saw nor heard from the attorneys again after they received their fees. They were not present in court either when the prisoners made their plea or when they were sentenced. Can this be regarded as other than a form of theft?

A large portion of the money was paid by very poor prisoners, and in many instances involved sacrifice on the part of friends or relatives. In the greater number of instances it was paid very soon after arrest and when the prisoner's barriers were down and he was susceptible to any sort of influence. The attorneys were" tipped off " to the prisoners by jail officials, who received a small commission therefor.

The 125 prisoners who went to trial paid to their attorneys $20,625. The greater portion of this money was paid by men whom it was to the interest of society to see convicted. Of this number we have seen that thirty-seven were acquitted. A number of these men were undoubtedly guilty, and others who were convicted were enabled, through their counsel, to escape with much lighter sentences than men guilty of lesser misdemeanors who had pleaded guilty.

On the whole, I must conclude, from the consideration I have given to all the cases, that the greater portion of this money paid to the attorneys procured simply subversion of law and justice or entailed exploitation of men unable to make effort toward reprisal.

In the small individual family unit the small offender against the family code or even against the social code is commonly protected against undue severity, even though he may be forced to make reparation. The wise parent punishes the offending child solely with the purpose of correction of fault and provision of punitive experience as a possible deterrent against future offense. But the child, where the punishment is wisely administered, recognizes its justice and value, and the relations of child and parent are not impaired thereby. Indeed, it is possible that they may be strengthened.

Prison experience has shown that the majority of non-habitual criminal prisoners could be brought easily to the same desirable attitude of mind if they could be taught to believe that justice is administered fairly and corrective measures in force are wisely and judiciously applied. It must be remembered. that a very small proportion of the offenders brought each year before the criminal courts are either criminal at heart or by intent. The majority of them are merely weak.

Face to face with realities, as men must come when deprived of their liberty, and especially when they have been able to come back to their normal mental and physical condition by enforced abstention from indulgences which may have been contributory to their downfall, they are amenable to reason. If it were distinctly understood that it would be impossible for them to evade the consequences of their action, and if they could have assurance not only of treatment looking to reparation on their own part, but also of assistance toward a condition which would insure possibility of reformation, we should be near to the solution of many of our criminal problems.

But as the system of court procedure stands at present this condition is impossible of attainment. There is on every hand the temptation to evade consequences; to postpone the inevitable reparation, through the use of money or influence, and to use every endeavor to secure these if they are lacking. And where the individual is without these and is observant of what effect they have in the amelioration of the condition of others perhaps infinitely more culpable than himself, there is induced a condition of mind which is not conducive to either repentance or desire for reformation.

There is coming a day, possibly long deferred, however, in which the individual will be considered the State's chief concern. When this day arrives, the welfare of even the delinquent will not be left to chance or the caprice of some individual impelled to interference for financial or sordid reasons. And it should be the duty of the State to ascertain exactly the degree of guilt or innocence of the offender. We know that the State now chiefly concerns itself with the guilt—that it, in fact, presupposes this-of the individual. It is for the good of the State and the individual alike that the offender's moral status be ascertained and that he make reparation, and thus, in the only way possible to him, assist in his own transformation again into the condition of an asset to society. Therefore the State should not allow private individuals, for gain, to approach a prisoner and induce him to seek to evade the consequences of his wrong-doing-the reaping of his own sowing.

In the case of a large proportion of men brought before the bar of justice there are extenuating circumstances, or there are conditions which constitute reason for not imposing the extreme penalty. If the offender

1916

could feel that these would be seriously and intelligently considered, he would far rather ease his conscience by confession and start clear in the world again. Experience has shown that many men have gone to prison with hearts made light by this consciousness that they had wiped the slate " and would, after their punishment was over, have the opportunity to make a fair start in the world.

It should be clearly understood that a vastly greater number of criminals are at liberty than are in the prisons of the country. It is not the fault of these criminals that they are at liberty. They continue to commit crime with impunity and with little care to conceal their actions. Much of the responsibility for their continued exemption from penalty lies at the doors of the judicial system and the feet of the criminal lawyers.

No honest man, even though he be a lawyer, will listen to the story of an offender, who may have committed but one crime, and then, realizing his client's guilt, go forth and by the exercise of his wit and trickery and lying secure his release without expiation of his offense.

It should be the province of the lawyer to do that which tends toward the ultimate good of the offender. And, in the event of guilt, he should see to it that there would be no injustice of prosecution, and that any condition which might extenuate the offense should be laid before the judge. And the lawyer should be of such character that the judge would be willing to give due regard to whatever recommendation as to correction his intimate observation of his client had led him to believe would be best.

But the greater number of criminal law yers have in the past been among the most active promoters of crime that we have observed. They have taught the professional criminal that he can "get away with anything short of murder" if he has the money. And they have assisted in the corruption of the judicial system, of juries, and of all those agencies which are supposed to repress or hold the criminal in check.

Fortunately there are now engaged in educating the members of their own profession a number of able and far-seeing lawyers who believe that defense, like prosecution, should be a public matter. One of these, John H. Wigmore, Dean of the Northwestern Law School, says:

"Why should not a body of public-salaried practitioners take care of all poor persons'

913

litigation? The State has a duty to administer justice; and legal advisers. consulted prior to trial and acting at the trial, are an essential part of justice's machinery. Why blink the facts? And the facts are that private charity and private shysters between them are taking care of most of these people, and that an unknown mass of needs is not attended to at all.

66

Why should not the State step in and do this work, or a part of it? The State maintains public hospitals; but these do not drive out private endowed hospitals nor destroy the private medical practitioners. Justice was a State function before health was."

Another eminent lawyer, R. H. Gray, of San Francisco, says: "No scientific quest calls for more dispassionate and unselfish means than the quest for truth with respect to wrongs between fellow-men. Nevertheless, hugging self-deception to our hearts, we have persistently made the courts a prizering where litigants do, and most often must -with such hired retainers as they can command, and without any real aid--and none or few are fairly matched-butcher their way through, with deceit and evasion, and every conceivable kind of injustice, to a 'judgment that is often a greater catastrophe, in criminal law at least, than the original wrong, while at least a very heavy portion of the cost is borne, in both civil and criminal cases, by those who have no direct relation to the controversy or the litigants."

To me, in the light of my prison experience, the suggestions of Mr. Wigmore and Mr. Gray do not appear as fantastic as they would seem to appear to a great number of those lawyers who have ridiculed them. They would do away with the tempter of the criminal in the form of the shyster lawyer ; they would bring into connection with him a type of men who would recognize that their duty to the State, as to the offender, would be to bring him to a recognition that, not the easiest, but the right, thing was that which should be done. It would not appear altruistic to consider that this condition may one day come about. When it does, the criminal may be brought to have respect for the law rather than the contempt or hatred which he most commonly possesses. It would constitute protection for society from the rich offender and protection for the poor one. Experience has shown us that fear of punishment is not a deterrent of crime, but that certainty of prompt enforcement of law is.