juvenile cases, not to use the jail, but to summon the accused for trial as in a civil action.

I repeat again my text of a year ago, that character is better formed by liberty than by force. More probation before imprisonment, and more parole after imprisonment, is the program of the future. And yet I know of one excellent reformatory which chooses to dispense with a special parole officer allowed it by the Legislature. This, it seems to me, is to reverse nature. The Indian mother straps her papoose to its board only because she lacks time to attend to it otherwise. Swaddling clothes keep a child out of danger, but it needs exercise in order to develop its baby strength, and if the mother is too busy we must have nurses. It is the same with infant character. Confined, character gains immunity and a certain habit of goodness, but character, like health, will never become robust except by exercise, under competent guardianship, in God's out-of-doors.

DISCUSSION ON UNIFORM SYSTEM OF PAROLE FOR STATE INSTITUTIONS OF SIMILAR CHARACTER.

The discussion was opened by Frank W. Robertson, M. D., Superintendent State Reformatory, Elmira.

Dr. ROBERTSON.-I feel the Conference is under deep obligations to Mr. Almy for the very valuable paper he has read to us, and I regret I did not receive a copy of his paper in time to give it the attention which it merits. I shall, however, endeavor to emphasize certain points in his paper which have particularly appealed to me, that your attention may be more especially called to these points.

I quite agree with Mr. Almy that the system cannot well be made the same for all these various institutions. I do not think it would be advisable for the reason that the methods of treatment differ to a certain extent in these institutions, and a uniform system of paroling inmates would very likely bring about undesirable results. Now, there is another thing which particularly impressed me, and it is this: That where various institutions conduct their ways and means of secur

ing reformation upon different lines, it is a certain safeguard and it is very valuable in the sense that it gives us the benefit of the different ideas of different people in divers parts of the State. I think it very desirable that institutions should differ from one another, so we may have a better opportunity to study by comparison the results attained in each case. It would seem to me that inasmuch as we have been dealing with the parole theory for a period comprising scarce three decades, that it would be well to wait some few years yet in order that we may, if we are to adopt some uniform system, have had farther experience and study. There is another point which I wish particularly to bring out, and that is that uniformity of parole would tend to preclude originality. I quite agree with Mr. Almy that the inmates should be paroled as speedily as possible consistent with good results, but I wish to say it seems to me entirely proper, when we consider the bad character of the men who are put into our charge, that they should be retained in custody a sufficient length of time to prepare them properly to go out into the community, The method of life while under reformative treatment serves to fit them better for parole. It seems to me we owe the inmate after he is put into our charge the proper preparation and the best treatment we can give him, and we cannot expect to effect a change in his morality, his mode of life, his habits, and to teach him a trade to fit him to earn an honest living, unless we hold him in our charge sufficiently long to be properly equipped, and to feel we have done our duty. It seems to me that we owe that treatment to the individual along three lines:

First. We should endeavor to treat him in such a way as to assist him to regain his self-control.

Secondly. We should increase his general education.

Thirdly. We should provide him with some kind of a way to go out into the world and earn a living by some trade or in some special manner.

Now, we seek to assist a man to be himself by means of discipline, and I must say frankly here, that I am one of those who believe in very strict discipline, because I believe it is just what is needed by the class of men whom we are called

upon to treat. So I lay great stress upon this, that often strict discipline is the treatment for the man who cannot control himself outside. Secondly, we try to uplift the man by a course of schooling and by lectures. This winter we expect to give a course on civil government. Thirdly, we teach him a trade, a trade which seems to be best adapted to his needs, considering the locality from which he came. This gives him self-control, school education and general education, and, third, the trade teaching fits him to go out and earn his living in a respectable, proper manner. After an applicant demonstrates his fitness along these lines we have confidence in him, and he is brought before the board of parole. Now, of course, this is the trying period in which the result of our treatment shows. We send institutional officers into the neighborhood to which these men are paroled, and we ask justices of the peace and chiefs of police to watch over those men and exercise such supervision as is possible. The results have been fairly satisfactory. In making improvements along the line of what we can best do to better the system in vogue, it has occurred to me the State might be subdivided into divisions and parole officers appointed, who should be, I believe, in each case appointed by the boards of managers of the several institutions in order to secure this originality under the present uniform system, if possible, and it should be the duty of these parole officers to watch over and look after inmates who are within their district. It is not that I find fault with the working of the present system where chiefs of police and justices of the peace look after our men, for, as a general thing, I have found their supervision to be excellent, and I feel very much indebted to them; but it is with the idea of getting parole agents who have received some training, to secure the services of specially qualified and properly trained persons to do this. Then I feel that the results would be very much better; that many paroled men who now get discouraged and drift other ways could be returned to the fold. I am certain of this. I have a case in mind where a man had been paroled, and through some misrepresentation or error of the person having charge of him (who was not a proper person, of course, for this purpose), there was some trouble. Complaints

were made and an official investigation instituted and the inmate's claim of innocence was sustained. Now, I feel that by having proper parole officers, men who understand how to deal with such a class as this, the inmates would feel they had some one to whom they could tell their troubles and we would have still more confidence that our inmates on parole were being properly looked after.

Now, just one word more in reference to the supervision of men on parole. There are many people who have such an antipathy to inmates of reformatories, that unfortunate class, that no matter how well they might be doing, they would lose their positions instantly were it known by anyone that they had come from a reformatory. Therefore it is very necessary that this supervision should not be burdensome nor irksome, that it should not be so severe in its nature as to cause annoyance or discomfort to the inmate or his employer, or the people with whom he is living.

I want to take just one moment to give some figures which have not yet been printed as to the results in the Elmira Reformatory.

The number paroled during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1902, was 384. Of these, 117 served well and earned absolute release; these men having made reports, the greater number for six months, some for one year. I have several cases in mind of men who were called upon to report to me for one year, because I had a little doubt in regard to them.

The number who have served well, as I say, was 117. Then those who are still maintaining their correspondence with us and maintaining their good conduct, the period of their parole not having expired, number 180. Those who have ceased correspondence, thus violating parole, and who have been lost sight of, number 54. Died while on parole, but doing well at time of death, 2. Left the country and still reporting, 3. Pardoned while on parole and doing well, 1. At the institution again under new sentence, 2. Returned to reformatory by arrest, 16. Sent to other prisons while on parole, 9.

You will notice that 117 have been paroled and received their absolute release, 180 are still in touch with us; of those

that have returned to crime, 54 have been lost sight of and so on. These figures show that 78 per cent. of those paroled have fulfilled their parole obligations and are doing well. While it is not likely that the 54 who have failed to fulfill parole obligations and who have disappeared from sight, have all returned to crime, still, for the purposes of this statement, we have included them with the failures. Mr. Brockway assumed that, of those who had been lost sight of, some effect had been wrought in them sufficient to warrant the assumption that one-half of them would probably lead better lives thereafter, and he therefore figures one-half of those lost sight of in his figures. I do not feel that I want to do that, and I simply state so many have been lost sight of, and figure they are all lost, although I sincerely hope I am in error.

As I say, at the close of the fiscal year ending September thirtieth, we had 78 per cent. of our men whose names were standing on the good side of the ledger, which is most encouraging to us. In reference to the deaths, for 1902, there were seven deaths, while in 1899, there were 18; in 1900, 16; in 1901, 13. In 1899 there were 40 transfers to the State hospitals for the insane; in 1900, 80; in 1901, 17; and in 1902, 18. In the institutional hospital there were, in 1900, in the neighborhood of 60 patients, while there are now but 13. In 1900 there were 60 or 70 inmates in the invalid yard, whereas there are now 17; all these facts tending to show the care which has been exercised, together with the results attained by a careful observance of sanitary precautions and skilful treatment on the part of the attending physicians.

I hope you will pardon all this data, but I thought you might be interested in hearing these statistics somewhat in advance. Rev. THOMAS F. HICKEY, Rochester.- I would like to speak on this subject briefly, because I have been actively engaged in work connected with the State Industrial School, at Rochester, as one of the parole officers. The subject has a close connection to that which was considered last night under the heading of probation. I believe there is no subject more important in its character for discussion in this Conference than the present one. Parole on probation, as I take it, represents