TWO NEW LAWS. 
RELATING TO DRUNKENNESS. 
RELATING TO PROBATION OFFICERS 
PUBLISHED BY THE 
Massachusetts Prison Association. 
1891. Jxl&55kdiii5eH5 Pri5on Jl55ocihIion 
OFFICES: 1 PEMBERTON SQUARE , 
ROOMS 10 AND 1 1. 
President, Samuel Eliot. 
Vice Presidents, Henry Lee, Richard H. Dana. 
Treasurer, Chas. C. Jackson, 
24 Congress Street. 
Secretary, Warren F. Spalding. 
BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 
Samuel Eliot. 
Frederick B. Allen. 
E. D. Barbour. 
Samuel J. Barrows. 
Mrs. Susan H. Bertram. 
Charles W. Birtwell. 
J. Richard Carter. 
Alexander Cochrane. 
Charles P. Curtis, Jr. 
W. S. Fitz. 
William Elliot Griffis. 
Eliza L. Homans. 
Mrs. Alice N. Lincoln. 
Ellen F. Mason. 
Frank Morison. 
Lucy A. Read. 
Joseph G. Thorp, Jr. 
William W. Vaughan. 
Moses Williams. 
This Association was organized December 9, 1889. Its objects are as 
follows: 
1. To enlighten public opinion concerning the prevention and treatment 
of crime. 
2. To secure the improvement of penal legislation and prison manage- 
ment. 
3. To protect society from habitual criminals.' 
4. To befriend the innocent and ignorant under accusation. 
5. To promote the welfare of those placed on probation by the courts, and 
also of the families of prisoners. 
6. To assist prisoners in the work of self-reform. 
7. To aid released prisoners in living honorably. 
The Legislature has enacted two important laws, touching matters in which 
members of the Massachusetts Prison Association are interested,—that in rela- 
tion to the punishment of drunkenness, and that authorizing the appointment of 
probation officers. The Association has been active and influential in securing 
the passage of these laws, that in relation to the punishment of drunkenness 
having been prepared and advocated by its representatives. It is felt that they 
are of great importance, and constitute a marked advance in the methods of 
dealing with crime and criminals. As the laws are not easily accessible, and 
it is desirable that all interested in such matters shall be informed in relation to 
them, this pamphlet has been published. The Punishment of Drunkenness. 
The new law in relation to the punishment of drunkenness 
is based upon the assumption that drunkenness is a crime. In 
this it does not differ from the present law. The first section 
is practically a re-enactment of the existing statute, giving the 
power to arrest intoxicated persons without a warrant. 
In its provisions for the punishment of drunkenness the new 
law, by its penalties, emphasizes more strongly than the 
present law does the theory that drunkenness is a crime. 
Under the latter the only penalty for the ordinary case of 
drunkenness is a petty fine. Only 2,000 of the nearly 53,000 
arrested in the State for drunkenness last year were punished 
by definite terms of imprisonment. The new law abolishes the 
fine as a penalty for drunkenness, and substitutes imprison- 
ment in all cases. 
The enforcement of the severer penalties of the present law 
is very difficult. The prisoner may be known to everybody 
as an habitual drunkard, but unless he has been convicted 
of drunkenness twice before within a year, he cannot be sen- 
tenced to imprisonment. Even where previous arrests have 
been made during the year, that fact does not give the court 
the right to impose such a sentence, unless the previous convic- 
tions are alleged in the complaint. In most cases this involves 
so much inquiry and investigation that it is impracticable. The 
result is that only one in twenty-five of those arrested for 
drunkenness last year was sentenced to imprisonment. 4 
The new law removes all these hindrances to the proper 
punishment of habitual drunkards. No distinction is made 
between “ first,” “ second,” and “ third ” offences. It recog- 
nizes but one crime — drunkenness. For this it provides but 
one punishment — imprisonment It assumes that the court 
can be trusted to discriminate between different individuals, and 
it therefore gives the court the largest discretion. It may sen- 
tence a prisoner to imprisonment for any period which may be 
thought best—for a day, that he may become sober, or for a 
year, that, if an habitual drunkard, he may be reformed if pos- 
sible, and by a long period of compulsory abstinence may be- 
come able to abstain from drink voluntarily. 
THE ABOLITION OF THE FINE, 
Many considerations led to the abolition of the fine as a 
penalty for drunkenness. The most important of these was 
the fact that it led to the treatment of drunkards without much 
discrimination. Some were very properly released by the 
courts without any sentence, but if one was to be sentenced at 
all, it must be to the payment of a fine. No matter what his 
past record was, the man who was complained of for a “ simple 
drunk ” could only be fined, though he had been before the 
court a hundred times before. 
Another phase of this lack of discrimination in sentences 
for drunkenness under the present system is the uniformity 
of the imprisonment for non-payment of the fine. No matter 
what the character of the prisoner may be, if he cannot pay his 
fine he must be committed to prison for thirty days. There is 
no alternative. He may be a man who needs merely temporary 
detention, that he may overcome the effects of drink. He may 
never have been drunk before. He may have employment wait- 
ting when he is discharged, and yet it may be unwise to have him 
released by the court on the day of his conviction. If he is to 
be detained at all, he must be fined, and if he is committed for 
non-payment of his fine, he must be kept for a month, unless 
pardoned. 
INJUSTICE OF THE FINE SYSTEM. 
The unwisdom of this is clearly apparent. But not more so 
than the injustice of a uniform imprisonment of thirty days for 
the non-payment of a fine of five dollars. Theoretically this 5 
imprisonment is supposed to be, in some way, an equivalent 
for the fine. Certainly it is not so to the State. It may have 
been supposed, originally, that during the month the prisoner 
could earn for the public the five dollars which he could not 
pay. As a matter of fact he now earns almost nothing, and is 
supported for a month at the expense of the tax-payers. If 
imprisonment for a month is intended to be, for the prisoner, 
the equivalent of a money payment of five dollars, it is plain 
that the theory is a bald assumption, and that in practice great 
injustice attends its operation. To some men a month’s im- 
prisonment means a loss of twenty or twenty-five dollars ; to 
another it means a loss twice as great; to the great mass of 
the drunkards it is no loss at all, but only a luxury, a month 
of food and shelter without work being a welcome temporary 
relief from continuous debauchery. 
The fine system makes a discrimination between the rich 
and the poor. A man who has five dollars left after a delib- 
erate debauch may secure his release by the court by paying 
that amount, though he is the most worthless of citizens, 
while the industrious man who occasionally yields to tempta- 
tion, lacking that sum, must lose a month’s labor, if his wife or 
mother or some friend cannot borrow the money to pay the fine. 
If imprisonment for thirty days is the proper punishment for 
drunkenness, it should be imposed directly by the court, on 
all who are sentenced. It cannot be, under the present law. 
The only way in which such imprisonment can be secured is 
by sentencing a person to pay a fine. If he is unable to pay 
he will be imprisoned. If he can pay, he practically escapes 
punishment, for a fine of five dollars is little punishment for 
the man who can pay it. In actual experience it is found that 
more than one-half of those who are sentenced for drunkenness 
are imprisoned. If they were the ones most deserving of this 
form of penalty, the fact that their confinement was secured in 
this roundabout way would be a less serious objection, but as 
the release or imprisonment depends solely upon the possession 
of a few dollars by the prisoner or his friends, it will be seen 
that the worst are likely to escape, and some of the best will 
go to prison. 
DISCRIMINATION BY THE COURTS DESIRABLE. 
The abolition of the fine, and the substitution of imprison- 
ment as the sole penalty for drunkenness, removes all these 6 
distinctions. The court will be able to discriminate between 
individuals, as it now does in dealing with most other offences, 
deciding how long a term of imprisonment is necessary in each 
case. This is clearly far better than the discrimination made 
now by the law, which is not based on the character of the 
prisoner, but upon the amount of money he happens to have. 
Hereafter, when a person is imprisoned it will be because the 
court thinks a certain term of confinement is needed or de- 
served, and not because he is too poor to pay the fine. Drunk- 
enness, and not poverty, will be the offence for which he is 
imprisoned. 
HABITUAL OFFENDERS ESCAPE PROPER PUNISHMENT. 
The failure to reach habitual offenders under the fine system, 
is seen in the fact that thousands of them are repeatedly com- 
mitted for a month for non-payment of fine. The records of 
the Boston House of Industry at Deer Island for 1890 showed 
542 persons who had been there five times before for 
payment of fines ; 235 who had been there 10 times before ; 
74, 20 times before; 17,55 times before; 1,90 times before. 
It has sometimes been said that this is exceptional, and that 
outside of Boston no such evils exist. A recent examination 
of the records of one of the houses of correction shows that 
even where the facilities for detecting the habitual offenders 
are far better than they are in Boston, large numbers escape 
with a fine. In six months of 1890 there were 421 commit- 
ments to this house of correction from a single court for non- 
payment of fines for drunkenness. Sixty-five of these had 
been there once before; 32, twice before; 17, 3 times before; 
28, 4 times before; 7, 5 times before; n, 6 times before; 12, 
8 times before; 9, 10 times before; 1, 12 times before ; 5, 14 
times before ; 1, 15 times before; 1, 20 times before. In brief, 
199 of the 421 had been in the same prison from one to twenty 
times before. Many of them had undoubtedly also paid 
fines repeatedly, but they were all punished by a mere fine 
(which they could not pay), owing to the difficulty of doing 
anything else with the rounders under the present law. It is 
also very certain that there must have been hundreds of other 
habitual offenders dealt with by the same court who escaped 
imprisonment by the payment of a fine. This is not a criti- 
cism upon the court. The evil is inherent in the fine sys- 
tem. 7 
EXPENSE OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM. 
The expense involved in the fine system is an enormous one. 
Last year more than 23,500 persons were committed to prison 
for the non-payment of fines for drunkenness. The cost of 
committing these prisoners and the expense of supporting them 
for a month apiece is a very large one. Some of them paid 
their fines, after they were committed, and were released, but 
thousands served out the prescribed thirty days. There were 
3,623 persons held for all offences in the county prisons and 
the Boston House of Industry, on the 30th of last September, 
besides those waiting trial; 1340 of these — more than thirty- 
seven per cent.— were in custody because they could not pay 
the fines imposed for being drunk. This is probably about the 
average. If fhe expense of their maintenance is reckoned at a 
dollar a week (counting only the cost of food, and nothing for 
officers, fuel, lights, etc.), the expenditure amounts to almost 
870,000 a year. To this must be added the cost of commit- 
ment, and many other expenses, if the tax upon the public 
involved in the futile endeavor to secure these fines is to be 
ascertained. 
It is possible that the number of commitments under the 
new law will be as large as under the present system, but the 
prisoner will understand that his imprisonment represents the 
estimate made by the court of the gravity of his offence, and 
the judgment of the State that his drunkenness is too serious a 
crime to be atoned for with a few dollars, and the taxpayer 
will know that his money is spent in caring for people who 
need to be imprisoned, and not in attempting to get from 
twenty-five thousand people every year a pecuniary substitute 
for imprisonment. 
INTELLIGENT DISCRIMINATION PROVIDED FOR. 
Recognizing the criminality of drunkenness, the new law 
provides for a discrimination between different classes of 
drunkards, and between different individuals of each class. As 
has been said, it gives the largest discretion to the courts in 
the imposition of sentences. It also provides for a careful 
preliminary siftingjof those arrested for this offence. It recog- 
nizes the fact that there is some drunkenness which it is not 
wise to punish. This is no new theory. The police have 
always exercised their discretion in making arrestsjfor drunken- 8 
ness, and have not been criticised for so doing. No one has 
ever demanded that all intoxicated persons shall be arrested, 
or that all persons arrested for drunkenness shall be tried and 
punished. Many are helped home by the police ; many others 
are assisted home by their friends, or are able to get home, in 
some way, themselves. In this the wide difference between 
drunkenness and other crimes is apparent. No policeman 
would be permitted to pass by an offender of any other class ; 
or to ignore the commission of any other offence as he ignores 
certain forms of drunkenness which come to his notice. The 
fact that this can be done without criticism shows the general 
estimate of the difference between one drunken man and 
another; between one who is quiet or stupid, and one who is 
noisy, disorderly or ugly; between one who is intoxicated 
occasionally, and one who is a constant public nuisance. 
The courts as well as the police have always recognized this 
difference. Last year more than five thousand persons who 
were brought before the courts for this offence were discharged 
without sentence. As a rule they were persons who had homes, 
employment, and dependent families. Among them were many 
who were arrested for the first time. The police of the State 
also released about two thousand persons of these classes with- 
out complaining of them. They did this without any statutory 
authority, and at their own risk of a civil suit, knowing that the 
Supreme Court of the State had ruled in such a way that there 
was little probability that a suit could be maintained in such acase. 
RESTRICTIONS UPON RIGHT TO RELEASE. 
The great objection to having releases made in this way is 
the lack of responsibility. In most cases the arresting officer 
now makes the release. There is a constant temptation to 
bribery and corruption, for no report or record is required, and 
it is easy to accept a bribe or to release a person who should 
be retained. The new law authorizes what is now so common, 
and at the same time imposes restrictions which remove tempta- 
tions to the improper exercise of the power. It vests this power 
in the officer in charge of the station, and not in the officer 
making the arrest. It requires a record of each case in which a 
person is released. The right to be released under this law is 
limited to those who declare that they have not been arrested 
for drunkenness twice before within a year, or who, having been so arrested, were acquitted in at least one case. The law 
requires the releasing officer to certify his belief that the 
prisoner’s statement is true. These safeguards cannot fail to 
secure a careful exercise of this power. There will be many 
cases in which the past and present record of the prisoner can 
be ascertained easily. If a man has a home and a family, his wife 
can be sent for. If he has employment, his employer will come 
or write or about it; if he is an industrious workingman his 
appearance will usually indicate it, and he can put the officer in 
the way of verifying his statement. If he is a youth out of a 
good family, whose intoxication was an exceptional wrong act in 
a usually correct life, he can readily secure communication with 
some one who can satisfy the officer. On the other hand, if he is a 
“rounder” his appearance will commonly show it; he will be 
known to the arresting officer as a frequenter of the saloons. 
If he is a stranger he will not be released, because the officer 
cannot satisfy himself about his past record. If the arresting 
officer knows anything specially bad about him, or has any par- 
ticular reason for wishing him to be kept in custody, he will say 
so to the keeper of the station, and there is little probability 
that the latter will discharge him. The officer who has the 
power of release will not exercise it on a lack of knowledge that 
the prisoner’s statement is false. He must be satisfied that it 
is true. Doubtful cases will go to the courts, as they do now. 
OFFICERS NOT REQUIRED TO RELEASE APPLICANTS. 
It should be carefully noted that the power of release is 
permissive, and not mandatory. The keeper of the place of 
custody “may” release a prisoner. There is every reason for 
believing that he will exercise his power only in behalf of those 
who have homes and employment, and who are usually law- 
abiding citizens. There would seem to be no more objection 
to allowing such persons to be released, under these careful 
restrictions, than there is in permitting a police officer or con- 
stable to help the same man home, or'to pass him by unnoticed 
when a friend is rendering the same assistance. 
An added restraint upon the officer is found in the fact that 
the statement which forms the basis of the release must be in- 
vestigated afterwards by the probation officer, and if found 
untrue the man who was discharged must be complained of. It 
may be said that he cannot be found. Ordinarily this wouhl 10 
not be true. The man who would run away after release 
will not be able to satisfy the officer that he ought to 
be released. The fact that the case is to be investigated will 
be a restraint upon the officer, who will be careful not to 
be found releasing persons upon false statements. Official 
pride will prompt him to make sure of the facts before he takes 
such a responsibility. 
If the officer shall not see fit to release a prisoner, he will 
still have the right to be discharged by the court, on a similar 
statement, after it has been investigated by the probation offi- 
cer. This may be done without bringing the prisoner into 
court, if the judge shall so choose, saving many a first offender 
and his family from the disgrace attending his public arraign- 
ment and trial. If the court shall not see fit to discharge him 
without a trial — and in many cases such a discharge would be 
unwise — the trial may proceed, and at the end, if the court is 
satisfied that the prisoner is not an habitual drunkard, it may 
place his case on file, or on probation. This right exists now, 
of course, in every court, but by special mention in this con- 
nection the statute suggests the class of cases in which its 
exercise would be thoroughly consistent with the theory under- 
lying this law. 
It will be noticed that the right to release from custody is 
only given to keepers of station houses within the jurisdiction 
of courts having probation officers. The reason for this is that 
where there are no probation officers there can be no such 
investigation as the law requires. Persons arrested within the 
jurisdiction of trial justices must therefore be detained for 
judicial examination. 
THE NEW LAW VALUABLE TO TOWNS. 
It has been conceded that the new law is needed in the large 
places, but its expediency and usefulness in the smaller towns 
is doubted by some. Even if it should be shown to operate no 
better than the present law in the towns, the improvement 
which it will bring in the cities will justify its enactment, for 
most of the criminal drunkenness is in the cities. There 
were, last year, 52,814 arrests for drunkenness ; 45,982 of these 
were made in cities ; 6,832 in towns. In other words, eighty- 
seven per cent, of all the criminal drunkenness is in the cities. 
A large proportion of the remaining thirteen per cent, is in large 
towns, where the new law is as much needed as in the cities. 11 
The towns, however, will have some great advantages under 
this bill. The fine system prevents the proper punishment of 
the habitual drunkard in towns. The judge is under local 
pressure from his friends and neighbors, who are also the 
friends and neighbors of the prisoner, to impose a fine, rather 
than a sentence to imprisonment, even in extreme cases. 
Under the new law, there being no fine, he must impose upon 
this class of offenders a sentence to imprisonment. 
The great peril from drunkenness in the country town is 
from roving characters, who, when drunk, are a source of 
danger. There are hundreds of this class, employed tempora- 
rily, in gangs, upon public works. They have no abiding place 
or social restraints. When drunk they are dangerous. Under 
the present law they can only be fined. Many of them have 
money to pay their fines, and are soon upon the streets again. 
Under the new law the towns may be rid of this kind of men. 
There is also another class of men who go to towns near their 
own to get drunk, perhaps because the facilities for indulgence 
are better. They are prepared to pay fines, and in many cases 
expect to do so. No station-house officer would think of releas- 
ing this kind of men. They cannot, for they cannot be satisfied 
that the prisoner’s statement is probably true. Towns which 
now have trouble with this class of drunkards will be able to 
put a stop to the nuisance. Fines have no terror for them, but 
the certainty of imprisonment will deter. Towns will benefit by 
the new law in a different way from cities, but none the less surely. 
For the successful administration of this law, a hearty coop- 
eration of police and judicial authorities and probation officers, 
will be necessary. Either one of them may cause a failure to 
carry out the purpose of the law in its spirit. If it shall be kept 
in mind that the purpose of the law is to secure a careful and intel- 
ligent discrimination between cases nominally alike, and a judg- 
ment upon every individual upon his ascertained record, much 
that is desirable will be accomplished. As now, the great 
majority of the cases will be reserved for judicial decision. 
The law will aid the courts in reaching right conclusions 
by enabling them to obtain accurate information, and by 
practically laying down the principle that habitual offenders 
of this class shall be sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, 
while those who rarely offend may be treated leniently. 
CO-OPERATION NEEDED. Time will be required to perfect the administration of the 
new law, which will go into effect upon the first of July. In its 
enforcement it will greatly need the support of an intelligent 
public sentiment. The present system has been tolerated for 
years, in spite of its admitted defects. It was established 
when the number of cases to be dealt with was small, and the 
circumstances were entirely different from those of today. No 
one pretends that it furnishes the means for dealing intelli- 
gently and judiciously with an offence which necessitates, as 
drunkenness now does, sixtv-five per cent, of all the arrests 
made in the State, and furnishes a third of the entire popula- 
tion of the minor prisons. The new law has been carefully 
framed, after consultation with experts in such matters, with 
the purpose of furnishing a comprehensive plan for dealing with 
this problem, whose enormous proportions startle those who 
seriously consider them. The old system has been allowed to 
exist merely because it was in existence, though demonstrated 
to be a failure as a whole. We bespeak for it a fair trial, upon 
its merits, believing that when it has been in operation a few 
months, it will be seen to have such manifest advantages over 
the existing methods as to commend it to universal favor. 
The present system helps neither the man nor the community; 
the new one will, if carried out in its spirit, help both. 
12 THE LAW. 
An Act Relating to the Punishment of Drunkenness. 
[Chap. 427, Acts of 1891.] 
Be it enacted, etc., as follows : 
Section i. Whoever is found in a state of intoxication in a 
public place, or is found in any place in a state of intoxication 
committing a breach of the peace or disturbing others by noise, 
may be arrested without a warrant by a sheriff, deputy sheriff, 
constable, watchman or police officer, and kept in custody in 
some suitable place until he has recovered from his intoxi- 
cation. 
Sect. 2. Any person arrested for drunkenness may make to 
the officer in charge of the place of custody in which he is con- 
fined, a written statement, giving his name and address, and 
declaring that he has not been arrested for drunkenness twice 
before within the twelve months next preceding, or that having 
been so arrested he has been tried and acquitted in one of the 
cases, together with a request to be released from custody. If 
the officer who receives said statement shall be satisfied that it 
is probably true, and shall so endorse thereon, he may release 
from custody the person making the same, pending investigation, 
if he is within the jurisdiction of a court having a probation 
officer. Each statement made as aforesaid shall be referred by 
the officer receiving the same to a probation officer, who shall 
at once inquire into the truth or falsity thereof, and shall 
endorse thereon, over his own signature, for the use of the 
court having jurisdiction of the case, the result of the investiga- 
tion. If said investigation sustains the truth of said statement, 
the court may thereupon direct that such person be released 
from custody without bringing him into court, if he has not 
been released. If the investigation shows that the statement 
made by a person who has been released from custody, as afore- 14 
said, was true, no further action shall be taken in his case. If 
it shall appear to the probation officer to be untrue, he shall so 
notify the officer who made the arrest, and he shall make a 
complaint against said person for drunkenness. If said case is 
within the jurisdiction of a trial justice, he shall make such 
inquiries as he shall think necessary, relative to the truth or 
falsity of said statement, and may direct that the person 
making the same be released from custody without bringing 
him into court, unless he is satisfied that said statement is 
false. No officer making an arrest under the provisions of this 
act shall be liable for illegal arrest or imprisonment if the per- 
son arrested shall be released from custody upon his own 
request as herein provided. 
Sect. 3. Every person arrested for drunkenness, when he 
has recovered from his intoxication, shall be informed by the 
officer in charge of the place in which he is kept in custody, 
of his right to request to be released as hereinbefore provided. 
If he shall not make such request, or if he shall not be released, 
as hereinbefore provided, the officer making the arrest shall 
make a complaint against him for drunkenness. 
Sect. 4. A full record of each case in which a person is 
released from custody, as aforesaid, together with the state- 
ment made by him, shall be kept by the court or trial justice. 
When a person is so released by any of the several municipal 
courts of the city of Boston, or within their jurisdiction, a cer- 
tified copy of the statement made as aforesaid, together with 
the name of the officer making the arrest, shall be sent by such 
court to the clerk of the municipal court of the city of Boston 
for criminal business. 
Sect. 5. If a male person is convicted of drunkenness by 
the voluntary use of intoxicating liquor, he may be punished 
by imprisonment in the jail, or in any place provided by law 
for common drunkards, for not more than one year, or in the 
Massachusetts reformatory, as provided bv chapter three hun- 
dred and twenty-three of the acts of the year eighteen hun- 
dred and eighty-six. If a female person is so convicted she 
may be punished by imprisonment in the jail, or in any place 
provided by law for common drunkards, for not more than one 
year, or in the reformatory prison for women for not more than 
two years : provided, however, that if the person so convicted 
shall satisfy the court or trial justice, by his own statement or 
otherwise, that he has not been arrested for drunkenness twice 
before within the twelve months next preceding, or that having been so arrested he has been tried and acquitted in one of the 
cases, his case may be placed on file. 
Sect. 6. It shall be the duty of probation officers to assist 
the courts by which they are severally appointed, by obtaining 
and furnishing information in regard to previous arrests, con- 
victions and imprisonments for drunkenness, and such other 
facts as the court shall direct, concerning persons accused of 
drunkenness. 
Sect. 7. Each of the said officers shall keep a full record, 
well indexed, of each such case investigated, in such form as 
the court shall direct. The probation officers of the several 
municipal courts within the city of Boston shall furnish to the 
municipal court for the city of Boston a copy of the record in 
each such case. Said court shall cause all records and state- 
ments received by it as aforesaid, to be consolidated and so 
kept that they can be readily consulted, and for such purpose 
may employ such clerical service as shall be necessary. The 
compensation fixed by the court for such service, and such 
other necessary expenses as shall be incurred by the court in 
carrying out the provisions of this section, shall be paid from 
the treasury of the county of Suffolk, upon vouchers approved 
by said court. All records and statements made under this act 
shall be open at all times to the police officials of the several 
cities and towns of the Commonwealth. The board of police 
of Boston, the city marshals and chiefs of police of the other 
cities and towns, the keepers of jails and masters of houses of 
correction, and the superintendent of the Boston house of 
industry shall furnish to each other and to said probation offi- 
cers, and said probation officers shall furnish to each other, on 
application, all information in their possession relative to per- 
sons whose cases shall be under investigation, as hereinbefore 
provided. 
Sect. 8. Sections twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven and 
twenty-eight of chapter two hundred and seven of the Public 
Statutes, so much of chapter three hundred and seventy-five 
of the acts of the year eighteen hundred and eighty-five as pre- 
scribes a penalty for drunkenness, chapter three hundred and 
seventy-seven of the acts of the year eighteen hundred and 
eighty-eight, and such other acts and parts of acts as are 
inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed. 
Sect. 9. This act shall take effect on the first day of July, 
in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-one.— Approved, June 
11, 1891. Probation Officers. 
Many years ago a gentleman who had an interest in his fel- 
low-men, Mr. John Augustus, used to go to the police court in 
Boston, from time to time, to look into the cases of persons 
who had been arrested who could properly be released without 
imprisonment. He would assume some responsibility for them, 
agreeing with the court to look after them, and to see that they 
were surrounded with good influences, with the hope of reclaim- 
ing them from wrong courses. Later on “Uncle” Cook took 
up the same work, and carried it on for many years. Neither 
of them had any official position or compensation, though the 
latter received a small salary as chaplain of the Suffolk county 
jail. 
The work was so successful, and so manifestly wise, that in 
1878 the late Hon. M. J. Flatley, then a member of the Senate, 
secured the passage of a law (chap. 198, Acts of 1878) requir- 
ing the appointment of a probation officer by the city of Boston. 
His duties, as laid down by the statute, were to attend the 
sessions of the criminal courts in Suffolk County; to investigate 
the cases of persons charged with or convicted of crimes and 
misdemeanors, and to recommend to the courts the placing on 
probation of such persons as might be reasonably expected to 
reform without punishment. He was also required to visit the 
offenders placed on probation at his suggestion, and to render 
such assistance and encouragement as would tend to prevent 
them from again offending. The appointment of Capt. Edward 
H. Savage, formerly chief of police of Boston, to this office, 
secured so satisfactory an administration and so good results 
that in 1880 (Chap. 129) a law was passed authorizing the 
appointment of a probation officer in each city and town. In 
1882 the appointment of two additional officers for the Boston 
courts was authorized. 17 
The law of 1880, being permissive, was acted upon by only 
a few of the cities and towns, the main reason being that the 
salary must be paid by the city or town making the appoint- 
ment. The law passed by the Legislature of 1891 requires the 
appointment of a probation officer, by each municipal, police 
and district court, and provides for the payment of their sal- 
aries from the county treasuries. 
AN ENLARGED WORK. 
The adoption of this as the fixed policy of the State is so 
important a movement that it deserves special attention. It 
has always been found necessary to arrest persons whose cases 
could be disposed of wisely without imprisonment, and the pus- 
tom of laying cases “ on file ” has provided a way of treating 
this class of persons. There are many offences committed 
which do not show that the offender has a real criminal char- 
acter. The wrong act is at variance with the general current of 
the offender’s life. It may indicate a tendency to go in a 
wrong direction, but not a settled purpose to do so. The 
offence cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. The safety of 
the community and the interests of the offender make it neces- 
sary to arrest him. But neither of these considerations makes it 
necessary to punish him. He needs the warning which comes 
from detection, arrest and conviction. But to imprison him is 
more likely to develop the tendency which his wrong act 
evinced than to arrest it. Prison influences are not con- 
ducive to reformation, especially under a system which permits 
the confinement of all classes of criminals together, without any 
successful attempt at classification. The minor prisons, for the 
punishment of petty offences, always contain a proportion of 
prisoners who have served sentences elsewhere for the worst of 
crimes. Even among those who have only committed misde- 
meanors there are to be found the vilest and worst men and 
women. Association with these convicts is certain to con- 
taminate persons who, though they have done one criminal act, 
are not familiar with the methods and.courses of habitual law- 
breakers and depraved members of society. 
DIFFICULTIES OF DISCHARGED CONVICTS. 
The stigma which attaches to one who has been in prison 
makes it very difficult for a discharged convict to regain his 18 
place in society. No matter how good his purposes may be, he 
feels that he is marked, as he is, and he is very likely to lose 
his courage and drop into the criminal class. This is made 
very easy for him by the fact that he is constantly coming in 
contact with fellow-convicts who have also been discharged, 
and who are ready to lead him astray, and many of them take a 
fiendish delight in preventing him from regaining his place as a 
good citizen. All these things make it very probable that one 
who has been imprisoned for a first offence will continue in 
wrong courses. 
PROBATION THE ONLY REMEDY. 
The probation system is the only one which can remedy the de- 
fects of the old methods. It is often almost as injurious to a man 
who has committed'his first offence to ignore his wrong-doing as it 
is to punish it by imprisonment. It encourages him in evil courses. 
If he has no real principle to restrain him, if his first offence is 
ignored he is very likely to repeat it, and others whose ten- 
dencies are in the wrong direction are very likely to lose the 
restraint which his punishment wrould afford. But probation is 
more effective for all these purposes than is punishment. 
Ordinarily the punishment for minor first offences is not a 
severe one. When the petty fine has been paid, or the brief term 
of imprisonment has been served, the restraint is at an end. But 
probation prolongs this restraint. The probationer is made to 
feel it. He realizes that the question whether he shall escape 
punishment or receive it is one which he must answer for him- 
self. He has every possible incentive to good behavior, and to 
the breaking up of bad associations and companionships. 
Being under the eye of the probation officer, and usually 
required to report to him from time to time, he knows that a 
repetition of his offence, or any misbehavior, whether criminal 
or not, will lead to his surrender to the court, which will not 
fail to punish his offence. Most probationers have friends who 
will press the necessity for exemplary conduct. If the probation 
officer is a man who has an interest in those under his super- 
vision, he cannot fail to be helpful to them, by making them 
feel that he is their personal friend, as well as the representa- 
tive of the law. He will find many ways of showing his friend- 
liness, by obtaining employment, giving wuse counsel, and in 
every possible way assisting the probationer to secure once more 
his place in the ranks of lawr-abiding citizens. It will be seen readily that placing a person on probation is a very different 
thing from laying his case on file, without supervision or 
restraint. 
VALUABLE INVESTIGATIONS TO BE MADE. 
Besides this personal work for those placed in his care, the 
probation officer, under the new law, will have other and very 
important duties. Being appointed by the court, and acting 
under its direction, he becomes, in many ways an assistant to 
the judge. For many years it has been required that the cases 
of juvenile offenders shall be investigated by a state agent, who 
shall be able to inform the court as to the offender’s general 
character and surroundings, with the purpose of disposing of 
the matter without subjecting the child to punishment, if prac- 
ticable. The system has saved thousands of juvenile 
offenders from lives of crime. The new law extends this sys- 
tem to adult offenders. Courts are often compelled to impose 
sentence because they have no means of ascertaining whether 
the offender can be dealt with wisely in any other way. The 
probation officers appointed under this law have, as one of 
their principal duties, that of making investigations. They are 
expected to be able to assist the court to an intelligent decision, 
by furnishing accurate information regarding persons charged 
with crime. It is the business of the police to furnish evidence 
to secure conviction. But they cannot be expected to inquire 
as to the character, home surroundings, habits, employment, 
associates, etc., of the persons whom they arrest. This investi- 
gation must be. made by the probation officer. In some 
instances, especially where the accused is friendless, and his 
guilt is only proved by circumstantial evidence, he may render 
good service to the court by investigating the statements of the 
accused in his own defence, ascertaining whether the evidence 
against him may not be offset by other facts in his favor, so 
that innocent persons may not be convicted, as some now are, 
or convicted of offences much graver than those really com- 
mitted. 
DUTIES CONNECTED WITH CASES OF DRUNKENNESS. 
The probation officers will have important duties in connec- 
tion with the enforcement of the law in relation to the punish- 
ment of drunkenness. As imprisonment is hereafter to be the 20 
only punishment for that offence, a large number of cases 
of this class will be placed on probation. Many persons con- 
victed of this offence have homes, families and employment. 
The imposition of a fine does not deter them from occasional 
excessive indulgence. But the possibility of a sentence to 
imprisonment will have a strong deterrent influence. With an 
officer in every court, paid for looking after probationers, there 
will probably be many more cases of this class placed on pro- 
bation than heretofore. When the probationer understands 
that any future lapse will be followed by imprisonment, and 
knows that he is so closely watched by the probation officer 
any lapse will be known and punished at once, he will 
avoid further indulgence, in most cases. It should be possible 
to save the State more than the cost of the probation system 
by reducing the number of prisoners now supported in the 
minor prisons on account of drunkenness. A person of this 
class is far more likely to reform on probation than in prison, 
and the State will be saved the cost of his commitment and 
maintenance. 'The probation officer, by keeping a complete 
record, will also be of great assistance to the court, by furnish- 
ing information on which the court can impose long 'sentences 
on habitual offenders. 
QUALITIES NEEDED FOR SUCCESSFUL SERVICE. 
Enough has been said to show the great importance of this 
work, and the necessity for great care in the selection of pro- 
bation officers. The possession of a warm heart and a kindly, 
sympathetic nature is not the only qualification needed. 
The probation officer who possesses these, and lacks 
that knowledge of human nature which will enable him to 
discriminate between weakness and wickedness will fail. 
It should be remembered that he is to deal, generally, 
with persons who have done wrong, and who have an interest 
in deceiving. They will make the past appear as well as 
possible, and assurances of penitence and promises of reforma- 
tion will be made easily, to secure escape from punishment. 
Probationers will need advice and sympathy, but they will also 
need the tonic influences of contact with a strong character. 
The probation system will be new in most parts of the State. 
Its purpose and plan should be carefully studied by those in- 
terested in such matters. The degree of success or failure 
which will attend the administration of the law will depend very largely upon the existence of an intelligent public senti- 
ment regarding it. This sentiment can make itself felt in the 
appointment of proper probation officers, and in assisting them 
in their duties. No probation officer can secure the best re- 
sults for his work unless he has the hearty cooperation of men 
and women outside of official circles who will help him in vari- 
ous ways which he can from time to time suggest. With such 
a sentiment, manifesting itself in such cooperation, thousands 
who have committed an offence against the laws may be kept 
out of the criminal class, and saved to themselves, their fam- 
ilies and the State. THE LAW. 
An Act to Provide for the Appointment of Probation Officers. 
[Chapter 356, Acts of 1891.] 
Be it enacted,, etc., as follows : 
Section i. The justice of each municipal, police or district 
court shall appoint one person to perform the duties of proba- 
tion officer, as hereinafter named, under the jurisdiction of said 
court. The appointment of such officer for the municipal 
court of the city of Boston shall be made by the chief justice 
of said court, who may appoint as many assistants, not exceed- 
ing three, to said probation officer as are needed to carry out 
the purposes of this act. Each probation officer appointed as 
herein provided shall ho’d his office during the pleasure of the 
court making the appointment. 
Sect. 2. Said probation officers shall not be active mem- 
bers of the regular police force, but shall in the execution of 
their official duties have all the powers of police officers. The 
records of any of said probation officers may at all times be 
inspected by the chief of police or city marshal of any city or 
town, or by the board of police of the city of Boston. 
Sect. 3. Each probation officer shall inquire into the 
nature of every criminal case brought before the court under 
whose jurisdiction he acts, and may recommend that any per- 
son convicted by said court be placed upon probation'; the 
court may place the person so convicted in the care of said 
probation officer for such time and upon such conditions as 
may seem proper. 
Sect. 4. Each person released upon probation as afore- 
said shall be furnished by the probation officer with a written 
statement of the terms and condition of his release ; each pro- 
bation officer shall keep full records of all cases investigated by 
him, of all cases placed in his care by the court, and of any 
other duties performed by him under this act. 23 
Sect. 5. The clerk of each municipal, police or district 
court, or the justice thereof if there is no clerk, shall, when an 
appointment is made under this act, forthwith notify the com- 
missioners of prisons of the name of the officer so appointed. 
Each probation officer shall make a monthly report to the 
commissioners of prisons in such form as said commissioners 
shall direct. , 
Sect. 6. The compensation of each probation officer 
shall be determined by the justice of the court under whose 
jurisdiction he acts, subject to the approval of the county 
commissioners of the county in which the court is located, and 
shall be paid from the treasury of the county, upon vouchers 
approved by said justice and the county commissioners, or, in 
the county of Suffolk, the commissioners of public institutions. 
Sect. 7. A probation officer may, at the request of any 
justice of the superior court, investigate the case of any person 
on trial in that court and make a report upon the same to said 
justice, and may upon the order of the court take on probation 
any person convicted in said court ; the compensation for such 
services shall be paid from the treasury of the Commonwealth 
upon vouchers approved by said justice. The officers 
appointed under this act may also perform the services of pro- 
bation officers named in section sixty-nine of chapter two 
hundred and twenty of the Public Statutes, and for said 
services may receive such compensation as the county commis- 
sioners or the commissioners of public institutions, as the case 
m.ay be, shall approve. 
Sect. 8. Any officer who refuses or neglects to make re- 
turns or to perform any of the duties required of him by this act 
shall forfeit two hundred dollars to the use of the Commonwealth. 
Sect. 9. Nothing in this act shall be so construed as to 
interfere with any of the duties required of the board of lunacy 
and charity under the provisions of the statutes relating to 
juvenile offenders. 
Sect. 10. Sections seventy-four, seventy-five, seventy- 
six, seventy-seven and seventy-eight of chapter two hundred 
and twelve of the Public Statutes, chapter one hundred and 
twenty-five of the acts of the year eighteen hundred and 
eighty-two, and all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this 
act are hereby repealed. 
Sect. ii. This act shall take effect upon the first day of 
July in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-one. [ Approved’ 
May 28, 1891.]