incredible figure, so that in 1880 transportation was reestablished on its former 685 basis. At the present time the principal kinds of transportation are transportation with forced labor and transportation to the colonies for colonizing purposes. Forced labor is of two kinds: Sojourn in the islands with work for the State and sojourn in the colony. This is accomplished partly in Siberia and partly in the island of Saghalien since 1879, which forms a kind of colony for transportation. The island for administrative purposes is divided into three parts. At the head is the governor, while at the head of each division is a commander. The director of the principal prison is president of the administration, which has cognizance of all civil and criminal affairs of small importance. Those of the most importance are passed on by the maritime court of the division. In 1882, to aid in the installation of the transports, women condemned to hard labor were sent to Saghalien. The principal work of the convicts consists in opening roads through the vast forests which cover the island, in the construction of bridges, stations, embankments, etc. To this should be added the establishment of telegraphic communications with the continent, the construction of a fort at Alexandrovsk, erecting buildings, steam mills, sawmills, foundries, salt works, and important work in the coal mines at Douet. In 1894 large companies of convicts were sent into the province of Amour to work on the Oussouri Railroad.

"Convicts are employed in clearing up the land and for raising crops; but rural economy and the raising of cattle do not supply the wants of the prisoners, and provisions are received from Odessa, in the region of the Amour.

According to law the convicts, during their imprisonment, are divided into two classes: Those who are under observation and those who are in the way of reform. In the first class the convicts, in accordance with their punishment, are obliged to pass from one to eight years. Then, if they give some hope of amendment by their submission to the administration, by their temperance and their prudence, by their propriety and application to work, they will pass into the second class. At the end of one to three years they can receive permission to live out of the prison, to build houses with material furnished by the State, to have money, and to marry. During the continuance of forced labor one-tenth of the earnings belongs to the convict. At the end of this period the convicts pass into the colony, except those who are sentenced for an indeterminate period, and they can not become colonists under twenty years.

For further information relative to Siberian transportation reference is made to the interview with M. Komorsky, inspector-general of Siberian prisons, in the report of the St. Petersburg International Prison Congress, published by the United States Bureau of Education.

INDEMNITY FOR THE INJURED PARTY.

The question relating to indemnity to the injured party by the criminal was discussed in six preliminary reports and in the congress. There is a great variety of circumstances where the criminal has injured his victim, depriving him in whole or in part of the ability to support himself and family. The victim in some cases has died from his injuries and has left a family for public or private charity to maintain. A suit for private damages in a few cases will bring relief, but in most the judgment could not be collected, as poverty and crime are generally associated. As one of the speakers in the congress said, "poverty and crime are two unfortunate sisters who always travel hand in hand together." The discussions developed no remedy for all cases. That would have been impossible. Simpler remedies by legal process were recommended and State assistance suggested without approval. Where the offender has no means to pay indemnity the injured or his family must suffer. With the hope that further light might be thrown upon the difficult problem, it was referred in the conclusions to the next International Prison Congress.

Among the preliminary reports on this subject was an able one by Mme. Dr. Lydia

Poet, the distinguished lady advocate of Italy. The following conclusions were presented in her paper:

"1. There should be secured to the victim of the crime a special lien on the property of the delinquent, and that attachment should issue in his favor at the same time as the warrant for arrest.

"2. That for certain crimes which do not disturb the social order there should be imposed, instead of imprisonment for a short term, the payment of damages by the solvent delinquent, and for others the obligation to labor in establishments, and that the pay of the prisoner in whole or in part be allowed for indemnity to the victim until the debt be extinguished.

"3. That in countries where it is authorized for certain crimes the accused should not be allowed the suspension of sentence until he has proved that he has compensated the injured party.

"4. That the pay of the prisoner be employed to repair the wrong by indemnifying first the victim and in paying the expenses of his support by the administration, and that only after that he be allowed to dispose of his earnings freely.

"5. That it should not be possible for the prisoner to obtain his pardon or conditional liberation in countries where such practices prevail, and that he be not allowed to be rehabilitated if he can not show he has indemnified his victim fully."

One of the preliminary reports was by M. Zucker, professor of criminal law at Prague. He presents the phases of the question at length, and ends with these conclusions:

"1. Penal law should, more than heretofore, take into account the indemnity due the injured party.

"2. The public minister should have the right ex officio and informally to order assessment of damages in favor of the injured party.

"3. The party injured should have a lien on the real estate and a first lien upon the personal property of the guilty party, to date from his discharge, so that the guilty will not have time to dispose of his property.

"4. The judge will decide what proportion of the receipts of the prisoner for labor in prison will be paid to the injured party for indemnity that is due him."

In his preliminary report on this question M. P. Armengol Y. Comet, magistrate etc., at Barcelona, says:

"1. The provisions of law which prevail in our times are insufficient in practice to enable the victim of the offense to obtain indemnity. To obtain indemnity it is necessary that in criminal trials the court should determine the amount that the condemned should pay to the victim or his heirs, and to realize the same should issue a process against the person considered as responsible, as receiver or accomplice, to proceed to seize his property, personal and real.

"2. On pronouncing judgment, if the condemned is solvent, enough of his goods will be sold to realize the funds necessary to pay the judgment.

"3. If the condemned is insolvent, the damages will be paid out of the treasury of fines which shall be created by the minister of justice. All fines shall go into this treasury, and the state shall be reimbursed by the receipts for the prisoner's labor." This last suggestion is a novel one, but will seldom, if ever, be put into practice. M. Prins, inspector-general of the prisons of Belgium, was the author of a lengthy preliminary report in which he treated the subject historically and philosophically. He showed that proceedings for civil damages were provided in most ancient times by the Greeks and Romans and other ancient nations.

"In England," he says, "the system of indemnity, due to Ge existed until after the Norman invasion. It then received a specia cation, thanks to the organization of guilds, tithings, and hundred responsible for the conduct of their members."

"In France, in former times, the triumph of absolute monarchy rap the penal system with its strong imprint and made the element of pu

prevail over private rights. In the meantime the only legislative monument worthy of attention, the only general penal law before the revolution-the criminal code of 1670-maintained the distinction between public and private offenses, public prosecution and private complaint. It decided that in case of capital offenses the prosecution will take place notwithstanding the transactions of the parties, while in other cases, in matter of blows without serious injuries-light misdemeanors-if the parties settle for the injuries there will be no prosecution and the settlement will be enforced. Thus even under Louis XIV it appeared oppressive to prosecute in the abstract interests of society when the private interest had declared itself satisfied. "But modern penal law has reversed the more ancient rule giving preference to the public prosecution in the interest of all.”

In remedies proposed, M. Prins finds little difficulty in securing indemnity from the solvent offender, but to collect from the insolvent becomes a serious problem.

He proposes that for light offenses public order will be sufficiently protected by a conviction, with sentence suspended, conditioned on the obligation to repair the damage done. If the offender pays the amount fixed by the court within the time named in the judgment, then imprisonment will be avoided.

For graver offenses he proposes punishment by imprisonment for a stated time, to be followed by conditional liberation under the reservation to pay in a time named the damages assessed by the court. In case of failure to pay reimprisonment for the full time is to follow.

Though no remedy has been discovered which will be effective in all cases, and none will be, yet the subject is one worthy the attention of the American legislator, who, it is possible, may be able to secure the injured party further protection than he can now obtain through civil process alone for private damages.

COMPENSATION FOR PRISON LABOR.

The fourth question of Section II is one that has long been considered by the practical penologist: Has the prisoner a right to compensation for labor? This had a lengthy discussion in the section and in the general assembly. There were eleven preliminary reports from a great diversity of countries. M. Stevens, of Belgium, claimed that the prisoner owed his services to the State, and that the State owed in its turn remuneration to the prisoner. By dividing the pay into disposable and reservable the prisoner has a notion of saving. In paying by the piece and not by the day there is established between the convicts a classification. The disposable part of his pay can be used in ameliorating his regimen and the part reserved will assist in his restoration on leaving the prison. M. Crémieux called the attention of the congress to the fact that the French code (article 41) admits explicitly the right to compensation for those sentenced to correctional punishment in these words: "The products of the work of each prisoner under correctional punishment shall be applied partly to the common expenses of the prisoners." The majority of the section, however, held that the prisoner had no right to compensation. M. Puibaraud considered that the prison could only care for itself, as the expenses were large and the receipts unimportant. In the general assembly the sentiment was divided, but all agreed that it was indispensable for the good government of the prison that the efforts of the prisoner should be recognized by compensation or gratuity for labor; that prison work, to be reformatory, should be paid. Several of the most prominent speakers argued that the prison labor imposed was an element of the punishment as much as the imprisonment, and that if we admitted the convict had a right to a salary it would not be going far to recognize he had a right to indemnity for being placed in prison. Labor is a confiscation of the energies as imprisonment is a confiscation of liberty. If he has a right to a salary, then he could require that he should be paid ju proportion to his work. There should be rewards for work. The State in grantes a liberal act, but does not execute an obligation, and this is the subconclusion of the section as indorsed by the general assembly.

This question has more importance in Europe, where in many prisons a small payment is made or reward given, than in America, where the practice is quite limited.

CUSTODY OF PRISONERS' EARNINGS.

Question 1 of the second section, important in Europe, but of less consequence here, elicited much attention from the congress: Should the discharged convict control his earnings! There were ten preliminary reports, from Russia, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, England, and France. All speakers deplored the squandering of their earnings by discharged prisoners. Three systems were presented. The first was obligatory patronage. This is successfully operated in the Grand Duchy of Baden. In Belgium another system is] adopted. There the burgomaster of the place where the discharged convict has his residence has charge of the earnings where they exceed 70 francs. If below that amount he can spend it freely. If a patronage society exists in the place it is to have preference in the disposition of the money.

A third system is one which authorizes the discharged, with the approval of the administration, to choose a patron, who shall receive and disburse the earnings. Each system had its advocates. Several warmly indorsed the plan of intrusting the funds for disbursement to postal savings banks, claiming they could better regulate the time and amounts of payments. It was objected that the distribution would be automatic and not reformatory. It was urged that the sending part of their earnings to their families should be encouraged. The conclusions show that by some of the methods named there should be a trustee for the disbursements of the savings of the discharged prisoner.

THE PRISONS IN THE UNITED STATES.

The discussions in the sections and general assembly continued nine days and covered substantially all the questions of the programme of the congress. The Americau delegation was divided in its attendance at the various sections and attended together the general sessions in the amphitheater of the Sorbonne, occasionally taking part in the discussions in the sections and general assembly.. The American delegation had organized by making the veteran penologist, Gen. R. Brinkerhoff, of Ohio, its chairman, and the Rev. Samuel Barrows, of Massachusetts, secretary. The delegation had frequent meetings to decide on the various questions which came before it in reference to the congress. It was deemed proper that some one of the delegation should present briefly before the general assembly a statement of the present condition of the prison systems in the United States, and General Brinkerhoff was considered a very proper person to do this. His address before the general assembly is here given in full:

"Mr. PRESIDENT, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN: The secretary-general of the congress, Dr. Guillaume, has requested me to give, in behalf of the American delegation, an abstract of the special reformatory methods in our country, and particularly the Elmira system, which is being adopted in our States. It is interesting to notice that the three great prison systems of the world have their origin in America.

"1. The cellular or Pennsylvania system, which has been so eloquently defended in this congress, and which has been so largely developed in Europe, was first introduced in Philadelphia sixty years ago. This system still prevails there and is administered in an able manner, but it has been abandoned in all other prisons of our country. We do not believe in it except for prisoners awaiting trial or in other exceptional cases.

2. The system for work in common during the day and cellular separation at night had its origin in the State prison at Auburn, N. Y., fifty years ago. This system is substantially universal in America for prisoners condemned for a term of years, for life, and for recidivists and incorrigibles.

"3. The Elmira system is based on indeterminate sentence and conditional liberation. This liberation is known by the term of 'conditional discharge,' and is obtained by a system of good or bad marks and a progressive classification. It is only applied to adults under 30 years of age and to those convicted for the first offense. This system was first introduced at Elmira in 1876 under the administration of that prince of prison science, Mr. Z. R. Brockway, and the results obtained have been highly satisfactory, and results, after all, are the only proofs of the excellence of a system.

"The Elmira prison contains 1,200 prisoners, which is 400 more than a reformatory should have. In the last six years the prison has had on an average over 800 prisoners. It has been shown after a conscientious examination that 82 out of each 100 discharged prisoners have become honest and respectable citizens.

"The prisons of the United States compare favorably with those of Europe. In the treatment of prisoners serving out short sentences, the arrested awaiting trial, and discharged prisoners, England and Ireland are in advance of us; but in other respects we do not fear comparison, and in some we are in the advance. In Europe intimidation and repression seem to be dominating ideas toward the criminal classes; with us they are reform and prevention. We have repudiated the idea of lex talionis. In the time of Moses, under the conditions then existing, this system may have been better; but to-day we live inspired by the lessons of the Divine Nazarene, who said that love and not hate should be our guide. In our work with criminals we have in view the protection of society, but all punishment inflicted on a prisoner for other motives is considered as a wrong against the natural rights of man. We believe in intimidation if that alone can protect society. In the State of Ohio if a man is condemned for the third time we consider him as an habitual criminal and sentence him for life. For incorrigible drunkards we have enacted a law giving the judge authority for the first offense to sentence in his discretion; for the second the penalty is double the first, for the third double the second, and for the fourth imprisonment for three years, with the privilege of conditional liberation in case of good conduct. Finally, we believe that reform and prevention are the means to employ to reduce crime.

"For criminal minors we have reformatories, generally called industrial schools, from whence they go out and may become, on the average, as good citizens as those who go from the common schools. But above all we believe that it is our duty to give to our children in the public schools an education which trains the hand and heart as well as the head. The State should add to each public school a kindergarten for children below 6 years of age. Do this and the number of criminals, which increases in all countries, will greatly diminish and we will enter a better era in the history of the world."

The address was very cordially applauded.

The Rev. Samuel Barrows, an American official delegate, addressed the general assembly and presented some interesting details on the probation system in operation in his country, which is the origin of the conditional sentence system in vogue in Europe. The idea dates from 1870 in the State of Massachusetts, where they adopted the plan to release certain prisoners conditionally on the request of persons who interested themselves in their behalf. In 1878 the State took the place of these petitioners and enacted a law providing for a special officer attached to the city and town courts, who was named by the president of the court and paid out of the public treasury. They are known as "probation officers." They make an inquiry when a person is arrested as to his antecedents and his family, his occupation, which inquiry is made rather in the spirit of charity. When the investigation is held the trial takes place and the judgment is pronounced. The sentence can be pronounced at the expiration of the probation, or even before. The officer is a true assistant to his protégé, the prisoner. This system is extended to habitual drunkards. The results have been excellent, not only in America, but in Belgium, where the number of conditionally convicted recidivists has fallen to 3 in 100.'