officer in requiring observance on the part of the probationer of the terms and conditions of his release, the whole system of probation will fall into disrepute. Where the behavior on probation is unsatisfactory, the probationer should be called into court for a sharp rebuke and warning, or for sentence.

(e) Probationary oversight should accompany suspension of sentence.

The Commission is impressed by the fact that in very many cases sentence is suspended after conviction, but the offender is released without any probationary oversight, and with no provision for information as to his subsequent conduct being brought to the notice of the court. This has been the case, both in courts in which there are probation officers, and in those in which no such officers have been appointed. No doubt there are instances in which the mitigating circumstances are such that the exercise of a close supervision by a probation officer would be undesirable, but after careful consideration, this Commission is strongly of the opinion that when the evidence has resulted in the actual conviction of an offender, if he is to be released under a suspended sentence, there should always be sufficient probationary oversight to inform the court from time to time, as to his subsequent conduct. The offender has been given his liberty upon the presumption that he will not abuse the leniency of the court. The court should know whether such proves to be the case. In this connection it should be borne in mind that the court itself has full power to fix the terms and conditions of the probation for each individual offender; that there is nothing in the law requiring the probationer to report to the probation officer, or the probation officer to visit the home of the offender; and that in a

particular case the precise form of supervision may be pre

scribed by the court.

The Commission therefore recommends that probationary oversight shall be required in all cases of suspended sentence.

In the prosecution of their necessary inquiries, facts frequently come to the knowledge of probation officers which have no direct bearing upon the particular offense for which the offender is under custody, and which, if made public, might do him great and unnecessary harm. The Commission has therefore thought it wise to provide that probation officers shall not communicate to other persons information obtained in the discharge of their duties, except by the consent of the proper authorities, and that the records of probationers shall not be made public except in accordance with rules and regulations established in a city by a municipal probation commission, and in a county, by the county judge.

(f) Evasion of probation by change of residence.

It has come to the notice of the Commission that probationers are frequently lost sight of by reason of change of residence and very often remove from one city to another, such removal being very possibly for the purpose of avoiding the oversight of the probation officer by escaping from the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, of the 143 persons released under suspended sentence in the county court of Monroe from May 6, 1901, to August 19, 1905, a report compiled at the latter date shows that twenty-five had left the city. The Commission believes that every opportunity for avoiding or evading probationary oversight on the part of those released under suspended sentence, tends to bring the probation

system into disrepute, and to decrease that wholesome respect for the law which should be the natural result of an arrest and conviction.

The Commission therefore recommends that probationers removing from one city or county to another city or county within the State, shall be placed under the supervision of the probation officer of the city or county to which they remove, for the remainder of the probationary term.

(g) Absence of organization.

The underlying weakness of the probation system as established in this State in 1901 and as now conducted, is to be found, in the opinion of this Commission, in the very large number of courts possessing the power of appointment of probation officers, and in the absence of any supervision, coördination or organization of the work of probation officers, except such as may be exercised by the courts to which they are attached. There are practically as many systems of probation as there are courts using the probation law. There is no comprehensive definition of probation in the statutes, nor are the duties of a probation officer in relation to persons placed on probation suggested, excepting that he is to furnish each probationer with a written statement of the terms and conditions of his probation and is to report to the court or magistrate appointing him any violation of such terms and conditions. Each court in the State having summary jurisdiction of criminal offensesand this includes every police court and every justices court-is authorized and in fact directed to appoint probation officers. Each court is authorized to impose such terms and conditions as it may deem advisable in regard

to each offender, and each probation officer, unless otherwise instructed by the court, must adopt such methods of administering his probationary duties as seem to him desirable. The natural result of this is that there is the widest possible variety in regard to every feature of the system. The amount of work to be done in the majority of these courts is not sufficient to attract serious attention, nor to result in the development of a plan of organization likely to secure reasonably harmonious and effective work. Nor, in the opinion of this Commission, is it possible for the courts appointing probation officers to exercise a sufficient degree of supervision over the relations of such probation officer: to the probationers under their care. The court must pass on to the trial of new cases. The overcrowding of the court calendars is a matter of common knowledge. If an offender is committed to an institution, the court is not charged with any responsibility for the administration of the institution to which the prisoner is sent. If the prisoner, on the other hand, is released under a suspended sentence, it is not reasonable to expect the court to be able to exercise full continuous responsibility for the supervision and oversight of the probation officers charged with the duty of looking after offenders under this less severe method of discipline. The system of rotation on the part of the magistrates and judges from one court to another, or of rotation in service in the same court, adds greatly to the difficulty of developing a satisfactory supervision of probation work by the courts alone. This Commission has no desire to diminish in any degree the present interest taken by certain of the judges and magistrates in the work of their probation officers. On the contrary, it would be glad to see a more general interest on the part of the courts, but it is fully satisfied that when the courts have

done their full duty and have done all that it is possible for them to do, there still remains a pressing necessity for oversight, supervision, study and development of probation work as a system of oversight of offenders not committed to a penal or reformatory institution, but nevertheless undergoing reformatory discipline.

We believe, therefore, that the number of persons charged with the duty of appointing probation officers should be greatly diminished; that the oversight of probationers should be placed in the hands of those who can give substantially uninterrupted attention to such work, and that there should be built up, in addition to the work of the courts, supplementary thereto and working in close harmony therewith, what may properly be called a probation system, by which the problems of probation may receive the study, supervision and constant revision and improvement that are secured for reformatory institutions by the boards of managers and executive officials thereof. We therefore recommend that in each city of the first and second classes the appointment of probation officers be placed in the hands of an unpaid probation commission and elsewhere in the hands of the county judge. This would reduce the number of authorities authorize to appoint probation officers from some three thousand to about seventy.

The Commission is of the opinion that there is not likely to be an effective probation system in any city unless and until there is a considerable body of public opinion informed as to the meaning and value of probation, and a number of citizens who are willing to become publicly identified with, and responsible for, such work; who in turn will create and extend public opinion in its favor, demand higher and higher standards in its adminis