Promoted to 7th grade at 14, when she left school to go to work. Regular attendance. Conduct excellent. Scholarship very satisfactory. Stood highest in arithmetic. Seventy-six per cent lowest in any study. (This girl had been grossly unchaste during her school course, apparently unknown to her teachers.)

Bad conduct is not by any means necessarily associated with retardation or mental dullness; this is seen in the high percentage of retardation and probable mental defect among the group in which no bad conduct was recorded. On the contrary, good scholars are frequently bad actors, as in this case:

Always a good scholar, but gave trouble to all her teachers after entering grammar school. Would disturb the class whenever she wished some excitement and was insolent and defiant. Expelled twice and taken back on aunt's intercession. In 9th grade expelled for insolence to principal and not allowed to return. Next fall started evening school, but was unruly here and not allowed to continue.

Conduct disturbances are often taken for indications of intellectual defect:

Reached 7th grade in public school. Scholarship very poor, did acceptable work in spelling only; teacher thought her of very low mentality. In school she needed constant watching; had to be seated away from other children; could not be trusted with the simplest tools. Was expelled by the principal for threatening to "smash the teacher's face." (No psychological or mental examination was made in the case of this girl during her school course, but several were made after she became delinquent to the point of requiring court action. By these she is described variously as "alert and active mentally," "above the average," "type of moral imbecile.")

On the other hand again, there often is no apparent recognition by the teacher of very probable mental defect, however poor the scholarship, if the child gives no trouble in the sphere of conduct.

Similarity of Earlier and Later Careers

The records make interesting reading for one who deals with the adult delinquent. At the reformatory we recognize three main types of repeaters—the feebleminded, those defective in the emotional or volitional field, and the group who are habitual offenders from over-social, rather than anti-social instincts. Many of the school records of these delinquent girls sound like early editions of these three groups. The screaming, biting, smashing type that is returned to us at the reformatory all too frequently has her prototype in these young histories, as well as the untrained, undisciplined feebleminded repeater. The backward, friendly, nice little girl frequently described in these records, seems like a description of the youth of many of our over-social group, whose characterists of affection and generosity and loyalty have been exercised along wrong lines.

The following summaries might easily have been the school histories of many of our adult group:

(1) Repeated second and fourth grades; irregular in attendance. Kept at home to work. Low standing in studies, considered subnormal mentally; some days brighter than others. Reached grade 6 at 13^2 years. Had falsified age to go to work. Came to school physically exhausted. Conduct satisfactory. Was shy, hungry for affection, responsive, poorly dressed and conscious of it; honest and truthful. Liked by teachers. (Many of our dull, lovable, generous, oversocial drunken repeaters might have had just such a history.)

(2) Was in grade 6 when she left school at 13 years; repeated first grade. Troublesome in school. In grade 5 disobeyed teacher, and in trying to settle the difficulty, bit the teacher's arm. A fighter in school; had terrific fits of temper. (The Reformatory has had many of her kind, grown up.)

(3) Began school at 5 years. Repeated first, second and third grades. Pro

moted to fourth grade only because of age and size. Attended irregularly; was frequently sent home because so dirty. Rating unsatisfactory. Considered by teachers "mentally deficient." Reached grade 4 at 14. First attended parochial school, and at 13 years was refused readmission there because of bad reputation. In grades one and two was well disposed and quite dependable. In grades 3 and 4 was vulgar, profane, wrote obscene notes and on the walls; was silly, lazy, reticent, untruthful. In grade 4 began to dress up. Leader of gang of younger girls. (No psychological examination was recorded in the case of this girl, but her school history is typical of the untrained feeble-minded girl with fair innate characteristics other than the purely intellectual, as described in her good conduct in the lower grades.)

When we are trying at the reformatory to teach the A B C's of self-control to the screaming, smashing, psychopathic woman, we cannot help but ask how far her innate tendencies might have been modified by early recognition of her type and educational methods applied in time. When we are trying to reshape or overcome long established habit in the feebleminded woman who has been recognized as such for the first time as an adult, we ask again how far her ability to adjust socially might have been modified by deliberate fostering of any socially favorable characteristics during the pliable, habit-forming age.

The over-social group is rather a large one at our reformatory. As found, they are for the most part classed as intellectually dull or subnormal, and show a marked lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. They are the women who say, "I was never much good in school or anywhere else." They are as a group very likeable women, from the standpoint of the institution, and model prisoners. It is often a question with us how far the women acquired in school the "what's the use" attitude, how far the habit of failure in school influenced their failure in life. The knowledge acquired in school is much less important than the habits formed, and the attitude toward life in relation to one self. Dullness does not consist alone in failure to digest school subjects; it involves a slowness or inability to adjust socially as well as in school. A habit of failure acquired in school is quite likely to follow the child into working life; some measure of faith in ourselves is indispensible— nothing succeeds like success in school as elsewhere.

Summary and Conclusion

To sum up, these records show that tendencies that lead to delinquency certainly appeared in the school life of these delinquent girls. The histories show an apparent inability on the part of the school to interpret the failure of the children, and sometimes even to recognize the failure. Conduct disturbance, like disease, may be classified according to its origin as environmental or constitutional, and in either instance some modification can be brought about by appropriate treatment. The same classification might be applied to school retardation—it is well known that psychopathic tendencies may so interfere with the acquirement of school knowledge through the ordinary channels, as to simulate intellectual defect. Indeed, there may be as many causes for school retardation as there are degrees of potentiality within the normal limits.

There is already a very fair sense of social responsibility in the school in relation to physical health—it should be as strong in relation to the mental health of the child. Individual study of every school failure should be made, whether in scholarship or conduct, to determine the probable basis of failure.

INFORMAL DISCUSSION

1. A cordial invitation was given by Colonel Sedgwick Rice, superintendent of the United States Disciplinary Barracks, at Leavenworth, to this division to visit his institution.

2. F. M. Bennett, vice-president, Children's Service Bureau, Youngstown, Ohio, told about the work of the clinic at Youngstown in connection with the public schools. Four experts there are examining subnormal school children. There is cooperation between the schools, the judge of the Juvenile court and the city police court. Physical examinations are given and the homes of the backward children are studied. In one large school there is special examination and training of children. J. M. Hansen, secretary of the Community Service Society, is in charge of the work.

3. Capt. R. M. Chambers, M. C, officer in charge, department of psychiatry and sociology, United States Disciplinary Barracks, Leavenworth, gave a brief account of the method of handling prisoners. He stated that many of the cases are accidental offenders, in many instances deserters, although there are also some of the worst criminals. No man who has a sentence of less than one year can be released on parole. A man with a sentence of more than a year is eligible for parole after serving one-half of his time. Two months before the time for him to be released on parole he makes application to the Parole Board. (This board consists of a parole officer, the Commandant of the Barracks and the Secretary of War.) A complete history is then taken of the man, with a detailed account of every year of his life. Men who are mentioned in this account and prominent men of cities mentioned are written to and questionnaires are sent to them. An estimate is then made of the man from all the material at hand, including psychiatric and sociological data. This information is all sent to the Commandant and then passed upon by him and also by the Secretary of War. When the man is released on parole, he is put under the care of a first friend and adviser who has agreed to furnish him with employment at a stipulated initial compensation. Men are carefully instructed before released. The parole certificate outlines all regulations. These rules are explained to him. He must make a report on the date of his arrival and after that every thirty days. This method has worked successfully for three years, and it is interesting to note that less than six per cent of the men paroled have violated their parole.

THE PUBLIC DEFENDER—AN AID TO A SQUARE DEAL

IN THE COURTS Homer Talbot, Secretary, Municipal Reference Department, University

of Kansas

That every person accused of crime should have the right to a fair trial is a principle universally accepted. The right to a full and fair trial to every defendant is essential to the safety of society, and to public confidence in the institutions of government and the administration of criminal law. The major premise, then, is accepted. Every accused person is entitled, of right, to a full and fair trial.

We now face the question: As conditions exist, does every defendant actually receive a full and fair trial? To any one of open mind and humane spirit, and possessing any save the narrowest experience, the answer thunders in one's ears—No!

Authorities and Cases Cited

Is there equality—substantial equality—before the law? Let a distinguished jurist, former President of the United States, be heard on the question. Ex-President Taft says:

We must make it so that the poor man will have as nearly as possible- an equal opportunity in litigating as the rich man, and under present conditions, ashamed as we may be of it, this is not the fact.—Quoted in Mayer C. Goldman, The Public Defender, page 48.

To call up illustrations very well known to Kansas Citians: The J. S. Chicks and the Doctor Hydes—men of wealth, able to employ the most capable legal and political talent, receive a full and fair trial. Possibly more. But what shall be said of the hundreds of unknown prisoners, without money or influence to command the services of astute legal and political attorneys of this great city?

I quote from the statement made four years ago by a Kansas City man who in his duties had come close in contact with conditions in the jails and criminal court of this county, Mr. C. E. Waters:

In the prosecuting attorney's office there is no cognizance taken of the fact that all the men who come before the prosecutor are not criminals, but each man is considered guilty; and every method known to the lawyer is used to convey that impression to the jury. If a man does not plead guilty the attention of the jury is called to the criminal look on his face, his criminal parentage. The sweatbox methods of ancient times are used to obtain a confession. Nothing is left undone to convict every man who is charged with a violation of the law—except those who have political friends.

Still quoting from Mr. Waters:

Within the last few months a dozen or more cases have been reversed by the supreme court because of the questions asked the accused by the prosecutor. In several reversed decisions the supreme court plainly stated that this is the reason the decision of the lower court is reversed. One opinion handed down by the higher court charged that "railroad methods" were used to obtain a conviction.

Mr. Waters was asked why the prosecutor was anxious to convict, and he answered:

In order to make a record of sending more men to the penitentiary than his predecessor. (Kansas City Times, March 11, 1914.)

Lest any hearer obtain the impression that the unfair conditions referred to are not general, or prevail only in the west, let us go east again, and examine the problem in New York. The testimony of Mr. Justice Howard, of the appelate division of the New York supreme court, will now be heard:

My experience as a district attorney and on the bench of the supreme court leads me to concur fully in the contention that there should be a public defender to look after the rights of the poor. The creation of such an office would be not only justice, but economy. The poor man cast into prison, no matter how innocent, is helpless and hopeless. He cannot cry out to justice, for nobody hears his cry. He is the prey of the policeman, the captive of the jailer, the butt of other prisoners, the plaything of young lawyers. He is immured beyond human reach. His protestations of innocence are drowned by the ribald jeers of hardened criminals. He walks to the court house fettered to brutes and degenerates. He is browbeaten and threatened by his captors until his heart sinks in despair. As he is arraigned before the judge, he stares about the court-room, but he sees no friend—no hope.

Every technicality and delay and defense and avenue of escape known to the cunning of lawyers are available to the rich man indicted for crime. The poor man under indictment is permitted to go through the forms and appearances of a trial; but such a trial is only a mockery. He dares not assert his innocence for fear of a double sentence at the end of a trial—a trial which he knows will be a travesty. Therefore he pleads guilty and disappears from human view. And this is the triumph of civilization—a triumph for those who have money; ignominy for those who have not.

Justice Howard concludes:

The provision for a public defender should be imbedded in our statutes. No law could be more economical—none more humane.

Again, to be specific, consider the case of Alfred Schwitofsky. The defendant was sent to Sing Sing prison in New York for a term of twenty years, under a conviction for burglary and felonious assault. In June, 1914, at a public hearing before the state board of parole, there were revealed facts showing how the lawyers assigned to his defense had practically ignored him, and how, on account of his lack of means and competent defense, he had been unable to produce a single witness in his behalf. Finally, from the office of the district attorney who had prosecuted the man, the assistant district attorney who represented the state said:

The district attorney had been convinced, by reason of newly discovered evidence, that Schwitofsky was not guilty of felonious assault, upon which charge ten years of his twenty years' sentence was based, and the district attorney was recommending to the governor that this ten years' sentence be revoked by a parole or pardon.

On September 18, 1916, the governor of New York commuted Schwitofsky's sentence.

Remedies Offered

If it be admitted, now, that there is necessity for extending more adequate legal assistance to accused persons who are poor than is now given, what remedial program may be adopted? The mental inert and the sneering cynic will, of course, do nothing to aid.

Perhaps the first response may come from some one who concedes the existence of injustice in the existing situation, but who, knowing the high and unselfish character of many American lawyers, believes the problem may be solved by the bar associations furnishing a corps of reputable attorneys who would volunteer their services as counsel fot accused persons unable to employ legal assistance.

The difficulty with this proposal as a solution is two-fold—as is pointed out by Mayer C. Goldman in his excellent work on The Public Defender (page 78):

Reputable and busy lawyers do not care to volunteer their services for this unproductive work, and the judges are not inclined to assign them—except in rare instances and in capital cases. It is unfair to expect a lawyer to devote his time and skill to such gratuitous service.

As a second proposed meeting of the problem it has been suggested that legal aid societies and other charitable organizations may render the service of defending accused indigent persons. The student of the problem is at once ready and glad to give full recognition of the very excellent work which has been done by these associations. As a substitute for the public defender—publicly paid and provided for—the charity organization defender is not a substitute acceptable to society. The accused person is entitled as a matter of right—and not charity— to a full and fair defense.