GRADING AND CLASSIFYING OF PRISONERS. _From the Report of the Board of Control, Iowa._ This is carefully done in all our reformatories, but in the State penitentiaries and penal institutions very rarely. It seems fitting now, that the public desire is not only to hold the convict, but to encourage self help, by a system of regular graded or progressive classifications of prisoners, based on character, and operated on a system of marks. Hope should be made an ever present force in the minds of the prisoner, by a system of rewards for good conduct, that carries with it a promotion from a lower to a higher grade. In connection with this system of classification, a well regulated parole and indeterminate sentence law will be enacted by the Legislature; thereby placing the destiny of the prisoner in his own hands, and by his own exertions to continually better his condition. The object of imprisonment and prison government is for the protection of society and for the reformation of the prisoner. It is plain the State does not discharge its obligation until one or both these objects have been clearly accomplished. If the prisoner cannot be reformed, he must be held indefinitely, yet the parole system in connection with established grades may be so administered as to secure these results. It is better than a definite sentence (that does not reform) without a provision of parole; but more effective when coupled with the reformatory or indeterminate sentence, because it makes a stronger appeal to the convict for his co-operation. It is gratifying to know that this is to be introduced into all the State penal institutions of Iowa. RECLAIMED CRIMINALS BY PAROLE LAWS. It is only in recent years that the idea of making a good man out of a bad one has had any prominence in the penal system. The old idea was simply to punish the criminal and lock him away from honest people so he could do them no more harm. The actual result seemed to have proved that it made him more proficient in the school of crime. In many States this evil still exists. In New York State for example, seventy per cent. of the released convicts return to criminal lives. Several other States have tried the plan of releasing well-behaved convicts, with comparatively clean records, finding work for them, and keeping them under surveillance until assured of their reform. Here are the results: Offenders Redeemed. Returned to Crime. Pennsylvania 85 per cent. 15 per cent. Ohio 90 “ 10 “ New Jersey 95 “ 5 “ Indiana 94 “ 6 “ Connecticut 100 “ None. Utah 100 “ None. Michigan 94 “ 6 per cent. Alabama 96 “ 3 “ Virginia 100 “ None. Minnesota 92 “ 8 per cent.