the prisoner questions. I could take a rubber stamp and give him his answer. That doesn't aid me at all. I do not expect a convicted prisoner to tell the truth until you have submitted him to a thorough cross-examination, and you have to look up many facts and you are not to stop by taking his word for it. You will find the police officer has made a study of the case and it will surprise you how much he knows about the defendant if you would only ask him. The officer will not volunteer the information, but if interrogated on the subject he will tell you more than you will find from the defendant himself.

I find many probation officers content themselves also with asking the intimate friends of the prisoner. There is just one thing the intimate friend won't tell you and that is anything derogatory to the defendant. The fact is he will tell you white lies and will cover everything up you ought to report to the judge. By such a course you place the judge in a very embarrassing position. I am not going to cite instances, but I have a stack of probation officers' reports and I should like to show those probation officers results of some investigations I have made myself. I have before my mind's eye a very recent case where the report of the probation officer was very flattering to the defendant. That fellow had been convicted three times and served three sentences in State prison. I had a foreboding; I was very suspicious myself in regard to the flattering report, but the report was nothing more or less than what the defendant had said. The report didn't purport to be anything more than that, so you see it is absolutely useless to make a diagnosis of the case with reference only to what the defendant himself tells you. If the defendant is young an excellent method under ordinary circumstances is to get the first name of the mother and father and apply to the Children's Society and see what they will have to say.

Crime is progressive. We must not flatter ourselves by thinking that a person who commits a felony is a first offender. We must not blind ourselves and blink the facts, but we had better look the facts in the face. Even if he is a bad young fellow, there may be some hope, but we want to know the facts, and if he can deceive you in making a good report, you cannot properly aid the court; you have made a false diagnosis and the result of that probation will be a failure.

There is one other matter in regard to the preliminary investigation I want to call to your attention. I am an advocate of a paid probation system. We are served in the Court of General Sessions by volunteer probation officers. They do excellent work. We have no right to expect them to do as much as they do for us. They are not paid; there is no appropriation by the city even to pay their disbursements. The charitable societies pay that, and it seems right to me that the great city of New York ought to appropriate a reasonable amount for the purpose of making these preliminary investigations.

Many persons suggest that even the preliminary investigation ought to be on religious lines, but I do not think that conforms with the best American tradition. It is quite immaterial to me who makes the investigation, provided it is properly done, and I would no more think of suggesting that one of the same faith of the defendant make the preliminary investigation than I would suggest that a jury of the same political faith should try the defendant, or that a policeman of the same faith should arrest the defendant. The investigation should be made by paid officers of the county. The laborer is worthy of his hire, and we want those who are skilled in doing that kind of work to be paid a living wage, and we want them to have proper assistants.

Now, the next function of the probation officer is the supervision of the probationer after the sentence is suspended, and therein, it seems to me, the religious societies come in to perform extremely valuable services. After the investigation is made and after it has been found from a proper diagnosis that it is a proper case for probation and suspended sentence, it seems to me there is nothing that will better guide the young man back to the proper mode of life than religious instruction and training, and I would advocate a statute to provide that in case of parole a defendant should be paroled in the custody of a probation officer of the same religious faith.

When we suspend sentence, it is to send the young man away from court, and it is best if we can send him to proper influences and back to his childhood recollections.

Here we have the second element and function of the probation officer, and with a proper diagnosis, with the previous study of

the character, the previous history and past performances of the individual, the probation officer is in a better condition to follow him up and keep tabs on him, and if possible where he may be slipping, to give him a helping hand. No one would be more ready to commend you for it than I would in any effort you should make, and it is your duty to do so and it is scarcely proper for me to speak of your duty when you are rendering so much without pay. We are burdening the willing horse too much, but nevertheless it seems to be your wish and pleasure to do good, and so far as you seem to derive satisfaction from it I commend you most heartily for the efforts you are making in the reclamation and conservation of the youth of the city.

The third function of the probation officer is very important to me. As a citizen, the second element is equally important, but as a judge the first and third are the most important. The third is the report of dereliction of duty on the part of the probationer. It is very difficult for you to do that, for there isn't a probation officer in the Court of General Sessions that does not have a regiment of probationers under his supposed supervision. How in the world he can adequately supervise so many young men with any hope of success, I cannot understand; it is impossible for you to do it, and we ought to have a paid system of probation officers supplemented by the voluntary worker. That is the ideal method of probation. That does not make us rely entirely upon the volunteer. Those who are devoting their lives to it ought to be paid, and so the societies need feel no uneasiness in regard to it, those societies who have been so generous in their money. I think you will find there isn't a judge in New York city that won't thoroughly agree with you upon this point that we would divide up the probation officers into so many of one faith and so many of another, etc., so each of the religious faiths will be represented. That could be made a condition precedent in applying to the Civil Service Commission for an examination for probation officers. We would specify that as one of the qualifications. We would specify so many of one faith and so many of another, and they would have to comply with these conditions. That is done in other courts and in other parts of the State. It doesn't seem to be subject to any objection whatever, especially to any one who comprehends the duties and functions of the probation officer.

There is now the question of obtaining employment for the probationer. There is a certain glamour in regard to crime. If a young man has committed an offense, sometimes he can get a job quicker than if he had remained honest. It is a sad commentary on how we regard the poor and struggling fellow trying to live a decent life, denying himself and family rather than commit crime, when if he does step aside, he, under present conditions, seems to be able to get a job much quicker than before. The fact is that people come around the court house and sometimes say if I have a fellow who has stepped aside they will "give him a chance." I ask, “Why don't you give a chance' to some honest fellow who hasn't committed a crime?" Is it the glamour of crime that makes him ask that I parole some one in order that he may give him a job? I should like to know the psychology of the question.

There is one other element of probation about which I want to speak. We have a system of indeterminate sentence that is not what it's framers intended it to be. It is a figment of the brain merely, something on the statute books. It sounds all right, but it isn't. For instance, yesterday under the law I had to sentence a man to not less than two years nor more than twenty. That sounds severe and probably appalls those who are not accustomed to hearing sentences. That seems the greater part of the man's life, but don't you worry yourself at all about the twenty years part of the sentence. That part is mere words. You can find it upon the record, but that is about the end of it. He will serve two years and come out at the end of the two years.

The twenty years.

part of the sentence has no more effect than if I had closed my mouth after I said two. The law is nullified by a custom of the parole board, which seems to be invariable, at the end of two years he will come out automatically unless he has misbehaved in prison. Under the present conditions, who is going to misbehave in prison? Unless he is not of sound mind he will perform the functions there very well and at the end of the two years will come out. Then he is supposed to be on parole, but is he? I don't think he is. Nominally he is paroled to some organization, we will say the Prison Association. I can tell the Prison Association a great deal more about some of their probationers than they know themselves. The former prisoner is not supposed even to report more than one year of that remaining eighteen, and then

no man knows whither the probationers go. Certainly the parole officer does not know. I do not like to use such an expression, but it is a farce. Simply a farce the indeterminate sentence, and yet if you speak to any good citizen in regard to it, he would say: "A splendid thing, because it gives opportunity and hope to the prisoner; it makes him know that the period of imprisonment depends upon his own good conduct." If he does anything except offend the warden he will come out in two years. The law should be changed so that the judge who pronounces a sentence of not less than two or more than twenty years shall mean it. We want a statute to mean what it says. If he should come out in two years, all well and good, but I want him to be on parole for the balance of the term that the judge must sentence him for. I want it possible to return him for another period if he steps aside.

Last week I found a probationer rooming with two notorious burglars. They had in the room every conceivable device for blowing safes. My probationer was in that room and was handed over to me by the police, not by the probationer officer. The probation officer did not know where he was, but the police did. The two burglars were arrested in the act of blowing a safe and my probationer was acting as "lookout," but he satisfied himself he took no part in the crime and he was amazed to know he had been guilty of any dereliction whatever because he was to receive only twenty-five dollars for being the "lookout." The safe blowers also were supposed to be on parole from State prison. They had received a long sentence, but had been released after serving a short term, and nothing can be done so far as the unserved remainder of the sentence is concerned. My suggestion is that the law ought to be amended so that instead of allowing offenders to get their absolute release after the expiration of the short term they shall be put on parole for the balance of their time, so that if they are found with safe blowers during the period they may be immediately returned.

The mentality of the average criminal is abnormal. He acts sometimes as if he were dazed; did not appreciate what was done. He should receive a shock. The talking that the probation officer gives often fails to shock him at all. If when he enters State prison he receives such instructions as this, "You are more sinned