but he qualified the flattering acceptance by adding that he should have his assistant editor make changes in it. This was Tuesday night, and I have just received a wire from New York that the young man was on his way to Chicago. I hope no blood will be shed. I shall advise sand-bagging.

The most mooted points in journalism of to-day, are whether to issue a Sunday edition, and whether to print advertisements as reading matter. Now I think that a Sunday edition may very properly be printed for those who wish to read it; but if people are trying to force a Sunday edition onto anybody else, they are doing wrong. This is a free country.

Advertisements may well be printed as choice reading-matter if the editor is one whose brain cannot compass anything more readable. There are people who object to reading-notices on the ground of their deceitfulness. But I never detected any deceit in a reading-notice. They seem to me-but why should I go into this, and argue and reason it all out? Charles A. Dana made quite a buzz when he came to Chicago and deprecated readingnotices; but I could stand here and say them yea or say them nay, and no one would care. This is not fair. We ordinary men can only say that a thing is so or it isn't so; and seems to me that if we strike it right, there ought to be a furore about it.

There is a good deal of the immoral and meretricious about to-day's Newspapers; a great deal of the wicked and undesirable. Perhaps not so much of the undesirable as we would like, but still too much. Every time I read a paper on the street cars, I blush vividly because people look over my shoulder at the big head-lines, and think that I am reading doubtful articles. Why should I be held responsible for what people think? And why should they allow it to influence their minds?

It is the right of journals to print their own names in big letters, and the names of contemporaries in small letters. Thus the Waytown Jayback may say that the "Waytown Jayback (in display capitals) has sent a reporter to Cheyenne with instructions to visit the barber shop and gather Eastern news from a copy on file there of the "New York Herald" (in lower case minion.) Such typographical conduct is permitted by the rules of journalism, but an editor might make quite a name for himself by following the rules of modesty. But then we all might do that.

Many Newspapers think they have a right to contain editorials. This is a tremendous wrong. But you will notice that many papers contain these editorials. Now they will head a column, "The State of Trade;" or, Among Bulls and Bears;" or, "The Political Outlook;" or, "The Nude In Art." And with effrontery they will place these vain writings in plain view-in fact often on the editorial page. Have these men been set apart as monitors, counsellors and instructors? If so they have not been set apart far enough.

Concerning the duties of Newspapers, I have said nothing. But there is many a duty resting on them. When I recall the young man that I told you of I think that resting on some, there ought to be a prohibitive duty. I would teach them to neglect my this young man's writings.

The right of papers to lie about their circulation can no longer be doubted. The lie should properly be lied in the presence of a notarial seal.

On the other hand a right which all papers seem to assume, to dominate the intelligence of their readers, has not in this country any existence. In Old England the Times—the "Thunderer," they call it—is conceded this right, and people over their lie awake with a splitting headache, and their minds a prey to anxiety, wondering and fearing what the Thunder-r-r-er will have to thunder in the morning. The Thunderer for all of us over here, could go to thunder. It seems strange that people should care much about it. Over here if a paper doesn't say what we think, we invest another cent, and buy a paper that will say it, and say it as if it meant it. If you have money enough you can get a paper to express your views to a nicety, so the street car men tell me.

WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH OUR CRIMINALS?

BY JUDGE J. P. ALTGELD.

No man can examine the great penal system of this country without being.astounded at its magnitude, its costs and its unsatisfactory results. There are in the United States upwards of 2,200 county jails, several hundred lock-ups or police stations; between fifty and sixty penitentiaries, with work-shops, machinery, etc. The first cost of the erection of all these buildings and shops has been estimated at upwards of $500,000,000, which is dead capital, the interest at 5 per cent upon which sum alone will annually amount to $25,000,000. To this must be added the sums annually appropriated out of the treasury to feed the prisoners, pay the officers, judicial and executive, and keep up and maintain all of these institutions, which sums have been estimated at upwards of $50,000,000, to say nothing of the costs paid by the accused ; there are in addition to the many thousands of policemen and detectives, about 70,000 constables in this country, and about as many magistrates. There are upwards of 2,200 sheriffs, and in the neighborhood of 12,000 deputy sheriffs. Then come the grand juries, petit juries, judges and lawyers; next the keepers and their numerous assistants for all of these prisons. Making about a million of men, partly or wholly supporting their familes from this source, and as I am on the list I may speak with freedom and say that as a rule they are comfortable, are anxious to hold on, and ready to defend the system which gives them and their families bread. As a rule keepers of prisons like to see their prisons well-filled.

A glance at this system almost suggests the question whether society has any other object to care for, or mission to accomplish, than simply to maintain this machinery. Looking at its workings we find that there are in the neighborhood of 75,000 convicts in the various penitentiaries. As the average sentence is about two and a half years the whole number on the average is, therefore, renewed once every two and a half years; so that there are in the neighborhood of three-quarters of a million of men, living in our midst who have had a penitentiary experience. We next see that upwards of 5 per cent of the entire population is arrested by the police and other officials every year; so that there are about three million people

66

arrested and run in every year. Assuming that one-third of them are what are called "repeaters," that is, have been arrested before, it would still leave two millions who are for the first time each year broken into what may be called a prison experience; and yet, notwithstanding the vast army of men employed, the millions annually expended, the numerous arrests, the large number imprisoned, crime is said to be increasing, and our whole penal system is pronounced to be a failure both in this country and in Europe, where they have similar systems.

And the question is asked by thoughtful men : What shall be done? Society must be protected. If the present system is a failure what shall we substitute? It has been but a few years since the general public gave this question any consideration. Heretofore the only remedy ever suggested or thought of was the application of brute force. In all of the past centuries, and in every country on the globe, methods of punishment for the prevention of crime have prevailed which were the embodiment of brutality and of fiendish cruelty. The prisoners were often transformed into either raving maniacs or wild beasts, while the keepers of prisons became fiends in human form; and in all times, and in every country on the globe, this system of human torture was a failure. Brutality never yet protected society or helped humanity. There was a time in England when men were hanged or burned for trivial offences; but instead of deterring, the very shadow of the gallows seemed to produce a crop of fresh offenders, and the glow of human embers invited new victims to the stake.

One difficulty with our system is that it proceeds on the idea of expiation, that is, paying for having violated the law. In feudal times every violation of law was a source of revenue to the feudal lord, or to the king. The fine was paid to him, or whatever penalty was paid, went to him, the more serious of offences being followed by a confiscation of property. The imposition, then, of a fine was one of the means employed by the strong to plunder the weak. Now we have advanced until theoretically we declare that crime should not be a source of revenue, and that it is only for the protection of society that punishment can be inflicted; yet when we come to impose penalties, we proceed upon the theory that if the offender pays for or expiates the violation then that ends all. He can go right on and violate the law a second time and if he pays the penalty all is wiped out. Instead of inquiring into the history, the environment and the character of the offender, and then applying a treatment which will in reality protect society, we simply fix a price upon each infraction, and we treat those who are not vicious, but have been unfortunate, and have been guilty of some slight offence in almost the same manner that we treat the vicious who have been guilty of graver offences; and we put both in a condition in which it is next to impossible for either to make an honest living when they have been once imprisoned.

I desire to consider the subject rather from a practical than from a theoretical standpoint. The first important question that arises when we are brought face to face with the workings of our system, is, where do these people who are arrested, all come from? What is the environment which produces them? As we have not the time to inquire extensively into home

conditions, or the training of the youth, we will start at once at the point where they are first brought to our view, and that is in the Police Court, and we will soon see where they come from.

The report of the Superintendent of Police of Chicago, for the year 1888, shows that in that year the police officers of Chicago alone arrested and carried to the lock-up 50,432 people, 40,867 of whom were males; 9,565 of whom were females. The great majority of them were under thirty years of age; nearly 9,000 were under twenty years of age; a little over 30,000 of them were American born; the others were made up of various nationalities. The same report shows that 10,263 were common laborers; 18,336 had no occupation; 1,975 were house-keepers. Some of you may ask : What were these people arrested for, and what was done with them? Well, the same report shows that upwards of 15,000, or nearly one-third, were discharged in the Police Court, because it was not proven that they had violated any law or ordinance; and out of the whole number arrested only 2,192 were held over on criminal charges. The rest were fined for a violation of some ordinance, generally on the charge of disorderly conduct. The police magistrate having no power to try a charge of crime or grave misdemeanor, it follows that every case of that nature had to be sent to the grand jury; and I repeat that out of the whole 50,000, only a little over 2,000 were held over; and the records of the Criminal Court show that of these more than two-thirds fell to the ground because no offence could be proven.

Bearing in mind that those arrested were young; that they come from the poorer classes, from those who are already fighting an unequal fight in the struggle for existence, I ask you what effect do you suppose the act of arresting them upon the street, possibly clubbing them, then marching them to the lock-up, and shoving them into a cell, what effect did all this have upon the 15,000 who were not shown to have been guilty of any offence, who had violated neither law of God nor statutes of man? They were treated while under arrest as if guilty of highway robbery. Did this treatment strengthen them and make them better able to hold their heads up, or did it tend to break their self respect-to weaken them? Did it not embitter them against society and a system which had done them this wrong? Will they not feel the humiliation and degredation as long as they live; and will that very treatment not mark the beginning in many cases of a downward Criminal career?

But we will follow the subject a little further. You are aware that when a fine is imposed in the Police Court, if it is not paid the defendant is taken to the House of Correction, that is, the Bridewell, which for all practical purposes is a penitentiary. It has for many years been in charge of Mr. Charles E. Felton, who is one of the most experienced and most intelligent prison managers in the United States. In his report for that year, he says: "In the year 1888, the number of prisoners was 10,717. The average daily number imprisoned was 7644. The average duration of imprisonment was but 26 1-10 days. Of the above who were received during the year all save 96 were convicted for petty offences, the executions under which they were imprisoned showing their offence to have been chiefly disorderly conduct, or other violation of municipal or town or village ordi