The Working of the Parole Law
By M. P. Evans

SUPERINTENDENT, CHICAGO BUREAU OF IDENTIFICATION

THERE

RE has been considerable discussion recently as to the merits or demerits of the parole law. Some have gone so far as to advocate repeal of the law, but such advocates deal in generalities, and give no statistics or facts on which to base a reasonable argument.

In 1895 the parole law was applied to the State Penitentiaries at Joliet and Menard, Illinois, and all persons convicted of felonies (excepting treason, murder and rape, punishment for which is fixed by definite sentence) are since sentenced under the indeterminate or parole law. This law fixes a minimum and a maximum sentence to be served and authorizes the Board of Pardons sitting as a Board of Parole to determine the actual time to be served, according to the conduct of the convict and his previous criminal record if he has any.

Under the old law, rank injustice was often done in the inequality of sentence. First offenders with no money to employ eminent counsel and having counsel appointed by the court, which counsel were generally young and inexperienced lawyers, received long sentences, while professional criminals with "fall" money (money placed in a pool by a number of criminals) to be used in employing the best legal talent whenever necessary, were defended by first-class attorneys, and if not acquitted, usually received very light sentences. Now when these men met in the penitentiary and reviewed their respective cases, the professional with the short sentence and the first offender with the long one, they naturally, seeing the injustice done, had very little respect for the law.

The parole law to a certain extent does

away with this. A person sent to the penitentiary under the indeterminate or parole law, after being there four or five months is given a printed form with a number of questions to be answered regarding his past life, or say for eight or ten years previous to his conviction. The object of this is to find out where he has been, what kind of a life he has been leading, for whom he has worked, etc. In examining these forms, we often find a space of a year or more left blank, which indicates that during that period the convict may possibly have been confined in other institutions. This gives the Board an opportunity to send photographs to several likely institutions for the purpose of finding a previous criminal record, if any exists. By obtaining this information, the Board is enabled to apportion justly the punishment, letting first offenders off with the minimum or short sentence and holding professional criminals for a longer period.

The cases of all prisoners sent to penitentiaries in the State of Illinois come up before the Board of Pardons for examinations for parole at the end of eleven months, providing the conduct of the convict has been exemplary. If it is found that he has served one previous term in the same institution, the case does not come up for parole for two years; if two terms, not for three years, etc. You can readily see the justice in this. It would not be fair to give the professional criminal the same chance of parole as the first offender.

The best feature of the parole law in my judgment is that after the convict is paroled, and before he is given his freedom, employment is secured for him during the period of his parole, which is one year. The conditions of that parole are that he must not visit saloons, must abstain from intoxicating liquors and

keep away from all evil associations and influences, and must make a report once a month, giving a detailed statement of the amount of money he has earned and how it has been expended. This gives him an opportunity to lead an honest life if he desires to do so, while under the old law he was turned loose upon the community with $10 in his pocket, which was soon spent, and he again drifted into his old ways and haunts.

The general impression of the public, created by press comments principally, is that the indeterminate law does not keep the convict imprisoned long enough, while on the other hand, advocates of repeal or amendment of the law seem to think it keeps them in too long. The following statistics show conclusively the time served by convicts under the old law as compared with the new or parole law. It is to be remembered that in addition to the sentences served, the convict must serve one year on parole before procuring his final discharge.

For seven years previous to the passage of the indeterminate or parole law, from 1888 to 1894 inclusive, only twentytwo convicts were received at Joliet Penitentiary with maximum sentences for such crimes as burglary, larceny, forgery, robbery, etc., and the average time served was six years, seven months and eighteen days. From 1899 to 1905 inclusive, after passage of the parole law, the number of persons sentenced to the same penitentiary on the same charges was two hundred and two, and the average time served was seven years, one month and twenty-five days.

As a rule, convicts are paroled upon recommendation of the judge before whom tried and the state's attorney who prosecuted the case, but it often happens that even upon recommendation of these gentlemen, convicts are not paroled because the Board of Pardons finds that the recommendations have been made in the belief that the convict is serving his first term, while it develops later he has served terms in other penitentiaries; consequently the Board refuses to act on the recommendations. For example, during the session of the Board held in February, 1907, there were three conviets whose applications came before the Board for parole, who were among the

It

most noted criminals in the country. In each case the state's attorneys and judges before whom they had been tried recommended minimum sentences. was found upon examination that Henry P. had been arrested in Chicago on the charge of burglary in 1899; no bill, grand jury. He had served four years in the Ohio State Penitentiary on the charge of grand larceny. Thomas K. was arrested in Denver, Colorado, in May, 1892, for forgery and sentenced to the Colorado State Penitentiary. He afterward served two years in Minnesota State Penitentiary. The third, Michael O'B., had served one term in Missouri State Penitentiary, one in Ohio State Penitentiary and eight years in Kentucky State Penitentiary. Of course these men were not paroled on the recommendations made by the judges and state's attorneys, and their cases were passed for longer terms.

The records compiled by the Bureau of Identification of the City of Chicago from January 1, 1891, to June 30, 1895, and those for the last three years, show conclusively that the indeterminate law is a vast improvement on the old law and unquestionably tends to keep professional criminals away from the city.

Under the old law, the habitual criminal act was enacted for the purpose of punishing habitual criminals. In this sense it was a failure. It was necessary to produce a copy of the former indictment in order to indict a person under the habitual criminal act. In addition, it was necessary to have some person in court who was present at the former conviction in order to have the prisoner sentenced under the habitual criminal act.

Again, the habitual criminal act applied only to persons convicted and sentenced to the state penitentiaries of Illinois, and where convictions occurred in counties other than Cook County, to obtain a conviction under the act, it was necessary to bring officers or other persons who were present at former convictions from said counties. The result was that in very few cases could the county go to the expense of getting such witnesses. Under the indeterminate law, the Board of Pardons meets once a month in each of the penitentiaries, at Joliet and Chester, as a Board of Parole.

The Board, in passing upon the question of parole, takes into consideration all arrests and convictions, no matter where they have taken place, and fixes the punishment accordingly. The result is that while under the old law, from January 1, 1891, to June 13, 1895-four and a half years out of 184 persons indicted under the habitual criminal act, only thirty were sentenced for six years and over; under the indeterminate law, for the year ending December 31, 1902, there were passed for further confinement, four, to six years; two, to eight years; two, to eleven years; three, to sixteen years and twenty-six for the maximum term allotted by the statute for the various offenses.

Let us take the result of the action of the Board of Parole for February, 1903. Out of fifty cases for parole from Cook County, examined by the Board, only two men were paroled after serving one year, while of the old offenders, three were passed for six years; one for seven years; two for eight years; one for ten years; one for twelve years and six for the maximum term fixed by law.

Now as a comparison, sentences found by juries in this city under the old law were very light as compared with those found in other places, taking the crimes. committed into consideration. For instance, out of 987 straight sentences from January 1, 1891, to June 13, 1895,

560 were for one year, forty-five for a year and a half, and 148 for two years.

In conclusion let me state that I believe that when professional criminals are charged with felonies and found guilty, they should be sent to the penitentiary and not to the House of Correction or County Jail. On the other hand, I believe that first offenders, especially where the case is of a trivial nature, should not be sent to the Reformatory, House of Correction or County Jail. There should be some way of releasing them on their own recognizance and giv ing them a chance. I think it would be far better to do this than to put the stamp of the convict upon them by sentencing them, as is often done, for an hour, a day or a week to the County Jail. There are great opportunities for refor mation in first offenders, but comparatively few in the older ones. This is my experience in twenty-six or twenty-eight years, and after having handled from fifty to sixty thousand criminals.

The Making of the Modern Farmer By Walter Williams

THE modern farmer is the creation of

the modern agricultural college. The modern agricultural college is the result of the Morrill Act by which the Congress of the United States gave for the making of the farmer eleven million

In them are enrolled nearly sixty thousand students. Through them and their influence the modern farmer is made or made over.

The agricultural colleges have exceedingly broad foundations. They are at liberty to teach anything, even including the classic languages, that may be taught in any college, but the leading object "shall be to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts." To this object they confine closely their curriculum. Agronomy, animal husbandry, agricultural chemistry, botany, climatology, dairying, entomology, horticulture, shopwork, veterinary science, rural engineering, rural economics, farm management-along these lines runs the course of study.

The farming of to-day differs from the

thirty years his efficiency has been increased fivefold.

The

The different conditions of the farm have made necessary different training for the farmer. Physical strength and endurance to combat the physical difficulties of farm life are no longer sufficient. Success as a farmer is not a necessary result of being born on a farm. modern farmer must know much that his grandfather did not even dream. The care of delicate and expensive machinery, the soil and its adaptability for various purposes, transportation and business must be thoroughly learned. He is, with the aid of nature, whose processes he must understand, a manufacturer. output of his factory he must sell, hence he is a merchant. The farm is capital invested and he is broker. For the training

The

of men and women in the complex science of modern agriculture we have the College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts.

The successful modern farmer must have business ability, but he must also know how to grow crops, feed animals and maintain the productive power of the soil. Every detail of farming may be understood and yet the farmer lacking business ability be financially a failure. The agricultural college does not teach business ability. No college endows beyond man's birthright. The agricultural college teaches the "how" of farming. The Experiment Station makes discovery in agricultural science. The college teaches the practical application. points out that a certain variety of corn produces more on the same soil and with the same treatment than other varieties. It teaches that to secure the best results seed of undoubtedly strong vitality strong vitality should be planted and shows how this seed may be best selected and stored.

It

Specific conditions change with localities, but all agricultural colleges teach first the fundamental principles which underlie all farming. Knowledge of plant

physiology, chemistry, animal physiology, geology, physics, and of the application of these sciences to soils and plants, is necessary. These principles come into use everywhere. It is for the particular college to teach special adaptation. Upon the foundation thus acquired, the student of agriculture specializes. If he desires to grow stock he studies the origin, development and care of animals; if he wishes to raise corn or wheat he devotes his time to agronomy and its allied sciences. There are no longer professors of agriculture in the agricultural colleges. Instead are professors of the various separate and distinct subdivisions which combined we call by the allembracing word, agriculture. The student who seeks to specialize finds class room and laboratory with open door.

Does training in agriculture pay? Does it pay to know that one hundred bushels of corn fed to a certain type of animal will yield $75, while the same amount of corn fed to another type of animal will yield only $50? Does it pay to know that one variety of potatoes will yield three hundred bushels per acre