in its most complex and subtle forms, from which only the strongest man, and one conscious of the finest ethical distinctions, can escape. But, more than that, even where there is no corruption, public suspicion may be aroused, and that is damaging to the administration of justice. The example of Caesar's wife may have been overworked; still, the standard applied to that lady, that not only her virtue should be unimpaired but her conduct such as to raise her above suspicion, is surely applicable to persons engaged in the administration of justice.1 1 An illustration from real life in Cleveland illustrates the danger. An automobile owned and driven by R. L. Smith had brushed one of a group of four men standing on the street. None of the four was injured. Smith was arrested on December 3, 1920, charged with reckless driving, tried, and found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and to serve thirty days in the workhouse. A motion for a new trial was made, and Smith let out on bail pending the hearing of the motion, which was set for December 7. Up to that point Smith was represented by Attorney Arnold. Between December 3 and 7 Smith was visited by an attorney named H. L. Lavine, representing the four men on the street. Lavine asserted that he was a partner of Assistant Prosecutor Kreisberg, and that he "stood in" with the prosecutor's office and could get the sentence of thirty days' imprisonment removed and would himself pay Smith's fine, if Smith would pay $800 in settlement of the civil damage claims of Lavine's clients. Lavine's office was in one of the rooms of the suite of offices on the door of which was Kreisberg's name, and Lavine's office telephone number was the same as that given in the directory for Kreisberg's office. One of the four claimants worked at the cigar-stand in the building in which this suite was located. Smith proceeded to take steps to borrow the $800 and expected a check on or about December 7, and arrangements were made to postpone the hearing for the motion for new trial to December 23. When the time for hearing arrived, Attorney Arnold was in the court-room. Lavine asked him to take no part in the hearing, and submitted a form of receipt for Smith's signature, to which Mr. Arnold objected on the ground that it might constitute evidence of the compounding of felony. In the meantime Attorney George Dissette had been retained to supervise the settlement of the civil claims, and the $800 check had been deposited with him, and he in turn had deposited it in a bank, so as to have it in convenient shape for division among those to whom the money might ultimately be payable. Consequently Smith did not have the money in his hands when the motion was called on December 23. Judge XX, who heard the case, acting, as he states, under the impression that Smith had arranged to settle the matter with the claimants, entered upon his docket, "motion for mitigation granted, original sentence changed, days suspended, fine and costs to be paid." The judge then asked Smith whether he had arranged “restitution," to which Lavine answered that Smith had a check and was prepared to make restitution. The judge then handed the papers in the case to Smith, so that he might take them to the clerk's office and there pay the costs and fine. In the hallway between the court-room and the clerk's office Lavine engaged Smith in conversation and induced Smith to give him the papers, and then notified Smith that, unless he paid the $800 within twenty minutes, he, Smith, would have to go to jail, and Lavine refused to go to Dissette's office for the money. In the absence of the papers the clerk refused to accept from Smith payment of the fine and costs. In this critical situation Dissette was telephoned for and came over to the Municipal Court building. Lavine repeated his threat that unless the $800 be immediately given him Smith would have to go to jail. Dissette requested Lavine to give the papers to the clerk, which was not done. The next day Smith retendered the fine and costs, which the clerk again refused to accept. Smith had planned a trip East, and Dissette advised him that, as he had twice tendered fine and costs, he could safely go. He returned early in January and was promptly rearrested. He brought habeas corpus proceedings in the Common Pleas Court. Now, we have seen that, on the day of the hearing, Judge XX entered on his docket or calendar the order "motion for mitigation granted, original sentence changed, days suspended, fine and costs to be paid." At some later time this entry was erased and in its place inserted, "Motion for mitigation overruled, original sentence ordered executed." Strangely enough, the official record of the court, namely, the journal and execution docket for December 23, contained the entry: "Defendant not in court, bond forfeited, capias issued." That was a false entry; for Smith was in court on that day and the bond had not been forfeited. The Common Pleas Court held, however, that it was bound by the record, and could not entertain proof of the falsity thereof, and therefore refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus, and Smith was returned to the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court, where a further hearing occurred on January 13. Kreisberg did not represent the municipal prosecutor's office at the original trial on December 3, nor at the strange happenings of December 23, but he did appear for the public in the habeas corpus case and at this later inning on January 13. Judge XX ordered the restoration of the original sentence, and, for some reason which is not quite clear from the records, added a fine of $200 for contempt of court and Smith was sent to the workhouse on the original sentence. A few days later Judge XX suspended the fine in the contempt hearing and the original sentence of thirty days, leaving the original fine of $100 and costs, which were paid. Before this Dissette had presented the matter to the Cleveland Bar Association. T CHAPTER VI THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE HISTORY HE office of Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County was created contemporaneously with the creation of the county and is more than a century old. The statutes defining the general powers and duties of the office have undergone little change. In this century and more, however, the criminal law has grown enormously, and Cuyahoga County has developed from a community of isolated farmers to the most populous county in Ohio. To the extent of available statistics, Table 15 states for the years 1863, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1921 the population of Cuyahoga County, the number of indictments, the number of arrests in Cleveland, the number of prosecutors, assistants, and clerical force in the county prosecutor's office, and the total payroll of the office. TABLE 15.-COMPARISON OF GROWTH OF THE POPULATION AND NUMBER OF ARRESTS, WITH THE NUMBER AND SALARIES OF THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S STAFF, 1863-1921 'This is whole payroll of office, including both civil and criminal branches. *Figures for 1887, as 1890 were not available. 'Figures for 1902, as 1900 were not available. $900 for stenographer, and $6,300 for county solicitor and his assistant and stenographer in addition to the above. • Decline due to temporary "golden rule" policy. * 79,897 warned and released. CRIMINAL COURT IN OPERATION At least two of the rooms of the Court of Common Pleas are constantly engaged in the trial of criminal cases, and in periods when, by reason of popular excitement or other pressure, the prosecutor is pushing matters, this number increases to four or even five. The two regular trial rooms are in an old building, very ugly and sordid in appearance. The rooms are large and with high ceilings, thus having good light. Though old, they could be easily rendered more clean, handsome, and dignified in appearance. In the back of one of these rooms a space is fenced off by a very high railing and this is open to spectators. There are no seats and the floor is level, so that those who do not get the favorable positions along the rail have to stand on their toes and are constantly pushing forward toward the rail. Naturally many of these onlookers grow weary and leave and their places are taken by newcomers. This commotion in the back of the room causes noise and prevents that hush and solemnity which we find in federal court-rooms. The other room has no railing separating the spectators from the space devoted to the trial, and incoming and outgoing spectators must walk across the main parts of the room. Furthermore, the judges seem to permit the pending trial to be interrupted with considerable frequency by receipts of verdicts in previous cases, disposition of plea of guilty cases, arraignment of new defendants, and other matters. Otherwise the trials are conducted with an orderliness which is in contrast to the Municipal Court and compares not unfavorably with civil trials in the same Common Pleas Court. The jury-stand, witnesschair, and attorneys' table are arranged in an orderly fashion and those who have no immediate business in or about them are required to go to other parts of the room. By means of a little straining of eyes and ears even those back of the rail can hear and see what is going on. The extra court-rooms which are used irregularly for criminal trials are in the new court house and have the handsomeness and dignity characteristic of modern, monumental American temples of justice. Among possible classifications, the cases in the criminal division of the Common Pleas Court may be divided into those in which public excitement pushes the prosecutor to unusual effort, and those where no extra lime-light has been turned on. It is these ordinary cases which best illustrate the administration of criminal justice. The success of criminal law enforcement is, moreover, best judged by results in the general run of habitual offenses, and not by its sporadic triumphs in the occasional sensational murder cases. The young man who, by reason of mental and moral make-up or environment, has in him the potentialities of a professional or dangerous criminal, does not begin his career with a murder or large-scale robbery. His first offense is more likely to be a petty larceny or porch-climbing or small hold-up. If the administration of justice can be effective in stopping the development of his criminal career, this is the time and point for it to operate. If he "gets away" with his first case, the temptation to make a second "flier" at the speculative profits of crime may be increased. And the unjust verdict of guilty, which may cause disrespect for law and resentment against society, is more likely to occur in the everyday grist than in the relatively less numerous big cases. Furthermore, most of us have a very large chance of going through life without being the victims or intended victims of the murder of passion or revenge. But we and our families and our homes are in daily danger of attracting the cupidity of the second-story man or hold-up artist. The general peace and security is more dependent on society's treatment of the regular flow of ordinary crimes than on the results of the few great murder cases which attract public attention and create public excitement. The ups and downs of public confidence in the law, as the sensational murder cases result in verdicts of guilty or not guilty, with the attempt to reform the administration of the law by means of alternate spasms of praise and blame of prosecutors and judges and alternately electing or recalling these officials according to the results in these sensational murder cases-this, as much as any other phenomenon, has stood in the way of that thorough and continuous improvement which would prevent the accumulation of the very situation which accounts for the miscarriage of justice in the head-line case. Consequently, it is in the prosecutor's conduct of the regular run of cases that the efficiency of the prevailing system should be studied and judged. The trial of two cases a day by the same prosecutor before the same court is habitual, the trial of three cases a day very frequent, of four cases not exceptional. In addition to the trials, there are generally each day several arraignments of accused "for receipt of the plea," and also the pleas of guilty with sentence thereon. The course of most trials is interrupted by these miscellaneous matters and by the receipt of the jury verdict in a previously tried case. Just before entering upon the trial of the first case of the day the trial prosecutor receives from the assignment commissioner a package of papers consisting of the indictment and other pleadings, the names of witnesses, and notes of the testimony of the witnesses before the grand jury in cases which might be reached that day. It is quite apparent that |