and was there 
 or not a fire or fires at the Penitentiary while he was your 
 watchman ? 
 
23 
 
 Answer. I do not know why Mr. Lamb was discharged, 
 except as already stated. There was only one fire of im- 
 portance while Mr. Lamb was my watchman. That was 
 at one of the dry houses, and in January, 1860. There 
 was nothing that destroyed anything. On one occasion, 
 while at work at shop, some boards took fire, and they 
 were immediately put out. Mr. Lamb was not then pres- 
 ent; beside these there was the fire on Mr. Murdock's 
 premises in May, 1860, and which led to Lamb’s discharge. 
 
 Question. Who were the Monthly Committee at the time 
 the order of Roberts, spoken of by you in answer to the 
 first direct question, was given, and was such order in 
 writing , through Mr. Roberts ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know who constituted the Monthly 
 Committee of the Penitentiary when the order given to me 
 by Roberts was received. The order from Roberts was 
 verbal. 
 
 Question. Did you, after this order was given to you by 
 Roberts, make any application to the Monthly Committee 
 or to any of the Directors in relation thereto, and if you did 
 state to whom, you so applied ? 
 
 Answer. I did not. I obeyed the order without making 
 any complaint about it or seeing any of the parties. 
 
 Question. Did you, or your sons, or your foreman of ma- 
 chinery, Mr. Murdock, ever go into the shops on Sunday 
 after this order ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that any one but myself did go 
 over to the Penitentiary on Sunday after the order from 
 Roberts ; I did sometimes go over on Sunday in the morn- 
 ing, and sometimes in the afternoon. 
 
 Question. Have jmu any recollection of Mr. Murdock’s 
 covering a pully with wood on a Sunday? 
 
 Answer. I recollect that a pully was covered with wood 
 on Sunday by Mr. Murdock, but I think it was done prior 
 to the order frornMr. Roberts. 
 
 Question. Before the order which you state came from 
 Mr. Roberts, was it the habit of Mr. Grambrill to make a 
 fire on Saturday night and keep it up during Sunday? If 
 not, when was the fire made on Sunday before and after said 
 order, and what time was the watchman expected to come 
 on duty every day and go off, and who watched while he 
 was off duty ? 
 
 Answer. Before the order from Roberts it was not the 
 habit of Mr. Grambrill, the watchman, to make up the fires 
 on Saturday night and keep them up on Sunday. After the 
 order from Mr. Evans the}' stopped firing at 12 o’clock on 
 Saturday, and began again at 12 o’clock on Sunday night. 
 Some time after this ! got permission from Mr. Hilbert to 
 
24 
 
 make the fires at dark on Sunday night, and to stop them 
 at daylight. The watchman usually eame on about supper 
 time during the week, he would be thereon Saturday night, 
 and was relieved on Sunday morning at about 10 o’clock, 
 when witness would sometimes relieve him, and would re- 
 turn at about 12 or 1 o’clock, and sometimes later, to resume 
 his duties; this was before the order given by Mr. Roberts, 
 afterwards he quit when the state watchman would go away 
 in the morning, and not return again. When not relieved 
 by witness, the watchman would go for his meals during 
 Sunday from the premises — before the order from Roberts. 
 
 Question. Why did you Extinguish the fires on Saturday, 
 the 22d of December, at 5 P. M., if you had under Mr. 
 Hilbert’s permission right to continue them until Sunday 
 at daylight ? 
 
 Ansiver. We had no fires on Saturday, the 22d, or for 
 some days prior to that time in the dry houses. They had 
 been unable for some weeks, say six weeks, to procure a sup- 
 ply of hoops, and during that time had not finished bar- 
 rels. There was an intermission of that particular kind of 
 work. There was a good deal of other work done, such as 
 cutting and drying timber. They had kept on at that until 
 every place was full where they could put it in the shop 
 or dry houses. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Gambrill remain all night of Satur- 
 day, the 22d of December? Do you know w r hen he left in 
 the morning of Sunday ? 
 
 Ansiver. Mr. Gambrill did remain all night, so far as I 
 know on Saturday night, the 22d of December, 1860. Ido 
 not know when he left on Sunday morning, the 23d of De- 
 cember, 1860. 
 
 Question. Can you say from your own knowledge or ob- 
 servation that the negro convicts in cleaning the domitories 
 on Sunday, the 23d of December, were not properl} r super- 
 vised ? 
 
 Ansiver. On that day I was not present at the Peniten- 
 tiary until after the fire broke out. I cannot say. 
 
 Question. With what Committee or Directors was the 
 agreement (A) made? 
 
 Ansiver. The agreement was made at a Board meeting. 
 Mr. Hurst was present, and Mr. Jarrett, and three or four 
 others. 
 
 Question. At the time this agreement for settlement with 
 the Board was made, did you complain of the orders of 
 Messrs. Evans and Roberts, or either of them, or set up any 
 claim on your part against the Directors or the State of 
 Maryland ? 
 
25 
 
 Answer, I do not- recollect that anything was said about 
 the orders of Mr. Evans or Mr. Roberts at the time of the 
 agreement for settlement, nor did I then complain of such 
 orders or either of them, and at that meeting I did not set 
 up any claim against the State or the Directors. I did not 
 mean to speak of that and did not. 
 
 Question. Did you not express to the Board or to some 
 members of it, at that meeting or subsequently, that you 
 thought they were dealing liberally with you, or words to 
 that effect ? 
 
 Answer. Wh^n the settlement was made, I thanked the 
 Board for the settlement because I was glad to make it to 
 enable me to get some of my property out of the place to 
 live upon. 
 
 (Copy of Bond filed.) 
 
 Question. Did you not, subsequently to the agreement for 
 a settlement, obtain premission from the Directors that your 
 goods might remain on the premises for some time, and did 
 you not verbally or in Writing propose to the Board to re- 
 , new your contract on certain terms? 
 
 Answer. At the time of the settlement I did get permis- 
 sion to permit goods to remain until they wished to re-build. 
 Subsequently I received notice that the 'rent would be $25 
 per week for the premises burnt. I asked the Board if they 
 would make a contract with me on certain terms, which 
 they declined. 
 
 Question. Where was your property insured, and was the 
 insurance money paid, and why was it not insured for a 
 larger amount? 
 
 Answer. The property was insured at the Lynchburg 
 Office and the Valley Insurance Company at Virginia, and 
 it was not insured for a large amount, for the reason that 
 it was difficult to procure good insurance. Application was 
 made and declined by several offices, because the risk was 
 too great. 
 
 The Committee adjourned to Monday morning next, at 
 10 o’clock. 
 
 • By order, 
 
 • THOMAS Ii. MOORE, Clerk. 
 
 Monday, July 8th, 1861. 
 
 The Committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present, 
 Messrs. Sangston and Ford. 
 
 The cross-examination of J. H. Duvall continued by Mr. 
 Brune. 
 
 A letter marked (B,) now exhibited and filed. 
 
26 
 
 (B) 
 
 Baltimore, March 21, 1861. 
 
 To the Directors of the Maryland Penitentiary : 
 
 Gentlemen : — 
 
 With the view of arranging so as to enable 
 me to make another contract with you, I propose to ask you 
 the following questions, viz: 
 
 1st. Would you rebuild the shop so as to afford the 
 largest possible amount of yard room, and enable me there- 
 by to dispense with a portion of the dry finises ; building 
 say 25 or 26 feet wide, two stories, one end of it for the 
 accommodation of machinery, &c., say 40 or 50 feet square, 
 with celler under such portion of it as might be wanted, 
 and shed for boiler and engine ? 
 
 2d. Would you buy my boiler and engine at fair price, 
 say $2,000, to be put and kept in order by me, and to be 
 paid for as may be agreed by the labor of the prisoners 
 for which I may contract ? 
 
 3d. Would you contract for, say thirty-five first class 
 prisoners, as far as you may have them, the same as worked • 
 for me before — that I may select, at fifty cents per day, and 
 ten to fifteen second class at twenty-five cents — this latter 
 class to be healthy and strong, but say short term, and such 
 as you always have, that cannot be employed to better ad- 
 vantage, either by the State or a contractor, the fifty cent men 
 at all times to be first class ; and if upon trial of, say one 
 month, any such shall be found not to answer the purposes 
 for which they were taken, to be exchanged. All to work 
 for. three months, as they are taken to learn at twenty-five 
 cents per day — I to take such portion of them from time to 
 time as I may require them — and take all by a day to be 
 agreed upon; and have the privilege of increasing from 
 time to time, as I may want them — the fifty cent men, say 
 to the number of sixty, and the twenty-five cent men to 
 the number of twenty-five ; and to have such labor as may 
 be wanted in fitting up the shop for commencement without 
 charge ? 
 
 4th. What will you charge for the rent of the sfiop, and 
 boiler and engine, including water rent? 
 
 Which I respectfully sumbit. 
 
 Very truly, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN H. DUYALL. 
 
 Question. Look at paper B, now presented to you, and 
 say whether it is in your hand-writing. 
 
 Answer. It is. 
 
21 
 
 Question . Were you here on Sundays, so as yourself to 
 see the way in which the dormitories were cleaned by the 
 negroes, as spoken of in your examination in chief? 
 
 Answer. I have been present on Sundays and witnessed 
 the manner in which the negroes carried off the filth from 
 the dormitories to the filth pens. 
 
 Question . Did you ever complain to the Warden or Di- 
 rectors, or any of them, and if so, when and how; that the 
 negroes thus engaged were without the proper supervision 
 of officers ? 
 
 Answer. I have no recollection that I ever did. 
 
 J. G. Roberts , recalled by Directors. 
 
 By Mr. Brune. — Question. In your previous examination 
 you stated, in answer to a question in regard to the pres- 
 ent discipline of the Institution — “I think it might be 
 more strict; my own orders are, to carry out the strictest 
 discipline, and I have endeavored to do so.” Will you 
 explain the apparent discrepancy in portions of your said 
 answer ? 
 
 Answer. I meant to say that the discipline was as good 
 as it could be under existing circumstances ; by existing 
 circumstances I mean the contract system as it now pre- 
 vails; the contract system has prevailed for the last three 
 years to my knowledge. I was assistant .Warden nine 
 years before the present term ; when I was first here no 
 contract system prevailed. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Gill. — Question. You were not 
 present when the fire took place ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. You were then Deputy Warden ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How long had you been absent before the fire? 
 
 Answer. About two weeks. 
 
 Question. Whj 7- were you absent so long ? 
 
 Ansiver. I had been confined for a long time and obtained 
 leave of absence from the Board for two weeks. 
 
 Question. Who was appointed in your absence? 
 
 Answer. I believe Mr. Sparks discharged my duty. 
 
 Question. Do you know who filled your position on the 
 day of the fire ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 
 Question. Have you ever said to Mr. Charles Murdock, 
 that if you had been present on the day of the fire, the 
 same would not have occurred ? 
 
 Answer. I might have said so, I do not recollect it ; I have 
 had frequent conversations with him on the subject of th'e 
 fire. 
 
28 
 
 Question. Have you not said to Mr. Murdock that during 
 your absence from the Penitentiary, there was a want of 
 discipline therein, and that you attributed the fire to such 
 want of discipline, and state what you did say to Mr. Mur- 
 dock in reference to the discipline of the Penitentiary, and 
 the effect thereof in producing the fire at Mr. Duvall's shop? 
 
 Answer. If I did say so, it was in assent to a remark 
 from him. 
 
 Mr. Charles Murdoch , recalled. 
 
 * By Mr. Gill. — Question. Had you any conversation with 
 Mr. Roberts after, the fire, relating to his absence at the 
 time of the fire at Mr. Duvall's shop, and the effect thereof 
 in his judgment, if so, state it? 
 
 Answer. I have had conversation with Mr. Roberts. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Roberts say to you, that if he had been 
 present, in his opinion, the fire would not have occurred? 
 
 Answer. I have heard Mr. Roberts express his opinion, 
 that if he had been here, the fire would not have occurred. 
 I understood him to mean if he had been on duty. I never 
 heard him say specifically why the fire would not have oc- 
 curred, if he had been present. 
 
 Mr. Gill here exhibits and filed a printed copy of the 
 rules and regulations for the government of the Maryland 
 Penitentiary, 1853. 
 
 (C) 
 
 The officers are required to preserve harmony and kind 
 feelings among themselves, to the end that a desirable offi- 
 cial intercourse may obtain. They must, therefore, be re- 
 spectful in their intercourse and communications with each 
 other, and indulge in no undue liberties. 
 
 The Deputy Keepers must yield that ready obedience to 
 their superior officers, so necessary to secure the beneficial 
 results of effective co-operation and good government. 
 
 Whenever a Deputy Keeper may be absent from sickness, 
 or other necessary cause, the Warden shall designate one of 
 the approved supernumeraries to take his place, at such 
 Deputy Keeper's expense. 
 
 Mr. Conner recalled and cross-examined by Mr. Brune . — 
 Question. What were Mr. Gambrill’s duties as watchman 
 after he came and down to the time of the fire; was he a 
 day or night watchman, and what were his hours for going 
 on ,and coming off duty ? 
 
 Ansiuer. I understood the duties of Mr. Gambrill, during 
 the time that staves were in the dry houses, to keep up 
 fires and to get steam on the steam boxes in the morning, 
 so that the men could get to work. On Saturday evening 
 
29 
 
 or Sunday morning, after the boiler was “ blown off,” be 
 cleaned the boiler out, no change took place in the duty 
 that I am aware of down to the time of the fire. I never 
 considered him a day watchman, lie would generally go 
 on duty about the time the men would leave off work, about 
 supper time. I was never present when he came off duty 
 in the morning. 
 
 Question. At what time did you come on duty in the 
 morning ? 
 
 Answer. I generally came on at 6^ to 7 o’clock in the 
 morning. 
 
 Question. Was Gambrill generally gone when you came 
 on duty ? 
 
 Answer. He Was, every day excepting when Mr. Mur- 
 dock was away ; this does not apply to Sundays. It was 
 very rarely I came on Sundays. 
 
 Question. Did you make any examination of the proper- 
 ty manufactured and the machinery remaining after the 
 fire. If so, state for what purpose, and was it carefully 
 done and in connection with Mr. Duvall P 
 
 Answer. I made an examination of the loss in stock at 
 Mr. Duvall’s request, for the Insurance Company ; it was 
 carefully done. 
 
 Question. Will you he so good as to state to the Commit- 
 tee, as well as you now can, the result of such inquiry and 
 the statement of loss to the stock ? 
 
 Answer. The statement prepared for Insurance Company 
 made the amount of stock in the main shop to be one mil- 
 lion of pieces, from what I could understand from Mr. Du- 
 vall and his sons, we estimated these pieces to be $7 per 
 thousand pieces, were dried and ready, the greater portion 
 to put in barrels. We estimated either 90 or 95 thousand 
 pieces were not damaged, there were four dry houses, two 
 were destroyed entirely and two damaged, one damaged to 
 the extent of one-half. In two of the houses I considered a 
 total loss had occurred; I considered the loss to be 200,000 
 pieces, at $7 per thousand, $14,000. For the other two 
 houses I considered the loss to be one half, making $700 
 of loss. 1,200 barrels fully completed were ready for 
 delivery, with the exception of a few hoops, the vaiue of 
 each barrel I believed to be 35 to 36 cents per barrel. I 
 did not make an examination of the loss to the machinery, 
 that was done by Messrs. Denrnead and Pool. 
 
 Question. Was the property remaining or any part of it 
 sold, and if so, to whom, and for about what amount? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, the barrels on hand, those not burnt 
 entirely through were sold to Mr. Everitt at 12| cents per 
 barrel; I think between 500 or 600 were sold him; they 
 
30 
 
 were sold for about $60. I understood from Mr. Duvall 
 that he sold all the leavings or remnants for $ i 00 ; the 
 cost of the labor of cleaning up the remains of the fire 
 would have been much more than he received from the 
 sale. 
 
 Examination resumed by Mr. Gill. 
 
 Question. How many barrels would the stuff destroyed 
 by the fire have made ? 
 
 Ansiver. According to the estimate made for the Insu- 
 rance Company, about 46,154 barrels. 
 
 Question. Did that estimate include the whole quantity 
 destroyed ? 
 
 Answer. It did not, because Mr. Duvall said that the 
 amount of loss was so far above the insurance, it was un- 
 necessary for me to go fully into the examination. 
 
 Question. Was or not, in your judgment, a mucli larger 
 amount of stuff* destroyed than covered by estimate of 
 insurance, and how much more? 
 
 Answer. I believe there was more, but how much more I 
 am unable to say. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect having any conversation with 
 Mr. Duvall shortly prior to his application to the Legisla- 
 ture, in relation to the amount of stuff lost by the fire, as 
 compared with estimate made to Insurance Company, and 
 wdiat amount of barrels you stated to him the stuff would 
 have made up. 
 
 Answer. I remember having a conversation with Mr. 
 Duvall upon the subject, and in that interview he exhibit- 
 ed some papers, among which was the estimate that had 
 been made to the Insurance Company, another was an es- 
 timate to prove to the Legislature Committee, and by whom 
 the amount of stuff he . had on hand, and the number of 
 barrels he could have made. I do not remember to have 
 expressed any opinion as to the number of barrels that 
 could have been made. Before and subsequent to the fire 
 it was commonly observed among us, that we had stuff 
 enough to make 100,000 barrels, but it was not my opin- 
 ion ; I do not believe it would have made one-half of that 
 number, if that. Mr. Duvall had contracted to sell the 
 barrels to two parties at 36 cents, and to one other party 
 at 35 cents per barrel. I estimate the cost of finishing 
 each barrel about 9 to 10 cents. I have no knowledge of 
 the agreement by which Mr. Duvall employed Mr. Gam- 
 brill. I am now a substitute officer in the employment of 
 the Penitentiary. 
 
31 
 
 John R. Hynson , sivorn . 
 
 Question. Are you now an officer of the Maryland Peni- 
 tentiary, what office do you hold, and how long have you 
 held it? 
 
 Answer. I am an officer of the Maryland Penitentiary, 
 and have been watchman of the yard since May, 1860. 
 
 Question. Did you know Mr. Gambrill, who was formerly 
 in the employ of Mr. Duvall? If so, will you state when 
 he was in the habit of going on and coming off duty ; 
 state particularly when he went on on Saturday evening, 
 and when he went off on Sunday mornings ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; he would go on duty usually about 
 the time of locking up in the evening, and he came off 
 when Mr. Duvall’s hands went to work. On Saturday 
 evening he would go on about the usual time; on Sunday 
 morning he would go off duty some time before I did. I 
 went off on Sunday morning at 7 o’clock ; I was a night 
 watchman. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Gambrill in the habit at any time, 
 while he was in the employ of Mr. Duvall, of coming to 
 the Institution on Sundays after he left in the morning, 
 before the evenings when you came ? 
 
 Answer. I never saw him at the Penitentiary on Sunday 
 mornings, as I was not here myself; although I have 
 heard him say he had attended and cleaned the boilers, we 
 would frequently come together when about to go on duty 
 for the night. 
 
 Question. Where did he get his meals on Sundays; and 
 is it not necessary for a night watchman to get rest during 
 each day ? 
 
 Answer. As far as I know he did not get them in the 
 Institution on Sunday. It is necessary for a night watch- 
 man to get rest during the day. 
 
 By Mr. Sangston. — 1 do not think that I ever came to 
 the Institution on Sundays. 
 
 Mr. A. D. Evans , Warden , recalled. 
 
 Question. What time did Mr. Gambrill leave the Insti- 
 tution usually on Sunday mornings? Where did he get 
 his meals, and when did he usually return, and state your 
 means of knowledge ? 
 
 Ansiver. Mr. Gambrill would leave the Institution in the 
 morning about 7 o’clock, and would leave about the same 
 time on Sundays as on week days. He did not get his 
 meals at the Institution. He usually returned a little be- 
 fore dusk, although I have seen him here somewhat earlier. 
 My means of knowledge are derived from personal obser- 
 vation. 
 
32 
 
 Question : Had you ever any knowledge that Messrs. 
 Lainb and Gambrill were day watchmen for Mr. Duvall ? 
 
 Answer. I never knew it; I did know that they were 
 night watchmen. 
 
 Win. J. Bryson , a Director , sioorn. 
 
 Question. Had you ever notice in any way from Mr. Du- 
 vall, or did you know in any way that Mr. Gambrill or 
 Mr. Lamb had been appointed day watchmen by him, or 
 that it was part of their duty to watch the premises occu- 
 pied by Mr. Duvall during the day time on Sundays ? 
 
 Answer. I never did ; I was here a great deal on Sun- 
 days, and I never saw Mr. Gambrill on Sundays, with one 
 or two exceptions. I solicited the appointment of Mr. 
 Gambrill as a watchman, and I always supposed his posi- 
 tion to be a night watchman. 
 
 John Hilbert , a Director , sworn. 
 
 Question. Had you ever notice in any way from Mr. Du- 
 vall, or did you know in any way that Mr. Gambrill or 
 Mr. Lamb had been appointed day watchmen by him, or 
 that it was part of their duty to watch the premises occu- 
 pied by Mr. Duvall during the day time on Sundaj^s ? 
 
 Answer. I never had notice of such fact ; I am seldom 
 absent on Sundays, and never yet saw Mr. Gambrill on 
 duty on Sundays. I visit the Institution generally between 
 9 and 10 o’clock in the morning, and leave between 12 and 
 1 o’clock. I have frequently visited Mr. Duvall’s shop on 
 Sundays, and complained of the hands doing work on that 
 day ; it was on account of this work a resolution passed 
 the Board instructing the Monthly Committee to notify the 
 Warden to stop all work of convicts on Sunday. I cannot 
 fix the time of the resolution. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. GUI. — The directions given by 
 the Board was, that no convicts could be worked on Sun- 
 days, and that no fire should be allowed in the dry houses ; 
 the resolution referred to was passed 29th of March, 1860, 
 upon reference to the proceedings of the Board of that day, 
 and reads as follows : 
 
 <c Resolved , That on and after this date there be no fire 
 allowed either in the State’s or any other dry houses on 
 the Sabbath day; nor shall the prisoners be allowed to 
 work on the Sabbath.” 
 
 Question. Was any other resolution passed restricting the 
 said work except the one of 29th of March, 1860 ? 
 
 Ansiver. None that I am aware of. 
 
33 
 
 Lefevre Jarrett , a Director , sworn. 
 
 Examined by Wm. Brune. — Had you ever notice in any 
 way from Mr. Duvall, or did you know in any way that 
 Mr. Gambrill or Mr. Lamb had been appointed day watch- 
 men by him, or that it was part of their duty to watch the 
 the premises occupied by Mr. Duvall during the day time 
 on Sundays ? 
 
 Answer. I had no notice of such fact. I always regard- 
 ed the appointment of Mr. Gambrill as a night watch- 
 man. 
 
 Question. Was any other resolution passed by the Board 
 restricting the work on Sundays except the one of 29th of 
 March, 1860? 
 
 Answer. None that I am aware of. 
 
 Mr. Richard Middleton , a Director ; sworn . 
 
 Question. Had you ever notice in any way from Mr. Du- 
 vall, or did you know in any way that Mr. Gambrill or 
 Mr. Lamb had been appointed day watchmen by him, or 
 that it was part of their duty to watch the premises occu- 
 pied by Mr. Duvall during the day time on Sundays? 
 
 Answer. I had no notice of such fact. I always supposed 
 they were night watchmen. 
 
 Question. Was any other resolution passed by the Board 
 restricting the work on Sundays, except the one of 29th of 
 March, 1860? 
 
 Answer. None that I am aware of. 
 
 Mr. Hilbert recalled by Mr. Brune. 
 
 Question. Please state as to the regulation on Sundays 
 in regard to watching the wall and yard, and particularly 
 during the religious services at the Institution ?. State 
 when the prisoners are locked up on Sundays? 
 
 Answer. The watch goes on the wall the same on Sun- 
 days as during the week ; some of the prisoners attending 
 Sunday School are let out of the dormitories sooner than 
 those who do not ; the religious services commence at quar- 
 ter past 10 o’clock, A. M., where all are required to be, with 
 the exception of those engaged in cleaning the dormitory 
 and old buildings. All at Sunday School and at church 
 are under the supervision of officers. The prisoners go 
 direct from church to the refectory for dinner, and after 
 dinner to their cells, where they are locked up. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Gill. — Question. Were you pres- 
 ent on the day of the fire ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 1 was there until nearly 1 o’clock. 
 
 I do not know what officer was present or had charge of 
 the convicts who were employed on that day in cleaning 
 
34 
 
 the dormitories. I do not recollect seeing any officers. 
 Mr. Sparks acted as Deputy Warden during Mr. Roberts' 
 absence. 
 
 Question . Is it not the rule that all persons cleaning the 
 dormitories are placed in the charge of an officer? Have 
 you any doubt that an officer was so employed on the day 
 of the fire ? 
 
 Answer. It is the rule, and I have no doubt that an offi- 
 cer was so employed on the day of the fire. 
 
 Question. If the officer in charge bad accompanied the 
 convicts engaged in cleaning the same from the dormitory 
 to the filth pen, could those convicts thus employed have 
 entered Mr. Duvall’s shop and set it on fire without his 
 knowledge ? 
 
 Answer . I cannot answer, because I do not know whether 
 the convicts set the shop on fire or how it originated. 
 
 Mr. Hurst , a Director , sworn. 
 
 By Mr. Brune. — Question. Had you ever notice in any 
 way from Mr. Duvall, or did you know in any way that 
 Mr. Gambrill or Mr. Lamb had been appointed day watch- 
 men by him, or that it was part of their duty to watch 
 the premises occupied by Mr. Duvall during the day time 
 on Sunday ? 
 
 Answer. I never had such notice or knowledge. 
 
 Question. Were you not one of the Committee, and per- 
 sonally engaged in making the agreement of settlement 
 between Mr. Duvall and the Board, and had you not fre- 
 quent interviews with Mr. Duvall in relation to said agree- 
 ment, and did he to you or to the Board up to the time of 
 such settlement complain of the action of the Board in con- 
 nection with his loss by the fire ? State all that you think 
 important in relation to such agreement of settlement ? 
 
 Ansiuer. I was appointed by the Board of Directors to 
 effect a settlement or compromise with Mr. Duvall, sub- 
 ject to the ratification of the Board; Iliad frequent inter- 
 views with him, he never complained to me of the actiou 
 of the Board, but thanked me and the Board, through me, 
 for our liberality in settling with him. and I never knew 
 that he set up any claim against the Board or the State 
 until I saw the application in the newspapers. 
 
 Question. Were you on the Committee to investigate the 
 cause of the fire on Mr. Duvall’s premises, of which a re- 
 port was made to the Board on the IT th of January, 1861 ? 
 If so, state whether any and what specific charges of ne- 
 glect of duty were proved to the Committee in reference to 
 officers Mills and Suter ? 
 
35 
 
 Answer. I was on the Committee ; it is the duty of the 
 wall guard to he on duty when ever the prisoners are not 
 in their cells, and it is not expected that the officer who 
 has charge of the men cleaning the dormitory to follow ev- 
 ery man as he goes to the filth pen, hut that they are un- 
 der the supervision of the wall guards. That although 
 there was no proof against the guard named Wills, I 
 thought proper to suspend him for three days. Mr. Suter 
 was a substitute, acting as a wall guard, at the time of the 
 fire. I dismissed him, believing it would increase the effi- 
 ciency of the officers. 
 
 Mr. Gill here files an extract from the proceedings of the 
 Board of January 17, 1861, marked (D.) 
 
 (D) 
 
 Copy from Proceedings of the Board , 
 
 January Ylth, 1861. 
 
 Your Committee ordered a thorough examination into 
 the cause of the fire, and placed the examination in the 
 hands of the Warden and Deputy- War den, which was con- 
 ducted in a manner so skilful as to meet our warm appro- 
 bation, and resulted in the fact, that the place was set on 
 fire by four prisoners, all colored, viz : Joseph Wheatly, 
 
 John Madison, Butler, Samuel Green and E. Perry, 
 
 who have all acknowledged their guilt. We are indebted 
 to prisoners Burkhiser and Offutt for valuable infor- 
 mation. 
 
 In this connection, we have suspended officers Wills 
 and dismissed substitute Suter for inattention and neglect 
 of duty while on the wall the morning of the fire. 
 
 In connection with Col. Chesnut, appointed by the 
 Board, and with the assistance of Messrs. Middleton and 
 Hilbert, we have settled all differences existing between 
 the State and Messrs. Murdock and Duvalls by first call- 
 ing to our aid the professional advice and assistance of 
 F. W. Brune, Esq., of the firm of Brown & Brune, At- 
 torney s-at-Law. With Mr. Murdock we have agreed to 
 terminate his old contract of one hundred men, and to 
 make a new one for the same number of hands from the 
 1st January, 1861, for four years, giving Mr. Murdock 
 power to terminate the same on the 1st of July, 1861, or 
 the 1st of January, 1862, by his giving us the three 
 months’ notice of the same. 
 
 We have made two propositions to Mr. J. H. Duvall, 
 to which he promptly accorded, but he has not yet in- 
 formed us which one he would select ; we to terminate the 
 
36 
 
 contract of Mr. Duvall upon his paying the rent of his 
 shop, the hire of his men and water rent to January 1st, 
 1861 , or to surrender to the State the bricks in his dry 
 house, and to pay his hire of prisoners up to the date of 
 the fire, to wit : the 23d December, 1860, and water rent 
 of shop to 1st January, 1861. 
 
 The sixty hands that has been returned to the State 
 upon the termination of the above contract we are placing 
 on the looms as fast as circumstances will permit. 
 
 Question . Will you state to the Committee the value to 
 the State of Maryland, in a financial point of view, of the 
 contract system in the management of the Maryland Peni- 
 tentiary, and how long such system has continued here, 
 and state also how the sums realized by the Institution 
 under the contracts made by the present administration, 
 until the commercial and political troubles of the country 
 arose, will compare with the amounts received under pre- 
 vious administrations? 
 
 Answer. I consider the contract system has been a bene- 
 fit, in a financial point of view. It went into operation a 
 short time before the present Board came into power. The 
 Institution under the contract system, which we increased 
 more than double after we came here, came nearer paying 
 the expenses of the same than formerly. I did not con- 
 sider the contract with Mr. Duvall as profitable, for many 
 reasons. From the nature of the employment, extra cloth- 
 ing was required by the convicts, and they were subject to 
 casualties. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Gill. — Question. In the conversa- 
 tion you had with Mr. Duvall prior to or at the time of the 
 settlement testified to by you, was anything said in rela- 
 tion to the cause of the fire at Mr. Duvall’s shop ? 
 
 Ansiver. I think not. 
 
 Question. Were you not aware that, owing to the loss 
 Mr. Duvall sustained by fire, that he had no other means 
 to rebuild and carry out the first contract? 
 
 Answer. I had no knowledge of Mr. Duvall’s means, any 
 further than that I heard him say that his all was invested 
 in the business. 
 
37 
 
 To the General Assembly of the State of Maryland : 
 
 The Memorial of Charles Murdock, of the City of Bal- 
 timore, respectfully represents that he has been for some 
 years engaged in the business of manufacturing brooms 
 and wood-ware, and to enable him to conduct this business, 
 he has heretofore made various contracts with the Direc- 
 tors of the Maryland Penitentiary for the rent of shops 
 of the Penitentiary and ground belonging to the Peniten- 
 tiary, on which your memorialist built shops, and for the 
 hire of convicts in the said Penitentiary, to be employed 
 in the said manufacture ; that your memorialist com- 
 menced the said business in the year 1850 on the said 
 Penitentiary grounds, and has continued ever since, under 
 various written contracts, which he is prepared to present 
 at the proper time and place, and is still so engaged ; that 
 various questions have arisen between your memorialist 
 and the Directors of the Maryland Penitentiary, about 
 which your memorialist, although believing himself to be 
 in the right, has yet been compelled to submit to the de- 
 cision of that body, having no tribunal or third party to 
 whom he could appeal. 
 
 Your memorialist further states, that he has invested a 
 large sum of money in the Penitentiary grounds, in build- 
 ings, machinery, &c., and has paid annually large sums 
 of money to the Directors of the said Penitentiary, and 
 for the last year nearly the entire income thereof has been 
 derived from the payments made by your memorialist, 
 arising from the rent of buildings and employment of con- 
 victs by him ; the amount paid by your memorialist from 
 April, 1860, to April, 1861, being $21,811.43. 
 
 Your memorialist further states, that at the present 
 time a difference exists between your memorialist and the 
 said Directors in relation to the present indebtedness by 
 your memorialist to them ; that your memorialist has 
 offered to pay all he now owes, but this has been refused, 
 and a large amount claimed, which is denied to be due by 
 your memorialist ; and the Directors of the said Peniten- 
 tiary have refused to permit your memorialist to remove 
 any of his manufactured articles from the said Penitentiary 
 until he pays an amount which he believes not to be due, 
 and which the Directors have, in his view, no right to 
 exact or claim ; and that thereby his business has been 
 seriously injured. 
 
 Your memorialist further states, that owing to the change 
 of times which, as is well known, has effected all kinds of 
 business and the value of all property, your memorialist 
 has found himself unable to conduct the business at the 
 
38 
 
 Penitentiary, and to employ, according to the terms of his 
 contract, the number of convicts agreed upon and as reg- 
 ularly as agreed upon ; that your memorialist has been 
 unable to obtain the necessary supply of materials for 
 manufacturing purposes, owing to the fact that, by the 
 existence of war and the blockade of ports, this supply 
 has been cut off, and that even if this difficulty were re- 
 moved, it would be found to be impossible, or nearly so, 
 to dispose of the articles when manufactured, because the 
 usual and customary markets are closed against their 
 reception. 
 
 Your memorialist, finding himsef thus deprived of the 
 power to continue the manufacture of goods at the Mary- 
 land Penitentiary according to his contracts, has applied 
 to the Directors thereof for a modification of his contracts, 
 but in vain ; they insist upon a literal compliance there- 
 with, even if by so doing your memorialist will be ruined ; 
 that finding no relief can be had from the Directors, your 
 memorialist has appealed, as he now does, to your Honor- 
 able Body for relief in the premises ; and he now prays 
 that such a settlement shall be made as to you may seem 
 just, and that such modifications and alterations in his 
 contracts may be made as will do justice to both parties, 
 and at the same time secure to the State such income and 
 revenue as can be obtained from the Maryland Penitentiary 
 in the existing circumstances and condition of the country. 
 
 Your memorialist would further state, that owing to 
 causes already set forth, he will be compelled, unless some 
 material change be made in his arrangements with the 
 Directors of the Maryland Penitentiary, or some unex- 
 pected change should take place in the affairs of the coun- 
 try, to discontinue his manufacturing business at the Pen- 
 itentiary, in which event there will necessarily be a large 
 loss in the revenues heretofore derived from that Institution. 
 
 CHAKLES MUKDOCK. 
 
 To the General Assembly of the State of Maryland : 
 
 The Memorial of John H. Duvall and William Howard 
 respectfully states, that on the fourth day of October, in 
 the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and fifty- 
 nine, one of your memorialists — viz., John H. Duvall — 
 entered into an agreement with the Directors of the Ma- 
 ryland Penitentiary to rent the blacksmith’s shop at the 
 Penitentiary grounds, in the city of Baltimore, and cer- 
 tain yard room for the storage of wood, and for hiring of 
 thirty male convict prisoners, to be employed in the man- 
 
39 
 
 ufacturing of barrels, with the privilege of increasing the 
 number of convicts, the particulars of which agreement 
 will appear by the written agreement entered into, a copy 
 of which is hereto annexed, and the original of which 
 will be produced whenever called for. 
 
 Your memorialists further state that, after making the 
 said agreement, the said John H. Duvall became connected 
 in the business of manufactoring barrels with the said 
 William Howard, who furnished capital to carry on the 
 same — that your memorialists invested at the said Peniten- 
 tiary, in machinery, buildings and fixtures necessary for 
 their business, more than eight thousand dollars in addi- 
 tion to the value of patent rights and materials for manu- 
 facturing — that they continued to perform the agreement 
 entered into by John H. Duvall until the 23d December, 
 1860, and paid from the time of making the said agreement 
 and the said 23d December, 1860, for the labor of the pri- 
 soners employed by them the sum of $7,031.07 — that on 
 Sunday, the 23d December, 1860, their shops were fired 
 by incendiary convicts and their contents nearly destroyed, 
 and that the loss sustained by your memorialists amounts 
 to $23,150. 
 
 Your memoralists further state, that after making the 
 said agreement by the said John H. Duvall, your memor- 
 alists, believing it to be proper to do so, employed a watch- 
 man to guard their property at the Penitentiary during 
 the night, and on Sundays during the day time, that while 
 this watchman remained in charge and on duty no damage 
 was done, hut that prior to the fire, which occurred, as 
 aforesaid, notice was given to your memorialists through 
 the Deputy Warden, Isaac G-. Koberts, by the monthly 
 Committee of the Penitentiary, that their watchman would 
 not be permitted to be at their shop in the Penitentiary 
 on Sundays, and your memorialists were thereby required 
 to withdraw their watchman on Sundays, which they ac- 
 cordingly did, being compelled to obey such order — that 
 their property was fired and burned on Sunday, 23d De- 
 cember, 1860, by a portion of the convicts at the said Pen- 
 itentiary, which would have doubtless been prevented if 
 their watchman had been at his post and on duty as he 
 had been prior to the time of giving the aforesaid order, 
 not to be on duty on Sundays. 
 
 Your memorialists further represent, that after they had 
 been prevented by the order of the Monthly Committee of 
 the Penitentiary from having their private watchman on 
 the premises on Sundays, they had a right to expect, and 
 did expect and believe that the vigilance and activity of 
 the officers of the Penitentiary in guarding and taking 
 
40 
 
 care of their property at the Penitentiary on Sundays 
 would he increased, hut on the contrary, when on Sunday, 
 the 23d December, 1860, the fire took place, there was no 
 proper or sufficient care taken ; and it was owing to the 
 gross remissness and negligence of these officers that these 
 convicts at the Penitentiary obtained access to the work 
 shops, and thus were able to set fire to them and reduce 
 them to ashes. 
 
 Your memorialists further state, that the rules and regu- 
 lations prescribed for the government of the Penitentiary 
 would, if faithfully carried out on the Sunday when the 
 fire took place, have prevented the loss which then took 
 place, but it can he made to appear beyond all doubt that 
 these rules and regulations were disregarded and not 
 maintained. Your memorialists, who were not permitted 
 to maintain a proper guard over their property, which 
 they had done until ordered to discontinue it, have been 
 subjected to heavy loss by the conduct, omission and neg- 
 ligence of the officers of this State. 
 
 Your memorialists further state, that after the heavy 
 loss they had sustained by the fire, and under the circum- 
 stances hereinbefore mentioned, they were required to set- 
 tle for the rest of the property and hire of convicts up to 
 the 31st December, 1860, and to pay to the Directors of 
 the Maryland Penitentiary the sum of $1,075.59 from the 
 payment of which they ought, as they insisted, when mak- 
 ing said payment, and still insist, to have been excused 
 and relieved. 
 
 Your memorialists further state, that they have been 
 advised that if they had made an agreement with indi- 
 viduals, or a body corporate, liable to be sued, that they 
 might have maintained an action at law, and recovered, 
 under the circumstances, the amount of their loss ; but 
 that, inasmuch as no suit can be maintained against the 
 Directors of the Maryland Penitentiary, and none against 
 the State of Maryland, they have no redress except by ap- 
 plication to your Honorable Body. 
 
 Your memorialists, finding that their only redress, under 
 the circumstances in which they have been placed, must 
 come from your Honorable Body, which has the power to 
 grant full and adequate relief, have made this application 
 in the hope and belief that you will cause a full and 
 complete examination into all the circumstances of this 
 transaction to be made, and do what is just, proper and 
 equitable ; and they therefore pray that you will make 
 good their loss and grant full relief to them, &c. 
 
 JOHN H. DUVALL, 
 
 June 10, 1861. WILLIAM HOWARD. 
 
41 
 
 [copy.] 
 
 These articles of agreement made and concluded be- 
 tween the Directors of the Maryland Penitentiary on the 
 one part, and John H. Duvall, of the city of Baltimore, 
 on the other part, witnesseth, that the said Directors 
 on their part do covenant and agree with the said John 
 H. Duvall. 
 
 1st. To rent unto him the blacksmith shop now vacant 
 at the Penitentiary, with all the rooms and conveniences 
 thereunto attached, except the carpenter shop, the engine 
 and boiler, one of the blacksmith furnaces, to be placed in 
 the south-west corner of the shop for the use of the Insti- 
 tution, to be worked at no time by more than two hands, 
 for the remaining portion of the year eighteen hundred 
 and fifty-nine, and for five years thereafter, for the annual 
 rent of two hundred dollars, with the privilege of remov- 
 ing the present engine and boiler, and of erecting others 
 of more power, and also of erecting steam boxes and dry 
 houses, and removing a portion of the fire places and 
 chimneys, and of making such other changes and addi- 
 tions, without injury to the premises, as may be necessary 
 for the convenience of manufacturing barrels by machin- 
 ery, and also for the use of yard room for the storage of 
 one hundred cords of wood ; all said changes and addi- 
 tions to be at the cost of John H. Duvall, and to be made 
 under the supervision and directions of the Directors and 
 Warden. 
 
 2nd. That the said Directors agree to hire unto the said 
 John H. Duvall thirty of the male convict prisoners, such 
 as they have or may have best adapted for his purposes, 
 to be employed by him in the manufacturing of barrels, 
 for the term of five years from the first day of January, 
 eighteen hundred and sixty, and to grant him the privi- 
 lege of increasing the number, if they be required by him, 
 from time to time, (any increase of prisoners at any time 
 to be kept by John H. Duvall to the end of the term of 
 this agreement,) to the number of seventy-five. The hire 
 of all said prisoners to be at the rate of twenty-five cents 
 per day for the first three months, as they enter his em- 
 ployment, and sixty cents per day thereafter, with the 
 privilege of receiving as many of the prisoners as he may 
 require at any time during the remainder of the year 
 eighteen hundred and fifty-nine. 
 
 3rd. That the said Directors grant unto the said John 
 H. Duvall the right to remove at the expiration of this 
 contract all his machinery and building materials, and 
 effects of every kind, he having first discharged to said 
 Directors his debts and obligations under this contract. 
 
 I 
 
42 
 
 These articles of agreement witnesseth, on the second 
 part, that the said John H. Duvall doth agree on his part, 
 and hereby hinds himself, to employ the thirty convict 
 prisoners, as provided for above, and to make payment for 
 the same weekly in current funds of the State of Mary- 
 land, and to pay for the shop, yard room, &c., herein be- 
 fore specifiedj at the end of each quarter, in current funds 
 of the State of Maryland, and also that all agents and 
 superintendents of the shops occupied by him, which he 
 may employ at his own expense, shall he subject to the 
 rules and regulations of the prison. 
 
 2nd. That the said John H. Duvall agrees to make pay- 
 ment to the Institution monthly for all over work made 
 by the prisoners in his employ, and to permit the Direc- 
 tors and Warden to regulate the tasks of said prisoners, 
 said prisoners tasks to correspond, as can he made practi- 
 cable, with the tasks exacted of the prisoners in the other 
 shops of the establishment. 
 
 3rd. That the said John H. Duvall agrees, and hereby 
 hinds himself, to a faithful observance of the terms of this 
 contract for the period herein named, under the penalty 
 of one thousand dollars for its violation, and to let his 
 buildings and fixtures remain as security for the fulfil- 
 ment of his obligations until they are fully discharged. 
 
 And lastly, it is understood and agreed upon by and 
 between the Directors of the Maryland Penitentiary and 
 said John H. Duvall, that if either of the parties to this 
 cantract shall desire to terminate the same at the end 
 thereof, it shall be the duty of the party desiring such 
 termination to give notice in writing to the other three 
 months before the expiration of the time for which this 
 contract is now made. 
 
 In witness whereof, Wm. J. Bryson, John Hurst, John 
 Hilbert and R. Middleton, Monthly Committee acting for 
 the Board of Directors of Maryland Penitentiary, in be- 
 half of said Board of Directors and said John H. Duvall, 
 have interchangeably set their hand and seals this fourth 
 day of October, eighteen hundred and fifty-nine. 
 
 Test : 
 
 Committee. 
 
 JOHN H. DUVALL, 
 
 "seal.' 
 
 
 fWM. J. BRYSON, 
 
 SEAL.' 
 
 
 JOHN HURST, 
 
 SEAL.' 
 
 , -< 
 
 JOHN HILBERT, 
 
 R. MIDDLETON, 
 
 SEAL.' 
 
 
 seal/ 
 
 JNO. J. C. DOUGHERTY. 
 
 i