METHODS OF INVESTIGATION.

The Commission held its first meeting in New York city on September 7, 1905, and organized by the selection of Homer Folks as chairman. Charles E. Rushmore, Esq., of the firm of Stern & Rushmore, has served the Commission as counsel without compensation, and his advice and assistance have been of great Subsequently Kingsbery Foster was elected as its secre

value. tary.

The Commission has held forty-one meetings in New York city, three in Buffalo, two in Rochester and three in Albany. In the course of these meetings it has examined representatives of the board of city magistrates of the First and Second divisions in New York city, namely: Ex-president of the board, Hon. Charles A. Flammer; president, Hon. Charles G. F. Wahle; Hon. Charles S. Whitman, Hon. Daniel E. Finn, Hon. Henry H. Furlong, Hon. Joseph Pool and Hon. Peter J. Barlow. Hon. William A. Wyatt, Hon. Joseph M. Deuel, Hon. Willard H. Olmsted, Hon. John B. McKean, and Hon. Robert J. Wilkin of the Courts of Special Sessions, and Hon. Warren W. Foster of the Court of General Sessions also testified before the Commission.

It has also examined at length some of the above-named jus tices of Special Sessions who have also presided in Children's Courts in Manhattan and Brooklyn, and a number of probation officers attached thereto, including E. Fellows Jenkins, superintendent of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Hon. Elbridge T. Gerry, Ex-President and counsel for the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children also testified.

From the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the city of New York, the Commission examined Commissioner Alfred J. Talley and Chief Examiner F. G. Ireland. Ex-Commissioner

Nelson S. Spencer, and Mr. Elliott H. Goodwin, secretary of the Civil Service Reform Association also testified.

In the course of its examination of witnesses outside of the State of New York, the Commission examined Hon. Julian W. Mack, judge of the Children's Court of Cook county, Ill.; Henry W. Thurston, chief probation officer of Cook county; Miss Julia C. Lathrop of Chicago; Mr. Keefe, chief probation officer of Boston; Miss Mary Philbrook, and Mr. Richard Stephens, probation officers of Essex and Hudson counties, respectively; New Jersey.

In Buffalo the Commission examined Hon. Daniel E. Kenefick, justice of the Supreme Court of New York; Hon. Edward K. Emery, judge of the County Court of Erie; Hon. Thomas Murphy, justice of the Juvenile Court of Buffalo; Hon. George A. Lewis, formerly judge of the Municipal Court of Buffalo; William S. Bull, superintendent of police, together with many probation officers of the Juvenile Court, and citizens having special knowledge of probation work.

In Rochester the Commission examined Hon. Arthur G. Sutherland, county judge of Monroe county; Hon. John D. N. Stephens, special county judge of Monroe county; Hon. John A. Chadsey, judge of Police and Children's Court; Mr. Alfred J. Masters, probation officer; William A. Killup, superintendent of the Rochester Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; and Franklin H. Briggs, superintendent of the State Industrial School. There were also heard in Rochester, Hon. Frederick Thompson, police inagistrate of Syracuse; Fillmore H. Smith, secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children of Syracuse, and Arthur W. Towne, secretary of the bureau of charities of that city.

In Albany the Commission heard Hon. J. K. O'Connor, city judge of Utica; Hon. John J. Brady, police magistrate of Albany; Hon. A. T. G. Wemple, police justice of Schenectady; Dr. W. O. Stillman, president of the Mohawk and Hudson River Humane Society; Hon. George McLaughlin, secretary of the State Prison Association; Charles S. Fowler, chief examiner of the State Civil Service Commission; the secretary of the State Board of Charities, Hon. Robert W. Hebberd, and the probation officers for children in Albany, Troy and Schenectady.

In all, 107 persons have appeared before the Commission and the transcript of their testimony occupies 1,734 typewritten pages.

The Commission has also, through special agents, conducted investigations in regard to persons placed on probation in the magistrates' courts of New York city. It has collected and studied the statutes of all the states in the Union on the subject of probation, copies of which are appended hereto.* has examined the literature on the subject, and submits as an appendix,** references to the more important articles and publications. Members of the Commission have sat with presiding justices in the children's courts, the magistrates' courts, the Court of Special Sessions and the Court of General Sessions, and have had special facilities for becoming informed in regard to the work of these courts.

Distinction between probation and parole. Much confusion has arisen from the indiscriminate use, especially in the Court of Special Sessions, first division, and in the Children's Court in Manhattan, of the terms "probation " and "parole." Each of these terms as used generally in the statutes of this State has acquired a specific meaning. Proba*See Appendix B. p. 123 **See Appendix C. p. 289

tion is the term used in connection with the release of an offender under a suspended sentence and without imprisonment, but under the oversight of a probation officer, for a definite period and for the purpose of reclaiming him from evil courses. Parole is the term used in connection with conditional release from a penal or reformatory institution after a period of incarceration therein. The term probation has no appropriate use in connection with the oversight of prisoners from penal or reformatory institutions, nor is the term parole wisely applied, in our opinion, in connection with the release of offenders under a suspended sentence and without imprisonment. Throughout this report, the terms "probation " and " parole" are used in the sense above indicated.

Distinction between adult and juvenile probation. Very early in its inquiries the Commission decided to divide its inquiries into two lines, one relating to the probation system as applied to persons over sixteen years of age, the other in relation to those under sixteen years of age. The provisions of statutes dealing with offenders over sixteen years of age, are very different from those dealing with juvenile offenders. Separate courts have been established in the larger cities of the State for children's cases. If committed to institutions, those under the age of sixteen are sent to very different institutions from those over sixteen. Probation work with juveniles must necessarily be conducted on lines quite different from those that would be advisable in dealing with adult offenders.

STATUTORY HISTORY OF PROBATION IN THIS STATE.

GENERAL LAWS.

The courts of record in this State have always possessed an inherent power to release convicted offenders under a suspended

sentence, and that power has been exercised from time immemorial but until very recently, without any provision for oversight or supervision of the persons so released. In 1893 this power was explicitly recognized by statute.

The first general law on the subject of probation in this State was enacted in the year 1901.

Chapter 372 of the Laws of 1901, introduced at the instance of the New York Prison Association, amended the Code of Criminal Procedure by inserting section 11-a and amending several other sections. Section 11-a provided for the appointment of probation officers by courts of original jurisdiction of criminal actions in all cities of the State, and outlined very briefly the duties of probation officers. It provided that probation officers might be chosen from among private citizens, male or female, or clerks or assistants of the court, or officers, deputies, assistants or clerks in a district attorney's office, or police officers or constables, but that probation officers should not receive compensation for their services as such. The duties of the probation officer were to inquire into the previous history of any defendant when so directed by the court; to make such reports upon persons placed under his care as the court might direct; to furnish to each person released on probation under his care, a written statement of the terms and conditions of his probation, and to report to the court any violation of such terms and conditions. The bill also amended sections 483 and 487 of the same code, so as to authorize the placing on probation of persons over the age of sixteen years convicted of crime. As prepared by the New York Prison Association, the bill was applicable to both children and adults, but owing to the active opposition of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, it was amended in the legisla