Mr. Heyman, Mr. Ayres, and Mr. Poland, of the United States delegation, spoke at different times in Section IV, taking advanced grounds in reference to the better methods for the protection of children.

Mr. Randall, one of the United States official delegates, had presented to the congress a preliminary report on the subject of the "Forfeiture of parental rights," especially relating to the practice in England and America in the courts, showing the general rule adopted in both countries. The subject is one of great interest in all countries, and has been considerably discussed in the Société Genérale des Prisons of France and in the Senate and Ilouse of Deputies of that country. Some extracts will be made from the report in the discussions of the fourth division.

THE CHILDREN.

As stated in one of the opening addresses of the congress, the commission, recognizing the special importance of problems relating to dependent and delinquent children, had added a new section to the programme, to be known as Section IV, relating entirely to children. The great interest in this department is shown by the number of preliminary reports, eighty in all, and more than in any other section. Among the writers were some of the most accomplished and celebrated specialists. The names of Bonjean, Beltrani-Scalia, Rouselle, Moldenhauer, Voisin, and Joly are mentioned as known to the writer, and there were many others equally distinguished. It is more and more recognized that the most fruitful field for prison reform lies in preventing pauperism and crime by the care and education of exposed dependent and delinquent children. In that field there is always hope. The reform of prisoners, the supervision of discharged prisoners by patronage societies, are excellent works in their way and will always be necessary, for there always will be criminals. But the highest social science is to keep the prison population down to the lowest number by preventing the young from becoming criminals. There were seven preliminary reports on the second question of Section IV. The longest report, and a very able one, was by Dr. Alex. de Moldenhauer, judge of the city court of Warsaw, and a noted writer on various social questions. His report covers about one hundred octavo pages and was very thorough in the history, philosophy, and experience in child saving. The whole report is most valuable reading, but only part of his conclusions can be given. In closing he recommends congress to say that:

"The congress, in continuation of the resolutions passed by the congresses of Rome and St. Petersburg, which definitely recognized it to be not only the right but the duty of the State to prevent the pernicious influence of the parents or guardians on their children or wards, is of the opinion that the right of guardianship of the State over minors should replace the guardianship of the parents or guardians during their minority."

This he applies to cases where the parents or guardians have been convicted of capital offenses, or for a long term of imprisonment, or for certain offenses against the children, or for other acts proving the parents are unworthy or incompetent to perform their duties, or for complicity with their children in crime, and, above all, when they encourage or force their children to criminal acts, and for various other and somewhat similar reasons.

In one resolution he asks the congress to express its desire that for all minors who come in question and for whom the State will replace the parental authority there should be established absolutely distinct institutions for each class.

Another he recommends is: "The congress expresses the opinion that the decision concerning the forfeiture of parental rights and the substitution of guardianship by the State of minors should be left either to the civil or criminal courts or to a court especially established for the purpose."

There is no higher authority on this subject than M. the court of appeals and member of the superior council

liminary reports was by him. It is brief, but comprehends much. He calls attention to the French statute of 1889, and says:

"It is evident that parents who excite, favor, or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of their children should not retain any parental authority. It is the same if they are convicted as authors or accomplices of a crime committed on their persons, or as accomplices of a crime committed by them, or convicted for influencing minors into debauchery; they are unworthy to retain the right of parental authority over their children and can have for them neither affection or respect." He says further: "But in all cases where the law of July 24, 1889, declares the forfeiture of parental rights operative there should be given to the magistrates the right to withdraw from parents adjudged incompetent or unworthy the right of guardianship of their children and to confer it on either private persons, societies of patronage, or public assistance. This authority in the courts will have the great advantage of rendering more frequent actions against unworthy parents, an end we should seek to attain. It imports more and more the introduction of law to protect the child, to place it properly and to oppose until its majority a legal obstacle to all interference by the father and mother in the education provided by public authority." In another place he says: "The right to deprive the father and mother of the guardianship of their children should not belong to the criminal or correctional courts, but to the civil courts." In this respect he says: "My views have been modified very little. I continue to remain a partisan of the competency of the civil courts."

Dr. Louis Fuld, advocate of Mayence, was the author of a report on this question. After treating the subject at length and with ability, he closes with these words: "1. When the parental authority is declared forfeited the legislature can establish supervision and guardianship by the State over the parents in all cases where they have been condemned to imprisonment for less than two months for an offense against children.

"2. Upon those who have been imprisoned for a longer period for a crime not against children.

"3. Upon those who by an immoral life, drunkenness, passion for gambling, bad treatment, or negligence in fulfilling their duties to their children, compromise the moral and physical good or safety of their children."

Another preliminary report on this subject was by the writer of this paper. It was a brief legal treatise on the English and American chancery practice defining under what circumstances the courts declare the parental rights forfeited and substitute other guardianship. It is largely made up from citations of court decisions. Translation is here given of the introductory portion, with a brief statement of the English and American rule:

"For a hundred years the English and American courts and societies devoted to the study of social questions have discussed few of higher importance than under what circumstances should the law interfere and remove the child from its parents. The law of nature clearly indicates that in its infancy the child should remain with its parents, receive from them its support and education, and during this time should be under parental authority. The duration of this time and the limits of this authority vary according to the laws and customs of different nations. But in general the child becomes independent at the age of reason. The civil law of Rome fixed the age at 25 years after having passed through different degrees of partial emancipation. In early times the Anglo-Saxon fixed the age at 21 years. During the period of subjection the child had the right to support, good treatment, education, and to be taught a trade or profession. The parent had also the right to the obedience of the child, good conduct, and labor and proceeds of labor. Where we find these family relations the best and most elevated their rights and duties are a source of happiness, mutual love, obedience, and respect. Is not this mutual attachment sufficient to protect the child? Yes, with humane and affectionate parents.

"But it is unfortunately true that many parents are so degraded by immoral lives, their habits and evil associations, that they have but feeble attachment for their children, their homes, and their friends.

"The love of the man and the woman for the frail being they have brought into the world by mutual love sanctified by marriage is a love which has its origin in their very existence and is strong and enduring. Those parents who are faithful to nature and whom evil has not perverted, sacrifice their time, their rest, and their pleasure for this object of their supreme affection and most tender solicitude, and for them all sacrifices are transformed to joys. If the child is in need they feel it, and will risk their health and lives. In sickness and in health, in wealth and in poverty, clothed in fine apparel or in rags, parents and children are attached to each other by indissoluble affection. Such parents do not abandon to others the child given them by their Creator until they have lost all hope. The reciprocal love of parents and children forms the strongest tie which can attach them to each other during the minority of the child. When they are so attached no law is needed to protect the child.

"It is only in the abnormal family state that the law need intervene. It is only where the parents, corrupted by vice, place the child in conditions where it may fall, as they have, that the law interposes and protects the child and society.

"Moreover, history has painted in vivid colors in all ages that the natural love of many parents is not sufficient to protect children against ill-treatment. There are great and irreparable wrongs against children; evils which they suffer during life and for which the parents alone are responsible. Some bring on the forfeiture of parental rights, while others tend to it. There is bad treatment which does not come from brutal force and which affects the child in high and low conditions alike. The transmission of bad blood is one. The father whose character is low, brutal, vicious, given to drink, brings into the world malformed childen, feeble in mind, incorrigible, with vicious tendencies to depravity and crime. In giving life to such children the father commits a crime not known to law, though his guilt is of the worst kind. “Behold the contrast. Over the fireside where reign love, labor, and happiness, law has no need to exercise control. At the other home, where vice, hatred, debauchery, and crime hold their saturnalias, is where the little children suffer. Victor Hugo, in his strong language says: 'He who has seen the suffering of men has seen nothing; he should see the suffering of women. He who has seen the suffering of women has seen nothing. He should see the suffering of children.'

"And where this suffering is caused by the parents or guardians, law comes with humanity to protect the child. It is necessary that the child should have another home and parents by adoption. It is no trifling thing to pronounce the forfeiture of parental rights-rights founded in nature, profoundly implanted in our physical, mental, and moral being. But this forfeiture does not come from bad treatment alone. In some cases the poverty of the parents renders them absolutely incapable of supporting their family. They can not for a long time supply the wants of the child, and it becomes a public charge, and is taken by the public authorities and placed until majority in another family. In this manner the forfeiture of parental rights occurs, and generally in America the forfeiture is not revoked.

"The courts of appeal in England and America have often, for many years, decided many cases concerning the respective rights of parents and child. The arguments presented by the advocates and the learned opinions of the judges have shown profound researches touching the principles and precedents of law and equity, as well as a philosophic study on the natural relations of the parties. The written opinions handed down by the judges reflect the humane tendency of the age and have given credit to such judges-a credit which does honor to their spirit and sentiments. The tendencies of the courts and of the legislature have been to modify and soften the rigor of former ideas, methods, and precedents. If we go back to the origin of the race we will find that the chief or king is as absolute in his reign over

the people as the father is absolute master in his family. The progressive sentiment of modern times has diminished absolutism in the State and family. People and children gradually but surely attain the possession of their natural rights.

"The English chancery courts were conservative and did not desire to interfere with the rights of the parents except in cases of their gross misconduct and where such misconduct directly affected the future of the child. If the fault did not affect the child it was not considered. If, however, this misconduct gravely affected the good, the happiness, and the future of the child, if contact with the father exposed him to moral contamination, or if the company of the father isolated the child and deprived him of his natural society, the court interfered and placed the child in charge of another. Modern civilization, thanks to its elevated moral influences and Christian spirit, and to the general diffusion of useful knowledge, has softened manners and has influenced the courts of law and chancery and the legis lature."

*

#

#

Without quoting the article in full, it will answer to include only that part giving the American rule as follows:

*

*

"The right of the State to take care of its children has always been exercised with great fitness, and above all where the good of the child requires it the courts will frequently interfere to protect the young child. In cases of this kind the court will inquire into all the facts and circumstances, then with a full knowledge of the case will decide which of the parties the child shall be confided to, and if it appear that neither should have it, because of incapacity for caring for it, the court will confide it to some other person who will be proper to bring it up. The court will take into consideration the interest of the child, and will place it where it will have better care than with its father and mother. Following the English and American practice, but making it more certain and binding by enacting it in a statute, the State of Michigan has a radical measure. Under this law the right of custody by the father or guardian may be declared invalid in the following cases: First, by a decree of the court; second, in divorce cases, where the custody of the children is confided to the father or to the mother or to a third party; third, by the court of probate in legal proceedings on account of alleged ill-treatment; fourth, by proceedings in the same court relative to dependent children. In either of the above instances the child may be admitted to the State public school for dependent children."

It is impossible in this limited paper to give an abstract of the discussions of even the more important questions. It is gratifying to say that the discussions showed a general progress throughout the world in prison reform and in the prevention of crime. Especial testimony in this respect came from Japan, America, Germany, Sweden, France, Great Britain, and Russia. An interesting paper was read in the general assembly showing the advance in prison construction and management and the perfection reached in Japan.

In Europe there is yet much imprisonment in common, but the general sentiment of the congress favored cellular separation. The new prisons of Europe are cellular, but mainly on the Pennsylvania system. The principle of conditional liberty was generally approved. The sentiment of the congress on the various questions can be found in the conclusions. Where there was great difference, the divisions submitted questions to a special commission which reported to the section and was then adopted. The difference in views at times was quite marked. Many of these questions related to matters more European than American, owing to the difference in conditions.

But mainly they were of universal import. Charity for the feeble, education and not imprisonment for children, placing dependent and delinquent children in homes, separate and humane imprisonment for women, seeking ways to dry up the sources of crime, poverty, abandonment, occupied very much the thoughts and discussions. Pardon, reprimand, and suspension for the first offense, labor, rewards, patronage, visits, and means to prevent the squandering of earnings were very much discussed,

There was much appeal to private initiative, the guardianship of earnings, libraries for prisons, alcoholism, disposition of mendicants, ete. Indemnity to the injured party, the forfeiture of parental rights, the identification of prisoners were also quite fully discussed. In the brief time given each question the discussions were often hurried, and being in four divisions, when congress came into general sessions many who did not hear the first debates were unprepared. Under these circumstances it is remarkable that conclusions were reached in such good form and with such substantial unanimity. This was effected largely by the ability of the chairmen of the sections and their accomplished secretaries, as well as by others in the general assembly.

As a whole, the ten days' work of specialists coming from twenty-six different countries with varied ideas and customs, the conclusions of the congress are remarkable for the unanimity of sentiment in their adoption, for their maturity of thought, scientific correctness, and conservatism. The proceedings, when published in full, will be a highly valuable addition to the literature of penology. It is only to be regretted that they will not appear in the English language. The Fifth International Congress has done well, and we shall expect as much from the sixth in 1900 in Belgium.

THE CLOSING WORDS.

M. Duflos, the able chief of the French prison administration and first president of the congress, presided at the last session, and in declaring the close of the fifth congress spoke as follows:

"LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We have reached the close of our labors. Within ten days very much has been accomplished. Thirty questions were comprised in our programme. All have been studied with great care. They have given rise to learned and most profound discussions, not only in the sections, but also in the general assembly. The result is truly remarkable. Notwithstanding the visits to institutions and excursions organized for our foreign colleagues; notwithstanding the art attractions of Paris, which took away many at times from our sessions, we have had the high satisfaction to show an assiduity and tenacity for work most commendable and satisfactory.

"These results, I affirm, have exceeded our hopes. No programme so extensive has ever been submitted to a congress. We may regret without decreasing our zeal that some of these questions should be referred to the Sixth International Congress. These regrets your ardor, your ability, and the clearness of the thoughts presented. have reduced to a minimum. We have a right to be proud of such results, to rejoice greatly, not only because we know we have done our duty, but above all because the example given here proves the vitality and efficiency of the congress; because this example is the shining confirmation of your power for good, for progress, for reform, justice, and peace; because, after the achievement of such work, the success of the next congress can not be doubted. You have proved yourselves gold and that nothing is impossible with men whom the love of science animates, to whom faith gives strength which overcomes obstacles with the light which radiates, warms, and vivifies.

"In the meantime we must separate, after ten days devoted to labor in sessions during which an admirable exchange of ideas has taken place, with leisure moments for social conference, to revive old friend-hips and form new ties, and giving the gratifying spectacle of seeing men belonging to twenty-five different nations marching hand in hand, united by the same thoughts, lighted by the same flame, defending with ardor, with vivacity, different opinions, but having only one object. "It is not without heaviness of heart that I see you about to leave us. We hope that you will carry with you a lasting memory of your sojourn here; that you go with the conviction that you leave in Paris sincere and devoted friends. At times turn your eyes toward us, listen in the direction of France and you will hear the beatings of our hearts; you will see across the space our arms extended to you as though you said, 'Friends, depend on us, believe in our unchangeable friendship; we