11 persons, or 29 per cent.; reported regularly, 6 persons, or 16 per cent.

Fifteen of the Fourth district cases and fourteen of the Second district cases stated that they had previously been arrested more than twice, and nine offenders stated that they had been arrested from eighteen to sixty-one times.

The statements made by them as to the length of time during which they had led an openly immoral life were as follows:

Fourth district.-Less than one year, 4; one to two years, 22; three years or more, 25.

Second district.-Less than one year, none; one to two years, 10; three to six years, 16; more than six years, 12.

In considering the above statements, the degree of credibility to be accorded to such persons must be borne in mind. Many of their statements, however, were subsequently confirmed by the probation officers, under examination. There can be no mistaking the significance of the fact that all of these women, with one exception, were seen either soliciting on the streets or frequenting Raines Law hotels. With few exceptions the women stated that they had not been visited by a probation officer, and that no steps had been taken to punish them for failure to report, or for resuming their professional immorality during the period of parole. It is evident that with this class of offenders probation has had little or no meaning, with possible rare exceptions. It is more than likely that magistrates have yielded to the requests of lawyers to place such women on probation when a commitment would have been for the public interests.

There are no adequate court records concerning persons placed on probation in the magistrates' courts. While the probation officers keep some records concerning the conduct of persons

under their care, the fullness of such records depending on the individual practice of the probation officer, these are not court records. The court record contains practically no entries subsequent to the release of the person upon probation, except the fact that at some future date he was committed or discharged. There is little or nothing to guide the magistrate in case of a subsequent arrest of the same offender.

The usual periods of probation are much too short to secure permanent results. This is true, practically of all probation work in this State, both of adults and of juvenile offenders, and will be considered more at length in a later paragraph.

The rotation of the male probation officer with the magistrate is, in our opinion, undesirable. It takes the probation officer to all parts of the city, places under his care offenders residing in all parts of the city, requires them to travel long distances in order to report to the probation officer, makes extremely difficult any supervision of the offender in his home by the probation officer, and interferes with a proper system of records. While we can understand the natural desire of a magistrate to be accompanied by a probation officer of his own selection, we believe this system of rotation to be incompatible with any effective development of probation work in these courts. This system also tends to convert probation officers into personal attendants of the magistrates.

The Commission regrets to report that many magistrates still continue to impose short sentences, although the natural effect of the wise application of the probation system would be to render unnecessary, except in rare cases, the use of the short sentence with its recognized evils. The practice of sending offenders to prison for five or ten days has proved of little value

either to the offender or to the State. Probation, with, in some cases, the imposition of a fine to be paid while on probation, is the natural substitute. When the resources of probation are exhausted the offender should be committed to some reformatory discipline under an indeterminate sentence; or if an habitual or incorrigible offender, to some penal institution for a considerable period.

In the Court of Special Sessions in the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx, the work is much better organized, the selection of offenders to be placed on probation is much more careful and discriminating, the records kept by the probation officers are more complete, the reports made to the court are more adequate, and the oversight exercised by the probation officers is more effective. We desire to commend the efforts of the justices of this court to establish an effective probation system and (except as to the police officers) their choice of probation officers.

Nevertheless, there are certain notable opportunities for improvement. These are, in our opinion, as follows:

1. The officers detailed from the police force to the Court of. Special Sessions are probation officers in name only, and their services are utilized only in the investigation of the previous history of the offenders before they are placed on probation. In our opinion, the services rendered by these officers are not of great value, and one-half of the amount paid for their salaries, if applied to the salaries of civilian probation officers, who should be available for all branches of probation work, would secure far better results.

2. The chief probation officer who has the sole responsibility for the supervision of male offenders on probation and whose

salary is paid by the Children's Aid Society, divides his time between this work and other important duties and is consequently unable to exercise as adequate a supervision over the probationers as is desirable. At the close of 1905 he had 159 probationers under his care. His chief reliance must be of necessity upon the weekly report made by the offender to him. Experience has fully demonstrated, in our opinion, the fact that the probation officer who depends entirely upon the statements made to him by the offender upon a weekly visit may have much, little, or no real knowledge of the offender's manner of life. While this is fully realized by the probation officer who tries to visit the probationers as time permits, the cases are so numerous that effective home supervision is impossible.

3. Too large a proportion of the offenders are released on suspended sentence without further oversight, at the end of one. two, or three months of "parole." It is our opinion that for offenses of which this court has jurisdiction, the probationer should as a rule remain under some degree of oversight for a period of at least a year. The combination of a period of close oversight by the probation officer and frequent reconsideration by the court, followed by a period of supervision by a probation officer, with a report to the court at the end of a year, has much to commend it. The proportion released without this subsequent probationary oversight, seems to us much too large. The use of the term "parole," with relation to the earlier portion of the release under a suspended sentence, and the term "probation," in reference to the later portion of such period, tends to create confusion by ignoring the generally accepted use of these words.

As to the Court of General Sessions in Manhattan, substantially the same is to be said as of the Court of Special Sessions.

According to the statement of the probation officer himself, the number under his care and the extent of his other work (he being an agent of the Prison Association with other important duties) are such as to preclude that intimate knowledge and careful oversight of individual offenders which is the essential and vital feature in probation work.

In the County Court and in the Court of Special Sessions in Brooklyn, the work done by the probation officer, while lacking some elements of organization and record which are desirable, is a highly courageous and well-sustained effort to look all the facts squarely in the face and achieve results of permanent value. The success attained after a long experience, is undoubtedly due, in large degree, to the personal qualities of the probation officer, and it is significant that after his extended experience, he regards a long period of probation as absolutely essential, and considers reports by offenders to a probation officer as of little value, compared with visits by the probation officer to the offender's home, and other means of oversight.

In other portions of the State, except in the city of Rochester and in courts of record in Broome and St. Lawrence counties, probation work for adults is notable only for its absence. The Commission is impressed with the careful work done in Rochester. The records kept of offenders for a considerable period after their conviction, the personal qualifications and fitness of the probation officers, and their close supervision over those under their care, convince us that the success which has attended the development of probation work for adults in Rochester can easily be attained in all parts of the State.

The retention of the fee system in connection with the compensation of the sheriff in criminal cases in certain counties