the typical causes for pardons and commutations assigned in the applications submitted to the Governor or stated by the Governor in taking action. Among these were the following: Recommended by county officials and reputable citizens Recommended by prison officials Recommended by trial judge and prosecuting attorney Desire to join relatives in another State Imminent danger of death Long term and good prison record Strong evidence of reform and repentance Weak circumstantial evidence Poor health and good conduct in prison A serious objection to the wide use of executive clemency is the encouragement it gives to disreputable lawyers to "bleed" relatives and friends of prisoners by making promises of pardon which they hope to secure. RECOMMENDATIONS The summary of recommendations is as follows: 1. The Department of Public Welfare in Cleveland should have an appropriation for an adequate parole system. 2. The Norwood Bill, enacted by the 1921 session of the Ohio Legislature, should be repealed. 3. A law similar to the Indeterminate Sentence and Parole Law of New York, known as Chapter 579, Laws of 1915, as amended by Chapter 287 of the Laws of 1916, should be adopted so that the courts and institutional authorities may coöperate to the greatest advantage. 4. The governor should not exercise the pardon, parole, and commutation powers vested in him by the State constitution, except to right obvious wrongs where there is no other legal remedy, or in the event of any unusual conduct. All other cases should be passed upon first by the Division of Pardons and Paroles, and should go to the governor only upon the recommendation of that division. CHAPTER V THE PROPOSED NEW CRIMINAL COURT, COUNTY JAIL, AND POLICE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING C LEVELAND'S postponement of the erection of a new building or buildings to house criminal courts, insolvency and juvenile courts, police headquarters, and city and county detention prisons has brought one compensation: namely, that of being now in a position to build in accordance with the most modern plans and at a great reduction in cost. As a result of extensive public discussions and reports, the people of Cleveland are now in a better position to pass intelligently upon proposed plans and to determine the most practicable administrative and building programs. Any solution of the problem is conditioned to a certain extent by what has already been done. The city plan committee of the Chamber of Commerce, under date of January 26, 1921, expressed the opinion that all business offices of the city and county should be removed from the present civil courts building and that building used exclusively for the courts; and that the criminal court should be housed in a more imposing building than that which would be necessary for the county treasurer and other county offices, or the police department, detention rooms, police headquarters, and the like. The committee was further of the opinion that the latter should be housed in a completely utilitarian type of building. The suggestion was made that the site to the west and north of the court-house be left for the office services of the county, the departments of the treasury, auditor, recorder, engineer, and the like, for in this way excavation already begun on the present site need not be entirely lost. While many of the suggestions of the Chamber of Commerce committee are worthy of serious consideration, they do not seem to give sufficient attention to the desirability of placing police headquarters, county and city jails, the various criminal courts, prosecutors' offices, jury-rooms, witness-rooms, and probation offices in the same building. Time and energy spent in making transfers and in providing a staff of officers for courts, jails, and other offices housed in separate buildings will then be saved, besides the cost of maintaining separate identification and other record systems for courts, prosecutors, police, city, county, and State institutions. Opportunity for this complete and necessary record system ought not to be lost through a system of building construction and housing which would make it prohibitive. In making this change Cleveland would be taking another step forward in eliminating evil conditions which result from sentencing prisoners to terms in the county jail. City and county jails should be used exclusively as detention prisons; terms should be served in the city, county, and State institutions provided for that purpose. If we are to disregard for the moment the cell blocks for the jails, and if the requirements of the Group Plan Commission limit the architect, as is claimed, we are of the opinion that the latter has made an acceptable layout of rooms and offices. However, the requirements of the Group Plan Commission are such as to preclude any possibility of combining a modern jail with the remainder of this building, as a modern jail cannot be planned except in a building where the cells are in wings permitting plenty of light and air, proper classification of prisoners, and proper courts for exercise in the open air. The building commission should not be stampeded into accepting an architectural design which limits the possibility of thoroughly modern and up-to-date criminal administration. If the commission were to yield this point, it would repeat the mistakes made in designing the Warrensville workhouse and the city infirmary at Warrensville. There is danger that the commission may swing to the opposite extreme, for there are some who believe that the courts should be housed in a building of classic design, and that anything is good enough for a jail and almost anything good enough for a police headquarters. This is an erroneous viewpoint, for the reason that poor design and bad taste lower the whole tone of administration and thus indirectly increase the cost of administration. This has been demonstrated in public institutions in the East, as well as the fact that the office building type of construction can be used to advantage in public buildings. The whole tendency in modern office building construction is to build four walls, provide elevators, stairways, fire-escapes, and proper corridors, and arrange the remainder of the interior as tenants desire. There is no difficulty in constructing a modern hotel in devoting two stories or a part of the building to a theater, dining-room, or banquet hall. We are, therefore, of the opinion that unless the Group Plan Commission can change its requirements, as reported, so as to permit a |