no less than 493,000 persons. Look at it in another way. On any day of the present time about 150,000 persons are serving sentence of imprisonment for some offense; more than one-half million human beings are sentenced by the courts and distributed among prisons in the course of any twelve months; and in the same space of time one-half million is discharged or paroled from custody. Still another impressive and sobering total: in the course of a year more than 1,500 persons breathe their last behind prison bars.

A mere mention of these staggering totals prompts us to learn more. Of the 493,000 prisoners and juvenile delinquents committed in 1910, 48,000 were women or 9 per cent. of the whole. Of the same total 23 per cent. were foreign born. Since the foreign born white in this country constitute about 16 per cent. of the total white population, it will be seen that the foreign born contribute rather more than their share of those committed to penal institutions. However, this general fact inust be accepted with many qualifications and explanations which the limits of my paper forbid me to consider. In passing let it be remarked that evidence of a proportionately greater criminality in general among the foreign born than among the native born has not been established.

Of the total number of prisoners and juvenile delinquents committed during 1910, 120,400 are classified as colored, or 22 per cent. of the total. As the colored constitute only about 10 per cent. of the total population of the United States, it will be seen that they contributed prisoners quite out of proportion to their numbers. But it must be remembered that however disquieting this fact appears, the inferences to be drawn from it are subject to many qualifications. One should not generalize on so slender a basis.

The prisoners and juvenile delinquents who were discharged or paroled in 1910 numbered over 468,000. How many were discharged on the expiration of sentence and how many on parole is not known, yet the figures may well make one pause and ask, To what extent does a State discharge its obligations to this huge aggregate of men and women who are annually set free from the prisons? Is the helping hand held out there when needed? Does discharge mean simply a mechanical process-that the law has been satisfied— or that needful effort has been made to prepare these men and

women for reinstatement into that society from which the law separated them? Available statistics furnish no answer, but the mere statement of the numbers concerned reveals the magnitude of the questions involved.

Unfortunately, no statement is as yet at hand for the whole country showing offenses for which all the persons incarcerated during 1910 were committed. We have to content ourselves with facts in regard to prisoners and juvenile delinquents serving sentence on January 1, 1910. Of these no less than 14,316 had been found guilty of homicide, including the grave and lesser. This is equal to 10 per cent. of the whole number sentenced. If we add those committed for major assaults, we have a total of 21,488 serious crimes against the person; equivalent to 15 per cent. of the total. Naturally, in absolute numbers the crime of larceny holds first place, with that of burglary a close second.

If the offenses of all the persons committed during 1910 were known, the largest number in any imprisonment for any crime group would doubtless be found to be those imprisoned for drunkenness and disorderly conduct. The fact need not especially alarm us as an indication of an increased amount of drunkenness requiring punishment or custodial care. Rather it should make us contemplate the stupidity of the law which still so largely prescribes that drunkenness, which frequently is a mere symptom of disease, must be dealt with as a penal offense. One of the most pitiful chapters in our prison lore relates to our efforts in stemming intemperance by prison methods.

Some exceedingly significant totals relate to sentences of prisoners and juvenile delinquents as enumerated on January 1, 1910. There were at that time no less than 143 persons under sentence of death. Probably today the number would be found considerably larger. More than 6,000 were under sentence for life, meaning with few exceptions that the individuals concerned had taken human life. Doubtless, this group has been increased within five years, and if one could add those who have not been apprehended for murder as well as those who for some reason have slipped through the meshes of the law there would be a much more humiliating total.

As in years gone by, one of the most disturbing facts disclosed in regard to the prevailing methods of dealing with crime is the large number of short sentences meted out by our courts. Of the total of 136,472 prisoners under consideration more than 23,499, or 17 per cent., were sentenced to imprisonment for less than one year, and of this number 21,436 were sentenced to serve for six months or less; in other words, 15 per cent. of the whole were incarcerated for periods varying from a few days to six months. How meaningless, or better, how utterly indefensible the application of the short sentence is would receive new emphasis did we but know more about the offenses to which they were applied, and more especially if we could state the exact number of commitments that had taken place because of the defendant's poverty, his inability to pay a fine. This is an old story, only the numbers appearing at each enumeration are new and startling. To be sure, the widening use of probation coupled with the probationary fine has tended greatly to diminish the number of short sentences, and the miscarriage of justice resulting in many cases when poverty means imprisonment from which the better placed can buy an escape. Yet it is clear that, taking the country as a whole, these are new substitutes for the ancient penal principles.

So also is it with the use of the indeterminate sentence. Only 20 per cent. of the prisoners and juvenile delinquents were enumerated on January 1, 1910. Self-evidently the indeterminate sentence is applied almost exclusively to persons sentenced to State prisons, reformatories, and institutions for juvenile offenders. It is worthy of note that in the South Atlantic States only 222, in the East South Central States, 36, and in the West South Central States 131 of the prisoners in question received an indeterminate sentence. At the same time, in some of these geographic divisions many persons were sentenced during minority; but the figures given illustrate abundantly that in some sections of the country the indeterminate sentence principle has not yet taken a real hold. One wonders how long it will be before practically every man and woman, even those sentenced for minor offenses, will be committed without a definite limit and released, not mechanically, upon the expiration of a certain period of time, but when they have become fit for the freedom they once abused.

Such are some of the enormous totals standing out from an enumeration of prisoners and juvenile delinquents. They serve, among other things, to visualize the great task of those at the head of prison affairs, and their responsibility for results measured in terms of human salvage.

The figures I have given you resulted from the enumeration of the inmates of more than 3,500 penal institutions. Of course, the majority are minor establishments, yet in each of them there should. be found that which makes for betterment; they should not be, what doubtless too many are, places to which men are sent for punishment only, and which they are unlikely to leave morally and physically improved.

I cannot help believing that the backwardness in many ways of our prison systems is due to lack of publicity, and to want of systematic form available to the general public. It has been common experience that people seize eagerly upon the decennial census reports of prisoners, for with all their imperfections they are a vast storehouse of important facts. There is no reason why those who wish to become informed about prison matters in their own States should not wait with a similar eagerness for the publication of the reports of state boards and of different penal institutions. But they do not, and a chief reason unquestionably is that these reports seldom provide the desired information, or at least not in a form which makes it easily accessible and intelligible. Besides, there is such lamentable want of uniformity both as to the size of statistical statements and methods of presentation that comparisons are almost impossible. Conditions would be greatly helped if at least the major prisons and reformatories both for adults and juveniles would adopt a uniform system of statistical reports and take greater pains about accuracy and clean-cut methods of presentation. I am well aware that I am referring to a part of the duties of prison officials which occasion them great tribulation. Nothing is easier than to continue in the old ways, whether they be good or bad. I fancy many men shudder when confronted with the unaccustomed task of compiling prison statistics. They are perhaps well aware that a careful count of turnips, potatoes, swine and other products of the prison farm do not yield valuable statistics; they know that for lack of comparisons or for lack of proper correlation of related

acts the long rows of figures adorning their reports have little meaning. But they are puzzled how to improve them.

Far be it from me at this time to wander into technical details about ways of stating facts in statistical form. That must be reserved for other occasions. But of this I am convinced, no prison official who is worthy of his place minimizes in his heart the value of systematic knowledge about his own work and the charges under his care. Therefore he cannot but welcome helpful suggestions even if they should impose upon him a little added labor and pains. Who shall offer such suggestions? I once more venture to say that also in this respect the Prison Association should lead. We have in times gone by had committees to consider the question of uniform and improved prison statistics. That on the whole they have not accomplished much should not deter us from a fresh attempt. The thing can be done, the end sought-to place our work on increasingly higher levels through a better understanding of the facts about it and to secure a larger measure of intelligent public supportfully justify it.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON DISCHARGED

PRISONERS.

REV. EDWARD A. FREDENHAGEN, PH. D., NATIONAL SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE SOCIETY FOR THE FRIENDLESS, KANSAS CITY,

We all agree—

MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN.

(1) That all lawbreakers are not criminals; that from onehalf to two-thirds of them are accidental offenders and hopeful subjects for reformation.

(2) That this reformation must take place between arrest and release, and must be wrought by the officials who have the offender in charge.

(3) That the most critical time in the ex-prisoner's life is when he leaves custody to begin life anew.

We may not all agree, but the members of the committee who signed this report, do agree

(1) That there is no criminal type and therefore there can be no criminal class. We hold that the criminal is an individual,