JUVENILE COURT RECORD

T. D. HURLEY, Editor. 79 Dearborn Street, Chicago, Ill.

ASSOCIATE EDITORS.

Hon. B. B. Lindsey, Judge Juvenile Court, Denver, Colorado. Thomas D. Walsh, Asst. Secretary, New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 297 4th Ave., New York.

J. L. Clark, Business Manager, 79 Dearborn St., Chicago, Ill. Eastern Office, 53 W. 24th Street, New York City. Boston Office, 71 Kilby Street, Boston, Mass.

The Juvenile Court Record is published monthly except in the month of July. Single copies, 10 cents. Subscription price, $1 per year. Entered at Postoffice, Chicago, as secondclass matter.

New Subscriptions can commence with current number. Change of Address.-Always give both your old and your new address when you ask us to change.

Payments for the Paper, when sent by mail, should be made in a postoffice money order, bank check or draft, or an express money order. When neither of these can be procured, 3end 2-cent Ünited States postage stamps; only this kind can be received.

Letters should be addressed and checks and drafts made payable to Juvenile Court Record, 79 Dearborn St., Chicago. Advertising Rates made known on application.

EDITORIAL.

JUDGE MERRITT W. PINCKNEY.

The action of the Circuit Judges in selecting Judge Pinckney to preside over the Juvenile Court for the coming year, has met with the approval of all the great institutions and societies that have most to do with that court. His qualities, judicial and temperamental render the selection an eminently fit one.

From the lawyer's point of view it involves a sacrifice on the part of a scholarly and keen jurist to take up the duties of a Juvenile Court judge, who has to deal not with nice and close legal issues requiring the analysis of precedents, the weighing of arguments, the drawing of fine distinctions, the application of ord principles to new conditions, but with cases and situations that call for common sense, tact, benevolence, patience, and the ability to win the affection and the respect of children.

He does however, receive compensation in the sense. that he is performing a great public duty, and as the idea of the Juvenile Court is practically in its infancy, he finds compensation in the reflection that its powers, opportunities and mission are by no means fully developed.

The record of Judge Pinckney is a sufficient guarantee that the work of the Juvenile Court will be conducted

along legal lines and before any order is entered of a general nature, the various parties that will be effected by such order, will be given an opportunity to be heard in the matter. We may rest assured that the procedure and records of the court will be in accordance with the law.

THE INSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND POWERS UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW.

The records and decrees of the Juvenile Court for the past three years have been so worded as to deprive institutional authorities from exercising their rights under the law. The institutions were not permitted to release, parole or apprentice children without first obtaining an order of court in each particular case. Following out this line of procedure, an order was entered on February 24th, in the Juvenile Court, that no child could be discharged from an institution until an order for such discharge had been entered of record in said court. No notice was given to any of the institutions previous to the entry of the order.. There is no law nor authority to sustain such an order. The legislature in the passage of the Juvenile Court Law, and the amendments thereto, was very careful to preserve the rights of the institutions. Section Eight and Nine of the Law provides that all children committed to institutions or societies shall be "subject to the rules and laws that may be enforced from time to time governing such institution or society."

We are pleased to be able to say that on presenting the law to the court, the position of the Juvenile Court Record was sustained, and the order of February 24th was modified to the extent that all children may be discharged by the institutional authorities, in accordance with the laws and rules governing the institution. A complete report will be made from time to time by the institutions to the court, thus keeping the court records up to date.

We have been unable to find any reason why attempts should be made to deprive certain institutions of their rights under the statutes, and other institutions given full power and authority by the court. These little, petty moves have no place in the Juvenile Court. The child problem is not new, and we should all recognize the fact that persons engaged in child saving work, will not have their rights disregarded.

It is to be hoped that in the future, all matters pertaining to the Juvenile Court will be open and free, as was the case in the early years of the Court. There was no bickering, no fault-finding-no efforts put forth to obtain advantage one over the other-all worked m harmony for the benefit of the child. Such conditions should prevail in the future.

It is the hope of the Juvenile Court Record that peace and harmony will hereafter prevail in the Juvenile Court.

GIRLS' HOMES GAIN VICTORY IN JUVENILE COURT DECISION.

Judge Tuthill Rules That Refuge Institutions Shail Have Right to Discharge Inmates Without Order.

Judge Tuthill has ruled that all girls committed to the House of the Good Shepherd and to the Chicago Refuge for Girls are wards of those institutions and not of the Juvenile court when placed under their control by the court.

The decision was received with much satisfaction by the representatives of these institutions. Last February an order was entered in court that no children could be discharged from these homes without an order from the court and all children released placed on probation to the Probation officer. This in effect was that the court held exclusive jurisdiction over the children that were being cared for in the institutions.

"When we have wished to obtain the release of our wards through the court," declared Attorney T. D. Hurley, representing the House of the Good Shepherd, “faniilies which would otherwise take the girls gladly, refuse to do so because of the fact that their homes are made a record of in the Juvenile court and these records are. continually being copied by various persons not connected with the court.

"This publicity is not desired by families whose only wish is to help one particular girl. They do not care to have probation officers of the court visit their homes from time to time and make a written report of everything that takes place in their homes."

"There is no reason why some of the institutions such as Geneva, and St. Charles, and others can release their wards and a different rule, requiring a court order for release should apply to certain institutions; no exception should be made to a general court order."

Chief Probation Officer Thurston contended that it was absolutely necessary to keep a record of every case that was paroled to him by the court after the girl had been released from the institution.

The following is the order as modified:

ORDER.

It is hereby ordered that the order entered on February 24, 1908, be so changed as to read as follows:

That in every case in which the Juvenile Court, upon a hearing, has sent a delinquent child to an institution. for care at the expense of the City of Chicago, such child may be discharged there from upon the order of the Court, or by the institution to which such child has been sent, in accordance with the law and regulations applicable to such institutions.

Where such discharge is made by the institution, information thereof shall be, without unnecessary delay, reported to the Court, to be entered of record in said. court. If the agent or representative of such institution shall desire to have such child placed under the care of

the probation officer of the court other than the agent, application shall be made to the Court for an order to that effect, in which case a report in writing, to the Chief Probation officer, as to the conduct and environment of such discharged child, shall be made as often and as long as shall be by him deemed necessary, or until discharged from such probation by the Court, or shall have reached his or her legal majority.

THE JUVENILE OFFENDER.

A great English authority on penal institutions. once declared that the prison population of Great Britain consisted of two classes, those who ought never to have been put in prison and those who ought never to be permitted to leave it. While the epigrain is too comprehensive to be taken literally it nevertheless contains the principal truth on which are based the arguments for reforming our methods of dealing with the juvenile offender. Certainly the boy who commits a petty crime, or even a series of petty crimes, does not thereby become a member of the class of habitual criminals over whom the law may continuously exercise restraint, but putting him in prison is a first and long step in the direction of making him ultimately one of those who ought never to find themselves outside the walls of a jail. Less detrimental but still very objectionable is charging a boy with an offence in the same police court in which adults are convicted or committed, and the matter is made worse when it is remembered that for something very much less than a crime, however trifling, for, say, such an offence as riding a bicycle on a sidewalk or otherwise breaking some city by-law,a child may become the subject on which the whole machinery, of the criminal court of first instance is set in operation. The boy who has appeared before the magistrate once. stands less in awe than he did of the majesty of the law. From his point of view, in fact, the experience may be all gain. His parents pay the fine and possibly, so far from visiting his misdeeds upon him with appropriate home penalties, sympathise with him. Among his companions, meanwhile, he has acquired the distinction of having penetrated the mysterious precincts of the police court and come out unscathed, with the result that an impression is created in youthful circles that it is not only not quite so serious a matter to break the municipal law as, say, to be late for school, but that in view of the excitement afforded and the notority achieved it is quite worth while taking the risk even though some parents may take the fine out of an offender's hide, his pocket-money, or both. It is necessary, therefore, that all the false glamor should be stripped from waywardness which brings a boy into collision with the authorities. So far as possible the police should not be employed in such cases, but men of the stamp of the truant officer; the boy should not be haled before the ordinary magistrate, but before another tribunal and that tribunal should sit in a place which could by no means be confused with the regular police court. Detention, if detention prove necessary, should be provided for elsewhere than in the common jail. In fact, the boy should be treated as far as possible as a naughty child would be treated in a home where no more childish naughtiness was tolerated than could be helped.

The juvenile court has developed beyond the experimental stage. It can no longer be ranked among the fads, for a movement that has advanced uninterruptedly and with steadily increasing force during a decade or more can scarcely be deemed a fad. Neither can it be considered the whim of any sect or section. It has found allies to give it impetus in all parts of the country.

It has been claimed that Boston blazed the way for the movement that subsequently took on a more tangible form, by the adoption of a system of separate trials for children. Chicago was the first city to establish a juvenile court in complete form. This was in 1899, a little over eight years ago. With characteristic energy it has pressed forward in the work until it has provided the most complete and best equipped juvenile court building in the country.

Of the impetus the movement received at Denver, very largely due to the indomitable energy and genius of Judge Lindsay, all the world knows.

To show the widespread influence extending to the larger cities of all sections of the country reference need only be made to the accomplishments in Philadelphia, Buffalo and New York, in the east, and Portland, Oregon, and Los Angeles, California, in the west; and also Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Milwaukee and other large cities in various parts of the country.

The cities have not been alone in the movement, however. During the past six years many of the states have passed laws providing for the establishment of juvenile courts generally throughout the respective commonwealths. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were among the first in 1901. California, Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey and New York State followed in 1903,and Ohio and Iowa in 1904.

Massachusetts and Michigan were a little later in the enactment of general juvenile court laws. They cannot be said to have been behind in the movement, however, for they had established systems for care of their juvenile members, which paved the way for rapid progress when they undertook the work. Indeed it may be said that Michigan and Massachusetts vie with each other as pioneers in the movement. The latter, by a law of 1874, provided for a separate trial of minors apart from criminal cases, but this was not considered as a juvenile court law. A year earlier Michigan had passed a law embodying the principles of the probation system of today. The law of 1873, providing for the appointment of county agents of the State Board of Corrections and Charities, has been maintained, only minor features of the original act having been changed. So that it may be said that Michigan has for a quarter of a century maintained a state agency for the care of juvenile offenders, which in effect is embodied in the provisions for probation officers contained in the recent enactments of the several states.

The citizens of Michigan were therefore well prepared to consider the movement when it took definite form in the legal enactment of a general and complete juvenile court system. They were also abundantly able to pass an intelligent opinion upon its merits. That it received their practically unanimous endorsement would indicate quite conclusively the worthiness of its object, for theirs was the sober-minded expression of an intelligent opinion rather than a hasty endorsement of a transient fad.

As soon as the law of 1905 was declared unconstitutional steps were taken to prepare a law avoiding the constitutional objections. The new law was also objectionable chiefly on account of ill-advised amendments inserted without adequate opportunity for consideration and with the knowledge of very few, if any, of those most interested in the law. Opinions differ as to the effect of these objectionable provisions. But this is not a matter for present consideration. The Governor very wisely presented the opportunity for a correction of the law at the recent special session of the legislature, and for six weeks we have been working under a law which seems to be adequate and workable.

It would be an assumption to say what can or should be done under this law after so short an experience. I can only state what has been done under my own observation. The law was of necessity only an outline, a frame work around which the procedure and practice could be builded and established after practical experience in its operation. Under the same law the procedure and practical operation must of necessity vary largely in different locations and under different conditions. The methods and procedure adopted for operation in the very large cities would be cumbersome and impracticable in this State.

For several years the probate judges of this State have been working under a uniform practice and have in use and well established a uniform system of blanks. The committee of the Association of Probate Judges of the State have prepared a set of blanks for the use of the juvenile division of the probate courts under this law. They may be briefly enumerated and the practice outlined as follows:

The statute provides that any person having a knowledge of the facts, or upon information and belief, may make a petition, and all proceedings in the court except those which may be transferred from the police court or justice courts are started in the court by petition; and in the latter cases it has been the practice to have a new petition made. The petition sets forth simply the statutory requirements, showing that the person who makes it has some reason for making the petition, giving the name and age of the child, the person in whose custody the child is, and the facts and circumstances upon which the allegation is based, and asking that the facts be investigated. Upon the filing of this petition the court gives notice to the county agent of the pendency of the proceedings. For the convenience of the county agent there is printed on the back of this blank a memorandum, giving him such information as the court has obtained.

Upon receiving his notice the county agent makes investigation and files his report, and the blank gives in detail the information that he is asked to receive. I dare say that it may be necessary to add to these forms somewhat, and that further information may be required, and if it seems to the county agent that he is being requested to give some information that may not be necessary, bear in mind that he is doing something of great value in getting statistics which will aid us in the administration of this law. A summons is then issued directing the parent to come with the child. This may be served by anyone. A notice is given to the parent or guardian which may be given by the blank provided for that purpose or in any informal way, and in a large number of cases accomplishes the purpose. Sometimes it does not, and

the statute wisely provides that where the party is summoned and fails to appear, then a complaint may be made, and upon the filing of that complaint the court may issue a writ by which the presence of the child may be procured. After the matter has been finally submitted to the court, and he becomes convinced as to what the final definite course shall be, he makes an order for the final disposition of the child. Blanks are provided for orders for adjournment, and also for temporary disposition. A large majority of these cases can be better considered if the cases are adjourned and an opportunity afforded for thorough investigation. There is a provision in the law for a jury, in those cases where a jury may be deemed desirable, or requested.

Some idea of the probable volume and extent of the work under this law may be gained from a brief review of the work in Kent county. Under the law passed at the regular session there were over 30 cases each month considered, from the time the work began in July until the 24th of October last, when the new law went into effect. Since the present law went into effect, there have been added more vision of the court each monrought before the juvenile dithan 60 cases and have been bth.

The same ratio throughout the year would indicate a probability of 800 to 900 cases a year. This seems improbable. It is possible that an unusual number were brought at the beginning of operations under the new law, some of which had been contemplated but action delayed on account of the uncertainty as to the validity of the old law.

Whether the number of these cases will increase or decrease in proportion to the increase in population only the lapse of time can disclose. The claim of the opponents of the juvenile court methods that juvenile depravity is thereby encouraged and the number of cases thereby increased would seem to have been disproved by the experience in Chicago. During the year ending December 1, 1905, there were 4,050 cases brought before the juvenile court of that city, while during the year following, ending December, 1906, the number decreased to 3,794, notwithstanding a rapid increase in population during the same period. It is hopeful that the juvenile court methods may influence adjustment of many cases with very little procedure on the part of the court.

A German scholar and student of social economies (Von J. M. Baernreither), after extensive studies in his own country, came to this country two or three years ago. As a result of his trip through the United States he was prompted to give to the German reading world an interesting book of 304 pages devoted to the care of juvenile offenders and criminal law in the United States. One of his fellow-countrymen (Victor Von Borasini), has written a very comprehensive review of the book, in the course of which he says:

"The greatest advance which has been made in this field has grown out of the recognition of the fact that dependent, neglected, defective and criminal juveniles represent a single social phenomenon in different phases of development. As there is a necessary connection between neglect of children and juvenile criminality, the evils of neglect and of delinquency should be attacked by the same methods. The moral, physical and economic education of the children of to-day will decide the fate of the generation of to-morrow."

The last sentence is of special and vital import. In it is essentially embodied the true significance of the juvenile court movement.

It points away from the slow and dreary progress in criminal jurisprudence, darkened and fettered by the clinging sentiments and absurdities of medieval ages, to the dawn of a more enlightened day; when the point of vision will be directed forward instead of backward; when society will be more concerned about the future conduct of the individual than the act he has committed, and become more interested in what he will do than in what he has done; when the State

will have for its chief object the reclamation and reform if possible of its erring subject rather than the exhibition of revenge, and when it will be accorded a reciprocal right to restrain its confirmed and inveterate enemy instead of sending him forth, a constant menace to society to prey upon its members.

In the administration of the juvenile court law the opportunity is afforded to impress upon the mind of the child a respect for the law rather than a fear of the consequences of its enforcement. Far better it will be if he can be made to feel and believe that the State is providing the means by which he may he helped and encouraged to avoid his erring ways than to emphasize in his mind its power to mete out indiscriminate revenge and punishment. More potent will be his regard for law, shown to be for his help and encouragement, which he should therefore respect, than his fear of the law which involves in his mind the element of injustice in its application (a feeling sometimes justified), and therefore proper for him to evade if possible.

The German author referred to noted with evident astonishment the recent changes and tendencies in the reformatory system of this country. Subjects of his special comment were the merit system in reformation and penal institutions, the indeterminate sentence, release on parole and the increasing discretionary powers of the judge. He could have gone further and found more hopeful indications. In the case of the mentally disturbed, the tendency has grown to eliminate as far as possible, the unjust discrimination between physical and mental diseases. Comfortable detention hospitals have been substituted for the jail cells, and the asylums have become curative rather than custodial institutions. The separation of prisoners awaiting trial from those serving sentence is being accomplished. The progress in this respect is slow. The day should not be long delayed when the county jails become merely places of detention for those awaiting trial, while those serving sentence be sent to workhouses or houses of correction. To confine a suspected person awaiting trial, in the same institution with the convicted criminal is a deep injustice to a presumably innocent person. To compel the adjudged criminal to lead a life of enforced idleness at a time when he should be made to learn the lessons of thrift and industry is hardly less than a crime. Strange as it may seem there are still opponents to the system of indeterminate sentences, among intelligent men, too, but fortunately they are few in number. It is not improbable that, at no very distant date, the separation of judicial and administrative functions in the punishment and reformation of criminals will be brought about. The judge of probate exercises the judicial function involved in the determination that the mentally disturbed patient requires asylum treatment. How long he should be restrained, as a benefit to himself and a protection to society is left to the board of experts charged with the administrative affairs of the institution to determine. Could not the criminal and society be in the same measure protected if the trial judge of the criminal court performed the judicial function exercised in determining the accused criminal properly subject to restraint in a penal institution, leaving it to a board of experts to determine, after extended deliberation and obtaining a far better knowledge of the facts than it would be possible for the busy trial judge to obtain, how long he should be restrained?

It was not the purpose to carry the discussion along these lines. These problems are given passing notice as examples of the many things society sees as it turns its eyes forward, believing that the consideration of the future of the child will extend the vision to the future of the adult, and thus the full significance of the juvenile court movement may be realized.