IV. Prison Inspectors should be _hopeful_ men. We need not disclaim all sympathy with those (if such there are) who take a demure look, a whining confession or a flippant utterance of religious phrases, as indications of reformed habits or reliable principles. No one who has been familiar with the course of this Journal, will suspect us of any undue leaning in that direction. But we are equally indisposed to fall in with the views of an opposite class, whose maxim is, “once a convict, always a convict,” and who instinctively distrust every profession of repentance, and of a desire to lead a different life. We have known inspectors who, from long official intercourse with convicts, and familiar knowledge of their cunning and hypocrisy, seem to feel as if it is not safe to give heed for a moment to any thing they may say, or that may be said for them. Let them be approached in the most respectful manner, and by persons who can have no interest in misleading or deceiving them, and the moment the errand is found to be in behalf of a convict, they seem to regard the bearer of it as a little better than an accomplice, or, at least, a dupe. It cannot be denied that well-meaning but credulous persons are oftentimes quite officious on such subjects, and through ignorance or indiscretion, are induced to urge upon Inspectors very injudicious measures. This annoyance must be borne by public functionaries as a part of the price of their “blushing honors,” and set off against the privileges and prerogatives of office. If a man is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, why should not a guilty man be regarded as a hopeful subject of reforming influences, till he is proved incorrigible? What would be the condition of every member of the human family, if conviction of sin works a forfeiture of all claim to sympathy and confidence?