We need not question at all the soundness of Dr. G.’s opinion, nor the correctness of his facts. The conclusion to which they unite in constraining us however, is that the cause of insanity is not well-assigned. It is quite possible that the present condition of the prisoner, with all its antecedent anxiety and excitement and its prospective severity, combine to disclose, or give form and definiteness to a morbid condition of mind or body or both, which might not have occurred at all had he escaped detection or conviction; or which might not have taken that specific form under a different system of discipline; or which might be corrected by seasonable and judicious attention. That symptoms of a deranged state were discoverable so soon after commitment, and without any peculiarly exciting cause, seems to forbid the idea of attributing it wholly or chiefly to a denial of convict-association. And we apprehend, that if those very cases were at once transferred to Auburn or Sing-Sing, without the slightest change in their mental or bodily state, the parties would take their places at once in the shop-gang, and render their master-contractor as good an account of a day’s work as any of their comrades! They would be just as insane there, as in the Eastern State Penitentiary, but their eccentricities would not be likely to receive special investigation or care, and hence would never be reported as insane cases. The reports from congregate prisons fully warrant this position. The careful reader of Dr. Given’s report cannot fail to see that his humane and honorable sympathies have led him, as we have already intimated, to overlook the inevitable necessity of inequalities in the operation of general laws. If he says, “we can rest satisfied to restrict the application of our system to those to whom it is applicable, I believe there will be quite as little insanity among them as if they were associated.” But to whom is it applicable? To all, except those whose mental character renders it unsafe to subject them to it. How many of this class are there? Why it is so small as to “admit of the most accurate supervision,” so that “the corrupting influences of association,” (if adopted,) “will be materially diminished.” But what is the number in units, tens or hundreds? Why last year it was eight in an aggregate of four hundred and forty-six! And may we regard this as the “certain proportion of convicts, who have not sufficient mental vigor to resist the enervating tendencies of our system?” Eight in four hundred and forty-six!