in any study of the administration of justice there will arise occasion when it becomes important to know the names of specific defendant's attorneys.

In the civil branch of the Municipal Court, 28,463 cases were docketed in 1920-more, therefore, than in the criminal branch. Every one of these civil cases had its space on the records in which every step in the case, including names of attorneys on both sides, was recorded: another indication of the relative solicitude shown for the administration of civil and criminal justice.

PERSONNEL

The man on the street, in his rough and ready appraisal of any institution, is apt to interpret it exclusively in terms of the ability and character of the persons conducting it. Things go well because A is honest or capable, or go badly because A is corrupt or inefficient. This is a superficial view. The system of organization, the traditions of the office or institution, community factors or forces, need to be analyzed and their effects pointed out. Undoubtedly the character and competence of the men composing the prosecutor's office are important factors in the result of its work. In truth, the competence and honesty of the individuals in the office are at the same time an operating cause of the standards attained and an effect of other conditions and factors in the situation. The inadequacy of the men themselves, if such inadequacy exists, would be a fact of the situation, just as the inadequacy of any other facility engaged in the administration of justice in Cleveland. Able and scrupulous men sometimes produce splendid results with poor facilities, and, more important, they will often improve the facilities.

The municipal prosecutor's office has been Republican since January 1, 1916, the present being the third successive administration of that political complexion. The table on page 133 gives the names of the members of this office through four city administrations, with political affiliations, the period of service, age at commencement of service, years at the bar at commencement of service.

In most human affairs there is no sharp dividing line between fact and opinion; and this matter of the character and ability of an official lies in the twilight zone. The subject is delicate; dogmatic statements, based on impressions, must be avoided. Conversations were held with many Cleveland lawyers, practically all of whom seemed to agree that, taking the office by and large, the caliber of members of this office is not

proportionate to the positions they occupy. In a questionnaire sent to all the members of the bar was the following request:

"Kindly state anything that occurs to you, in as great detail as possible, concerning the administration of criminal justice in Cleveland, its merits and defects. Please include your opinion as to the caliber of judges and prosecuting attorneys and defendants' attorneys in criminal cases and methods of trial.” MEMBERS OF MUNICIPAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

There were about 100 specific responses to that part of this question which related to the prosecutors, and all of these with only two exceptions declared these officers to be lacking in requisite ability. Neither the question nor the answers differentiated between municipal and county officers. General opinion was expressed that the men in the prosecutor's offices are chosen for political reasons, and many asserted that in such choices the community suffers from the practice of deliberately giving the large racial or national groups of the community, such as the Poles, other Slavs, Jews, Italians, and Irish, representation in the presecutor's

offices. There can be no doubt there exists a lack of public confidence in the freedom of the office from political and other influences operating to bring fear or favor into the administration of the law.

In order to obtain an estimate which could not be considered as biased by partisan considerations, confidential opinions were obtained from a leading Democratic lawyer and a leading Republican lawyer, both of whom are active in their party organizations and personally acquainted with all the members of the prosecutor's office. The opinions of these two men were startlingly identical. Each pointed out the same one or at most two members of the office as able and the rest as not sufficiently experienced or capable for the work.

With the office and the Municipal Court conducted as at present, except for an occasional jury trial or argument in an appellate court, the prosecutors do not have, or at least do not take, the opportunity to demonstrate their ability either as trial lawyers or prosecuting attorneys. It can be fairly stated as an unquestionable fact that they have not aggressively attempted to improve and reform the administration of justice in Cleveland, but have permitted themselves to drift with the currents, political and otherwise, in which they found themselves. Everybody consulted considered present Chief Prosecutor Bell to be an honest man and an official with the best of intentions. But whether he has the executive talents and driving power necessary to steer the ship in such rapid and swirling waters still remains to be demonstrated. The present salary scale of the office is as follows:

Chief prosecutor....

First assistant...

Second assistant...

Three remaining assistants.

$4,000

3,500

3,100

2,900

CHAPTER V

OPERATION OF THE MUNICIPAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

P

THE AFFIDAVIT

ROCEEDINGS looking to a criminal prosecution are instituted either by police or by the injured person. This injured person corresponds to the private prosecutor in the English criminal practice, and is in most cases the chief prosecuting witness if the case comes to a trial.

Proceedings instituted by the police officer are of two classes: those in which an arrest has been made prior to issuance of any affidavit or warrant, and those in which no arrest has been made at the time the police officer takes the matter up with the prosecutor. The former class consists generally of cases in which the police officer has caught the offender in the act of the offense, such as an arrest for violation of traffic regulations or the arrest of a drunken man for intoxication. Often when the information at hand does not point to a definite charge, but the police officer has reason to be suspicious of someone he sees lurking about or in following a clue, he suspects the arrested person of being a participant in or having knowledge concerning the commission of the crime. under investigation, the suspected person is arrested by the police officer as a "suspicious person."

In all cases, whether instituted by the police or by others, policemen or prosecuting witnesses come to the prosecutor's office for an affidavit. This is the first pleading or formal beginning of the criminal prosecution. Where the case is brought into the office by a police officer, an affidavit is almost invariably issued if the facts recounted by the officer show the commission of a crime, and, with a few exceptions, the only question considered by the prosecutor is the nature of the charge to be made. In most cases there is little doubt about the nature of the charge, and the prosecutor's part at this stage of the case consists of hardly more than the mechanical process of picking out from one of the compartments of his desk the form containing the charge of the particular offense involved and filling it in with the name of the person charged and the date. In fact, even this slight mechanical detail is performed in a large number of

cases by the police officer himself, leaving the prosecutor nothing to do but to affix his name. In fact, by reason of the rush, confusion, and congestion in which the work is done, the prosecutor learns or hears the facts only when the policeman himself has some doubt as to the nature of the charge or the sufficiency of the facts and, on his own initiative, presents his doubt to the prosecutor.

SIFTING OF CASES

Where the moving party is the injured person or prosecuting witness, the case is not a major felony, and there are no reasons pressing for the immediate arrest of the accused, the prosecutor follows the practice of issuing a summons calling upon the defendant to appear at his office at a designated time. This summons has no standing in law. Because of the dignity of the form used and the fact that it is served by a uniformed policeman, it generally has the effect of bringing in the prospective defendant. The complaining party is told to return at the same time, and the accused is then subjected to an informal examination, the purpose of which is to ascertain whether the facts show an offense sufficiently serious to warrant prosecution, and also incidentally to get information about the case. The prosecutor, by this practice, holds a sort of informal court of conciliation wherein he soothes the anger of the prosecuting witness in matters which do not justify a prosecution. Thus a certain amount of "sifting out" of charges takes place before they become cases.

The present prosecutor estimates that more cases are thus disposed of without prosecution than are placed upon the court dockets. A former member of the office estimates that a case, whether dropped or prosecuted, receives, on the average, three minutes' attention in the office. The estimate is liberal.

Complainants frequently desire to use the prosecution or threat of prosecution for purposes of collecting a claim or debt and have little interest in criminal proceedings except as it may serve this purpose. A danger arises, therefore, that in this preliminary and unofficial court of conciliation the prosecutor will permit himself to be used to further this purpose, and even a danger that, through inadvertence or favoritism, he will permit himself to use his position to aid in the collection of doubtful or trumped-up claims.1

1 An actual case occurred in 1919 which illustrates this evil: One Knox (the names used are fictitious) was an expressman. One day in July, 1919, a man and a woman came to his place of business and left an order with his colored helper to