Dear Sir—In the column entitled “Town Talk,” in the New Britain _Record_, published February 17th, there is an editorial which contrasts my opinion on the treatment of the one-time prisoner with that of Warden Garvin, of the Connecticut state prison. I should be glad if you will permit me the opportunity of answering this criticism in your columns. Warden Garvin is a friend of mine and has welcomed me several times to his prison. I have much respect for him as a prison warden and I know that he most thoroughly endorses my work. Of course it is quite possible for the best of friends to agree to differ, but I am inclined to think that the statement from Warden Garvin, which was admittedly made several years ago, might possibly be altered now that he knows more upon this question. It must be remembered that the prison warden speaks from within the walls and that even the most capable and most experienced of them have not been out into the world with these men, watching their careers or fighting their battles. If I were but a beginner in this work with a couple of years’ experience, I might feel nervous in crossing swords in an argument with so well known a prison man, but it must be remembered that I have had sixteen years’ experience and that in that time I have undertaken the future of many thousands of men. I speak not from theory, but from practical fact. Now, it is stated that there are those whose opinions differ with mine in that they think homes for the discharged prisoner unadvisable. I presume their theory is that when the prisoner comes from prison he should not be associated with other one-time prisoners. But what is the alternative? If these men come from prison with the pittance allowed by the prison, where are they to go? Five dollars does not last long. To eke it out as far as they can, they go to board in the poorest lodging house of the city. That brings them down into the saloon neighborhood and throws them at once into the most undesirable classes. They are once more in the element where they will meet thieves, drunkards and outcasts; not like my Hope Hall boys, anxious to reform, but with those still living crooked lives. They virtually go back to associate with the old companions, but old companions who have not started on the right way. This argument would, I suppose, be met with the statement that that is not the idea of those who advise against homes, but that their idea is that a man leaving state prison should go straight to a position, go to board in a respectable place, and at once better his condition. This would be admirable if it could be carried out, but I have found that people are slow to throw open their doors to the one-time prisoner. When we have taken men to our homes, have tested them, can speak from personal acquaintance of their capacity and their sincerity, our friends are much more ready to trust them and give them a position than if we said: “There’s a man in the prison cell today.