him, and to offer a brief report on two topics coming under the notice of the Committee Tramp Laws" and "Indeterminate Sentences." This we have undertaken to do, and we have classed these topics together, not because there is any very obvious connection between them, but because in their present form they are both somewhat novel and experimental in American criminal law administration. Both will be treated very briefly, rather with a view to open debate than to exhaust the subject and the audience by a copious treatment.

TRAMP LAWS.

The most ancient statute upon this subject is believed to be that decree by which Cain, the first born of mankind, was sentenced to be a wanderer on the face of the earth, without a settled home, and with the brand of crime upon him. He declared that his punishment was greater than he could bear. Yet we have seen thousands and tens of thousands in our time deliberately choosing this way of life, and making themselves what Cain was made by Divine decree -outcasts and tramps. Our laws, therefore, have lately attempted not so much to "re-enact the law of God," in Cain's case, as to reverse that sentence, and convert the modern tramp into a homekeeping citizen, or a fast prisoner. The extent of the evil from which our American communities have all suffered since the civil war, has compelled one State after another to adopt stringent laws to suppress the tramp. And your Committee have to report that in two States, at least, New Hampshire and Connecticut, the tramp has been suppressed, at least for the present, and that the laws there passed have apparently aided greatly in this desirable result. Other causes have coöperated, no doubt,-foremost among them, the returning prosperity of our country. But in Connecticut, and apparently in New Hampshire, and within the last two months in Massachusetts, the statute law has had such terrors for the tramps that they have either left the State borders or taken to some less easily punishable form of crime; for tramping, such as we have seen it, if not a crime at first, soon becomes one, and then it is necessary to treat it with a merciful severity. The New Hampshire tramp law was passed in 1878, that of Connecticut in 1879 (when also your Ohio tramp law was passed), and that of Massachusetts in the present year. All have followed the same general course, but since the Connecticut law resulted in the most

speedy and certain extinction of the evil, and has also been most fully reported on, we will confine ourselves for the present to that.

The main features of the Connecticut law were three: 1. It made a single act of beggary by a non-resident sufficient evidence of vagrancy, thus removing the chief difficulty heretofore found in convicting tramps. 2. It offered a reward of $5 for the arrest and conviction of each tramp. 3. It sentenced each tramp, when convicted, to a long imprisonment, extending to three years in cases where violence or theft was proved. After this law had been in operation for nine months, the Hartford Courant collected evidence from all the cities, and from all but sixteen of the 167 towns of Connecticut, which was published in full, and upon which Mr. C. D. Warner, an editor of the Courant, made these comments: "When the law was passed it was with misgivings on the part of some who voted for it, but the evil had become so great in every part of the State that it was felt to be time to resort to stringent measures, and the bill was supported by men of both political parties. The returns published are very remarkable from their unanimity. They come alike from Democratic and Republican officers, and are the most notable tribute ever paid, in this State at least, to the beneficial working of a new law. The State is completely rid of the hordes of worthless vagabonds who made their living without work by preying on the community, robbing and assaulting defenceless women, and being a continual terror to the rural population. There never was any danger that the law would be abused to oppress the deserving poor, for the good people of Connecticut know the difference between this class and the tramps. Trustworthy returns from nearly every town in the State show

"First. That the tramps have emigrated to other States en

masse.

"Second. That in no instance has there been a case of oppression under the act.

"Third. That public sentiment everywhere sustains the act. "There is a similar unanimity in the estimate of the benefits derived from the act. There has been a great saving in expense, which, taking the State as a whole, must aggregate many thousand dollars. There is an added feeling of security, worth more than the money saving. There has been a lessening of crime and a great reduction in criminal prosecutions. The law has enforced

itself, for from the time that it took effect the tramp class disappeared, not waiting to ascertain whether public sentiment would sustain it. There have been a few trials and commitments under it, just enough to show that it works well when required. Now that its benefits have been felt so widely, it is hardly possible that it would be allowed to be a dead letter if the miscreants should try the experiment of returning."

In New Hampshire, by the testimony of the Secretary of State and Attorney General, the results were the same as in Connecticut, but less striking. In Massachusetts, where such a law took effect on the 1st of May, 1880, the decrease in tramping has already been very marked. Not the least noteworthy fact in the case is the small number of prosecutions and convictions; the tramps, apparently, taking flight at the proclamation of the law, which was very generally made by posting it in all towns, and along most of the roads.

The tramp law of Ohio is found in two sections of the Revised Statutes of 1879 (6994 and 6995), the first of which is of some years' standing, while the second (section 6995), was enacted in 1879. The first provides for the sentencing of vagrants to the county jail for about three months, or until a fine of $50 and the costs of court have been paid. The second (the tramp act of 1879) is short, and reads as follows:

"Whoever, except a female or blind person, not being in the county in which he usually lives or has his home, is found going about begging and asking subsistence by charity, shall be taken and deemed to be a tramp. Any tramp who enters a dwellinghouse, or yard, or inclosure about a dwelling-house, against the will or without the permission of the owner or occupant thereof, or does not, when requested, immediately leave such place, or is found carrying a firearm, or other dangerous weapon, or does, or threatens to do, any injury to the person, or real or personal property of another, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than three years nor less than one year, and any person may, upon view of any such offence, apprehend such offender and take him before a justice of the peace, or other examining officer for examination."

This law appears to be very much like the New Hampshire act of 1878, and the Connecticut act of 1879, except that it does not offer a reward for the arrest of each tramp, in which respect it resembles the Massachusetts act of 1880. The effect of the Ohio law seems to have been less salutary than that of the New England

laws of the same general character, and it is much complained of as being too stringent. In Cleveland, we are informed that it has been almost inoperative, and even its provisions are not commonly known; while the excellent system of outdoor relief here prevailing, and the improvement in the times, have combined to diminish very much the evil of vagrancy since the law of 1879 was passed. The provision of the New England laws for making the terms of the tramp acts known in every township and along every road does not seem to have existed in Ohio, and yet a knowledge of the general character of the act has perhaps alarmed the tramps in country places of Ohio, as has certainly and strikingly been the case in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Your Committee regard the problem of tramp legislation as solved for the present by the success of the New England laws we have mentioned, and would recommend a strict, but careful execution of such laws everywhere, even when the immediate exigency may have gone by for tramps, like other migratory creatures, will again

return.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCES.

This is a phrase not very well understood, but likely to become better known. It signifies sentences imposed for no definite time, but until the offender is supposed to be reformed. The only laws of the kind now in force in America, except those which sentence young offenders during minority, are those passed in Michigan and New York, at the instance of Mr. Z. R. Brockway, the eminent prison reformer, who now manages the Elmira Reformatory. Your Committee understand that these acts have worked well, so far as put in force, and would recommend the Conference to favor the passage of similar acts in other States. In Massachusetts it is believed that such a law will be passed next year with little opposition, and at the next Conference we may be able to report to that effect.

For the Committee,

FRANCIS WAYLAND.
F. B. SANBORN.

NEW HAVEN, June 28, 1880.

II. A VOLUNTEER PAPER BY DR. C. C. YEAMANS,

OF DETROIT.

Dr. YEAMANS said: There are two or three things I would say before I read my paper, because I have to take the boat soon afterward. In Mr. Russell's paper last night, that earnest plea for the assistance of prisoners' families, he made a statement that might mislead when he said you could multiply the number of prisoners committed by four, and thus arrive at the approximate number of persons arrested. Now, while the newspaper announces two thousand arrests, probably one-half of those will be sent to prison four times during the year, so that the arrests alone are not reliable authority as to the number of prisoners actually arrested. I should gladly have asked this afternoon, when I heard Dr. Seguin's able paper, if, in his opinion, there is really an increase of insanity in the United States? I think he would have said, "no." The impression you may get here is that there is a very great increase in the percentage of insane persons in the United States. I wish, myself, to dissent from this opinion, or, at least, to say that it is not proven. There are certain phases of insanity now on the increase, while others are on the decrease. I wish to say further that my own opinion is, that there has been a very large decrease of the number of prisoners in the United States during the last twelve months, for causes of which I cannot now speak. The prison records will show this.

CRIME AND INSANITY.

By our customs and laws, the incarceration of offenders is for the protection of society, and not alone for the punishment of criminals, except in so far as this punishment has its deterring influence over the viciously disposed. For the same purpose, i. e., protection of society, the insane are sequestrated in proper asylums. In the first case, reformation is the real objective; therefore industry is enforced and education supplied, so as to overcome so far as possible the most powerful elements of vicious lives, idleness and ignorance. In the second case, restoration in the asylum is the objective for those persons for whom recovery is possible, and a humane restraint where recovery is not to be looked for.

-