CHICAGO

Beginning January 2nd and continuing for three months, two training courses of great interest to philanthropic workers are offered by the Institute of Social Science and Arts. To meet the convenience of busy people the University of Chicago has opened the University College rooms for this purpose on the seventh floor of the Fine Arts Building, 203 Michigan Ave., and the classes are held in the late afternoon.

On Mondays, at 4:30 P. M. beginning January 8th a course of twelve lectures on "The Causes and Treatment of Dependency" will be given by Mr. Ernest P. Bicknell of the Chicago Bureau of Charities, Miss Julia C. Lathrop of Hull House, and Mr. Sherman C. Kingsley of the Chicago Relief and Aid Society. The topics are treated in four groups, Dependency and its Causes; Methods of Present Day Administration; Significant Developments of Private Initiative; and Public Relief and Protection.

The second course, announced for Tuesday afternoons at 4:30 P. M. beginning January 2nd, is on the "Care of Delinquents and Defectives." Miss Julia C. Lathrop, who as a member of the Illinois State Board of Charities made a special study of the public care of the insane will treat that subject. Dr. H. Vaclav Podstata, Superintendent of the Cook County Infirmary will lecture on "Care of the Epileptics," and Dr. A. C. Rogers, on the "Care of the Feeble-minded," the Minnesota State School for whom he has long superintended at Faribault. "Delinquence" will be treated by Professor Charles R. Henderson of the University of Chicago, John L. Whitman, Jailor of the Cook County Jail, and Emory F. Lyon of the Central Howard Association.

Special emphasis will be laid upon carefully conducted inspections of private and public institutions, and the assignment to the work of charitable and social agencies of all students free for such appointments. The field work will be under the personal supervision of Professor Graham Taylor, Director of the Institute, to whom all inquiries may be addressed at Chicago Commons, Grand Ave. and Morgan St.

Reformatory Workers.

NEW YORK

At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the New York Society For the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, held on the 14th of November, the following was unanimously adopted:

"WHEREAS, the Fifteenth State Convention of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty, held at Rochester, New York, October 4th and 5th, 1905, considered the question of a school to educate officers, clerks and attachees in the work of prevention of cruelty, and expressed the opinion that there should be some place where those intending to enter the work, or already engaged therein, could obtain aid and instruction, it is

"RESOLVED, that the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is willing and ready to grant the facilities of its office, with the services of its executive and special officers, to aid in the instruction of all who may desire to apply from sister organizations in the practical working and enforcement of all laws for the prevention of cruelty to chidren, or specially bearing upon cases with which children under the age of sixteen years are in any manner connected.

'RESOLVED, that upon the application of any sister organization, stating that it desires to avail itself of this offer, and will send to New York City to report to the Society either women or men for instruction, this Society will endeavor to obtain for them proper boarding facilities; and it earnestly urges all such organizations to fully consider this proposition and, if possible to avail themselves of it without delay by sending to New York one or more persons desirous of proper training in this work to the end that the same may become more efficient throughout the State, and the United States."

Your organization is invited to make the fullest possible use of the facilities thus placed at its disposal. The details may be arranged by communicating with the Secretary, E. Fellows Jenkins, at the above address. Very respectfully yours, (Signed) JOHN D. LINDSEY,

President.

Juvenile Court

PUBLISHED BY THE VISITATION AND AID SOCIETY

T. D. HURLEY, President and Editor

79 Dearborn Street, Chicago, III.

Associate Editors

HON. B. B. LINDSEY, Judge, Juvenile Cour
Denver, Colorado

THOMAS WALSH, Chief Clerk

New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children 297 4th Ave., New York

W. A. GARDNER, Chief Probation Officer, Juvenile Court Portland, Oregon

J. L. CLARK, Business Manager 79 Dearborn St., Chicago, III.

Eastern Office, 53 W. 24th Street, New York City

Boston Office, 147 Milk St., Boston, Mass.

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 second-class matter.

The JUVENILE COURT RECORD is the official organ of and published by the Visitation and Aid Society and will deal with social problems in child-saving work and give an account of the workings of the Juvenile Court. NEW SUBSCRIPTIONS can commence with current number. WHEN RENEWING, always give the name of the postoffice to which your paper is now being sent. Your name cannot be found on our books le this is done. Four weeks are required after the receipt of money by before the date opposite your name on your paper, which shows to what time your subscription is paid, can be changed. This will show that your remittance was received.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS.-Always give both your old and your new address when you ask us to change.

PAYMENT 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, send 2-cent United States postage stataps; only this kind can be received.

LETTERS should be addressed and checks and drafts made payable to JUVENILE COURT RECORD, 79 Dearborn Street, Chicago.

ADVERTISING RATES made known on application.

ports from various Juvenile Courts throughout the country indicate that the Juvenile Court is of greater effect when properly administered in the smaller than in the larger counties. It is important that the county judges throughout the State give more attention to the probation system of the Juvenile Court. Only one-forth of the counties in the State have appointed probation officers. When the county judges realize that the probation officer acts in the capacity in reference to the dependent and delinquent children that the guardian does to the ward of the court, then the services of the probation officer will be utilized more frequently. Children having estates which come under the jurisdiction of the county courts are very carefully looked after by the guardian of the child. There is no good reason why the dependent and delinquent child should not receive the same care and attention at the hands of the court as does the child who is so fortunate as to have property interests.

The court cannot as a rule act on its own motion, and if the Juvenile Court law is to become effective in the country counties it will be necessary for the different societies, clergymen and charitably disposed persons to take the initiative and tender their services to the court. The woman's clubs and churches should take this matter in hand and see that each county judge has tendered sufficient help in the way of volunteers, so that every child, be he truant, dependent or delinquent, will be brought before the court and his case receive proper attention.

Dr. Milligan's committee was continued by the Conference, and it is to be hoped that she will be able to report in the near future each county in the State having probation officers.

We publish in this issue the paper which was read by Dr. Josephine Milligan before the Illinois Conference of Charities recently held at Pontiac. Each County Judge and Clerk of the State not only should read but study the artilcle as it contains many wise suggestions in reference to the proper administration of the Juvenile Court laws in the smaller counties. A false impression has prevailed since the establishment of the Juvenile Court Law that it was enacted and intended for the large counties. Such was not and is not the idea of those directly inter

THE JUVENILE COURT LAW HELD

CONSTITUTIONAL.

Some doubt has existed in the minds of various people as to the constitutionality of the juvenile court law. After reading the able opinion which is printed in this issue by his Honor, Judge Willard M. McEwen, we feel that the most sceptical will be satisfied as to the constitutionality of the law.

Judge McEwen in his opinion reviews the cases. throughout the country and points out very clearly the distinction between criminal proceedings and those of the Juvenile Court, and demonstrates beyond doubt that the legislature had ample power to pass such a law. In concluding his opinion the judge says:

"While I started on the consideration of this case with some misgivings as to the extent of the power exercised by the Juvenile Court in this and in other cases, as I have looked into it, I have become satisfied that the chancery powers of the Circuit Court in the matter of the custody of delinquent children. are almost supreme and sovereign powers, and that when there has been any adjudication in the manner provided for by law finding a person delinquent, and judgment upon it, a commitment upon the judgment becomes of such a character as that a writ of habeas corpus does not permit the taking of that child out of a charitable institution, the purpose of which is the reformation and not the punishment of the child."

Since the passage of the Juvenile Court law in Eighteen ninety-nine, there has been a desire on the part of its friends. to know how useful and effective it has been throughout the State aside from Cook County.

In the Nineteen hundred four Report of Public Charities, statistics were given that were collected from eighty-nine counties, Cook County being purposely omitted-that is, twelve counties were not neard from, as the collector of the Reports feelingly states answers could not be obtained from twelve counties though twice stamps were enclosed to induce the County Judges to reply.

These statistics cover one year from July 1, 1903, to July 1, 1904, and show that four hundred and sixteen children were brought under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court Law, that year, in eighty-nine counties; two hundred fifty-six of these were committed to associations and Institutions. No reports were given as to the disposition of seventy, but it is known that over half of these were placed in local institutions-such as the Springfield Home for the Friendless.

In collecting statistics this fall, your committee wished to find out (1) if the law had been enforced since its passage; (2) the number of children brought under the law; (3) who in the rural districts brought these cases to the attention of the court; (4) how many cases brought up before the court were dismissed, either through the lack of evidence or because the case was not fit; (5) another point on which the committee wished enlightenment was the disposition made of the children brought before the court and found to be dependent or delinquent or both.

The friends of the law feel strongly that although there are five ways open to the court in which it may dispose of the children, it is infinitely better not to put them in State Industrial and reform schools except as a last resort, that is, because the child has shown itself too incorrigible to be under probation, or in a new home under more favorable surroundings. The last question asked was the opinion of the County Judges as to the usefulness of the law.

The difficulty of collecting any statistics at all and the extreme difficulty of getting accurate reports had not been patent to the chairman of your committee until recently. The plan pursued was to write circular letters to the County Judges, stating the object of the inquiry and asking the following five questions. First-Has the law been enforced in your county, if so, how long and how many cases have been before you? SecondWho brings cases to the attention of the court? Third-How many cases are brought to the court that are dismissed? Fourth-What was the disposition of the children? Were they placed under probation in homes, or in school, as St. Charles, Glenwood, Evanston or Geneva? Fifth-In your opinion, is it a useful law? A stamped and addressed envelope was enclosed for the answers. All the County Judges, one hundred one exclusive of Cook County, were addressed by name. Quite confidently one hundred one answers were expected-instead fortysix judges replied. Our own County Clerk was consulted as to a remedy for the poverty of our results and we were advised to write the County Clerks of the state, as they or their deputies are obliged to keep the records of all cases brought before the County Court. So a second series of letters were written to sixty-eight County Clerks, to get more detailed answers than some of the judges gave, and to elicit replies from those counties not heard from. Thirty-six County Clerks answered.

The usual but ineffective stamp and addressed envelope accompanied these questions.

The statistics submitted are compiled from these two series of answers. The figures offered are not absolutely accurate. Some replies were indefinite, saying there had been a "few cases," again, "ten or fifteen cases," if given in the latter way the smaller number was counted, and if "a few" no number at all was put down. Also several gave the number of cases during their term of office instead of since the law was passed, which may or may not have been the whole number for the five years. Some gave the number of cases brought instead of the number

of children, often several members of a family are docketed as one case. In spite of these various inaccuracies, I am sure the figures are conservative and well within the true number. Of the seventy-five counties heard from there were sixteen in which the law was not enforced, one judge opining "that the law didn't apply to his county."

In the fifty-nine counties where it is enforced and reports sent in, fifteen hundred and three children have been cared for since 1899.

I make no surmises as to the twenty-seven counties not heard from, that apparently have no county judges or county clerks. I hope they also have no dependent or delinquent children.

The counties having the largest number of children brought under the Juvenile Court Law are Sangamon County, Springfield the county seat, three hundred sixty-one; Peoria County, Peoria the county seat, one hundred fifty; Kane County, Geneva the county seat, one hundred thirty-six; Winnebago County, Rockford the county seat, one hundred eighteen; McLean County, Bloomington the county seat, sixty-four; Rock Island County, Rock Island the county seat, fifty-three; Alexander County, Cairo the county seat, fifty-one; Kankakee County, Kankakee the county seat, fifty; Hamilton County, McLeansboro the county seat, fifty or more.

The answers to the second question, who brings these cases to the attention of the court, show that there is some one person or society in each county that is especially interested in delinquent and dependent children and who brings the cases to the court quite irrespective of the official position they hold. Police matron was spoken of twice, probation officer three times. Then in the order of frequency, the State's attorney, supervisor of the poor, police, parents, friends, secretaries of societies for securing homes for children, secretary of associated charities, neighbors, overseer of the poor, truant officer, superintendent of city schools, secretary of humane society, deaconess, county commissioner, and the secretary of the Free Kindergarten Association.

The third question, as to the number of cases dismissed, showed that in twenty-six counties none were dismissed, as one judge said "all were plain cases."

In thirteen counties some of the cases were dismissed, as far as numbers were given, fifty-five children. It would be interesting to know if these fifty-five children were not given the benefit of the law because they did not need it, that is, that they were improperly selected cases or because of insufficient evidence, or indifference on the part of the judge.

The fourth question, as to the disposition of the children declared dependent or delinquent, is of the greatest importance as the object of the law is the prevention of the development of criminals from such children, the wise placing of them is of first importance. In only twenty-three of the fifty-nine counties probation officers were employed, that is, more than half of the counties heard from, that enforce the law, do not make use of the wisest provision of the law-the placing of delinquent children under probation.

In twenty-four counties, children were placed with societies for securing homes. The principal one was the Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society, a few more were committed to the American Home Finding Association and one to Dewells' Home and Aid Society at Whitehall.

There are homes throughout the state that get a certain number from the counties in which they are located or neighboring counties. The M. E. Deaconess Orphanage at Lake Bluff has children from two counties; St. Mary's Training School for Boys, Feehanville, has boys from three counties; the Evangelical Kinderfreund Society has children from three counties; the Anna B. Milliken Home, Decatur, from one county: the Home of the Good Shepherd Industrial School for Girls, in Peoria, from one county; the Woodstock Children's Industrial Home, from one county; St. Agnes' Orphanage, Belleville, one county; Springfield Home for Friendless, one county; the School for Feeble-minded, at Lincoln, one county; Fay Lewis, Rock

ford, one county; Industrial Home for Girls, at Evanston, from five counties; the Illinois Manual Training School Farm at Glenwood for Boys, from eighteen counties. These last two industrial schools can care for a large number of children. The delinquent children may be committed and the boys sent to St. Charles and the girls to Geneva. Of the fifty-nine counties heard from, twenty-four counties had sent boys to St. Charles and twenty-seven had sent girls to Geneva. Six counties sent boys to Pontiac.

It would be instructive to know the number of children cared for in these different ways. Some of the reports are very definite, but a few are very indefinite; counting only the definite figures and if the report stated "some were put on probation and some sent to Geneva and St. Charles," probation, Geneva and St. Charles were only counted one each. We have the following figures that are only valuable as showing the relative number disposed of in different ways.

Children from fifty-nine counties under probation were two hundred nineteen. The next largest number was one hundred thirty-seven under the care of some society for securing homes for children.

Sixty-three girls were sent to Geneva, sixty-one boys to Glenwood, thirty-seven boys to St. Charles, thirty-seven children to the Springfield Home for the Friendless, fourteen children to the Lutheran Kinderfreund Society, twelve boys to Pontiac, eleven girls to Evanston, to each of the others mentioned above from one to four children were sent. Incomplete as these figures are, I think the proportions are gratifying, as much the largest number of children are placed on probation and next in number are placed in homes, the industrial homes coming last.

The fifth question asked: In your opinion is it a useful law was answered in the affirmative by the forty-six judges heard from, with one exception. One judge said he was not competent to give an opinion as he had had no case.

Another living in an apparently Arcadian community thought it would be useful in some localities, but in his county the jails were usually empty, but few inmates in the poor farm, and the children lived at home and went to school. Others thought it would be good if enforced, but neglected to say whether in their counties it was not enforced through a lack of material or a lack of interest. Many assents were very decided, such as "a most useful and humane law," "Very useful, saves for usefulness lives otherwise wrecked," "No doubt of it, cases brought could not otherwise have been properly dealt with," "One of the

wisest pieces of legislation placed on the statute books for many years, applies to rural districts as well as Cook County."

The report is offered, with much hesitation, with the knowledge that it is extremely incomplete, and that many questions should have been asked that were not. Inadequate as it is, it gives us some idea of the number of children brought under the Juvenile Court Law throughout the state, their disposition and the opinion in which the law is held. If it also emphasizes the importance of putting truant and slightly delinquent children under probation, of changing the homes when the environment is hopelessly bad, of sending to the industrial schools only the delinquent child as a last resort, we shall feel more than repaid for the time expended.

I wish to thank the Judges and County Clerks who have so kindly answered my questions.

The following table was submitted with Dr. Milligan's paper: COUNTIES HEARD FROM.

Enforced-McHenry; Platt; Morgan; Williamson; Boone; Bond; Pope; Jasper; Lake; Macon; Livingston; Alexander; Tazewell; McDonough; Pike; Moultrie; White; Cass; La Salle; Brown; Mercer; Kankakee; Montgomery; Washington; Schuyler; Macoupin; Rock Island; Winnebago; Jersey; Champaign; Woodford; Du Page; Johnson; Bureau; Lee; Warren; Christian; Ford; Peoria; Clay; Will; Marion; Whiteside; Crawford; Knox; McLean; Vermilion; Wabash; Menard; Clinton; Henry; Fayette; Sangamon; Hamilton; Kane; Grundy; Perry; Fulton; Henderson-59.

Not Enforced-Scott; Edwards; Franklin; Monroe; Lawrence; Gallatin; Greene; Kendall; Stark; Putnam; Clark; Randolph; Calhoun; Saline; Effingham; Wayne-16.

COUNTIES NOT HEARD FROM.

Adams; Carroll; Clinton; Coles; Cumberland; De Kalb; De Witt; Douglas; Edgar; Hancock; Hardin; Iroquois; Jackson; Jefferson; Jo Daviess; Logan; Madison; Marshall; Mason; Massac; Ogle; Pulaski; Richland; Shelby; St. Clair; Stephenson; Union-27.

The Committee on Juvenile Courts and County Visitation was continued.

Dr. Josephine Milligan, Jacksonville, chairman.
Hon. T. D. Hurley, Chicago.

Hon. Chas. S. White, Jerseyville.
Herbert T. Root, Chicago.

Kate F. O'Connor, Rockford.

By Judge Williard M. McEwen.

CIRCUIT COURT, COOK COUNTY.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. TILLIE IVIS V. OPHELIA L. AMIGH, Superintendent of the State Training School for Girls.

1. DELINQUENT CHILDREN-HABEAS CORPUS-COMPLETE JURISDICTION OF JUVENILE COURT.-When there has been an adjudication in the manner provided for by law finding a child delinquent and judgment upon it, a commitment upon the judgment becomes of such a character that a writ of habeas corpus does not permit the taking of that child out of a charitable institution, the purpose of which is the reformation and not the punishment of the child.

2. ADJUDICATION-CHANCERY CONTROLLING MINORS. Chancery has complete jurisdiction in regard to the custody of minors within the state, and whenever a parent fails or whenever the child requires this fostering care of the state it may be exercised by a court of chancery, and such an exercise is not an imprisonment even if it results in the physical detention of the child or the control of the freedom of its movements so far as going elsewhere is concerned.

Decision by WILLARD M. MCEWEN, judge of the Superior Court of Cook County, Illinois, sitting as a judge of the Circuit Court of said county.

The Court: This is a petition on the relation of Tillie Ivis against Ophelia L. Amigh, superintendent of the State Training School for Girls at Geneva, for a writ of habeas corpus, heard upon the petition and the return of the writ.

The facts concerning the commitment as disclosed by the petition and return, which are substantially without dispute, show that a complaint, or a document in the nature of

a complain, was filed before Judge Mack as an examining magistrate, June 1, A. D. 1905, wherein the charge made against the relatrix was the violation of section 55 of chapter 38 of the Revised Statutes of the State of Illinois.

Upon this complaint a warrant issued under the order of Judge Mack of the Juvenile Court, and the relatrix was brought before the court. In connection with this proceeding, on June 1st, there was filed a petition setting forth that the relatrix was fifteen years of age; certain facts regarding her family, and charges that she has been reported several times within the past year as being incorrigible; besides, she has loose associates or vicious company, remains away,

from home late nights, and has a bad reputation in the neighborhood.

Upon relatrix being brought before the court, a hearing was had before the court and a jury of six jurors, who, upon the evidence, returned a verdict finding that all of the allegations of the petition are true; that the girl is between the ages of ten and eigh teen years, and is of about the age of fifteen years; thereupon the Circuit Court entered final sentence upon the verdict committing the relatrix to the custody of the respondent in this case, reciting in the judgment of commitment that the relatrix had been charged with a violation of section 55, chapter 38, of the Revised Statute, before Julian W. Mack, judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, etc., and committing relatrix to the school in question until she arrives at the age of twenty-one years, or until sooner discharged therefrom according to law.

The only issue of fact that seems to exist on the face of the paper is whether the institution at Geneva is a place of imprisonment, or whether it is a school; but I take it that the facts should not constitute a real issue because the fact of whether or not the detention of a girl at Geneva constitutes imprisonment is quite as much a matter of law upon the admitted facts, as the question of the actual incarceration or detention.

It is contended for the relatrix that the proceedings before Judge Mack in the Circuit Court were without jurisdiction; that the complaint charging relatrix was not specific and did not specify an offense, and that this complaint was an essential to jurisdiction, and not being sufficient, all subsequent proceedings were void and of no effect. Counsel for relatrix further says that even if the commitment is valid, still upon a habeas corpus proceeding, it is the province of the court to enter into an inquiry as to the fitness of the parents to care for the child, and to treat the subject of the detention at Geneva as an original question. There are some minor questions running along with these as the main features of the case.

The case presents a matter of very grave importance as it raises some questions of practice and procedure, and jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in its Juvenile branch in the matter of the control and custody of children. It presents questions of whether the child must be convicted of a crime before the court can act; whether the parents must be adjudged to be unfit, to invoke its jurisdiction; whether an issue can be presented between the parents as the natural guardians of the child; whether it is a matter of incompetency, neglect of the parent, or vicious tendencies in the child, and whether the state has a superior right to that of the parent, everything else being equal.

Historically considered, from the earliest days, the sovereign power of the state al ways assumed to have the right to the disposition of the destiny of the child and the subject; this control extended to the care of its estate and the management of the person of the child; it was of an absolute character; with the growth of law and constitution, however, this absolute right beginning with the power of life and death of the sovereign over the subject, has been limited, denied, and under present conditions of the Juvenile Courts of this day and the tendency of modern effort to reform the child, there are presented questions that seem never to have arisen in past days.

The strongest case relied upon by the counsel for the relatrix in the case cited in the Fifty-fifth Illinois, page 280, The People ex rel. Michael O'Connell v. Robert Turner, superintendent of the Reform School of the city of Chicago, in which the Supreme Court

of this State declared that the parent has the natural right to the care and custody of his child, and this right should not be abridged by the state except from a necessity arising from gross misconduct or almost total unfitness on the part of the parent.

In that case the relator sought to be discharged from confinement in the old reform school of the city of Chicago because he had not been convicted, or charged with any crime, and had been committed apparently on general principles. The court say: "The warrant of commitment does not indicate that the arrest was made for a criminal offense, hence we conclude it was issued under the general grant of power to arrest and confine for misfortune."

The Supreme Court with considerable expression of indignation in holding the act under which the proceedings were had, unconstitutional, say: Before any abridgment of the right of the parent, gross misconduct or almost total unfitness on the part of the parent must be clearly proved. This power is an emanation from God and every attempt to infringe upon it except from dire necessity, should be resisted in all well-governed states. In this country the hope of the child in respect to its education and future advancement, is mainly dependent upon the father; for this he struggles and toils through life, the desire of its accomplishment opera ting as one of the most powerful incentives to industry and thrift; the violent abruption of this relation would not only tend to wither these motives to action, but necessarily in time alienate the father's natural affection." The court apparently considered the reform school of the city of Chicago a place of imprisonment. A place where there were cells and iron bars where the relator was confined, and that the relator was not guilty of any offense and was committed as the court says 'for misfortune."

In the case at bar, you might say in a general way, the other cases cited by counsel for relatrix are mainly along the line of of the questions arising upon the commitment of children where there is no criminality on the part of the child.

Taking up the first question presented here, as to whether the complaint was sufficient, we encounter at the outset the question, "What is the nature of the proceeding in the Circuit Court in the Juvenile branch thereof?" The Circuit Court of Cook County has general and unlimited criminal jurisdiction; it has jurisdiction to the same extent in all chancery matters. The statute under which this proceeding is had, seems to contemplate a double sort of action; first, there should be a charging of the defendant in that court with some offense; next there should be some petition filed or representation made to the court, and the issue seems to be made up upon the petition rather than upon the complaint.

Now, section 17 of the chapter on Charities, Hurd's Statutes, 1903, p. 272, says: "Whenever any girl between the ages of ten and eighteen years is charged with or found guilty of the violation of any statute, law or city ordinance before any justice of the peace, police magistrate, examining magistrate or court, if any credible person, a resident of the county, shall file a petition in any court of record in such county, setting forth the offense charged, and that such girl is a vagrant or without a proper home or means of subsistance, or lives with or frequents the company of reputed thieves or other vicious persons, or is or has been in a house of ill fame, prison or poorhouse, or setting forth and showing any other facts of a similar nature, showing that it will be for the interest of such girl and the public that she

should be sent to said State Home for Juvenile Female Offenders, the court may, etc., impanel a jury of six competent persons and if the jury shall return their verdict that the facts set forth in the petition are proved, the court may commit such girl to said State Home for Juvenile Offenders for a term not less than one year nor beyond the age of twenty-one years." "For purposes of convenience, the said reformatory may, in all legal proceedings, contracts and papers of every kind, be designated as a 'State Training School for Girls,' and such designation shall be taken and held to have the same legal effect as if the name 'State Home for Juvenile Female Offenders' were used therein." So that the process upon which the defendant is brought before the court is criminal in its character, the petition and the trial by jury is of course civil, and the power of the judge seems to partake of the nature of a chancery power. The procedure is like some other proceeding which we have, such as quasi-criminal cases, where the form of the procedure is criminal, but where the proceeding itself is held to be civil. Another illustration in cases of procedure under the Burnt Record Act, where the procedure is in the form of a chancery proceeding, but where the Supreme Court has held that the proceeding itself is a law proceeding. So that we have procedure in this state which may partake of one character, while the proceeding itself may be of another character.

I take it that the issue which is presented to the jury, being the issue upon the petition of this credible person, who is a resident of the county,, and the verdict of the jury being directed to that, that the real issue before the court is the question upon the petition, and not necessarily the question upon the charge.

The cases which counsel for relatrix cite upon the sufficiency of this complaint here, are cases which would have a great deal of force with this court if the proceeding itself, was directed to the complaint, if the statute providing the procedure did not permit the general allegation which is made in this affidavit of complaint. This affidavit of complaint considered by itself, considered as a basis for a prosecution, if there were nothing further in the way of a petition, or proceedings upon the petition, and nothing in the statute, I would say that clearly it would be a bad complaint that might be assailed upon habeas corpus proceedings; but the statute does not seem to require that particularity which would be required if there was going to be a trial upon the question of a violation of the statute. The statute reads: "Whenever any girl, etc., is charged with or found guilty of the violation of any statute," etc.; it says to start this proceeding in operation the girl may be charged with the violation of the statute, and this complaint follows the language of the statute, that the child has violated section 55, which is the statute on disorderly conduct, so that I think in this proceeding, that, being merely preliminary, being in the language of the statute, being the means of bringing the child before the court, of issuing the warrant and bringing the child before the court, and starting in motion the machinery of the court, I do not think it can be attacked at this time on habeas corpus, so that we come to the next question as to what the power of this court is, or its jurisdiction to proceed upon the record in this case to a hearing as to the fitness of the parent.

I have considered these various cases and the question involved, seriously, as I recog nize that the State of Illinois is in the ad